Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An epistemological framework for nanoscience and nanotechnology literacy

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The need for a new literacy that will allow for meaningful participation in the rapidly evolving field of nanotechnology is very critical to national development. This need is important for nanotechnology to achieve its full potential. This paper describes and analyzes some contemporary philosophical interpretations of the concept of technological literacy. The paper then focuses on some of the metaphysical assumptions underpinning the techno-scientific literacy framework; and theories governing public understanding of science and technology, as the basis to propose a new technological literacy framework suitable in the era of nanotechnology. A case is made that the new technological literacy framework proposed is a suitable and essential pedagogic endeavour which should be seen as yielding a perspective through which meaning may be infused into the importance of nanotechnology development–a perspective as essential to the informed lay person as it is to the truly literate technologist. The paper concludes by analyzing the implications of the proposed epistemological framework on nanotechnology workforce development and makes recommendations based on this new framework to achieve a ‘nanoliterate’ society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Batchelor, R., Bryan, L., Bodner, G., Daly, S., Delgado, C., Fornes, W., et al. (2009). Introduction of emerging science into the classroom-the case of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The NanoEd Resource Portal. National Centre for Learning and Teaching of Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education (NCLT). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

  • Braundy, M. (2004). Dewey’s technological literacy: past, present, and future. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 41(2), 20–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, L., Daly, S., Hutchinson, K., Sederberg, D., Batchelor, R., Hagedorn, E., Fornes, W., & Giordano, N. (2007). A design-based approach to the professional development of teachers in nanoscale science. Paper submitted to the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, Louisiana.

  • Coleman, W. T., Selby, C. C. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st Century. Report of the National Science Board (NSB) Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, CPCE-NSF-04.

  • Dakers, J. R. (2006). Introduction: Defining technological literacy. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 1–2). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J., & Dewey, E. (1915). The schools of tomorrow. New York: E. P. Dutton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugger, W. E., Jr. (2000). Phase III technology for all Americans project. Technology Teacher, 60(4), 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyrenfurth, M. J. (1991). Technological literacy synthesized. In M. J. Dyrenfurth & M. R. Kozak (Eds.), Technological literacy (pp. 138–186). Peoria, IL: Glencoe, McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezziane, Z. (2007). Information technology literacy: Implications on teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 175–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg, A. (2006). What is philosophy of technology? In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 5–17). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D. K., Norvell, J., Sonka, S., & Nelson, M. J. (2000). Understanding technology adoption through system dynamics modelling: Implications for agribusiness management. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3(3), 281–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonash, S. J. (2001). Education and training of the nanotechnology workforce. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 3, 79–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagel, C. W. (2006). Towards an authentic technological literacy. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 43(4), 69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamire, E., & Pearson, G. (Eds.). (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Committee on Assessing Technological Literacy, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, M. (1989). What is technological literacy? Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 119, 220–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (2003). Notes from Harold Hungerford and Trudi Volk. Journal of Environmental Education, 43(2), 4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITEA. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association (ITEA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, E. W. (1997). Technological literacy: Concepts and constructs. Journal of Technology Studies, 23(1), 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. (2005). Reconstructing technoliteracy: A multiple literacies approach. E-Learning, 2(3), 238–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma, J., Romanchek, J., & Kokotovich, A. (2008). Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology: A case studies approach. Risk Analysis, 28(4), 1081–1098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T., & Gagel, C. (1992). Technological literacy: A critical analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 117–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). Triple Helix of innovation: Introduction. Science and Public Policy, 25(6), 358–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Can ‘the public’ be considered as a fourth helix in university–industry–government relations? Report on the Fourth Triple Helix Conference, 2002. Science and Public Policy, 30(1), 55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liddament, T. (1994). Technological literacy: The construction of meaning. Design Studies, 15(2), 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, M. D. (2002). Regulating biotechnology and nanotechnology in Canada: A Post-normal science approach for inclusion of the fourth Helix. A paper presented at the International Workshop on Science, Technology and Society: Lessons and Challenges. Singapore: National University of Singapore.

  • NCES (2004). 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)–State and county estimates of low literacy. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

  • NNI (2000). National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and Its Implementation Plan. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), Washington, DC http://www.nano.gov/html/res/nni2.pdf. Accessed on: March 17, 2010.

  • NNI (2009). Nanotechnology: Big things from a tiny world. The National Nanotechnology Initiative http://www.nano.gov/html/society/Education.html Accessed on: February 28, 2010.

  • NSB (2006). America’s pressing challenge—building a stronger foundation: A companion to the Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. National Science Board (NSB). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

  • NSB (2010). Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010. National Science Boards (NSB). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, NSB 10–01.

  • Pearson, G., & Young, A. T. (Eds.). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Committee on Assessing Technological Literacy, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • PEN (2010). Introduction to Nanotechnology. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN). Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.

  • Petrina, S. (2000). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 181–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RCUK (2010). Nanoscience through engineering to application. The Research Councils UK (RCUK). Swindon, UK: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). http://www.rcuknano.org.uk.

  • RNCOS Consulting (2010). Nanotechnology Market Forecast to 2013. Market Research Consultancy Services. Rockville, MD: MarketResearch.com.

  • Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (eds) (2003). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Doredrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers (Springer).

  • Romig, A. D., Jr., Baker, A. B., Johannes, J., Zipperian, T., Eijkel, K., Kirchhoff, B., et al. (2007). An introduction to nanotechnology policy: Opportunities and constraints for emerging and established economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(9), 1634–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, L., Gallup, A., Dugger, W., & Starkweather, K. (2004). The second instalment of the ITEA/Gallup Poll and what it reveals as to how Americans think about technology. A Report of the Second Survey Conducted by the Gallup Organization for the International Technology Education Association (ITEA). http://www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/PDFs/GallupPoll2004.pdf. Accessed on: April 18, 2010.

  • Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selfe, C. L. (1999). Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century: The importance of paying attention. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S., Shin, N., Delgado, C., Krajcik, J., & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Using learning progressions to inform curriculum, instruction and assessment design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, Louisiana.

  • Thomas, L. G., & Knezek, D. G. (1995). Technology literacy for the nation and for its citizens. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, R. D. (1991). The natures and challenges of technological literacy. In M. J. Dyrenfurth & M. R. Kozak (Eds.), Technological literacy (pp. 10–27). Peoria, IL: Glencoe, McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toumey, C., & Baird, D. (2006). Building nanoliteracy in the university and beyond. Nature Biotechnology, 24(6), 721–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waetjen, W. B. (1993). Technological literacy reconsidered. Journal of Technology Education, 4(2), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waks, L. J. (2006). Rethinking technological literacy for the global network era. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 275–295). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, S., & Dillow, S. (2005). Key concepts and features of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. National Centre for Education Statistics (NCES 2006–471). Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yawson, R. M. (2009). The ecological system of innovation: A new architectural framework for a functional evidence-based platform for science and innovation policy. In K. R. E Huizingh, S. Conn, M. Torkkeli, & I. Bitran, (Eds.), The future of innovation. Proceedings of XX ISPIM 2009 conference. Vienna, Austria: Wiley Higher Education.

  • Yawson, R. M. (2010). Skill needs and human resource development in the emerging field of nanotechnology. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 62(3), 285–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yawson, R. M., & Kuzma, J. (2010). Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy, 33(4), 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. Kenneth R. Bartlett of the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota for encouraging me in putting this paper together and his valuable critique of the final draft. I also thank Prof. Jennifer Kuzma of the Centre for Science, Technology and Public Policy, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, for awarding me an assistantship which enabled me to undertake this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Organisational Leadership, Policy, and Development, College of Education and Human Resource Development, University of Minnesota, 330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Robert M. Yawson

Authors
  1. Robert M. Yawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert M. Yawson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yawson, R.M. An epistemological framework for nanoscience and nanotechnology literacy. Int J Technol Des Educ 22, 297–310 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9145-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9145-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation