Path of Science: International Electronic Scientific Journal

This article examines the issue of determining the number of digital production tools in a teaching laboratory as a key component of its material and technical support. The relevance of this research stems from the widespread use of 3D printers, laser cutters, and CNC machines in educational institutions, and the lack of a well-founded approach to determining the optimal number of these machines for the organisation of a comprehensive educational process. It is emphasised that, in practice, laboratories are often equipped either in accordance with the institution’s budgetary capabilities or on the basis of formal lists of equipment, without proper pedagogical and organisational justification, which can lead to both shortages and surpluses of equipment.

The article aims to justify a computational modelling approach for determining the need for digital production resources in a teaching laboratory, taking into account pedagogical and regulatory factors. To achieve this aim, regulatory documents were analysed, scientific publications were comparatively analysed, and theoretical modelling was employed. It has been established that digital production tools have two fundamental characteristics that determine their use in the educational process: autonomous operation after a task is launched and the indivisibility of the operation. In this regard, it is argued that a rotational model of work organisation is unsuitable for such tools, and the basic, pedagogically appropriate ratio should be 2 students per unit of equipment.

A two-stage calculation and modelling approach is proposed that involves determining the basic quantity of equipment, accounting for a reserve, and subsequently adjusting it to reflect the actual conditions of the educational process. The approach aims to justify a set of digital production tools that ensure their full utilisation as practical training tools, rather than sporadic or demonstrative use. It is concluded that the proposed approach can serve as a starting point for planning the equipment of educational laboratories.

digital production tools; 3D printer; laser cutter; CNC machine; educational laboratory; technological education; calculation and modelling approach

1. Pro zatverdzhennia Typovoho pereliku zasobiv navchannia ta obladnannia dlia navchalnykh kabinetiv i STEM-laboratorii [On the approval of the Standard List of Teaching Aids and Equipment for Classrooms and STEM Laboratories] (Ukraine), 29.04.2020, No 574. Retrieved March 01, 2026, from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0410-20#Text (in Ukrainian).

2. Pro zatverdzhennia Sanitarnoho rehlamentu dlia zakladiv zahalnoi serednoi osvity [On the Approval of the Health Regulations for General Secondary Education Institutions] (Ukraine), 25.09.2020, No 2205. Retrieved March 01, 2026, from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1111-20#Text (in Ukrainian).

3. British Standards Institution. (2022). BS 4163:2021+A1:2022. Health and safety for design and technology in educational and similar establishments – Code of practice. London.

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

5. Soomro, S. A., Nanjappan, V., Casakin, H., & Georgiev, G. V. (2025). Fostering technical skills and creativity in the digital fabrication spaces: an open-ended prototyping approach. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 35(3), 1081–1102. doi: 10.1007/s10798-024-09940-3

6. Pijls, M., et al. (2022). Activities and experiences of children and makerspace coaches during after-school and school programs in a public library makerspace. Frontiers in Education, 7. doi: 10.1007/s41979-022-00070-w

7. Rouse, R., & Rouse, A. G. (2022). Taking the maker movement to school: A systematic review of PreK–12 school-based makerspace research. Educational Research Review, 35, 100413. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100413

8. Nikou, S. A. (2023). Student motivation and engagement in maker activities under the lens of the Activity Theory: A case study in a primary school. Journal of Computers in Education, 11(2), 347–365. doi: 10.1007/s40692-023-00258-y

9. Design and Technology Association. (n.d.). Maximum number of pupils taught within D&T workshops and studios. Retrieved March 1, 2026, from https://www.designtechnology.org.uk/for-education/health-and-safety/maximum-number-of-pupils-taught-within-dt-workshops-and-studios/

10. Fab Foundation. (n.d.). Getting started with Fab Labs. Retrieved March 1, 2026, from https://fabfoundation.org/getting-started/