Development and implementation of a three-dimensional (3D) printing elective course for health science students

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has become more affordable, accessible, and relevant in healthcare, however, the knowledge of transforming medical images to physical prints still requires some level of training. Anatomy educators can play a pivotal role in introducing learners to 3D printing due to the spatial context inherent to learning anatomy. To bridge this knowledge gap and decrease the intimidation associated with learning 3D printing technology, an elective was developed through a collaboration between the Department of Anatomy and the Makers Lab at the University of California, San Francisco. A self-directed digital resource was created for the elective to guide learners through the 3D printing workflow, which begins with a patient's computed tomography digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) file to a physical 3D printed model. In addition to practicing the 3D printing workflow during the elective, a series of guest speakers presented on 3D printing applications they utilize in their clinical practice and/or research laboratories. Student evaluations indicated that their intimidation associated with 3D printing decreased, the clinical and research topics were directly applicable to their intended careers, and they enjoyed the autonomy associated with the elective format. The elective and the associated digital resource provided students with the foundational knowledge of 3D printing, including the ability to extract, edit, manipulate, and 3D print from DICOM files, making 3D printing more accessible. The aim of disseminating this work is to help other anatomy educators adopt this curriculum at their institution.     

QUESTIONING THE HOMOGENIZATION OF IRREGULAR MIGRANTS IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY: FROM (IL)LEGAL RESIDENCE TO INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

In this article Elias Hemelsoet questions the way irregular migrants are approached in educational policymaking. In most cases, estimations of the number of irregular migrants serve—despite large methodological problems—as a starting point for policymaking. Given the very diverse composition of this group of people, the question is whether residence status is an appropriate benchmark for dealing with the social problems related to these people. There seems to be a homogenizing tendency at work that reduces the complexity of irregular migration. Preferable distinctions are overlooked or even denied. Inclusive education seems to provide an alternative that does not reduce individuals to a group they belong to, claiming that differences only matter at the individual level. The question is whether such an approach entails a new form of homogenization. Using the case of Roma people, Hemelsoet argues here that group differences do matter for educational practice, theory, and policy. Qualitative data on the social practices of groups can help provide insight into the particularity of situations. This “insight” or “understanding,” in its turn, is a requirement in order for policymakers to make well‐considered choices.