Student Learning about Biomolecular Self-Assembly Using Two Different External Representations

Höst, Gunnar; Larsson, Caroline; Olson, Arthur J.; Tibell, Lena

doi:10.1187/cbe.13-01-0011

Cited by 24 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

Section: Conceptual Considerations Arising From Responses To the Nanokimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In further support of the premise that nano can serve as a "unifying idea" in chemistry education, Jones et al (2015) advocate that chemical concepts such as molecular bonding and molecular motion are connected to developing an understanding of self-assembly at the nanoscale. Similarly, Höst et al (2013) demonstrate the importance of integrating several chemical concepts such as noncovalent interactions and complementarity in conceptualising the nanotechnological implications of selfassembly. Lastly, our own work (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Furthermore, 19% of respondents did not correctly express the fact that, "Objects at the nanoscale are kept in random motion by continuous collisions with other particles" (True), which perhaps indicates the conceptual demands of perceiving the "sticky", "shaky" and "bumpy" (Jones et al, 2013) properties of the nanoworld. Moreover, the observation that "Nanotubes spontaneously aggregate together into rope-like structures" (True) was unknown by 56% of the participants could indicate a lack of (albeit cognitively demanding) knowledge that emergent properties may arise from random molecular events (Höst et al, 2013).In relation to nanoscale interactions, 61% of "Don't know" selections were attributed to the item, "A modified nanotube that has attached to its specific target will remain permanently bound" (False), while 56% of such responses were obtained for, "Attractive forces between objects at the nanoscale become weaker when the contact surfaces of the objects have complementary shapes" (False). Overall, the observation that respondents often simply lacked any knowledge of the answer, is consistent with literature asserting that the public has little awareness and knowledge about nano-related phenomena (Waldron et al, 2006;Schütz and Wiedemann, 2008;Dyehouse et al, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology: development and validation of the nano-knowledge instrument (NanoKI)

Schönborn

Höst

Palmerius

2015

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

aAs the application of nanotechnology in everyday life impacts society, it becomes critical for citizens to have a scientific basis upon which to judge their perceived hopes and fears of 'nano'. Although multiple instruments have been designed for assessing attitudinal and affective aspects of nano, surprisingly little work has focused on developing tools to evaluate the conceptual knowledge dimension of public understanding. This article reports the validation of an instrument designed to measure conceptual knowledge of nanoscience and nanotechnology. A sample of 302 participants responded to a 28-item questionnaire designed around core nano-concepts. Factor analysis revealed a single latent variable representing the construct of nano-knowledge. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91 indicating a high internal consistency of the questionnaire items. The mean test score was 15.3 out of 28 (54.5%) with item difficulty indices ranging from 0.19 to 0.89. Obtained item discrimination values indicate a high discriminatory power of the instrument. Taken together, the psychometric properties of the Nano-Knowledge Instrument (NanoKI) suggest that it is a valid and reliable tool for measuring nano-related knowledge. Preliminary qualitative observations of citizens' incorrect and correct response patterns to the questionnaire indicate potential conceptual challenges surrounding relative size of the nanoscale, random motion of nano-objects, and nanoscale interactions, although these are hypotheses that require future investigation. Application of the NanoKI could support efforts directed to an agenda for evaluating and designing science communication and education initiatives for promoting understanding of nano. IntroductionNanoscience is rapidly becoming a revolutionary and core component of research interconnected with multiple areas of scientific endeavour (Roco, 2003;Whitesides, 2005). Absorption of real practical applications of nanoscience and nanotechnology into the daily life of citizens is underway (Sealy, 2006). While the implications of 'nano' continue to emerge in manifestations of cutting-edge nanomaterials and nanotherapeutics, many contemporary scholars (e.g., Roco and Bainbridge, 2005;Burri and Bellucci, 2008), deem it crucial that the international public be actively involved in discussion, decisions and policy associated with nano. In this regard, Laherto (2010) and Gilbert and Lin (2013) advocate the urgent implementation of a nano-education vision that not only caters to formal academic demands necessary for accruing nanocompetent workers, but also considers informal public dimensions in evoking the societal implications of nanoscience.This need is succinctly captured in Laherto's (2010) assertion that, "all citizens will soon need some kind of 'nano-literacy' in order to navigate important science-based issues related to their everyday lives and society" (p. 161).The nano-revolution is playing out in the convergence of nano with new technological innovation. The inevitable impact of nano on society requires interna...

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Considerations Arising From Responses To the Nanokimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology: development and validation of the nano-knowledge instrument (NanoKI)

Schönborn

Höst

Palmerius

2015

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One non-digital biological example is a tangible model of a virus that was used to study its effects on students' meaning-making of a sub-microscopic process, the self-organization of a virus capsid (Höst et al 2013). This process was perceived as counter-intuitive since a virus capsid is created via random collations of subunits.…”

Section: Randomness and Probability In Visualizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Principles and Threshold Concepts for Understanding Natural Selection

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern evolutionary theory is both a central theory and an integrative framework of the life sciences. This is reflected in the common references to evolution in modern science education curricula and contexts. In fact, evolution is a core idea that is supposed to support biology learning by facilitating the organization of relevant knowledge. In addition, evolution can function as a pivotal link between concepts and highlight similarities in the complexity of biological concepts. However, empirical studies in many countries have for decades identified deficiencies in students' scientific understanding of evolution mainly focusing on natural selection. Clearly, there are major obstacles to learning natural selection, and we argue that to overcome them, it is essential to address explicitly the general abstract concepts that underlie the biological processes, e.g., randomness or probability. Hence, we propose a twodimensional framework for analyzing and structuring teaching of natural selection. The first-purely biological-dimension embraces the three main principles variation, heredity, and selection structured in nine key concepts that form the core idea of natural selection. The second dimension encompasses four so-called thresholds, i.e., general abstract and/or nonperceptual concepts: randomness, probability, spatial scales, and temporal scales. We claim that both of these dimensions must be continuously considered, in tandem, when teaching evolution in order to allow development of a meaningful understanding of the process. Further, we suggest that making the thresholds tangible with the aid of appropriate kinds of visualizations will facilitate grasping of the threshold concepts, and thus, help learners to overcome the difficulties in understanding the central theory of life. Sci & Educ (2017) 26:953-973 https://doi

show abstract

“…With the advent of computing and robotics, touch is a sensory channel that continues to receive a great deal of attention, mostly through the use of haptic interaction strategies [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Touch is also exploited in systems that utilize tangible physical models [ 6 ] that may be augmented virtually [ 7 ] and which have shown promise in enhancing student learning [ 8 ]. Beyond touch, a variety of sensory channels related to visual and audio feedback may be used to enhance the immersive effect, and preliminary applications of such integrated methods have occurred in the context of docking problems [ 9 ].…”

Section: Virtual and Augmented Reality And Immersive Molecular Simulamentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular simulations and visualization: introduction and overview

Hirst¹,

Glowacki²,

Baaden³

2014

Faraday Discuss.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student Learning about Biomolecular Self-Assembly Using Two Different External Representations

Cited by 24 publications

References 40 publications

Measuring understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology: development and validation of the nano-knowledge instrument (NanoKI)

Measuring understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology: development and validation of the nano-knowledge instrument (NanoKI)

Biological Principles and Threshold Concepts for Understanding Natural Selection

Molecular simulations and visualization: introduction and overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About