intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to teaching nanoscale

Delivered by Ingenta toGuest User

IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE

Copyright copy 2011 American Scientific PublishersAll rights reservedPrinted in the United States of America

Journal ofNano Education

Vol 3 1ndash12 2011

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Barriers toTeaching Nanoscale ScienceFinnish Teachersrsquo Perspectives

Anna-Leena Kaumlhkoumlnen1lowast Antti Laherto2 and Anssi Lindell11Department of Teacher Education University of Jyvaumlskylauml FI-40014 Finland

2Department of Physics University of Helsinki FI-00014 Finland

The importance of providing secondary education in nanoscience and nanotechnology has beenrecognized throughout the world The rationale of this study was to lay the groundwork for sys-tematically organized teacher training by finding out Finnish science teachersrsquo views of the needsand resources for teaching nanoscience in secondary school An online survey consisting of bothclosed and open-ended questions was conducted in late fall 2009 The invitation to answer thequestionnaire was sent to members of the Finnish Mathematics and Science Teachersrsquo Associa-tion The respondents (n = 107) were mostly physics chemistry and mathematics teachers Theresults reveal that although the majority of respondents finds it important to address nanosciencein schools the lack of schoolsrsquo and teachersrsquo own resources hinder incorporating these issues intoscience lessons Our study discusses and analyzes the intrinsic and extrinsic barriers in regardto the teaching of nanoscience The results highlight the need for organizing both pre-service andin-service teacher training revising the curriculum and developing teaching materials and out-of-school learning environments related to nanoscience

Keywords Curriculum Change Nanoscience Nanotechnology Out-of-School LearningProfessional Development Teachersrsquo Barriers Teachersrsquo Views

1 INTRODUCTION

11 Arguing the Case for Nanoscience Education

Socioeconomic needs for providing education innanoscience have surfaced throughout the world TheOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment (OECD) estimates that positions of employmentrelating to nanoscience are expected to increase in numberby 2 million by the year 2015 worldwide (PalmbergDernis amp Miguet 2009) In the same study the totalmarket value of nanotechnology products is estimated totop one thousand billion US dollars While nanoscienceis a steady research topic in universities there are fewworking professionals available to industries includingResearch and Development who possess deep knowledgeof a field combined with an understanding of nanoscienceA study interviewing European entrepreneurs and com-pany leaders in nanotechnology-related businesses (Singh2007) found that employers were not as interested inhiring specialists as they were in generalists with skills

lowastAuthor to whom correspondence should be addressed

in several fields 42 of respondents indicated problemsin finding professionals with appropriate knowledge andskillsBeyond the economic concerns related to the workforce

in nanoscience-related fields it has also been argued thatsome level of understanding of nanoscience is required forup-to-date scientific literacy (eg Gardner Jones TaylorForrester amp Robertson 2010 Laherto 2010 Sabelli et al2005 Stevens Sutherland amp Krajcik 2009) In the nearfuture it is likely that we have to make more decisionsconcerning nanoscience and -technology (NST) both atthe personal level (as consumers) and the societal leveland that concern the future path of NST as it may havesubstantial effects on society (see Brune et al 2006)Hence there is a need to enable citizens to deal withthese issues in an informed and independent way This isespecially important since the prospects of nanotechnologyinvolve both benefits and risks concerning the environ-ment safety and health as well as other ethical concerns(Gardner et al 2010 Schwarz 2004 Moor amp Weckert2004 Berne 2008) In a recent study (Laherto 2011)such a rationale for teaching nanoscience in secondary

J Nano Educ 2011 Vol 3 No 12 1936-744920113001012 doi101166jne20111017 1


IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Barriers to Teaching Nanoscale Science Finnish Teachersrsquo Perspectives Kaumlhkoumlnen et al

school was emphasized by science teachers after attend-ing a course on the content knowledge of nanoscienceand nanotechnology As secondary schools aim to provideeducation for citizenship the applications and implicationsof nanotechnology constitute an important domain More-over some special features in the nature of nanosciencepointed out by philosophers of science render the fieldshighly interesting and relevant in terms of scientific andtechnological literacy (for further discussion on this seeLaherto 2010)From studentsrsquo point of view studying nanoscience

can be more rewarding than traditional science classesIt has frequently been argued that the decline of inter-est in science studies is chiefly due to a disconnectionbetween school science and studentsrsquo lives and also dueto the lack of modern science in curricula (eg Osborne2007) According to the Relevance of Science Education(ROSE) study on student motivation (Lavonen BymanJuuti Meisalo amp Uitto 2005) girls expressed interest ininterdisciplinary topics such as those combining physicsand biology Boys were especially interested in studyingthe implementations of technology Both areas are funda-mental in nanoscience While studentsrsquo interests in areasof nanoscience may vary widely both girls and boys weresignificantly more motivated in studying nanoscience whenit involved experimental work (Hutchinson et al 2011)Due to the aforementioned economic and soci-

etal concerns demands for NST education have beenmade throughout the world Development of educationalresources is one of the main goals of the US NationalNanotechnology Initiativea and the National ScienceFoundation has recommended a thorough incorporationof nanoscale concepts into the education system (Roco2003) The European Commission released an action plan(2005) calling for advances in interdisciplinary educa-tion in nanoscience dialogue on nanoscience issues withthe general public and consumer education In the sec-ond implementation report (European Commission 2009)assessing outcomes of the action plan in 2007ndash2009 thecommission deems the progress in the aforementionedfields insufficient In a follow-up consultation (EuropeanCommission 2010) over 70 of all respondents indi-cated a strong need for developing nanotechnology edu-cation this area was considered as requiring top priorityfor improvement by researchers individuals and researchinstitutes However the demands for NST education havebeen made not only by governments and public admin-istrations but several other bodies have expressed theirconcerns as well industry and commerce civic organi-zations nanoscientists and nanoscience engineers scienceand technology educators and social scientists (egRoberts 2004 Schwarz 2004 Brune et al 2006 SchankKrajcik amp Yunker 2007 Healy 2009 Stevens Delgadoamp Krajcik 2010)

aSee httpwwwnanogov

Throughout the world these demands have also beenanswered to some extent not only by initiating NST edu-cation at an academic level (see comprehensive reviews byBaraton Monk amp Tomellini 2008 Brune et al 2006)but also by launching several projects aiming at incorpo-rating topics of NST in primary andor secondary schoolcurricula (see multiple examples by Sweeney amp Seal2008) The most wide-ranging and systematic initiativeshave been carried out in the US and have been fundedby the National Science Foundation via the National Cen-ter for Learning and Teaching in Nanoscale Science andEngineering These projects include eg workshops andDelphi studies aimed at clarifying the central elements ofNST that should be incorporated into curricula (Sabelliet al 2005 Stevens et al 2009 Wansom et al 2009)The so-called ldquoBig Ideas of Nanosciencerdquo (Stevens et al2009) are shared throughout the field and are often thoughtto form the foundations of nanoscience education Theseideas include eg development of new research methodssize-dependent properties of matter and self-organizing ofmoleculesIn several European countries novel teaching and learn-

ing materials on nanotechnology are currently pilotedwithin the NANOYOU projectb funded by the EuropeanCommission Some efforts of launching NST educationin schools have also been made in Finland though ona smaller scale Since 2007 the University of Jyvaumlskylaumlhas included nanoscience in pre-service science teachertraining and organized several in-service teacher trainingcourses and workshops relating to NST as well as optionalschool courses for upper secondary school studentsc In2010 the Finnish science center Heureka started organiz-ing NST workshops for teachers These workshops are apart of the international Time for Nano projectd funded bythe European Commission The Department of Physics atthe University of Helsinki also arranged a summer coursefor science teachers in 2008 approaching the topic of NSTfrom several viewpointsA number of approaches for embedding NST education

in the primary and secondary school levels have alreadybeen suggested and many results published internation-ally including a comparison of models developed in theUS and in Finland (Sederberg Lindell Latvala Bryanamp Viiri 2010) Most of the reported classroom solutionshave been somewhat successful but several challenges andproblems have been reported regarding the attempts tobring NST content into school curricula (for a comprehen-sive set of reported projects and outcomes see Sweeneyamp Seal 2008) Mostly these challenges have been relatedto a lack of time resources and teachersrsquo knowledge aswell as to the sophistication of NST concepts

bThe NANOYOU project aims to increase young peoplersquos basic under-standing of nanotechnologies and to engage them in the dialogue aboutits ethical legal and social aspects See httpwwwnanoyoueu

cSee httpnanokoulunetendSee httptimefornanoeu

2 J Nano Educ 3 1ndash12 2011


IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE

Kaumlhkoumlnen et al Intrinsic and Extrinsic Barriers to Teaching Nanoscale Science Finnish Teachersrsquo Perspectives

12 Teachersrsquo Barriers Concerning ScienceCurriculum Innovations

In general teachers play a lsquomake-or-breakrsquo role in anycurriculum innovation (Kelly 2004) Research has shownthat teachersrsquo perspectives must be found out and takeninto account in order to facilitate a reform of the cur-riculum or other changes in school practices (Anderson ampHelms 2001 Davis 2003 Peers Diezmann amp Watters2003 Roehrig Kruse amp Kern 2007 van Driel Beijaardamp Verloop 2001) Furthermore as the national stan-dards leave room for teachersrsquo input especially at elemen-tary and secondary school levels teachers in the Finnisheducational system are deeply involved not only in imple-menting but also in formulating the curriculum (see egPehkonen Ahtee amp Lavonen 2007) It is therefore nat-ural to begin any process of amending the curriculum byconsidering teachersrsquo conceptions This view ndash makingteachers engage in educational reforms already in an earlyphase ndash is widely supported in research as well (see egAnderson amp Helms 2001 Clandinin amp Connelly 1992Davis 2003 Kelly 2004 van Driel et al 2001)Accordingly considerable research has been published

on barriers that hinder teachers in their efforts to incorpo-rate new contents or instructional methods in their teach-ing of science (eg Bamberger amp Krajcik 2010 Davis2003 Peers et al 2003 Roehrig et al 2007) Whilediscussing the integration of technology into the class-room Ertmer (1999) distinguished between first-order bar-riers and second-order barriers The former are ldquoextrinsicto teachers and include lack of access to computers andsoftware insufficient time to plan instruction and inade-quate technical and administrative supportrdquo whereas thelatter are ldquointrinsic to teachers and include beliefs aboutteaching beliefs about computers established classroompractices and unwillingness to changerdquo (p 48) Ourpresent study adopts Ertmerrsquos classification into the con-text of teaching specific content that relating to NSTand employs the terms intrinsic and extrinsic barriers ina manner similar to the recent study by Bamberger andKrajcik (2010)The intrinsic barriers discussed in this study relate to

teachersrsquo knowledge beliefs and self-efficacy regardingthe teaching of NST In related literature in-service train-ing and teachersrsquo learning in networks have been shownto be effective in bringing down such barriers (Bambergeramp Krajcik 2010 van Driel et al 2001) The need forsuch teacher training programs on NST has been surfac-ing worldwide eg the ldquoBig Ideasrdquo project highlightsteacher preparation as a significant challenge ldquoto the goalof an NSEe-educated citizenryrdquo (Stevens et al 2009pp 173ndash178) It seems clear that the professional trainingof teachers is a prerequisite at the secondary school levelof teaching NST (cf Bamberger amp Krajcik 2010 Healy

eNanoscale Science and Engineering

2009 van Driel et al 2001) However basic universitycourses on these emerging fields have only been availablesince recent years and NST is not a part of the curricu-lum for pre-service science teachers In Finland not muchin-service training is being offered as elaborated on in theintroduction of our studyBesides these intrinsic barriers schoolsrsquo limited

resources for NST education were expected to create somebarriers that are extrinsic to teachers Previous research hasshown that teachers generally face a considerable num-ber of obstacles that prevent them from reforming theirteaching (Peers et al 2003) In the context of NST arecent study by Bamberger and Krajcik (2010) pointed outthat it is crucial to deal with extrinsic barriers such astime constraints need for change in standards and lackof instructional materials in order to enable NST teachingAccording to a study carried out by Hutchinson Bryan andDaly (2009) in the context of NST the primary barriersperceived by teachers were extrinsic onesThe Finnish (and similarly the US) secondary school

curriculum does not explicitly refer to the fields of NST(FNBE 2003 FNBE 2004) Bamberger and Krajcik(2010) pointed out that time constraints essentially hinderNST teaching since the topics are not elaborated in thecurriculum (Stevens et al 2009) Lack of time has beenfound to be a major barrier to the implementation of NSTteaching (Hutchinson et al 2009) and other innovationsin the science curriculum (Peers et al 2003)Another extrinsic barrier highlighted in related litera-

ture is the paucity of teaching materials Although someinstructional materials on NST have recently been devel-oped (eg Stevens et al 2009) there are hardly any text-books available that are suitable for the secondary schoollevel and none in Finnish Furthermore the educationalmaterials on the Internet are mostly in Englishf and somein Germang etc but few in Finnishh Another challenge forteachers is the lack of instruments needed for conductingexperimental work or inquiry-based activities despite thissurprisingly many kinds of classroom activities related toNST have been reportedi Also while lsquorealrsquo instrumentssuch as scanning tunneling microscopes (STM) are avail-able for educational purposes at the academic level theirprices still make them unattainable for most secondaryschools An interesting solution for making nanoscalemeasurements in the classroom is an online remote accessto an atomic force microscope (AFM) placed in a univer-sity laboratory (Sweeney amp Seal 2008)The present study examined Finnish science teachersrsquo

perceptions regarding the barriers ndash both intrinsic and

f eg httpnanopediacaseedu httpwwwnanomissionorg httpwwwstrangematterexhibitcom httpwwwnanosciencecamacukschoolslinkshtmlgeg httpwwwnanoreisendehSee httpwwwnanokoulunetiSee eg Planinsic 2008 Lindell amp Viiri 2009 comprehensive col-

lection of other examples Sweeney amp Seal 2008

J Nano Educ 3 1ndash12 2011 3


IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE


extrinsic ndash that hinder the incorporation of NST into theFinnish national school curriculum Our primary researchquestion was ldquoWhat do Finnish science teachers per-ceive the needs and necessary resources to be for teach-ing nanoscience in schoolrdquo The intrinsic barriers wereexamined by surveying teachersrsquo opinions concerning theirown resources for NST teaching and also their personalwillingness to participate in professional training At thesame time this study also addressed the extrinsic barriersby asking the teachers about their schoolsrsquo resources forproviding education in the domain of NST

2 METHOD

21 Survey with an Online Questionnaire

The answer to our primary research question was pursuedby conducting a survey in the late fall of 2009 for the pur-pose of tracking teachersrsquo views on teaching nanosciencewithin the Finnish curriculum The survey was carried outas a follow-up to a study by Anssi Lindell (2004) andas such retained much of the original questioning formatNew questions were added to further clarify the increas-ing existence of teaching materials suitable for teachingnanoscience and to evaluate which are the favored waysfor integrating nanoscience content in science lessonsThe questionnaire consisted of mostly closed-ended

questions and provided a rating scale for teachers to checktheir experience against There were also three open-endedquestions which were included to investigate the teach-ersrsquo views of what is actually involved in nanoscience andteaching nanoscience and created space for them to givehelpful hints make comments or provide feedback in gen-eral The complete wording of the questionnaire is avail-able in Appendix AThe questionnaire was placed on a web page that

required an ldquoinvitation coderdquo to answer the questionsFinnish science teachers were invited to answer the ques-tionnaire in November and December of 2009 over aperiod of two weeks The invitations were sent via e-mailthrough regional branches of the Mathematics and ScienceTeachersrsquo Association (MAOL) The individual answerswere gathered and added to a database without saving anyinformation on the identity of the respondentsThe form consisted of questions relating to the respon-

dentsrsquo background and their specific experience relatingto nanoscience or the teaching of nanoscience The back-ground questions inquired about respondentsrsquo gender ageand teaching experience in general The other questionswere divided into two sections respondentsrsquo current situ-ation in teaching nanoscience (7 questions) and their per-ceived future in teaching nanoscience (9 questions)

22 Participants

The questionnaire potentially reached 4400 science teach-ers who are members of the MAOL A total of 107 of

these teachers answered the survey of whom 42 weremale and 58 female This is a representative genderdistribution of Finnish science teachers There is a natu-ral bias towards those teachers who were most interestedin answering surveys or in NST education in generalthe responses were thereby interpreted as views of moreinformed and active teachers in the community Suchteachers are ultimately also those who will work togetherwith the research community in the early stages of a pos-sible curriculum change According to our survey resultsthe respondentsrsquo interest in answering the survey did nothowever translate to embracing nanoscience teaching ingeneral The responses offer an insight into the teachersrsquodoubts and hindrances as well as excitementThe vast majority of respondents were middle-aged or

older and nearly half of the respondents had more than20 years of teaching experience as shown in Figure 1Roughly half of the respondents worked in an upper sec-ondary school (students aged 16ndash19 years) and 38 inlower secondary school (students aged 13ndash15 years) Theremaining 10 were divided between higher educationand vocational schools (see Fig 2) Because the sci-ence subjects are taught separately after primary school inFinland the teachers were asked to indicate which sub-jects they taught The open question was answered by98 respondents (92 of the sample) which is enough toensure that the distribution is representative of the wholesample Of those who answered 85 taught at least someMathematics 73 at least some Physics 68 Chemistry

Fig 1 Age groups of respondents (above) and their teaching experience(below)



IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE


Fig 2 The current workplace of respondents at the time of themeasurement

12 Computer Science and 4 Biology The most com-mon combination of subjects was Physics Chemistry andMathematics reported by 38It appears that the sample is not representative of the

typical science teacher as the field of Biology is drasti-cally underrepresented This deficit is mostly due to havingapproached teachers through the MAOL which is pre-dominantly an association for mathematical science teach-ers Furthermore most teaching positions in Finland areoffered for combinations of subjects where Physics andChemistry is far more popular than either of them pairedoff with Biology Therefore the results presented here aremost representative of Physics and Chemistry teachersrsquoviews and perceptions

3 RESULTS

31 Questions on the Current Situation

Physics and Chemistry were suggested as nanoscience sub-jects by most respondents (93 and 94 respectively) Asseen in Figure 3 together with Biology (80) these threemost popular subjects form the traditional areas classifiedas having content relating to nanoscience Mathematicsand Computer Science were also mentioned considerablyoften in this regard with teachers also being familiar withcomputational areas of science Philosophy and Environ-mental Sciences both only received one suggestionThe open question ldquoWhat is meant by nanosciencerdquo

received vague answers along the lines of ldquoresearch ofobjects having nanometer scale-sizerdquo or ldquoscience of verysmall objectsrdquo While 80 teachers did answer the questiononly six admitted that they did not know what nanoscienceis (and an additional one became apparent by the answerldquoresearch on particles smaller than an atomrdquo) Althoughmost answers only involved the size of the objects 38mentioned the development of applications but only threeexplicitly stated that the properties of materials are differ-ent at the nanoscaleOnly 65 of the teachers introduced nanoscience con-

tent to their students in some way at least once in a while

Fig 3 The school subjects teachers identified as having nanosciencecontent

and 26 did not do so at all (Fig 4) In the commentsteachers who had opted not to mention nanoscience in theirclass mentioned the lack of materials suited for lower sec-ondary schools One upper secondary teacher laments howldquo[t]here may be lots of material especially in the modernphysics course but we hardly have time to go through itrdquoSchool resources for the teaching of nanoscience were

considered mostly poor or nonexistent (see Fig 5) Only19 of the respondents assessed their school as beingmoderately or well-equipped in overall teaching resourcesand merely 10 made the same assessment concerningexperimental resources In the section for open commentsfour teachers made comments on the economic situationof their school three linked the scarcity of resources asresulting in the limited possibility for school excursionsand a lower secondary school teacher commented ldquoWe arerestricted to only make small supply purchases and schoolexcursions are not a part of our programrdquo An experiencedupper secondary teacher asked ldquoIs there any funding forstudents from further away to make a school excursionpossiblerdquo Another concern was raised by an upper sec-ondary teacher who found it ldquohard to believe that schoolsand districts can given the current economic situationoffer resources for teaching something novelrdquo even thoughhe later notes that ldquothe material resources in [his] schoolare goodrdquo

Fig 4 Occurrence of nanoscience content in respondentsrsquo classes



IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE


Fig 5 The resources for teaching nanoscience in the respondentsrsquoschools in general (blue) and specifically for experimental teaching anddemonstrations (red)

The resources for experimental teaching in particularwere alarmingly low and even nonexistent for 49 ofrespondents 20 of respondents chose the ldquodo not knowrdquocategory This is reflected in a comment by a universitylecturer ldquoIn reality hardly any teacher has knowledge ofwhat nanoscience at the school level could berdquoTeachers ranked their own resources (Fig 6) higher than

the school resources with 27 of teachers assessing them-selves to be at a ldquomoderaterdquo level or higher in the overallteaching of nanoscience and 20 made this claim in par-ticular to experimental teaching Another big differencewas the level of information available though teacherswere not certain of their schoolsrsquo resources they were verycapable of rating their own resources with only 7 statingthat they ldquodo not knowrdquo what their level isEducational materials are a key resource for the support

of nanoscience teaching The results seen in Figure 7 showthat only 10 of the responding teachers had access tomaterial that supports NST education even ldquomoderatelyrdquoand none to materials that support it ldquowellrdquo The majorityof the teachers were using materials that do not supportNST education at all or were not sure if they do

Fig 6 The respondentsrsquo own resources for teaching nanoscience ingeneral (blue) and those for experimental teaching and demonstrations(red) in particular

Fig 7 Support available in the form of teaching materials relating tonanoscience

32 Questions about the Future

Over 60 of the teachers predicted that nanoscience wouldhave a big or great influence in the future (Fig 8) Only2 believed that the influence will be little at best Scienceteachers seemed enthusiastic concerning new develop-ments related to nanoscience in their field The open-endedquestions shed some light on the teachersrsquo enthusiasmdespite their positive attitudes very few teachers have aclear conception of what nanoscience or nanotechnologycomprises The teachers who appeared to have a deeperunderstanding of nanoscience described it as ldquo[having]nearly unlimited possibilities for application and [making]incredible progress as a fieldrdquo or were fascinated by certainapplications expressed in statements such as ldquothe nanome-ter layers that are applied on the surface of silver jewelryto protect them from oxidizing are incredible stuffrdquo andldquoin medicine and health care the nanotechnology applica-tions are very usefulrdquoIn accordance with the high expectations of nanoscience

having a big influence on society a vast majority of teach-ers opted for schools teaching at least the basics aboutnanoscience to their students (Fig 9) A majority of teach-ers (78) suggested that their school should offer somebasics and 9 would offer more Nanoscience was not

Fig 8 Respondentsrsquo estimates on the influence of nanoscience in thenear future



IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE


Fig 9 The depth of nanoscience school teaching preferred by therespondents (above) and their position on making Nanoscience a separateschool subject within their school (below)

seen as a special case but as a part of science in general ndashit should be taught but not at the expense of other contentSeveral teachers commented on the already full curriculumand over-burdened studentsThis attitude was also seen in the responses to whether

nanoscience should be a separate subject 64 of theteachers answered ldquonordquo to this An upper secondary schoolteacher reflects further on this question ldquoIn my opin-ion nanoscience could be a factor that ties upper sec-ondary courses in science together I donrsquot know if itrequires a special course or whether you could sprinklethe [nanoscience] contents across the courses in differentsubjectsrdquoAs can be seen in Figure 10 opportunities for teacher

training as part of their professional development (PD) cre-ated a lot of interest 75 of the teachers would attenda Nanoscience PD course A 1ndash2 day course was seen asthe best option (chosen by 50 of those who were inter-ested in attending in-service training) closely followedby the option of having a long-range development pro-gram every once in a while (43) Two of the teachersreported their experience of having attended a nanosciencePD course one in Helsinki and one in Munich Therewere also suggestions for PD courses given in the Com-ments section of the questionnaire - weekend courseswere preferred over those held on weekdays and anotherrespondent recommended a structured training course with

Fig 10 Interest in participating in a nanoscience professional devel-opment course (above) and the preferred scale of involvement of thoseinterested in a course (below)

in-school assignments between the PD sessions A largepercentage of teachers (56) were also interested in devel-oping nanoscience demonstrations in the laboratory oftheir school Nonetheless in contrast to this optimismthe answers also reflected a pessimistic attitude concerningthe available resources for promoting PD (see Fig 11) Thepossibilities for improving laboratory equipment seemedparticularly unfavorable these were nonexistent for nearlyhalf of the respondentsWhen asked further about the ways the teachers would

prefer to introduce nanoscience in their classes theanswers were cautiously positive for all given possibilitiesThe detailed division of interests is portrayed in Figure 12

Fig 11 The resources of schools for promoting professional devel-opment and improving laboratory equipment and tools for nanoscienceeducation



IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE


Fig 12 The teachersrsquo expressed interest in different ways of including nanoscience in the class ranging from possibilities within the classroom tomaking school excursions to companies or universities dealing with nanoscience

The rating ldquovery interestedrdquo was mostly given to a visit toa nanoscience laboratory a nanoscience DVD to watch inclass and a visit to a nanoscience company The teacherswere least interested in the options of a visit to a museumor science exhibit and internet-based studying materials(7 and 5 of teachers respectively) Some commentselaborated on these issues explaining that the schoolslocated farther away from the big cities are not in a posi-tion to offer visits to science exhibitions particularly dueto a lack of funding One upper secondary teacher explainshis critical stance concerning study materials ldquoIndepen-dent studying with eg internet-based materials hasnrsquotconvinced me in terms of learning resultsrdquo A lower sec-ondary school teacher remarks that while the independentuse of web-based materials may work in upper secondaryschool it is not the case at the comprehensive school level

4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

41 Intrinsic Barriers

As defined earlier the intrinsic barriers investigated inthis study consist of knowledge beliefs and self-efficacyin regard to NST teaching (cf Bamberger amp Krajcik2010 Ertmer 1999 van Driel et al 2001) The teach-ers who participated in our study expressed concern overtheir skills and resources in teaching nanoscience The vastmajority ranked their own resources as ldquopoorrdquo or worseIn part these resources consist of some content knowledgeand not many teachers explicitly admitted to not knowingwhat nanoscience is at all A recognizable number of theteachers had at least a moderately detailed understandingof what nanoscience entails and recognized a connectionto the fields of quantum mechanics and medicine The dis-crepancy is explained by the other major part of teachersrsquoresources ndash the pedagogical knowledge and the pedagog-ical content knowledge (Shulman 1986) ndash as was evidentin the teachersrsquo comments The teachers apart from threewho had attended a PD course or a nanoscience lecturewere unsure of what nanoscience would be at the school

level Hence it seems that there are major intrinsic barri-ers relating not only to the limited content knowledge butalso and perhaps more importantly to the lack of peda-gogical content knowledgeThe results of the survey suggest that the majority of

teachers are ready and willing to take a professional devel-opment course on nanoscience Ertmerrsquos postulated unwill-ingness of teachers to change practices (1999) does notseem to be a crucial internal barrier among the Finnishteachers responding Instead the teachers in our studyexpressed confidence in the idea of taking a PD course ifpresented well helping them to systematically overcomethe aforementioned barriersWhile the respondents indicated their interest in pro-

fessional development the teachersrsquo positive response canbe delusive A potential threat to the reliability of theseresults shows in the response of a teacher who commentedldquoWe will answer lsquoI suppose sorsquo or lsquoit seems like funrsquo [inthese questionnaires] because we donrsquot want to be labeledas old-fashionedrdquo It is also worth noting that the teach-ers who responded to the questionnaire are likely to bemore interested in classroom development and thus rep-resent a biased sample in terms of willingness to changeThis notion is supported by the teachers having rankedtheir own resources consistently higher than those of theirschools In this kind of an exploratory study this need notpose a problem on the contrary the views of teachersalready committed to improving their teaching are valu-able when determining the next course of action On theother hand while it was presumed that the respondents areclearly more knowledgeable about nanoscience than theaverage science teachers the results seem to also ques-tion this assumption Though the depth of some of thedescriptions of nanoscience the teachers gave was impres-sive most were not so There was a clear divide betweenthe teachers who were well-informed in this new area ofscience and those who had only a casual knowledge ofNST at best



IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE


42 Extrinsic Barriers

The anticipated extrinsic barriers documented in litera-ture reviews include time constraints lack of technical andadministrative support need for change in standards andthe need for appropriate teaching materials (cf Bambergeramp Krajcik 2010 Ertmer 1999 Peers et al 2003) In theresults of this study school resources for teaching experi-mental teaching and promoting professional developmentwere perceived as inadequate by the majority As antici-pated the shortcomings in resources for experimental workwere greatest Nearly 50 of the teachers felt their schoolcould not offer experimental teaching of nanoscience atpresent and the same percentage assessed the resources toimprove the laboratories for nanoscience experiments asnonexistentThe teaching material used by the teachers was alarm-

ingly poorly suited to NST education in classrooms thematerials offered poor or no support according to 80of the teachers Hence itrsquos not surprising that the teach-ers indicated an interest in all of the suggested materi-als and means for teaching nanoscience Over 60 of theteachers expressed their being at least ldquoquite interestedrdquo inthe suggestions Teachers were especially interested in theprospect of a DVD on nanoscience which was likely seenas the least work-intensive choice for a teacher Similarlygreat interest was expressed for the possibility to invite ananoscientist into the classroom or to make an excursionto a science center or a company dealing with nanoscienceSome of the choices turned out to be more controversial

than others roughly 5 of teachers had no interest in sci-ence center visits or internet-based learning materials Itwas noted that the distances to suitable science centers canmake it nearly impossible for schools to make excursionsespecially when monetary resources are scarce Learningmaterials for studentsrsquo independent use were criticized asbeing suitable only for older students despite their advan-tages in availability While these drawbacks do not affectall schools or school levels they are a prominent exampleof how certain external barriers can vary between geo-graphical areas and age groupsThe time constraints and the discrepancy perceived

between nanoscience content and the national standardswere not directly inquired about in the survey but thesewere referred to in some of the comments by the teachersMainly the two barriers were closely linked as revealedby teachers commenting as follows ldquoWe teach what isexpected ie by the curriculumrdquo and ldquoThe current physicsstandards do not include nanoscience at all If new contentsare brought in to already fully packed courses somethingmust be left outrdquo The reality in schools is that there is lit-tle time to teach what is erroneously or rightfully seen asldquoextrardquo in general These results probably reflect the gen-eral concerns about the ongoing overall change in teach-ersrsquo duties As pointed out by one respondent ldquoNowadaysI am constantly given new tasks that in my opinion are

unrelated to my work at least in lower secondary schoolThese increase the workload leaving no time or strengthto develop oneself and to learn This is a great misfortunerdquo

43 Ways for Overcoming the Barriers

On the basis of this study incorporating nanoscience intosecondary level science education requires relevant PD ofteachers first and foremost to bring down the intrinsicbarriers Teachers seem to be willing to participate in suchprofessional learning The role of school administration isto create resources for teachers to be able to participate inthe learning opportunitiesBesides in-service teacher PD new classroom materials

are also needed to address nanoscience in science lessonsThe results of the study speak of a dire need for inexpen-sive materials such as DVDs and online resources andequipment for experimental classroom work to be providedin the near future Furthermore many respondents indi-cated that the emerging field of nanoscience can only beeffectively taught at the secondary school level through arevision of the national curriculum standards In particularit was hoped that the consideration of nanoscience wouldalso lead to possibilities for the integration of science top-ics in schools All in all the concerns pointed out by therespondents of this study resemble the views of the USteachers reported by Hutchinson Bryan and Daly (2009)and Bamberger and Krajcik (2010)The main challenge for universities and institutes is to

provide specific PD courses in order to help teachers toteach nanoscience ndash and more generally to teach all sci-ence in a novel way Traditional science education researchand research-inspired instructional approaches are focusedon teaching and learning specific topics in school cur-ricula separately one at a time Nanoscience howeverentails an integrative view of all science It deals with thebehaviour of materials and devices as a combination ofthe atomic and bulk properties and in that approach sev-eral core concepts of several school sciences need to beprocessed simultaneously Teacher PD on nanoscience andthe development of teaching and learning materials shouldconcentrate on using the scale and the rdquoBig Ideasldquo as toolsfor unifying the existing school science rather than onincluding additional modules in the curriculumSince the respondents agreed that general education in

nanoscience should be provided and that at the time it isdifficult to accomplish its integration in schools the find-ings also motivate the search for alternative educationalsolutions The teachers perceived that both types of bar-riers ndash intrinsic and extrinsic ones ndash can be sidesteppedby using out-of-school learning environments and invit-ing nanoscientists to science lessons Such a ldquolightweightrdquointroduction to nanosciences could serve as the startingpoint for a nationwide school-based NST educationThe potential of university-school partnerships in teach-

ing contemporary sciences such as nanoscience has been



IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE


recognized widely Successful practices of this kind havebeen reported worldwide (eg Sweeney amp Seal 2008) butin Finland no such partnerships focusing on NST-relatedissues have yet been initiated On the other hand when itcomes to school group visits to enterprises within relevantindustries as a part of science and technology educationFinland has a long tradition of supporting these (Lavonenet al 2009) Also as there are many nanotechnology-related companies in Finland making respondentsrsquo sug-gestion for students learning about nanoscience by meansof cooperation between schools and related industries seemlike a feasible methodFuthermore augmenting the formal system by imple-

menting informal learning environments such as sciencecenter exhibitions on nanoscience is one workable courseof action For example settings such as museums and sci-ence centers have some advantages eg better resourcessuch as nanoscience-related instruments and materialswith which some of the aforementioned barriers may besidestepped Since informal learning environments by def-inition do not have a binding curriculum most of thepractical hindrances discussed in this paper and especiallythe ones pertaining to the lack of time become easier toovercome in such settings Moreover given the needs dis-cussed in the first section of the present study such infor-mal learning environments can provide a quick responseto the growing public interest in nanoscienceOur present study may be used as groundwork for

research and development of NST education The studypoints out a need for out-of-school and virtual learningenvironments and schoolsrsquo collaboration with universitiesand industry in order to introduce the topics of nanoscienceand nanotechnology to secondary level students ndash and totheir teachers This requires some effort from both sidesteachers should see the visits as opportunities for con-ceptual learning and universities and enterprises shouldrespond by offering more than candy and brochures In thelong run however such activities are not enough ndash sciencecurricula must be revised in order to address the educa-tional needs entailed by nanoscience and nanotechnologyTo begin with a curriculum including comparisons of phe-nomena through different scales would reassure the teach-ers that they are not wasting class time with nanoscienceAs science teachers become responsible for teaching morenanoscience content by themselves they will need strongsupport from the nanoscience and education research com-munities in the form of material resources and professionaldevelopment

Appendix A The Questionnaire onNanoscience Teaching

On the current situation of teaching nanoscienceWhich school subjects include content on nanoscienceI deal with nanoscience content in my teaching (not

at all do not know once in a while continuously)

My schoolrsquos resources for the teaching of nanoscienceare (do not know nonexistent poor moderate goodexcellent)My schoolrsquos resources for experimental teaching or

demonstrations of nanoscience are (do not know nonex-istent poor moderate good excellent)My own resources for the teaching of nanoscience

are (do not know nonexistent poor moderate goodexcellent)My own resources for experimental teaching or demon-

strations of nanoscience are (do not know nonexistentpoor moderate good excellent)The teaching materials I use support nanoscience

education (do not know not at all poorly moderatelywell)On nanoscience education in the futureIn the future I see nanoscience having (do not know

little influence a moderate influence a big influence agreat influence)One should be able to study nanoscience in upper sec-

ondary schools (do not know not at all basics quite alot acquiring deep knowledge)Nanoscience should be made into a new school subject

in my school (do not know no in the future soon)I am interested in participating in nanoscience teacher

training (do not know yes no)If yes on what scale (do not know 1ndash2 days course

once in a while continuous)I am interested in developing nanoscience demonstra-

tions and in improving the laboratory in my school (donot know yes no)My schoolrsquos resources for promoting teachersrsquo profes-

sional development in nanoscience are (do not knownonexistent poor moderate good excellent)My schoolrsquos resources for improving the laboratory

with experimental nanoscience tools are (do not knownonexistent poor moderate good excellent)How interested are you in the following means of includingnanoscience content in your courseSelf-teaching (after receiving materials and a profes-

sional training course) (do not know not at all a littleinterested quite interested very interested)A nanoscientist visiting the class (do not know not

at all a little interested quite interested very interested)A visit to the nanoscience laboratory at a university

(do not know not at all a little interested quite interestedvery interested)A visit to a museum or science center exhibition on

nanoscience (do not know not at all a little interestedquite interested very interested)

A visit to a nanotechnology company (do not knownot at all a little interested quite interested very inter-ested)A DVD on nanoscience to watch at school (do not

know not at all a little interested quite interested veryinterested)



IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE


Internet-based studying material on nanoscience for stu-dentsrsquo independent use (do not know not at all a littleinterested quite interested very interested)Open-ended questionsWhat is meant with nanoscienceWhat are the school subjects that you teach in order

from most to least weekly lessons taughtAny comments

Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledgeNanokoulu and Technology Industries of the Finland Cen-tennial Foundation for their support

References and Notes

Anderson R D amp Helms J V (2001) The ideal of standards and thereality of schools Needed research Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 38(1) 3ndash16

Bamberger Y amp Krajcik J (2010) The role of teachersrsquo barriers inintegrating new ideas into the curriculum The case of nanoscale sci-ence and technology Paper Presented in the Annual Conference of theNational Association of Research in Science Teaching PhiladelphiaPA

Baraton M Monk R amp Tomellini R (2008) European activities innanoscience education and training In Sweeney A E amp Seal S (Eds)Nanoscale science and engineering education (pp 459ndash471) Steven-son Ranch CA American Scientific Publishers

Berne R (2008) Content and pedagogy for ethics education in nanoscalescience and technology development In Sweeney A E amp Seal S(Eds) Nanoscale science and engineering education (pp 547ndash566)Stevenson Ranch CA American Scientific Publishers

Brune H Ernst H Grunwald A Gruumlnwald W Hofmann HKrug H et al (2006) Nanotechnology - assessment and perspectivesBerlin Heidelberg Springer

Clandinin D J amp Connelly F M (1992) Teacher as curriculum makerIn Jackson P W (Ed) Handbook of research on curriculum A projectof the american educational research association (pp 363ndash401)New York Macmillan

Davis K S (2003) Change is hard What science teachers are tellingus about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices ScienceEducation 87(1) 3ndash30

Ertmer P A (1999) Addressing first- and second-order barriers tochange Strategies for technology integration Educational TechnologyResearch and Development 47(4) 47ndash61

European Commission (2005) Nanosciences and nanotechnologies Anaction plan for Europe 2005ndash2009 Belgium European Communities

European Commission (2009) Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Anaction plan for Europe 2005ndash2009 Second Implementation Report2007ndash2009 Belgium European Communities

European Commission (2010) Report on the European CommissionrsquosPublic Online Consultation Towards a Strategic NanotechnologyAction Plan (SNAP) 2010ndash2015 Belgium European Communities

FNBE (2003) National core curriculum for upper secondary schoolsHelsinki Finnish National Board of Education

FNBE (2004) National core curriculum for basic education HelsinkiFinnish National Board of Education

Gardner G Jones G Taylor A Forrester J amp Robertson L (2010)Studentsrsquo risk perceptions of nanotechnology applications Implica-tions for science education International Journal of Science Educa-tion 32(14) 1951ndash1969

Healy N (2009) Why nano education Journal of Nano Education 1(1)6ndash7

Hutchinson K Bodner G amp Bryan L (2011) A qualitative analysisof factors influencing studentsrsquo interests in nanoscale science Journalof Pre-College Engineering Education 1(1) 30ndash39

Hutchinson K Bryan L amp Daly S (2009) Mediators of middle- andhigh-school teachersrsquo integration of nanoscale science and engineeringcontent into their curriculum Proceedings of the Annual Meeting ofthe National Association of Research in Science Teaching San DiegoCA

Kelly A V (2004) The curriculum - theory and practice (5th ed)London SAGE

Laherto A (2010) An analysis of the educational significance ofnanoscience and nanotechnology in scientific and technological liter-acy Science Education International 21(3) 160ndash175

Laherto A (2011) Incorporating nanoscale science and technology intosecondary school curriculum Views of nano-trained science teachersNorDiNa ndash Nordic Studies in Science Education 7(2) 126ndash139

Lavonen J Byman R Juuti K Meisalo V amp Uitto A (2005) Pupilinterest in physics A survey in Finland NorDiNa ndash Nordic Studies inScience Education 2 72ndash85

Lavonen J Laherto A Loukomies A Juuti K Kim MLampiselkauml J et al (2009) Enhancing scientific literacy through theindustry site visit In Rodrigues S (Ed) Multiple literacy and sci-ence education ICTs in formal and informal learning environments(pp 225ndash239) IGIInformation Science Reference Hershey PA

Lindell A (2004) Nanoteknologian alan koulutus Suomen lukioissa jaammattikorkeakouluissa [Nanotechnology education in Finnish sec-ondary schools and vocational high schools] (Unpublished seminarpaper) University of Jyvaumlskylauml Finland

Lindell A amp Viiri J (2009) Teaching oscillations by a model ofnanoresonator Journal of Science Education amp Technology 18(6)556ndash559

Moor J amp Weckert J (2004) Nanoethics Assessing the nanoscale froman ethical point of view In Baird D Nordmann A amp SchummerJ (Eds) Discovering the nanoscale (pp 301ndash310) Amsterdam IOSPress

Osborne J (2007) Engaging young people with science Thoughtsabout future direction of science education In Linder C Oumlstman Lamp Wickman P (Eds) Promoting scientific literacy Science edu-cation research in transaction (pp 105ndash112) Uppsala SwedenGeotryckeriet

Palmberg C Dernis H amp Miguet C (2009) Nanotechnology Anoverview based on indicators and statistics OECD STI WorkingPaper 7

Peers C E Diezmann C M amp Watters J J (2003) Supports andconcerns for teacher professional growth during the implementation ofa science curriculum innovation Research in Science Education 33(1)89ndash110

Pehkonen E Ahtee M amp Lavonen J (Eds) (2007) How Finns learnmathematics and science Rotterdam Sense Publishers

Planinsic G amp Kovac J (2008) Nano goes to school A teaching modelof the atomic force microscope Physics Education 43(1) 37ndash45

Roberts J (2004) Deciding the future of nanotechnologies Legalperspectives on issues of democracy and technology In Baird DNordmann A amp Schummer J (Eds) Discovering the nanoscale(pp 247ndash256) Amsterdam IOS Press

Roco M (2003) Converging science and technology at the nanoscaleOpportunities for education and training Nature Biotechnology21(10) 1247ndash9

Roehrig G H Kruse R A amp Kern A (2007) Teacher and schoolcharacteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation Jour-nal of Research in Science Teaching 44(7) 883ndash907

Sabelli N Schank P Rosenquist A Stanford T Patton CCormia R et al (2005) Report of the workshop on science and tech-nology education at the nanoscale Draft October Menlo Park CASRI International



IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE


Schank P Krajcik J amp Yunker M (2007) Can nanoscience be a cat-alyst for education reform In Allhoff F Lin P Moor J amp WeckertJ (Eds) Nanoethics The ethical and social implications of nanotech-nology (pp 277ndash290) Hobeken NJ Wiley Publishing

Schwarz A (2004) Shrinking the rsquoecological footprintrsquo with Nano-TechnoScience In Baird D Nordmann A amp Schummer J (Eds)Discovering the nanoscale (pp 203ndash208) Amsterdam IOS Press

Sederberg D Lindell A Latvala A Bryan L amp Viiri J (2010)Professional Development for Middle and High School Teachers inNanoscale Science and Technology Models from the United Statesand Finland In Raine D Hurkett C amp Rogers L (Eds) PhysicsCommunity and Cooperation Selected Contributions from the GIREP-EPEC amp PHEC 2009 International Conference (pp 333ndash352) Leices-ter LuluThe Centre for Interdisciplinary Science

Shulman L (1986) Those who understand Knowledge growth in teach-ing Educational Researcher 15(2) 4ndash14

Singh K A (2007) Nanotechnology Skills and Training Survey LondonUK Institute of Nanotechnology Reports

Stevens S Sutherland L amp Krajcik J (2009) The Big Ideas ofNanoscale Science and Engineering Arlington VA NSTA Press

Stevens S Delgado C amp Krajcik J (2010) Developing a hypothet-ical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matterJournal of Research in Science Teaching 47(6) 687ndash715

Sweeney A E amp Seal S (Eds) (2008) Nanoscale science and engi-neering education Stevenson Ranch CA American Scientific Pub-lishers

van Driel J H Beijaard D amp Verloop N (2001) Professional devel-opment and reform in science education The role of teachersrsquo practicalknowledge Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(2) 137ndash58

Wansom S Mason T Hersam M Drane D Light G CormiaR et al (2009) A rubric for post-secondary degree programs innanoscience and nanotechnology International Journal of EngineeringEducation 25(3) 615ndash27

Received 20 June 2011 Accepted 20 October 2011



IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE


school was emphasized by science teachers after attend-ing a course on the content knowledge of nanoscienceand nanotechnology As secondary schools aim to provideeducation for citizenship the applications and implicationsof nanotechnology constitute an important domain More-over some special features in the nature of nanosciencepointed out by philosophers of science render the fieldshighly interesting and relevant in terms of scientific andtechnological literacy (for further discussion on this seeLaherto 2010)From studentsrsquo point of view studying nanoscience

can be more rewarding than traditional science classesIt has frequently been argued that the decline of inter-est in science studies is chiefly due to a disconnectionbetween school science and studentsrsquo lives and also dueto the lack of modern science in curricula (eg Osborne2007) According to the Relevance of Science Education(ROSE) study on student motivation (Lavonen BymanJuuti Meisalo amp Uitto 2005) girls expressed interest ininterdisciplinary topics such as those combining physicsand biology Boys were especially interested in studyingthe implementations of technology Both areas are funda-mental in nanoscience While studentsrsquo interests in areasof nanoscience may vary widely both girls and boys weresignificantly more motivated in studying nanoscience whenit involved experimental work (Hutchinson et al 2011)Due to the aforementioned economic and soci-

etal concerns demands for NST education have beenmade throughout the world Development of educationalresources is one of the main goals of the US NationalNanotechnology Initiativea and the National ScienceFoundation has recommended a thorough incorporationof nanoscale concepts into the education system (Roco2003) The European Commission released an action plan(2005) calling for advances in interdisciplinary educa-tion in nanoscience dialogue on nanoscience issues withthe general public and consumer education In the sec-ond implementation report (European Commission 2009)assessing outcomes of the action plan in 2007ndash2009 thecommission deems the progress in the aforementionedfields insufficient In a follow-up consultation (EuropeanCommission 2010) over 70 of all respondents indi-cated a strong need for developing nanotechnology edu-cation this area was considered as requiring top priorityfor improvement by researchers individuals and researchinstitutes However the demands for NST education havebeen made not only by governments and public admin-istrations but several other bodies have expressed theirconcerns as well industry and commerce civic organi-zations nanoscientists and nanoscience engineers scienceand technology educators and social scientists (egRoberts 2004 Schwarz 2004 Brune et al 2006 SchankKrajcik amp Yunker 2007 Healy 2009 Stevens Delgadoamp Krajcik 2010)

aSee httpwwwnanogov

Throughout the world these demands have also beenanswered to some extent not only by initiating NST edu-cation at an academic level (see comprehensive reviews byBaraton Monk amp Tomellini 2008 Brune et al 2006)but also by launching several projects aiming at incorpo-rating topics of NST in primary andor secondary schoolcurricula (see multiple examples by Sweeney amp Seal2008) The most wide-ranging and systematic initiativeshave been carried out in the US and have been fundedby the National Science Foundation via the National Cen-ter for Learning and Teaching in Nanoscale Science andEngineering These projects include eg workshops andDelphi studies aimed at clarifying the central elements ofNST that should be incorporated into curricula (Sabelliet al 2005 Stevens et al 2009 Wansom et al 2009)The so-called ldquoBig Ideas of Nanosciencerdquo (Stevens et al2009) are shared throughout the field and are often thoughtto form the foundations of nanoscience education Theseideas include eg development of new research methodssize-dependent properties of matter and self-organizing ofmoleculesIn several European countries novel teaching and learn-

ing materials on nanotechnology are currently pilotedwithin the NANOYOU projectb funded by the EuropeanCommission Some efforts of launching NST educationin schools have also been made in Finland though ona smaller scale Since 2007 the University of Jyvaumlskylaumlhas included nanoscience in pre-service science teachertraining and organized several in-service teacher trainingcourses and workshops relating to NST as well as optionalschool courses for upper secondary school studentsc In2010 the Finnish science center Heureka started organiz-ing NST workshops for teachers These workshops are apart of the international Time for Nano projectd funded bythe European Commission The Department of Physics atthe University of Helsinki also arranged a summer coursefor science teachers in 2008 approaching the topic of NSTfrom several viewpointsA number of approaches for embedding NST education

in the primary and secondary school levels have alreadybeen suggested and many results published internation-ally including a comparison of models developed in theUS and in Finland (Sederberg Lindell Latvala Bryanamp Viiri 2010) Most of the reported classroom solutionshave been somewhat successful but several challenges andproblems have been reported regarding the attempts tobring NST content into school curricula (for a comprehen-sive set of reported projects and outcomes see Sweeneyamp Seal 2008) Mostly these challenges have been relatedto a lack of time resources and teachersrsquo knowledge aswell as to the sophistication of NST concepts

bThe NANOYOU project aims to increase young peoplersquos basic under-standing of nanotechnologies and to engage them in the dialogue aboutits ethical legal and social aspects See httpwwwnanoyoueu

cSee httpnanokoulunetendSee httptimefornanoeu



IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE
















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE



2 METHOD






22 Participants







IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





3 RESULTS











IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE














IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE
















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





























IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE










































IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE
















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE



2 METHOD






22 Participants







IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





3 RESULTS











IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE














IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE
















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





























IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE










































IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE



2 METHOD






22 Participants







IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





3 RESULTS











IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE














IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE
















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





























IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE










































IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





3 RESULTS











IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE














IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE
















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





























IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE










































IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE














IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE
















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





























IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE










































IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE
















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





























IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE










































IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE












IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE
















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





























IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE










































IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE
















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





























IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE










































IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE





























IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE










































IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE










































IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE















IP 881149879Tue 05 Jun 2012 205426

RESEARCH

ARTIC

LE














intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to teaching nanoscale

Documents