Advertisement

The effect of activity-based nanoscience and nanotechnology education on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding

  • Tuba Şenel Zor
  • Oktay Aslan
Perspectives

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of activity-based nanoscience and nanotechnology education (ABNNE) on pre-service science teachers’ (PST’) conceptual understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Within this context, the study was conducted according to mixed methods research with the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods. The participants were 32 PST who were determined by using criterion sampling that is one of the purposive sampling methods. ABNNE was carried out during 7 weeks as 2 h per week in special issues at physics course. Design and implementation of ABNNE were based on “Big Ideas” which was found in literature and provided guidance for teaching nanoscience and nanotechnology. All activities implemented during ABNNE were selected from literature. “Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Concept Test (NN-CT)” and “Activity-Based Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Education Assessment Form (ABNNE-AF)” were used as data collection tools in research. Findings obtained with data collection tools were discussed with coverage of literature. The findings revealed that PST conceptual understanding developed following ABNNE. Various suggestions for increasing PST conceptual understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology were presented according to the results of the study.

Keywords

Activity-based learning Nanoscience and nanotechnology education Conceptual understanding Pre-service science teachers 

Notes

Funding information

This study was supported in part by Necmettin Erbakan University Scientific Research Grant (grant number 151310005) as thesis project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11051_2018_4182_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 13 kb).
11051_2018_4182_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 15 kb).

References

  1. Ahmed T, Imdad S, Yaldram K, Raza SM (2015) Awareness and attitude about nanotechnology in Pakistan. J Nano Educ 7:44–51.  https://doi.org/10.1166/jne.2015.1074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albe V (2012) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies education: teachers’ knowledge. In: Bruguière C, Tiberghien A, Clément P (eds) E-book proceedings of the ESERA 2011 conference: science learning and citizenship. Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  3. Amin JA (2011) Development and implementation of an activity based science teaching programme for pre service student teachers. Dissertation, Maharaja Sayajirao University of BarodaGoogle Scholar
  4. Anıl Ö, Küçüközer H (2010) Ortaöğretim 9. sınıf öğrencilerinin düzlem ayna konusunda sahip oldukları ön bilgi ve kavram yanılgılarının belirlenmesi (Identifying 9th grader students’ previous knowledge and misconceptions about plane mirrors). Türk Fen Eğitimi Derg 7:104–122Google Scholar
  5. Aslan O, Şenel T (2015) Fen alanları öğretmen adaylarının nanobilim ve nanoteknoloji farkındalık düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi (Examining nanoscience and nanotechnology awareness level of preservice science teachers in terms of different variables). Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Derg 24:363–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aslan O, Şenel T, Zor E (2014) Preservice science teachers’ awareness of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In: 10th Nanoscience and nanotechnology conference. June 17–21, 2014, İstanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  7. Aydın Sayılan A, Mercan Y (2016) Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin nanoteknoloji bilgi düzeyleri ve bilgi düzeylerini etkileyen faktörler (Nursing students’ knowledge levels about nanotechnology and factors influencing knowledge levels). J Hum Sci 13:5706–5720.  https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v13i3.4256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bach A-M, Waitz T (2015) International activities in nanoscale science and engineering education. International conference new perspectives in science educationGoogle Scholar
  9. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bamberger YM, Krajic J (2012) Teacher belief and change about integrating nanoscale science and technology into a secondary science curriculum. Electron J Sci Educ 16:1–20Google Scholar
  11. Ban K, Kocijancic S (2011) Introducing topics on nanotechnologies to middle and high school curricula. In: 2nd World conference on technology and engineering education. Ljubljana, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  12. Bansal V, Kumar R (2012) Activity based learning new method of learning: a case study of teach-next. Int J Res Econ Soc Sci 2:414–428Google Scholar
  13. Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10:549–558.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-007-9323-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bhushan B (2010) Introduction to nanotechnology. In: Bhushan B (ed) Springer handbook of nanotechnology, 3rd edn. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bhushan B (2016) Introduction to nanotechnology: history, status, and importance of nanoscience and nanotechnology education. In: Winkelmann K, Bhushan B (eds) Global perspectives of nanoscience and engineering education. Springer international publishing, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  16. Blonder R (2010) The influence of a teaching model in nanotechnology on chemistry teachers’ knowledge and their teaching attitudes. J Nano Educ 2:67–75.  https://doi.org/10.1166/jne.2010.1004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blonder R, Dinur M (2012) Teaching nanotechnology using student-centered pedagogy for increasing students’ continuing motivation. J Nano Educ 3:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1166/jne.2011.1016 Google Scholar
  18. Blonder R, Mamlok-Naaman R (2014) Learning about teaching the extracurricular topic of nanotechnology as a vehicle for achieving a sustainable change in science education. Int J Sci Math Educ 14:345–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Blonder R, Sakhnini S (2012) Teaching two basic nanotechnology concepts in secondary school by using a variety of teaching methods. Chem Educ Res Pract 13:500–516.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp20026k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brickhouse NW (1990) Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. J Teach Educ 41:53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Büyüköztürk Ş, Kılıç Çakmak E, Akgün ÖE, Karadeniz Ş, Demirel F (2013) Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (Scientific research methods) (14. Baskı). Pegem Akademi, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  22. Castellini OM, Walejko GK, Holladay CE et al (2007) Nanotechnology and the public: effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. J Nanopart Res 9:183–189.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-006-9160-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cheng J-C, Hung J-F, Huang T-C (2014) Promoting middle school students’ understanding and situational interest in integrating nanotechnology into science curriculum. US-China Educ Rev A 4:48–53Google Scholar
  24. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cohen L, Manion L, Marison K (2007) Research methods in education, 6th edn. Routlegde, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1573–1585.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9671-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Coughlan A, Johnson D, Diefes-Dux HA, et al (2014) Enhanced learning of mechanical behavior of materials via combined experiments and nanohub simulations: learning modules for sophomore MSE students. In: Proceedings of the materials research society symposium. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Creswell JW (2012) Qualitative inquiry and research: choosing among five traditions, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  29. Demirel R, Aslan O (2014) Kavram karikatürleriyle desteklenen fen ve teknoloji öğretiminin öğrencilerin akademik başarıları ve kavramsal anlamalarına etkisi (the effect of science and technology teaching promoted with concept cartoons on students’ academic achievement and conceptual understanding). Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygul 10:368–392Google Scholar
  30. Driver R, Erickson G (1983) Theories-in-action: some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science. Stud Sci Educ 10:37–60.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ekli E (2010) İlköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin nanoteknoloji hakkındaki temel bilgi ve görüşleri ile teknolojiye yönelik tutumlarının bazı değişkenler açısından araştırılması (investigation of the elementary school secondary level students’ basic knowledge and opinions about nanotechnology and attitudes towards technology in relation to some variables). Master Thesis, Muğla University: Muğla, Turkey.Google Scholar
  32. Ekli E, Şahin N (2010) Science teachers and teacher candidates’ basic knowledge, opinions and risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2:2667–2670.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Elmarzugi NA, Keleb EI, Mohamed AT et al (2014) Awareness of Libyan students and academic staff members of nanotechnology. J Appl Pharm Sci 4:110–114Google Scholar
  34. Farshchi P, Sadrnezhaad KS, Nejad NM et al (2011) Nanotechnology in the public eye: the case of Iran, as a developing country. J Nanopart Res 13:3511–3519.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0274-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Feather JL, Aznar MF (2011) Nanoscience education, workforce training, and K-12 resources. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  36. Fonash SJ (2001) Education and training of the nanotechnology workforce. J Nanopart Res 3:79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Furlan PY (2009) Engaging students in early exploration of nanoscience topics using hands-on activities and scanning tunneling microscopy. J Chem Educ 86:705–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gardner G, Jones G, Taylor A et al (2010) Students’ risk perceptions of nanotechnology applications: implications for science education. Int J Sci Educ 32:37–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903331035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Greenberg A (2009) Integrating nanoscience into the classroom: perspectives on nanoscience education projects. ACS Nano 3:762–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gyalog T (2007) Nanoscience education in Europe. Eur Secur 38:13–15Google Scholar
  41. Hingant B, Albe V (2010) Nanosciences and nanotechnologies learning and teaching in secondary education: a review of literature. Stud Sci Educ 46:121–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Huffman D, Ristvey J, Tweed A, Palmer E (2015) Integrating nanoscience and technology in the high school science classroom. Nanotechnol Rev 4:81–102.  https://doi.org/10.1515/ntrev-2014-0020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hutchinson K, Shin N, Stevens SY, et al (2007) Exploration of student understanding and motivation in nanoscience. In: National association for research in science teaching. New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  44. Hutchinson K, Bryan L, Bodner G (2009) Supporting secondary teachers as they implement new science and engineering curricula: case examples from nanoscale science and engineering education. In: 2009 Annual conference & exposition. Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  45. İpek Akbulut H, Şahin Ç, Çepni S (2013) İş ve enerji konusu ile ilgili kavramsal değişimin incelenmesi: İkili yerleşik öğrenme modeli örneği (Examining conceptual change in work and energy topic: Dual situated learning model sample). Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Derg 13:241–268Google Scholar
  46. İpek Akbulut H, Şahin Ç, Çepni S (2014) İkili yerleşik öğrenme modeline göre geliştirilen öğretim materyalinin öğrencilerin bilişsel öğrenme düzeylerine ve kavramsal anlamalarına etkisinin incelenmesi (examining the effect of material developed according to dual situated learning model on students’ cognitive learning levels and conceptual change). YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Derg 11:47–75Google Scholar
  47. Jones MG, Andre T, Kubasko D et al (2003) Remote atomic force microscopy of microscopic organisms: technological innovations for hands-on science with middle and high school students. Sci Educ 88:55–71.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jones MG, Falvo MR, Taylor AR, Broadwell BP (2007) Nanoscale science: activities for grades 6–12. NSTA Press, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Jones MG, Tretter T, Taylor A, Oppewal T (2008) Experienced and novice teachers’ concepts of spatial scale. Int J Sci Educ 30:409–429.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701416624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jones MG, Blonder R, Gardner GE et al (2013a) Nanotechnology and nanoscale science: educational challenges. Int J Sci Educ 35:1490–1512.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.771828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jones MG, Paechter M, Yen C et al (2013b) Teachers’ concepts of spatial scale: an international comparison. Int J Sci Educ 35:2462–2482.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.610382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jones MG, Gardner GE, Falvo M, Taylor A (2015) Precollege nanotechnology education: a different kind of thinking. Nanotechnol Rev 4:117–127.  https://doi.org/10.1515/ntrev-2014-0014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kadıoğlu F (2010) Fen öğretiminde öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarının nanoteknoloji ile ilgili güncel ve geleceğe yönelik düşünceleri (actual and future oriented thoughts about nanotechnology of teacher candidates studying science teaching programme). Master Thesis, Gazi University: Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  54. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, et al (2007) Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: an experimental ınvestigation. 2nd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies PaperGoogle Scholar
  55. Karataş FÖ, Ülker N (2014) Kimya öğrencilerinin nanobilim ve nanoteknoloji konularındaki bilgi düzeyleri (Undergraduate chemistry students’ understanding level of nano-science and nano-technology). Türk Fen Eğitimi Derg 11:103–118.  https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10121a Google Scholar
  56. Kılınç Alpat S, Uyulgan MA, Şeker S et al (2017) Nanoteknoloji konusunda işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin ortaöğretim 10.sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarı ve görüşlerine etkisi (effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement and opinions of the 10th grade students’ in the topic of nanotechnology at secondary level). İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Derg Cilt 18:27–57.  https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.286128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kırtak Ad VN, Kocakülah MS (2013) Fizik ve fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları farkı fark edebiliyor mu? Kütle ve ağırlık merkezi kavramları örneği (can pre-service physics and science teachers detect the difference? An example of centre of mass and centre of gravity concepts). Türk Fen Eğitimi Derg 10:56–74Google Scholar
  58. Kocakülah A (2006) Geleneksel öğretimin ilk, orta ve yükseköğretim öğrencilerinin görüntü oluşumu ve renklere ilişkin kavramsal anlamalarına etkisi (the effect of traditional teaching on primary, secondary and university students’ conceptual understanding of image formation and colours). Master Thesis, Balıkesir University: Balıkesir, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  59. Kocakülah MS, Kenar Açıl Z (2011) İlköğretim öğrencilerinin gözüyle ‘yerçekimi nerededir?’ (the question of ‘where is the gravity?’ From the elementary school students’ point of view). Türk Fen Eğitimi Derg 8:135–152Google Scholar
  60. Kocakülah MS, Kural M (2012) Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin üretken öğrenme modeline göre tasarlanan öğretim ile tek yarıkta kırınım konusundaki kavramsal değişimlerinin incelenmesi (an investigation of the effects of teaching based on generative learning model on secondary school students’ conceptual change about single-slit diffraction). Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Mat Eğitimi Derg 6:338–375Google Scholar
  61. Kocakulah S, Ustunluoglu E, Kocakulah A (2005) The effect of teaching in native and foreign language on students’ conceptual understanding in science courses. Asia-Pacific Forum Sci Learn Teach 6:1–30Google Scholar
  62. Kulik T, Fidelus JD (2007) Education in the field of nanoscience. WarsawGoogle Scholar
  63. Kumar DD (2007) Nanoscale science and technology in teaching. Aust J Educ Chem 68:20–22Google Scholar
  64. Kural M, Kocakülah MS (2014) Fikirler arası çatışmaya dayalı öğretimin öğrencilerin ince zarda girişim konusundaki kavramsal anlamalarına etkisi (Effects of teaching based on cognitive conflict about thin film interference on students’ conceptual understanding). Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Derg 3:50–97Google Scholar
  65. Laherto A (2010a) An analysis of the educational significance of nanoscience and nanotechnology in scientific and technological literacy. Sci Educ Int 21:160–175Google Scholar
  66. Laherto A (2010b) Interdisciplinary aspects of nanoscience and nanotechnology for informal education. In: Taşar MF, Çakmakcı G (eds) Contemporary science education research: teaching. Pegem Akademi, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  67. Laherto A (2011) Incorporating nanoscale science and technology into secondary school curriculum: views of nano-trained science teachers. Nordiana 7:126–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lee C, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci Commun 27:240–267.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lin S-F, Lin H-S, Wu Y-Y (2013) Validation and exploration of instruments for assessing public knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Sci Educ Technol 22:548–559.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9413-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lin S-F, Chen J-Y, Shih K-Y et al (2015a) Science teachers’ perceptions of nanotechnology teaching and professional development: a survey study in Taiwan. Nanotechnol Rev 4:71–80.  https://doi.org/10.1515/ntrev-2014-0019 Google Scholar
  72. Lin SY, Wu MT, Cho YI, Chen HH (2015b) The effectiveness of a popular science promotion program on nanotechnology for elementary school students in I-Lan City. Res Sci Technol Educ 33:22–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2014.971733 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lu C-C, Sung C-C (2011) Effect of nanotechnology instructions on senior high school students. Asia-Pacific Forum Sci Learn Teach 12:1–18Google Scholar
  74. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15:221–241.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506056993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Maynard V, Hsu M, Chen K, Chang RPH (2006) 2006–2672: Laying the foundation for nanoscience and nanotechnology with an introductory module for high school students. 113th Annual ASEE conference and exposition, 18–21 June, 2006, Chicago, IL, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  76. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  77. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2013a) İlköğretim Kurumları (İlkokullar ve Ortaokullar) Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  78. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2013b) Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  79. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2013c) Ortaöğretim Kimya Dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara, p 128Google Scholar
  80. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2013d) Ortaöğretim Fizik Dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  81. Murday JS (2009) NSF workshop report: Partnership for nanotechnology education. University of South California, Los Angeles, http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/reports/educ09_murdyworkshop.pdf, Date of access: 10.12.2015
  82. Nerlich B, Clarke DD, Ulph F (2007) Risks and benefits of nanotechnology: how young adults perceive possible advances in nanomedicine compared with conventional treatments. Health Risk Soc 9:159–171.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570701306856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ng W (2009) Nanoscience and nanotechnology for the middle years. Teach Sci 55:16–24Google Scholar
  84. Pajares MF (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Rev Educ Res 62:307–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Palmquist BC, Finley F (1997) Preservice teachers’ views of the nature of science during a post baccalaureate science teaching program. J Res Sci Teach 34:595–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pektas M, Alev N, Kurnaz MA, Bayraktar G (2015) Physics, chemistry and biology student teachers’ understandings of nanotechnology. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 191:1767–1771.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.677 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Peter D. Hart Research Associates (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Washington, DC. https://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7040/final-synbioreport.pdf, Date of access: 07.09.2014
  88. Planinšič G, Kovač J (2008) Nano goes to school: a teaching model of the atomic force microscope. Phys Educ 43:37–45.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/43/01/002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Poteralska B, Zielinska J, Mazurkiewicz A (2007) The development of education and training systems in the field of nanotechnology. J Coll Teach Learn 4:7–16Google Scholar
  90. Retzbach A, Marschall J, Rahnke M et al (2011) Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: the roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. J Nanopart Res 13:6231–6244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0582-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rubab S (2012) Introducing nano science education at pre-university level. Sch Sci 49:24–28Google Scholar
  92. Sagun-Gököz B (2012) Design and implementation of a nanoscience & nanotechnology workshop: Investigating 11th grade students’ awareness and conceptual understanding of nanoscience & nanotechnology. Master Thesis, Boğaziçi University: İstanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  93. Sahin N, Ekli E (2013) Nanotechnology awareness, opinions and risk perceptions among middle school students. Int J Technol Des Educ 23:867–881.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9233-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Şahin F, Hacıoğlu Y (2010) Bilimsel tartışma destekli örnek olayların 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin ‘ kalıtım ’ konusunda kavram öğrenmelerine ve okuduğunu anlama becerilerine etkisi (The effect of case studies supported by scientific discussions to concept learning and reading comprehension skills of 8. grade students about inheritance). In: International conference on new trends in education and their implications. 11–13 November, 2010 Antalya-TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  95. Schank P, Krajcik J, Yunker M (2007) Can nanoscience be a catalyst for educational reform? In: Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: the ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Wiley Publishing, HobekenGoogle Scholar
  96. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S et al (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2:732–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Semenderoğlu F, Aydın H (2014) Öğrencilerin biyoteknoloji ve genetik mühendisliği konularını kavramsal anlamalarına yapılandırmacı yaklaşımın etkisi (Effect of constructivist approach on students’ conceptual understanding of biotechnology and genetic engıneering topics). Turkish Stud 9:751–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Şenel A (2009) Nanoteknoloji kavramlarına ilişkin rehber materyal geliştirilmesi (development of resource materials related to nanotechnology concepts). Master Thesis, Gazi University: Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  100. Şenel T, Aslan O (2014) Ortaokul ve lise fen alanları öğretmen adaylarının nanobilim ve nanoteknoloji farkındalıklarının çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi (Examining nanoscience and nanotechnology awareness of secondary school and high school preservice science teachers in terms of different variables). XI. Ulusal fen bilimleri ve matematik eğitimi kongresi, 11–14 Eylül, 2014, Adana, TürkiyeGoogle Scholar
  101. Senocak E (2014) A survey on nanotechnology in the view of the Turkish public. Sci Technol Soc 19:79–94.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721813514265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Senocak E (2015) A course to create informed Turkish undergraduate students on nanotechnology. J Nano Educ 7:52–57.  https://doi.org/10.1166/jne.2015.1076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Shah I, Rahat T (2014) Effect of activity based teaching method in science. Int J Hum Manag Sci 2:39–41Google Scholar
  104. Sheetz T, Vidal J, Pearson TD, Lozano K (2005) Nanotechnology: awareness and societal concerns. Technol Soc 27:329–345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Stavrou D (2013) Pre-service primary and science teachers’ conceptions about the emergence of novel properties at the nanoscale. In: Constantinos CP, Nicos P, Hadjigeorgiou A (eds) E-book proceedings of the ESERA 2013 conference: science education research for evidence-based teaching and coherence in learning. Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  106. Stevens S, Sutherland L, Schank P, Krajcik J (2009) The big ideas of nanoscience: a guidebook for secondary teachers. NSTA Press, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  107. Tahan C, Leung R, Zenner GM et al (2006) Nanotechnology and society: a discussion-based undergraduate course. Am J Phys 74:443–448.  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2178845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Tarng W, Chang C, Lin C et al (2011) Development and research of web-based virtual nanotechnology laboratory for learning the basic concepts of nanoscience. Int J Res Rev Comput Sci 2:1255–1263Google Scholar
  109. Taştan Kırık Ö, Kaya H (2014) 6. Sınıf öğrencilerinin hücre konusundaki kavramsal yapıları hakkında nitel bir çalışma (a qualitative study concerning the 6th grade students’ conceptual structures about the cell concept). Int Online J Educ Sci 6:737–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Tessman JM (2009) Students’ conceptions of nanoscience phenomena: the beginning of a nanoscience concept inventory. Master Thesis, Purdue University: West Lafayette, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  111. URL (2014) Hands-on nano activities, Retrieved from https://teachers.stanford.edu/activities/ ( 27.11.2014)
  112. Waldron AM, Spencer D, Batt CA (2006) The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 8:569–575.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-006-9112-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wansom S, Mason TO, Hersam MC et al (2009) A rubric for post-secondary degree programs in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Int J Eng Educ 25:615–627Google Scholar
  114. Yıldırım A, Şimşek H (2006) Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (Qualitative research methods in the social sciences). (6. Baskı). Seçkin Kitabevi, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  115. Yin RK (2003) Case study research design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  116. Zhang J, Wang G, Lin D (2015) High support for nanotechnology in China: a case study in Dalian. Sci Public Policy 43:115–127.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Educational SciencesGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Science Education DepartmentNecmettin Erbakan UniversityKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations