Nanoscale science and technology education: primary school students’ preconceptions of the lotus effect and the concept of size

References

• Alexiou, D., Peikos, G. and L. Manou. 2017. “Primary School Students’ Ideas About Nanoscale Phenomena in Nature: The Lotus Effect and the Gecko Effect”. In The Proceedings of the 10th PanHellenic Conference of Science Education and New Technologies in Education, edited by D. Stavrou, A. Michailidi and A. Kokolaki, 868-873. Rethymno: University of Crete. https://synedrio2017.enephet.gr
   Google Scholar
• Bhushan, B., C. Y. Jung, and M. Nosonovsky. 2010. “Lotus Effect: Surfaces with Roughness-Induced Superhydrophobicity, Self-Cleaning, and Low Adhesion.” In Springer Handbook of Nanotechnology, edited by B. Bhushan, 1437–1524. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Blonder, R., and S. Sakhnini. 2016. “What are the Basic Concepts of Nanoscale Science and Technology (NST) that Should Be Included in NST Educational Programs?” In Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports, edited by K. Winkelmann and B. Bhushan, 117–127. Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Castellini, O. M., G. K. Walejko, C. E. Holladay, T. J. Theim, G. M. Zenner, and W. C. Crone. 2007. “Nanotechnology and the Public: Effectively Nanoscale Science and Engineering Concepts.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9 (2): 183–189. doi:10.1007/s11051-006-9160-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. 2008. “Three Types of Conceptual Change: Belief Revision, Mental Model Transformation, and Categorical Shift.” In International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, edited by S. Vosniadou, 61–82. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T., R. D. Roscoe, J. D. Slotta, M. Roy, and C. C. Chase. 2012. “Misconceived Causal Explanations for Emergent Processes.” Cognitive Science 36 (1): 1–61. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu, M. H., and S. L. Chung. 2013. “The Use of Multiple Perspectives of Conceptual Change to Investigate Students’ Mental Models of Gas Particles.” In Concepts of Matter in Science Education, edited by G. Tsaparlis and H. Sevian, 143–168. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Delgado, C., S. Y. Stevens, N. Shin, and J. Krajcik. 2015. “A Middle School Instructional Unit for Size and Scale Contextualized in Nanotechnology.” Nanotechnology Reviews 4 (1): 51–69. doi:10.1515/ntrev-2014-0023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghattas, N., and J. S. Carver. 2012. “Integrating Nanotechnology into School Education: A Review of the Literature.” Research in Science & Technological Education 30 (3): 271–284. doi:10.1080/02635143.2012.732058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, A. G., and D. F. Treagust. 2002. “The Particulate Nature of Matter: Challenges in Understanding the Submicroscopic World.” In Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice, edited by J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, and J. H. Van Driel, 189–212. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, G., R. Blonder, G. Gardner, V. Albe, M. Falvo, and J. Chevrier. 2013. “Nanotechnology and Nanoscale Science: Educational Challenges.” International Journal of Science Education 35 (9): 1490–1512. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.771828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karataş, F. Ö., S. Ünal, G. Durland, and G. Bodner. 2013. “What Do We Know about Students’ Beliefs? Changes in Students’ Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter from Pre-instruction to College.” In Concepts of Matter in Science Education, edited by G. Tsaparlis and H. Sevian, 231–247. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, W., D. Kim, S. Park, D. Lee, H. Hyun, and J. Kim. 2018. “Engineering Lotus Leaf-inspired Micro-and Nanostructures for the Manipulation of Functional Engineering Platforms.” Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 61: 39–52. doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2017.11.045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong, Y., K. A. Douglas, K. J. Rodgers, H. Diefes‐Dux, and K. Madhavan. 2017. “A Size and Scale Framework for Guiding Curriculum Design and Assessment.” Journal of Engineering Education 106 (3): 431–453. doi:10.1002/jee.20172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubisch, F., and T. Heyne. 2015. “Students’ Alternative Conceptions about the Lotus Effect: To Confront or to Ignore?” Journal of Biological Education 50 (1): 86–100. doi:10.1080/00219266.2015.1007886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, S. Y., M. T. Wu, Y. I. Cho, and H.-H. Chen. 2015. “The Effectiveness of a Popular Science Promotion Program on Nanotechnology for Elementary School Students in I-Lan City.” Research in Science & Technological Education 33 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1080/02635143.2014.971733.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magana, A., S. Brophy, and L. A. Bryan. 2012. “An Integrated Knowledge Framework to Characterize and Scaffold Size and Scale Cognition (FS2C).” International Journal of Science Education 34 (14): 2181–2203. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.715316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandrikas, A., E. Michailidi, and D. Stavrou. 2019. “Teaching Nanotechnology in Primary Education.” Research in Science & Technological Education. doi:10.1080/02635143.2019.1631783.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manou, L., A. Spyrtou, E. Hatzikraniotis, and P. Kariotoglou. 2018. “Content Transformation for Experimental Teaching Nanoscale Science and Engineering to Primary Teachers.” Journal of Physics. Conference Series 1076 (1): 012006. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1076/1/012006.
   Google Scholar
• Mayring, P. 2014. “Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
   Google Scholar
• Murriello, S., D. Contier, and M. Knobel. 2006. “Challenges of an Exhibit on Nanoscience and Nanotechnology.” Journal of Science Communication 5 (4): 1–10. doi:10.22323/2.05040201.
   Google Scholar
• Peikos, G., Manou, L., Spyrtou, A. and C. Papadopoulou. 2017. “Study of the Evolution of Primary Students’ Ideas about Nanoscience-Nanotechnology”. In The proceedings of the Third International Conference: Education across Borders, edited by Biljana Cvetkova Dimov, 459–467. Bitola: University St. Kliment Ohridski.
   Google Scholar
• Peikos, G., Spyrtou, A., Pnevmatikos, D., and P. Papadopoulou. 2019. “A Teaching Approach about Nanoscale Science and Technology Content: Evaluation of Primary School Students Learning”. Paper presented at the ESERA conference, Bologna, August 26–30.
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J., and B. Inhelder. 1971. The Child’s Conception of Space. Translated by F. J. Langdon and J. L. Lunzer. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul .
   Google Scholar
• Spyrtou, A., L. Manou, G. Peikos, and P. Zachou. 2019. “Facilitating Primary Student Teachers’ Development of Critical Thinking through a Nanotechnology Module.” In Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education, edited by M. Tsitouridou, J. A. Diniz, and T. A. Mikropoulos, 137–152. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, S., L. Sutherland, and J. S. Krajcik. 2009. Big Ideas of Nanoscale Science and Engineering: A Guidebook for Secondary Teachers. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, A., G. Jones, and T. P. Pearl. 2008. “Bumpy, Sticky, and Shaky: Nanoscale Science and the Curriculum.” Science Scope 31 (7): 28.
   Google Scholar
• Tretter, T., G. Jones, and J. Minogue. 2006. “Accuracy of Scale Conceptions in Science: Mental Maneuverings across Many Orders of Spatial Magnitude.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43 (10): 1061–1085. doi:10.1002/tea.20155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsaparlis, G., and H. Sevian. 2013. “Introduction: Concepts of Matter - Complex to Teach and Difficult to Learn.” In Concepts of Matter in Science Education, edited by G. Tsaparlis and H. Sevian, 1–10. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Vosniadou, S. 2012. “Reframing the Classical Approach to Conceptual Change: Preconceptions, Misconceptions and Synthetic Models.” In Second International Handbook of Science Education, edited by B. Fraser, K. Tobin, and C. McRobbie, 119–130. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_10.
   Google Scholar
• Vosniadou, S. 2013. “Model Based Reasoning and the Learning of Counter-intuitive Science Concepts.” Infancia y Aprendizaje 36 (1): 5–33. doi:10.1174/021037013804826519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vosniadou, S. 2014. “Examining Cognitive Development from a Conceptual Change Point of View: The Framework Theory Approach.” European Journal of Developmental Psychology 11 (6): 645–661. doi:10.1080/17405629.2014.921153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkelmann, K., and B. Bhushan. 2017. “Global Perspectives of Nanotechnology Education.” In Springer Handbook of Nanotechnology, edited by B. Bhushan, 1603–1624. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wiser, M., and C. L. Smith. 2008. “Learning and Reaching about Matter in Grades K-8: When Should the Atomic Molecular Theory Be Introduced?” In International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, edited by S. Vosniadou, 205–239. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zoupidis, A., D. Pnevmatikos, A. Spyrtou, and P. Kariotoglou. 2016. “The Impact of Procedural and Epistemological Knowledge on Conceptual Understanding: The Case of Density and Floating–sinking Phenomena.” Instructional Science 44 (4): 315–334. doi:10.1007/s11251-016-9375-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar