Teachers’ Training in Developing Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Teaching Modules in the Context of a Community of Learners

  • Giannis SgourosEmail author
  • Dimitris Stavrou
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 6)


This study focuses on teachers’ training in introducing nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) topics in school. In the context of a Community of Learners (CoL) in-service teachers, in collaboration with science education researchers, nanoscience researchers and experts from science museums, developed a teaching module in NST topics which integrates socio-scientific issues and the development of exhibits. The aim of this study is to investigate teachers’ professional change by focusing on their collegial interactions in the CoL. Video recordings and semi-constructed interviews were used for data collection. The Interconnected Model of Professional Growth (IMPG) was used for data analysis in order to unearth the processes that develop the sequences of teachers’ professional change in this context. The findings in this study highlight that teachers’ interactions in the CoL change dynamically, as they anticipate to acquire qualified feedback on the emerged challenges of the task. They interact with researchers and experts, so as to bring in balance science-oriented issues with students’ perspectives and research-based instructional approaches, primarily in the process of analyzing and clarifying aspects of the module which are innovative to them. During the process of the module’s detailed development and implementation, they anticipate feedback primarily from peer teachers, as they seek to swap ideas and to experience practical alternatives from colleagues that share the same interests, concerns and the expertise of the classroom context. The abovementioned interactions supply opportunities for teachers’ professional learning, as they develop processes which impact on their knowledge and their teaching practice, in terms of the IMPG.


Teacher education Professional development Nanoscience and nanotechnology Community of Learners 


  1. Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3–16.<3::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becuwe, H., Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., Thys, J., & Castelein, E. (2016). Teacher design teams as a strategy for professional development: The role of the facilitator. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3–4), 141–154. Scholar
  3. Bell, L. (2016). Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net. In K. Winkelmann & B. Bhushan (Eds.), Global perspectives of nanoscience and engineering education (pp. 277–311). Cham: Springer. Scholar
  4. Blonder, R., Parchmann, I., Akaygün, S., & Albe, V. (2014). Nanoeducation: Zooming into teacher professional development programmes in nanoscience and technology. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), Topics and trends in current science education. 9th ESERA conference selected contributions (pp. 159–174). New York: Springer. Scholar
  5. Blonder, R., Zemler, E., & Rosenfeld, S. (2016). The story of lead: A context for learning about Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in the chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 1145–1155. Scholar
  6. Bryan, L., Magana, A., & Sederberg, D. (2015). Published research on pre-college students’ and teachers’ nanoscale science, engineering, and technology learning. Nanotechnology Reviews, 4(1), 7–32.Google Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Vanscotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness and applications. Colorado Springs: BSCS.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, D. J., & Hollingsworth, H. (1994). Reconceptualising teacher change. In G. Bell, B. Wright, N. Leeson, & J. Geake (Eds.), Challenges in mathematics education: Constraints on construction, Vol. 1: Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 153–164). Lismore: Southern Cross University.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. Scholar
  10. Coenders, F., Terlouw, C., Dijkstra, S., & Pieters, J. (2010). The effects of the design and development of a chemistry curriculum reform on teachers’ professional growth: A case study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(5), 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. D’Acquisto, L., & Scatena, M. (2006). K-12 Curators: What kids learn by designing exhibitions. Exhibitionist, 25(2), 38–45.Google Scholar
  12. De Vocht, M., Laherto, A., & Parchmann, I. (2017). Exploring teachers’ concerns about bringing responsible research and innovation to European science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(4), 326–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I. (2012). The model of educational reconstruction–A framework for improving teaching and learning science. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe (pp. 13–37). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2012). Responsible Research and Innovation. Accessed 24-01-2015.
  17. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. Scholar
  18. Hamza, K., Piqueras, J., Wickman, P. O., & Angelin, M. (2018). Who owns the content and who runs the risk? Dynamics of teacher change in teacher–researcher collaboration. Research in Science Education, 48(5), 963–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hingant, B., & Albe, V. (2010). Nanosciences and nanotechnologies learning and teaching in secondary education: A review of literature. Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 121–152. Scholar
  20. Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217. Scholar
  21. Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N., & Voogt, J. (2015). Fostering teachers’ design expertise in teacher design teams: Conducive design and support activities. Curriculum Journal, 26(1), 137–163. Scholar
  22. Jones, M., Tretter, T., Taylor, A., & Oppewal, T. (2008). Experienced and novice teachers’ concepts of spatial scale. International Journal of Science Education, 30(3), 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones, M. G., Gardner, G. E., Robertson, L., & Robert, S. (2013a). Science Professional Learning Communities: Beyond a singular view of teacher professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1756–1774. Scholar
  24. Jones, M., Blonder, R., Gardner, G., Albe, V., Falvo, M., & Chevrier, J. (2013b). Nanotechnology and Nanoscale Science: Educational challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1490–1512. Scholar
  25. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  27. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Springer. Scholar
  28. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. Scholar
  29. Pedretti, E. (2002). T. Kuhn meets T. Rex: Critical conversations and new directions in science centres and science museums. Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pintó, R., Ametller, J., Couso, D., Sassi, E., Monroy, G., Testa, I., & Lombardi, S. (2003). Some problems encountered in the introduction of innovations in secondary school science education and suggestions for overcoming them. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 8(1), 113–134.Google Scholar
  31. Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.Google Scholar
  32. Roco, M. C. (1999). Nanoparticles and nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 1(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. Scholar
  34. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. Scholar
  35. Stavrou, D., Michailidi, E., & Sgouros, G. (2018). Development and dissemination of a teaching learning sequence on nanoscience and nanotechnology in a context of communities of learners. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(4), 1065–1080. Scholar
  36. Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 687–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 885–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26–28. Scholar
  39. Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science teaching: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47–59. Scholar
  41. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. Scholar
  42. Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, A., Walraven, A., McKenney, S., Pieters, J., & De Vries, B. (2011). Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1235–1244. Scholar
  43. Voogt, J. M., Pieters, J. M., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: Effects, mechanisms, and conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3-4), 121–140. Scholar
  44. Wischow, E. D., Bryan, L. A., & Bodner, G. M. (2013). Secondary science teachers’ development of pedagogical content knowledge as a result of integrating nanoscience content in their classroom. Cosmos, 8, 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wongsopawiro, D. S., Zwart, R. C., & van Driel, J. H. (2017). Identifying pathways of teachers’ PCK development. Teachers and Teaching, 23(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Primary EducationUniversity of CreteRethymnoGreece

Personalised recommendations