Visible Through Touch: Open-Source 3D-Printed Tools for Inclusive Microbiology Education

  1. Claire Louise Price
  2. Aidan Seeley
  3. Hayley Pincott
  4. Daniel J. Morse
  5. Llinos G Harris
  6. J. Gareth Noble

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Microbiology education relies heavily on visual interpretation of cultures, microscopy, and assays, which can create barriers for blind and visually impaired learners. Inclusive teaching requires multimodal, tactile approaches that make microbiology accessible to all students. This work presents two open-source, browser-based web applications (the Agar Plate STL Generator and Microscope Slide to STL) designed to convert standard microbiological images into 3D-printable tactile models. Both tools use heightmap-based image processing to translate visual data into topographic 3D surfaces. Users can upload images of agar plates or microscope slides, adjust relief depth through an interactive interface, and generate printable STL files without prior experience in computer-aided design or 3D printing. The resulting tactile models replicate spatial and morphological features of microbial growth and microscopy, enabling learners to “see through touch”. These tools help enable independent participation by visually impaired students and promote multisensory engagement for all learners. Both applications and their source code are freely available under a Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 licence via GitHub and Zenodo. Open-source tactile microbiology tools provide a scalable, inclusive means to bridge the accessibility gap in STEM education. By converting visual laboratory outputs into tangible models, these resources support universal design for learning and foster equitable participation in microbiology.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.001179.v1 on Access Microbiology
  3. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    This manuscript proposes a new approach to enable visually-impaired learners to access content typically presented through imagery, by using a 3D printed version. The content can be self-produced through an open-access website and access to a 3D printer. Within this manuscript, the authors present a list of possible applications for this approach- suggestions like printing colonies on agar plates, where differences in the pigmentation are highlighted with different heights on the 3D-printed model, enabling students that cannot see to distinguish between larger and smaller colonies on the placesel The approach presented here is highly accessible and has a lot of potential to address a clear limitation in teaching within microbiology (i.e. the need for visual ability to develop practical skills in the discipline). While the 3D printing approach means that it could be widely adopted within teaching programmes, there is no evaluation of this activity (or subsequent results to be discussed), or even specific delivery within a course in response to a specific research question. Even a list of examples of what bacteria, models were created from would be very interesting & useful to know. How time-consuming is the process of printing these models? Also, what are the learning outcomes this approach intends to deliver? And how would the authors suggest embedding it to coursework? An example or case study of practical work in which these 3D models are used would be very beneficial in showcasing the potential, and then evaluations of the learners involved (particularly a group of sighted vs visually impaired students) would be very helpful to demonstrate the proposed outcomes would be true. The organisation of the paper is understandable and mostly clear, however more information is needed on the development and implementation of this activity. More support from across the literature would be good too, to demonstrate the breadth of use of this type of learning activity. How widely are other 'tactile tools' used in education, and do learners experience these benefits? Are the benefits similar between sighted and visually impaired students? Also it would be helpful to weight up benefits of this approach directly against limitations- for example with height being used to compare two types of basteria, do learners acquire a subconsciould The writing, grammar and sentence structures throughout are good and clear, with appropriate levels of description. More specific comments: 135-142. The benefits to neurodivergent students are a really interesting second dimension to this work. Are there any references or further literature to support what types of activities make practical work more accessible for learners with these perspectives? I think there is definitely something in this, but it would be nice to have more rationale behind the proposed benefits to this group, particularly as the reference used - Gordy et al. 2020 - seems to focus on visually impaired learners.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Satisfactory

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Very good

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Not at all

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    No: no animals/work involved. A brief statement saying that no harmful bacteria were used might fully reassure the reader.

  4. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    Dear Authors, I think the study of education for microbiology is important. I can actually imagine this being used for one of the UKs citizen science labs, I would encourage you get in touch - LifeFabs UK. They have 3D printers and this type of 3D printing can overcome the danger of some strains. However i have some important caveats to address in your paper. I wouldnt hesitate to put the idea of printing dangerous strains and it being possible in the abstract too! it could be impactful for children and adults without disabilities. You do mention this in the paper briefly ' Tactile models invite 249 interaction and curiosity. For instance, students can pass around a safe 250 Mycobacterium tuberculosis sparking discussion and questions that might not arise 251 from a textbook picture' I do have a few minor amendments. Line 41 - Adjust the 'culture' to 'microbe culture' - unfortunately as this is the first line this led me to being partly confused and so interrupted the line of thought. Culture in other contexts could mean societal culture. Which would fit with a pedagogical paper. Line 48 - Do you mean images or images with height information? line 62 Small grammar correction ; Microbiology is traditionally a highly visual science which is dependent on observing, for example; colony morphologies, colour changes, and microscopic structures - Line 191 3D relief is (figure 1) - minor correction. Figure 1 c and 2 c needs updating so the DPI is above 300 pixels per inch. I would split part 6.3 into two parts, licensing, and then usage.. otherwise readers will generally skip this section from experience or usage could be in methods. however 6.4.. its subheadings could be paragraphs within the same subheading. Line 230 This approach can be transformative in several ways. - what are the several ways? Major amendment 1. importantly there should be a section on colouring of the plates. This is included in the figures but not mentioned. Major amendment 2. The grammar is good, however the structure and use of words is very much like word soup, similar to that made by LLMs.. please have a rethink throughout your paper on what is necessary to keep.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Very good

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Very good

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Strongly support

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    Yes: I do think they used ChatGPT for the text editing at the very least, with visible poorly written sections in the final draft that i would flag as very highly likely AI.

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes