Supporting Inquiry-Based Learning of Density Using a 3D-Printed Instructional Kit

Teaching density and buoyancy through inquiry-based science learning is often constrained by the lack of instructional materials that enable controlled comparison of mass and volume. This study examined the use of a 3D-printed instructional kit, the Density Discovery Kit (DD-Kit), designed to support inquiry-based learning of density by stabilising experimental conditions and enabling systematic comparison of mass and volume. By reducing extraneous variation in object properties, the kit foregrounds proportional reasoning and evidence-based explanation rather than perceptual or intuitive judgement. The kit comprises a set of cubes and spheres that create contrasting density scenarios, including several cubes and spheres of identical volume but different mass and an additional cube and spheres with a different volume and mass. These configurations were used to elicit predictions and challenge the common misconception that heavier objects necessarily sink. A mixed-methods approach was employed with 68 students, using pre- and post-tests and classroom observations. Results from a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test showed a statistically significant improvement in students’ post-test scores (Z = −4.451, p < .001) with a large effect size. Observational data indicated active engagement in inquiry practices such as prediction, measurement, reasoning, and explanation-building. The findings suggest that purposefully designed hands-on manipulatives can enhance understanding of density through structured inquiry.

3D-priting; density; inquiry-based science education; hands-on learning; secondary science

1. Abdullah, R. A. (2022). The use of 3d printing on design thinking in the design process: A literature review. Journal of Industrial Product Design Research and Studies,1 (1), 9-22. 10.17509/jipdrs.v1i1.47469 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bower, M., Stevenson, M., Forbes, A., Falloon, G., & Hatzigianni, M. (2020). Makerspaces pedagogy–supports and constraints during 3D design and 3D printing activities in primary schools. Educational Media International, 57(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2020.1744845 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chatterjee, H. J., & Hannan, L. (2016). Engaging the senses: Object-based learning in higher education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315579641 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (4th edition). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Dorsah, P., Awini, G., Okyer, M., Alhassan, A.-G., Shahadu, I., & Kpemuonye, A. K. N. (2024). Challenges in Teaching Integrated Science in Junior High Schools. OALib, 11(02), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1111101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ford, S., & Minshall, T. (2019). Invited review article: Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education. Additive Manufacturing, 25, 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Goldman, S., & Zielezinski, M. B. (2016). Teaching with design thinking: Developing new vision and approaches to twenty-first century learning. In L. A. Annetta & J. Minogue (Eds.), Connecting Science and Engineering Education Practices in Meaningful Ways (Vol. 44, pp. 237–262). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16399-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Greenhalgh, S. (2016). The effects of 3D printing in design thinking and design education. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 14(4), 752–769. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-02-2014-0005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Iksan, Z., Abu Bakar, N., Amirullah, A. H., & Mohd Salehudin, S. N. (2018). Understanding the concept of life process in animals based on 7E inquiry model through lesson study approach. Creative Education, 09(11), 1763–1774. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.911128 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hansen, M. (2014). Characteristics of schools successful in STEM: Evidence from two states’ longitudinal data. Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.823364 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hardie, K. (2015). Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching. Higher Education Academy. . [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Harrell, P. E., Subramaniam, K., & Harrell, P. E. (2014). Teachers need to be smarter than a 5 th grader: What elementary pre-service teachers know about density. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 18 (6). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hashweh, M. Z. (2016). The complexity of teaching density in middle school. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1042854 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hsiao, H. S., Chen, J. C., Lin, C. Y., Zhuo, P. W., & Lin, K. Y. (2019). Using 3D printing technology with experiential learning strategies to improve preengineering students’ comprehension of abstract scientific concepts and hands-on ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12319 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kaliampos, G., Saregar, A., Fadillah, M. A., & Ravanis, K. (2025). An exploration of physics teachers’ lesson plans within the IBSE framework: The case of teaching mechanics in autistic students. Education Sciences, 15(11), 1535. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111535 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kaptan, K., & Timurlenk, O. (2012). Challenges for Science Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.237 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Liedtka, J. (2013). Design at darden working paper series design thinking: What it is and why it work. Design@darden.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Mao, Y. (2023). Issues and strategies in inquiry-based learning evaluation. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 11(04), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2023.114030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Marshall, J. C., & Smart, J. B. (2013). Teachers’ transformation to inquiry-based instructional practice. Creative Education, 4(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.42019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Meier, R. M., & Hendel, S. A. (2019). A project-based learning unit plan: An inquiry into frogs. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(11), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.711006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Myllymäki, S., Hannila, E., Kokkonen, M., Jantunen, H., & Fabritius, T. (2024). Design thinking-driven development of a modular X-Band antenna using multi-material 3D printing. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 18(2), 901–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-023-01504-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Opara, P. N., & Etukudo, D. U. (2014). Factors affecting teaching and learning of basic science and technology in primary schools. Journal of Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research, 1(1), 46-58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Parker, J., Osei-Himah, V., Asare, I., & Ackah, J. K. (2018). Challenges faced by teachers in teaching integrated science in junior high schools in Aowin Municipality-Ghana. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(12), 65 – 68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Pearson, H., & Dube, A. (2022). 3D printing as an educational technology: theoretical perspectives, learning outcomes, and recommendations for practice. Education and Information Technologies, 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10733-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14(February), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Quansah, R. E., Sakyi-Hagan, N. A., & Essiam, C. (2019). Challenges affecting the teaching and learning of integrated science in rural junior high schools in Ghana. Science Education International, 30(4), 329–333. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v30.i4.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Sahin, A. (2013). STEM Project-Based Learning: Specialized form of Inquiry-Based Learning. In R. M. Capraro & W.W. Slough (Eds.), Project-Based Learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and technology (STEM) approach (pp. 59-64). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Sun, D., Wang, Z. H., Xie, W. T., & Boon, C. C. (2014). Status of Integrated Science Instruction in Junior Secondary Schools of China: An exploratory study. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 808–838. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.829254 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Tashakkori, A. & Creswell, J. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302814 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Tejera, M., Galiç, S., & Lavicza, Z. (2025). 3D modelling and printing in teacher education: A systematic literature review. Journal for STEM Education Research. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-025-00147-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Valdespino, A., & Larson, C. (2019). Object-based learning. Academic Technologies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. van Uum, M. S. J., Verhoeff, R. P., & Peeters, M. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 450–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1147660 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Xu, L., & Clarke, D. (2012). Student difficulties in learning density: A distributed cognition perspective. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 769–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9232-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Zvoch, K., Holveck, S., & Porter, L. (2021). Teaching for conceptual change in a density unit provided to seventh graders: A comparison of teacher- and student-centered approaches. Research in Science Education, 51(5), 1395–1421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09907-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study