Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 16 no. 1 (2023)

Secondary Science Teachers’ Perception on Teaching Nanotechnology and Nanoscience Concepts: Challenges and Experiences

Anwar Kolong

Discipline: social sciences (non-specific)

 

Abstract:

The study primarily aims to assess science teachers' perception in teaching nanotechnology and nanoscience concepts inside the classroom. A descriptive qualitative survey and interview were utilized in the study. Fourteen (N=14) science secondary teachers from three (3) secondary schools in MBTHE-Basilan was purposively selected to analyze and interpret the present status of the teachers' experiences and encountered problems and challenges during the instruction of nanotechnology and nanoscience concepts. Findings showed that most respondents were Biology majors (8;57%), Teacher-I (12;85.7%) rendering less than 5 years in public schools (6; 42.85%), Taking Master in Education-major in Educational Administration (13;92.87%). Respondents were properly acquainted with nanotechnology concepts and issues as most of the respondents cannot provide examples related to nanotechnology and nanoscience (14;100%) due to identified factors such as Teacher’s TPACK on teaching nanotechnology, time constraints, available assessment, and classroom set-up. Moreover, The research underscores the urgent need for specialized pedagogical training and curriculum development. One recommendation is to broaden the research scope for a comprehensive understanding of educators' perceptions. The proposed strategy, featuring a curriculum framework, collaborative partnerships, and professional development, aims to address obstacles and foster a community of scientifically literate teachers.



References:

  1. Allhoff, F., Lin, P., Moor, J., & Weckert, J. (2007). Nanoethics. Hoboken: Wiley.
  2. Albe, V., & Ruel, F. (2008). Des enseignements de sciences dans une perspective d’e´ducation citoyenne? Didaskalia, 33, 121–140
  3. Alivisatos, A. P. (2001). Less is more in medicine—sophisticated forms of nanotechnology will find some of their first real-world applications in biomedical research, disease diagnosis and, possibly, therapy. Scientific American, 285(3), 66–73.
  4. Ashley, S. (2001). Nanobot construction crews—nanotechnology visionaries find out how difficult it is to develop minuscule robots that can treat diseases or perform pollution-free manufacturing. Scientific American, 285(3), 84–85
  5. Bosser, I., Lundin, M., Lindahl, M., & Linder, C., (2015). Challenges faced by teachers implementing socio-scientific issues as core elements in their classroom practices. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Vol. 3, No. 2, 2015, 159‐176. DOI: 10.30935/sci math/9429.
  6. Cobb, M. D. & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 395-405.
  7. Drexler, K. E. (2001). Machine-phase nanotechnology—a molecular nanotechnology pioneer predicts that the tiniest robots will revolutionize manufacturing and transform society. Scientific American, 285(3), 74–75.
  8. Ekli, E., & Sahin, N. (2010). Science teachers and teacher candidates’ basic knowledge, opinions and risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2667-2670.
  9. Fernandez, J. M., & Tapia, R. A. (2018). Filipino science teachers’ awareness, knowledge and perception of nanotechnology. Journal of Science Education in Southeast Asia, 41(2), 136-156
  10. Garcia, M. E. R., & Peñano-Hamel, C. S. (2019). Filipino high school students’ perceptions and attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Science Education in Southeast Asia, 42(2), 155-171.
  11. Gilbert, J. K., & Lin, H. (2013). How might adults learn about new Science and technology? The case of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B: Communicat. Pub. Engage. 2013, 3,pg.267–292. DOI:10.1080/21548455.2012.736035
  12. Greenberg, A. (2009). Integrating nanoscience into the classroom: Perspectives on nanoscience education projects. ACS Nano, 3(4), 762-769.
  13. Hingant B., Albe V. (2010) Nanosciences and nanotechnologies learning and teaching in secondary education: a review of literature. Stud. Sci. Educ., 46, 121–152
  14. Jones, M. G., Blonder, R., Gardner, G. E., Albe, V., Falvo, M., & Chevrier, J. (2013). Nanotechnology and Nanoscale Science: Educational challenges, International Journal of Science Education, DOI:10.1080/09500693.2013.771828
  15. Lan YL.(2012). Development of an attitude scale to assess K-12 teachers’ attitudes toward nanotechnology. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34, 1189–1210.
  16. Lin SF, Lin H, Wu Y. (2013). Validation and exploration of instruments for assessing public knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2013, 22, 548–55
  17. Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2013). Proposals that work: A guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  18. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  19. Mendoza, C. R., & Mendoza, C. C. (2018). Nanotechnology as a context for teaching science in the Philippines: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Science Education in Southeast Asia, 41(1), 30-41.
  20. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  21. Pailan, R. G., & Tumlos, R. B. (2018). Filipino science teachers’ knowledge and experiences in teaching nanotechnology. Journal of Science Education in Southeast Asia, 41(2), 157-171.
  22. Paš, M., Vogrinc, J., Raspor, P., Kneževič, N. U. & Zajc, J. Č. (2019). Biotechnology learning in Slovenian upper-secondary education: Gaining knowledge and forming attitudes. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(1), 110-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018491473
  23. Pitiporntapin S., Yutakom N, Sadler T.D., & Hines L., (2019). Enhancing pre-service science teachers’ understanding and practices of socio-scientific issues (SSIs). Based Teaching via an Online Mentoring Program. Asian Social Science; Vol. 14, No. 5; 2018 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025. Doi:10.5539/ass.v14n5p1.
  24. Subramani K, Ahmed W. (2012). Nanotechnology and the future of dentistry. In Emerging Nanotechnologies in Dentistry, Subramani, K, Ahmed, W, Eds., William Andrew: Oxford, UK, 2012, pp. 1–14
  25. Roco, M. C., Mirkin, C. A. & Hersam, M. C. (2011). Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020: Summary of international study. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(3), 897-919.
  26. Roco, M., & Bainbridge, W. (2007). Nanotechnology: Societal implications II: Individual perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
  27. Roco MC. (2002). Nanotechnology – A frontier for engineering education.International Journal of Engineering Education, 18, 1–16.
  28. Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. F. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  29. Schank P, Krajcik JS, Yunker M. (2007). Can nanoscience be a catalyst for education reform? In Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology, Allhoff, PLF, Moor, J, Weckert, J, Eds., Wiley Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, 2007, pp. 277–289
  30. Stavrou D., Michailidi E., Sgouros G. & Dimitriad K., (2015) Teaching high-school students nanoscience and nanotechnology, International Journal on Math Science and Technology Education LUMAT 3(4); DOI: 10.31129/lumat.v3i4.1019: retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324171638
  31. Stevens, S., Sutherland, L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). The ‘big ideas’ of nanoscale science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association press.
  32. Stix, G. (2001). Nanotechnology is all the rage. But will it meet its ambitious goals? And what the heck is it? Scientific American, 285(3), 32–37.
  33. Topçu S.T., Foulk J.A., Sadler T.D., Pitiporntapin S., & Atabey N., (2018). The classroom observation protocol for socioscientific issue-based instruction: development and implementation of a new research tool. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36:3, 302-323, DOI:10.1080/02635143.2017.1399353
  34. Zeidler, D. L. & B. H. Nichols. (2009). Socio-scientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education 21(2): 49-58.

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic