Abstract
The introduction of nanotechnology education into K-12 education has happened so quickly that there has been little time to evaluate the approaches and knowledge goals that are most effective to teach precollege students. This review of nanotechnology education examines the instructional approaches and types of knowledge that frame nanotechnology precollege education. Methods used to teach different forms of knowledge are examined in light of the goal of creating effective and meaningful instruction. The developmental components needed to understand concepts such as surface area to volume relationships as well as the counterintuitive behavior of nanoscale materials are described. Instructional methods used in precollege nanotechnology education and the levels at which different nanoscale topics are introduced is presented and critiqued. Suggestions are made for the development of new nanotechnology educational programs that are developmental, sequenced, and meaningful.
About the authors
M. Gail Jones received her doctorate in science education from NC State University, Raleigh, NC. She currently serves as Alumni Distinguished Graduate Professor of STEM Education at NC State University, the Precollege Education Director of the ASSIST Engineering Center and as a Fellow at the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. She focuses her research on teaching and learning size and scale as well as nanotechnology education.
Grant Gardner obtained a PhD in Science Education from North Carolina State University. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Biology at Middle Tennessee State University. He serves as a graduate advisor in the interdisciplinary Mathematics and Science Education doctoral program. A portion of his research interest is in the teaching and learning of the social and ethical issues surrounding emergent technologies such as nanotechnology.
Mike Falvo received his doctorate in Physics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is a Research Professor in the Physics and Astronomy Department at UNC-CH. His current research interests focus on the physics of nanoscale biological systems from proteins to cells. Falvo has also been active in outreach and education efforts aimed at exposing nanoscience and nanotechnology concepts to middle and high school students.
Amy Taylor is a former high school science teacher. In 2008, she received her doctorate in Science Education from NC State University, Raleigh, NC. She currently teaches undergraduate and graduate level science methods as well as environmental studies courses at the University of North Carolina Wilmington in Wilmington, NC. She focuses her research on teaching and learning size and scale as well as nanotechnology education.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number EEC-1160483.
References
[1] Foley ET, Hersam MC. Assessing the need for nanotechnology education reform in the United States. Nanotechnol. Law Bus. 2006, 3, 467–484.Search in Google Scholar
[2] Jones MG, Blonder R, Gardner G, Albe V, Falvo M, Chevrier J. Nanotechnology and nanoscale science: educational challenges educating the next generation. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2013, 35, 1490–1512.Search in Google Scholar
[3] Hla SW, Braun KF, Iancu V, Deshpande A. Single-atom extraction by scanning tunneling microscope tip crash and nanoscale surface engineering. Nano. Lett. 2004, 4, 1997–2001.Search in Google Scholar
[4] Bensaude-Vincent B. Opening the field of nanoethics. HYLE–Int. J. Phil. Chem. 2010, 16, 1–2.Search in Google Scholar
[5] Menaa B. The importance of nanotechnology in biomedical sciences. J. Biotechnol. Biomaterial. 2011, 1, 105e.Search in Google Scholar
[6] Petros R, DiSimone J. Strategies in the design of nanoparticles for therapeutic applications. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery. 2010, 9, 615–627.Search in Google Scholar
[7] Panyala N, Pena-Mendez E, Havel J. Gold and nano-gold in medicine: overview, toxicology and perspectives. J. App. Biomed. 2009, 7, 75–91.Search in Google Scholar
[8] Wagner HD. Nanocomposites: paving the way to stronger materials. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2007, 2, 742–744.Search in Google Scholar
[9] Falvo MR, Clary GJ, Taylor RM, Chi V, Brooks FP, Washburn S, Superfine R. Bending and buckling of carbon nanotubes under large strain. Nature 1997, 389, 582–584.Search in Google Scholar
[10] Schwierz F. Graphene transistors. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2010, 5, 487–496.Search in Google Scholar
[11] Wansom S, Mason TO, Hersam MC, Drane D, Light G, Cormia R, Stevens S, Bodner G. A rubric for post-secondary degree programs in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Int. J. Eng. Ed. 2008, 25, 1–13.Search in Google Scholar
[12] Piaget J, Inhelder B. The Child’s Conception of Space. (F.J. Langdon, J. L. Lunzar, Trans.). Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, 1967.Search in Google Scholar
[13] Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1978.Search in Google Scholar
[14] Daly S, Bryan LA. Model use choices of secondary teachers in nanoscale science and engineering education. J. Nano. Ed. 2010, 2, 1–2.Search in Google Scholar
[15] Greenberg A. Integrating nanoscience into the classroom: perspectives on nanoscience education projects. ACS Nano. 2009, 3, 762–769.Search in Google Scholar
[16] Jones MG, Falvo M, Taylor A, Broadwell B. Nanoscale Science: Activities for Grades 6–12, NSTA Press, Arlington, VA, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
[17] Nanotechnology Informal Science Education Network. K-12 Lesson Plans (2014). Retrieved from http://www.nisenet.org/search/product_category/k-lesson-plans-15.Search in Google Scholar
[18] Binnig G, Rohrer H, Gerber C, Weibel E. Surface studies by scanning tunneling microscopy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1982, 49, 57.Search in Google Scholar
[19] Crommie MF, Lutz CP, Eigler DM. Confinement of electrons to quantum corrals on a metal surface. Science 1993, 262, 218–220.Search in Google Scholar
[20] Lee HJ, Ho W. Single-bond formation and characterization with a scanning tunneling microscope. Science 1999, 286, 1719–1722.Search in Google Scholar
[21] Harmer AJ, Columba L. Engaging middle school students in nanoscale science, nanotechnology, and electron microscopy. J. Nano. Ed. 2010, 2, 91–101.Search in Google Scholar
[22] Jones MG, Andre T, Kubasko D, Bokinsky A, Tretter T, Negishi A, Taylor R, Superfine R. Remote atomic force microscopy of microscopic organisms: technological innovations for hands-on science with middle and high school students. Sci. Ed. 2004, 88, 55–71.Search in Google Scholar
[23] Jones MG, Minogue J, Tretter T, Negishi A, Taylor R. Haptic augmentation of science instruction: Does touch matter? Sci. Ed. 2006, 90, 111–123.Search in Google Scholar
[24] Jones MG, Andre T, Superfine R, Taylor R. Learning at the nanoscale: the impact of students’ use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses, scale, and microscopy. J. Res. Sci. Tea 2003, 40, 303–322.Search in Google Scholar
[25] Kubasko D, Jones MG, Tretter T, Andre, T. Is it live or is it Memorex? Students’ synchronous and asynchronous communication with scientists. Int. J. Sci. Ed. 2008, 30, 495–514.Search in Google Scholar
[26] Daly S, Hutchinson K, Bryan L. Incorporating nanoscale science and engineering concepts into middle and high school curricula. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
[27] Laherto A. Research-based strategies for illustrating the nanoscale in an exhibition. In Physics Alive. Proceedings of the GIREP-EPEC 2011 Conference, Lindell, A, Kähkönen, A-L, Viiri, J, Eds., University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, 2012, pp. 80–85.Search in Google Scholar
[28] Zhao HE, Shen F. The applied research of nanophase materials in sports engineering. Adv. Mat. Res. 2012, 496, 126–129.Search in Google Scholar
[29] Silver S. Bacterial silver resistance: molecular biology and uses and misuses of silver compounds. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 27, 341–353.Search in Google Scholar
[30] Yuen CWM, Ku SKA, Kan CW, Cheng YF, Choi PSR, Lam YL. Using nano-tio 2 as co-catalyst for improving wrinkle-resistance of cotton fabric. Surface Rev. Lett. 2007, 14, 571–575.Search in Google Scholar
[31] Gardner GE, Jones MG, Taylor A, Forrester JH, Robertson L. Students’ risk perceptions of nanotechnology applications: implications for science education. Int. J. Sci. Ed. 2010, 32, 1951–1969.Search in Google Scholar
[32] Gardner GE. Jones MG. Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the risks of emergent technologies: implications for teaching and learning. J. Nano. Ed. 2014, 6, 39–49.Search in Google Scholar
[33] Sadler TD, Fowler SR. A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Sci Ed. 2006, 90, 986–1004.Search in Google Scholar
[34] Karlsson C, Enghag M, Wester M, Schrenk L. Undergraduate students’ risk perception and argumentation concerning nanomaterials in consumer products. J. Nano. Ed. 2014, 6, 50–62.Search in Google Scholar
[35] Blonder R, Dinur M. Teaching nanotechnology using student centered pedagogy for increasing students’ continuing motivation. J. Nano. Ed. 2011, 3, 51–61.Search in Google Scholar
[36] Pelton AR, Dicello J, Miyazaki S. Optimisation of processing and properties of medical grade Nitinol wire. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 2000, 9, 107–118.Search in Google Scholar
[37] Whitesides GM, Grzybowski B. Self-assembly at all scales. Science 2002, 295, 2418–2421.Search in Google Scholar
[38] Campbell D, Freidinger E, Querns M. Spontaneous assembly of magnetic LEGO bricks. Chem. Ed. 2001, 6, 321–323.Search in Google Scholar
[39] Jones MG, Falvo MR, Broadwell B, Dotger S. Self-assembly: how nature builds. Sci. Children. 2006, 73, 54–57.Search in Google Scholar
[40] Batanero C, Green D, Serrano L. Randomness, its meanings and educational implications. Int. J. Math. Ed. Sci. Technol. 1998, 29, 113–123.Search in Google Scholar
[41] Sun Y, Wang H. Perception of randomness: on the time of streaks. Cog Psych. 2010, 61, 333–342.Search in Google Scholar
[42] Paparistodemou E, Noss R. Designing for local and global meanings of randomness. Proceedings of the 28th Conf of the Int Group for the Psych of Math Ed. 2004, 3, 497–504.Search in Google Scholar
[43] Garvin-Doxas K, Klymkosky M. Understanding randomness and its impact on student learning: lessons learned from building the biology concept inventory (BCI). CBE-Life Sci. Ed. 2008, 7, 227–233.Search in Google Scholar
[44] Genter D, Holyoak K, Kokinov B, Eds., The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, MIT press: Cambridge, MA, 2001.Search in Google Scholar
[45] Feynman RP. Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by Its Most Brilliant Teacher, Addison-Wesley: New York, 1963/1995.Search in Google Scholar
[46] Venville GJ, Treagust DF. The role of analogies in promoting conceptual change in biology. Inst. Sci. 1996, 24, 295–320.Search in Google Scholar
[47] Glynn SM. Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In The Psychology of Learning Science, Glynn, S, Yeany, R, Britton, B, Eds., Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1991, pp. 219–240.Search in Google Scholar
[48] Piquette J, Heikkinnen H. Strategies reported used by instructors to address student alternative conceptions in chemical equilibrium. J. Res. Sci. Tea. 2005, 42, 112–1134.Search in Google Scholar
[49] Raviolo A, Garritz A. Analogies in the teaching of chemical equilibrium: a synthesis/analysis of the literature. Chem. Ed. Res. Pract. 2009, 10, 5–13.Search in Google Scholar
[50] Piaget J, Montangero J, Billeter J. Les correlats. L’Abstraction réfléchissante. Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, 1977.Search in Google Scholar
[51] Goswami U. Analogical Reasoning in Children. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates: East Sussex, UK, 1992.Search in Google Scholar
[52] Halford G. Analogical reasoning and conceptual complexity in cognitive growth. Human Dev. 1992, 35, 193–217.Search in Google Scholar
[53] Urban S. Green pea analogy, 2012. Retrieved from (http://www.ualberta.ca/~urban/Samples/Peas.htm).Search in Google Scholar
[54] Coll RK, France B, Taylor I. The role of models and analogies in science education: implications from research. Int. J. Sci. Ed. 2005, 27, 183–198.Search in Google Scholar
[55] Zook KB, Di Vesta FJ. Instructional analogies and conceptual misrepresentations. J. Ed. Psych. 1991, 83, 246–252.Search in Google Scholar
[56] Ma J. Scale ladders- communicating size and scale. Unpublished document. Nanoscale Informal Sci Ed Network, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
[57] Bruchez M, Moronee M, Gin P, Weiss S, Alivisatos A. Semiconductor nanocrystals as florescent biological labels. Science 1998, 281, 2013–2016.Search in Google Scholar
[58] Majetich S, Jin Y. Magnetization directions of individual nanoparticles. Science 1999, 284, 470–473.Search in Google Scholar
[59] Gerberich WW, Mook WM, Perrey CR, Carter CB, Baskes MI, Mukherjee R, Gidwani A, Heberlein J, McMurry PH, Girshick SL. Superhard silicon nanospheres. J. Mech. Physics Solids 2003, 51, 979–992.Search in Google Scholar
[60] Novak JD. Meaningful learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Sci Ed. 2002, 86, 548–571.Search in Google Scholar
[61] Roco MC. Converging science and technology at the nanoscale: opportunities for education and training. Nat. Biotechnol. 2003, 21, 1247–1249.Search in Google Scholar
[62] Zhang Y, Lu F, Yager K, van der Lelie D, Gang O. A general strategy for the DNA-mediated self-assembly of functional nanoparticles into heterogeneous system. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2013, 8, 865–872.Search in Google Scholar
[63] NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States, The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
[64] Jones MG. Conceptualizing size and scale. In Quantitative Reasoning in Mathematics and Science Education, Mongraph No. 3: 2013, Vol. 2, Mayes, R, Hatfield, L, eds., University of Wyoming: Laramie, Wyoming, pp. 147–154.Search in Google Scholar
[65] Piaget J, Inhelder B. The Child’s Conception of Space. (F. J. Langdon, J. L. Lunzer, Trans.). Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd: London, 1971.Search in Google Scholar
[66] Piaget J, Inhelder B, Szeminska A. The Child’s Conception of Geometry, (E.A. Lunzer, Trans.). Basic Books: New York, 1960.Search in Google Scholar
[67] Lehrer R. Developing understanding of measurement. In A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Kilpatrick, J, Martin, WG, Shifter, D, Eds., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston, VA, 2003, pp. 179–193.Search in Google Scholar
[68] Hood E. Nanotechnology: looking as we leap. Environ Health Perspect. 2004, 112, 740–750.Search in Google Scholar
[69] Ma Z, Kotaki M, Inai R, Ramakrishna S. Potential of nanofiber matrix as tissue-engineering scaffolds. Tiss. Eng. 2005, 11, 101–109.Search in Google Scholar
[70] Moraru C, Panchapakesan C, Huang Q, Takhistov P, Liu S, Kokini J. Nanotechnology: a new frontier in food science. Food Technol. 2003, 57, 24–29.Search in Google Scholar
[71] Schattenburg M, Smith H. The critical role of metrology in nanotechnology. Proceedings of the SPIE Workshop on Nanostructure Science, Metrology, and Technology, 2001, 4608.Search in Google Scholar
[72] Pinard A, Chassé G. Pseudoconservation of the volume and surface area of a solid object. Child Dev. 1977, 48, 1559–1566.Search in Google Scholar
[73] Taylor A, Jones MG. Proportional reasoning ability and concepts of scale: surface area to volume relationships in science. Int. J. Sci. Ed. 2009, 31, 1231–1247.Search in Google Scholar
[74] Lesh R, Post TR, Behr M. Proportional reasoning. In Number Concepts and Operations in the Middle Grades, Hiebert, J, Behr, M, Eds., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston, VA, 1988, pp. 93–118.Search in Google Scholar
[75] Tourniare F, Pulos S. Proportional reasoning: a review of the literature. Ed. Stud. Math. 1985, 16, 181–204.Search in Google Scholar
[76] Lamon S. Ratio and proportion: connecting content and children’s thinking. J. Res. Math. Ed. 1993, 24, 41–61.Search in Google Scholar
[77] Jones MG, Taylor A, Broadwell B. Estimating linear size and scale: body rulers. Int. J. Sci. Ed. 2009, 31, 1495–1509.Search in Google Scholar
[78] Dean A, Frankhouser J. Way-stations in the development of children’s proportionality concepts: the stage issue revisited. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 1988, 46, 129–149.Search in Google Scholar
[79] Clark FB, Kamii C. Identification of multiplicative thinking in children in grades 1–5. J. Res. Math. Ed. 1996, 27, 41–51.Search in Google Scholar
[80] Kwon Y, Lawson A, Chung W, Kim Y. Effect on development of PR skill of physical experience and cognitive abilities associated with prefrontal lobe activity. J. Res. Sci. Tea. 2000, 37, 1171–2000.Search in Google Scholar
[81] Taylor A, Jones G. Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of surface area to volume in science contexts: what factors influence the understanding of scale? Res. Sci. Ed. 2013, 43, 395–411.Search in Google Scholar
[82] Jones MG, Gardner G, Taylor A, Wiebe E, Forrester J. Conceptualizing magnification and scale: the roles of spatial visualization and logical thinking. Res. Sci. Ed. 2011, 41, 357–368.Search in Google Scholar
[83] Bryan LA, Sederberg D, Daly S, Sears D, Giordano N. Facilitating teachers’ development of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology content knowledge. Nanotechnol. Rev. 2012, 1, 85–95.Search in Google Scholar
[84] Giles J. Nanotechnology: what is there to fear from something so small? Nature 2003, 426, 750.Search in Google Scholar
[85] Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA. From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Pub. Understand. Sci. 2011, 20, 385–404.Search in Google Scholar
[86] Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci. Comm. 2005, 27, 240–267.Search in Google Scholar
[87] Lin S-F, Lin H-S, Wu Y-Y. Validation and exploration of instruments for assessing public knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2013, 22, 548–559.Search in Google Scholar
[88] Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smith I. Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Pub. Understand. Sci. 2008, 17, 35–54.Search in Google Scholar
[89] Lewenstein BV, Gorss J, Radin J. The salience of small: nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Inter-national Communication Association: New York, 2005.Search in Google Scholar
[90] Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih TJ, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2009, 4, 91–94.Search in Google Scholar
[91] Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A. Laypeople’s and experts perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal. 2007, 27, 59–69.Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter
