UDC 378

Milinskiy A.Yu.¹ (Blagoveshchensk, Russian Federation) – a.milinskiy@mail.ru

¹Blagoveshchensk State Pedagogical University

Abstract. This article examines the pressing scientific and methodological challenge of preparing future physics teachers to implement STEM education objectives and manage schoolchildren’s project-based engineering activities in the context of the need to ensure the country’s technological sovereignty. A systemic scientific and methodological deficiency is identified, consisting of the prevalence of academic, reproductive, or purely digital teaching methods at the expense of the subject-material design of operating mechanisms. A proprietary model of end-to-end didactic engineering is proposed as an effective didactic tool. It integrates fundamental physical theory (kinematics, dynamics, tribology) with applied digital and additive technologies (CAD, FDM printing) within a single iterative cycle. The structure of a four-stage mechanical systems engineering technology is described in detail using a case study on the design of a two-stage cylindrical gearbox. The results of experimental work conducted on a local pilot sample of physics and mathematics students at a pedagogical university are presented. Empirical data obtained using the developed diagnostic criteria-assessment system confirms significant positive dynamics in the development of the polytechnical, design, technological, and research components of engineering thinking among students in the experimental group. The didactic validity of the developed model is substantiated, and prospects for its scalability within higher pedagogical education are identified.

Keywords: hysics teaching methods, engineering thinking, future physics teachers, simple mechanical units, 3D printing, STEM education, higher pedagogical education.

References:  

1. Konstantinova, L. V., Titova, E. S., & Petrov, A. M. (2024). Institutional transformations of higher education: Main gaps and new practices. Higher Education in Russia, 11, 9–28. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2024-33-11-9-28
2. Kudryavtseva, S. S., & Shinkevich, M. V. (2025). Reproduction of scientific personnel as a basis for technological development of Russia. Bulletin of the Lobachevsky University of Nizhny Novgorod. Series: Social Sciences, 1 (77), 49–57. (In Russian).  https://doi.org/10.52452/18115942_2025_1_49
3. Milinsky, A. Yu. (2022). Problems of supporting research activities in physics for bachelor’s degree students at a university. Science and School, 6, 165–171. (In Russian).  https://doi.org/10.31862/1819-463X-2022-6-165-171
4. Milinsky, A. Yu., & Baryshnikov, S. V. (2022). Creative approach to conducting a physics experiment using the law of conservation of energy during impact as an example. Physics at School, 1, 40–44. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.47639/0130-5522_2022_1_40
5. Grebenev, I. V., Lebedeva, O. V., Sdobnyakov, V. V., Tolsteneva, A. A., & Chuprunov, E. V. (2023). Training physics teachers taking into account modern technological demands of society. Pedagogy, 8, 85–93. (In Russian). https://elibrary.ru/uyulbu
6. Elizarova, E. Yu., & Khanzhina, E. V. (2024). Training future physics teachers at a university for the development of engineering competencies: Problems and prospects. Modern Higher School: Innovative Aspect, 3, 64–74. (In Russian).  https://elibrary.ru/ptzgob
7. Markov, K. A., & Timofeeva, K. O. (2023). Formation of engineering thinking of future teachers using digital resources. Modern Pedagogical Education, 11, 207–211. (In Russian). https://elibrary.ru/jqnxsx
8. Costa, M. C., Domingos, A. M. D., Teodoro, V. D., & Vinhas, E. M. R. G. (2022). Teacher professional development in STEM education: An integrated approach with real‑world scenarios in Portugal. Mathematics, 10, Article 3944. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10213944
9. Suryadi, A., Purwaningsih, E., Yuliati, L., & Koes‑Handayanto, S. (2023). STEM teacher professional development in pre‑service teacher education: A literature review. Waikato Journal of Education, 28, 7–26. https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v28i1.1063
10. Lin, K. Y., Wu, Y. T., Hsu, Y. T., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Effects of infusing the engineering design process into STEM project‑based learning to develop preservice technology teachers’ engineering design thinking. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00258-9
11. Hanson, J. R., Hardman, S., Luke, S., & Lucas, B. (2022). Developing pre-service primary teachers’ understanding of engineering through engineering habits of mind and engagement with engineers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 1469–1494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09662-w
12. Mehddi, F., Kazi, A. S., & Butt, A. I. (2025). From theory to practice: How STEAM professional development shapes teacher beliefs and perceptions about design thinking activities. SAGE Open, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251355779
13. Popova, V. A., Larchenkova, L. A., Efimov, I. P., Krushelnitsky, A. N., & Popova, I. O. (2022). Engineering practical training in the training of future teachers. Bulletin of the A. I. Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, 204, 80–88. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.33910/1992-6464-2022-204-80-88
14. Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K-12 education. Science Education, 103, 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21483
15. Lupión-Cobos, T., García-Ruiz, C., & Toma, R. B. (2026). Preservice primary teachers’ attitudes towards STEM education: A study developed through an integrated STEM training program using inquiry-based approaches and engineering design practices. Research in Science Education, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-026-10323-y
16. Saseendran, A., & Thomas, M. V. (2025). Design thinking in science and integrated STEM/STEAM education: Trends, challenges, and future directions from a systematic review. STEM Education, 5, 1058–1101. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2025046
17. Zhan, X., Sun, D., Song, R., Yang, Y., & Zhan, Y. (2023). Empowering students’ engineering thinking: An empirical study of integrating engineering into science class at junior secondary schools. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, Article 101364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101364
18. Nikitina, T. V., & Dammer, M. D. (2026). Assessment of methodological competencies of future physics teachers: Modern forms and means. Pedagogical Education in Russia, 1, 280–293. (In Russian). https://elibrary.ru/ciebls
19. Kasymova, A. A., Kafizova, G. M., & Kozhabaeva, Zh. E. (2022). Formation of research competence of future physics teachers using case technology. Bulletin of KazUMOiWL Named After Ablai Khan. Series “Pedagogical Sciences”, 3, 1–10. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.48371/peds.2022.66.3.009
20. Sokolova, S. A. (2026). The role of education in training personnel for high-tech sectors of the national economy. Economy and Business: Theory and Practice, 2(132), 221–226. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24412/2411-0450-2026-2-221-226

For citation: Milinskiy, A. Yu. (2026). Development of engineering thinking of future physics teachers using additive technologies. CITISE, 3, 558-566. (In Russian).