Is it Live or is it Memorex? Students' Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication with Scientists

Kubasko, Dennis; Jones, M. Gail; Tretter, Thomas R.; André, Thomas

doi:10.1080/09500690701217220

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, co-author Jones and collaborators developed the nanomanipulator for students and museums to use to control the atomic force microscope (AFM) from remote locations. Jones has studied the impact of interactions with nanoscientists on students' concepts of science and scientists (Kubasko et al, 2008), differences in African-American and female students' perceptions of nanoscale investigations (Jones et al, 2007), the impact of haptic (tactile) sensory perception of nanoscale materials (Jones et al, 2003;Jones et al, 2006), and strategies to teach nanoscale science to students (Jones, 2008;Taylor et al, 2008). Findings from these studies suggest that teaching nanotechnology through problem-based contexts and providing students with direct experiences with tools and techniques are highly effective (particularly in comparison to simulations).…”

Section: Nanotechnology Research and Education At Ncsumentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching a Multidisciplinary Nanotechnology Laboratory Course to Undergraduate Students

Zhu¹,

Tracy²,

Dong³

et al. 2013

J Nano Educ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here we report our efforts to teach the first multidisciplinary undergraduate nanotechnology laboratory course in the College of Engineering at North Carolina State University (NCSU). The course was designed to provide undergraduate students with hands-on experience in nanoscience and nanotechnology. The theme of this laboratory course is the integration of nanotechnology with microsystem technology, i.e., bottom-up synthesis meeting top-down fabrication. This course consists of seven carefully designed lab modules that bridge the major "pillars" of nanotechnologynanomaterials, nanofabrication, nanoscale characterization, and nanodevices. Final projects provide students opportunities to conduct nanotechnology research through problem-based learning and to improve their communication and presentation skills for educating the public about nanotechnology. A pedagogical approach that features problem-based learning, group learning, visual/tactile assistance and interdisciplinary interaction was employed during the offering of this course.

show abstract

Section: Nanotechnology Research and Education At Ncsumentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching a Multidisciplinary Nanotechnology Laboratory Course to Undergraduate Students

Zhu¹,

Tracy²,

Dong³

et al. 2013

J Nano Educ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Blanchard et al, 2010). Although considerable evidence exists that inquiry-based instruction positively affects different outcome measures including cognitive achievement, conceptual understanding, process skills, critical thinking and attitudes towards science (Anderson, 2002;Blanchard et al, 2010;Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, 2012;Haury, 1993;Minner, levy, & Century, 2010;Schroeder, Scott, Tolson, Huang, & lee, 2007), critics of inquiry-based teaching have repeatedly challenged its efficacy (kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006;klahr & Nigam, 2004). Part of the disagreement may be due to the fact that the term inquiry has taken on different meanings within the science education literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Studies that specifically address the aspect of social interaction within the construct of scientific argumentation use additional coding schemes that help identify the features of the interaction and the nature of the engagement between students (e.g. Clark & Sampson, 2008;kim & Song, 2006;Osborne et al, 2004;Sampson et al, 2011). Sampson et al (2011), e.g.…”

Section: Engaging In Argumentation and Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities

Rönnebeck

Bernholt

Ropohl

2016

Studies in Science Education

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the importance of scientific inquiry in science education, researchers and educators disagree considerably regarding what features define this instructional approach. While a large body of literature addresses theoretical considerations, numerous empirical studies investigate scientific inquiry on quite different levels of detail and also on different theoretical grounds. Here, only little systematic research has analysed the different conceptualisations and usages of the overarching construct of scientific inquiry in detail. To close this gap, a review of the research literature on scientific inquiry was conducted based on a widespread approach to defining scientific inquiry as activities that students engage in. The main goal is to provide a systematic overview about the range and spectrum of definitions and operationalisations used with regard to single activities of the inquiry process in empirical studies. The findings from the review first and foremost illustrate the variability in the ways these activities have been operationalised and implemented. For each activity, studies differ significantly not only with respect to the focus, explicitness and comprehensiveness of their operationalisations but also with regard to the consistency of their implementation in the form of instructional or interventional components in the study and/or in the focus of the assessment of student performance. This has significant implications regarding the validity and comparability of results obtained in different studies, e.g. in the context of discussions concerning the effectiveness of inquiry-based instruction. In addition, the interrelation between scientific inquiry, scientific knowledge and the nature of science seems to be underexplored. The conclusions make the case for further theoretical work as well as empirical research.

show abstract

“…[21][22][23][24][25]). These types of programs are useful in helping students understand non-optical microscopes but are limited in their capacity to teach students about properties and behaviors of nanoscale materials [26].…”

Section: Tools Approachmentioning

confidence: 97%

Precollege nanotechnology education: a different kind of thinking

Jones

Gardner

Falvo³

et al. 2015

Nanotechnology Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Is it Live or is it Memorex? Students' Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication with Scientists

Cited by 13 publications

References 24 publications

Teaching a Multidisciplinary Nanotechnology Laboratory Course to Undergraduate Students

Teaching a Multidisciplinary Nanotechnology Laboratory Course to Undergraduate Students

Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities

Precollege nanotechnology education: a different kind of thinking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About