Science Policy Reports

Kurt Winkelmann
Bharat Bhushan Editors

Global Perspectives
of Nanoscience
and Engineering
Education
Global Perspectives of Nanoscience
and Engineering Education
Science Policy Reports
The series Science Policy Reports presents the endorsed results of important studies
in basic and applied areas of science and technology. They include, to give just a
few examples: panel reports exploring the practical and economic feasibility of a
new technology; R & D studies of development opportunties for particular mate-
rials, devices or other inventions; reports by responsible bodies on technology
standardization in developing branches of industry.
Sponsored typically by large organizations - government agencies, watchdogs,
funding bodies, standards institutes, international consortia - the studies selected for
Science Policy Reports will disseminate carefully compiled information, detailed
data and in-depth analysis to a wide audience. They will bring out implications of
scientific discoveries and technologies in societal, cultural, environmental, political
and/or commercial contexts and will enable interested parties to take advantage of
new opportunities and exploit on-going development processes to the full.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8882

Kurt Winkelmann • Bharat Bhushan
Editors

Global Perspectives of
Nanoscience and Engineering
Education
Editors
Kurt Winkelmann Bharat Bhushan
Department of Chemistry Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Florida Institute of Technology The Ohio State University
Melbourne Columbus
Florida Ohio
USA USA

ISSN 2213-1965 ISSN 2213-1973 (electronic)

Science Policy Reports
ISBN 978-3-319-31832-5 ISBN 978-3-319-31833-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016943643

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland
Foreword

Nanotechnology Education in an Inspiring World

of Convergence

Since 2000, more discoveries have come from nanotechnology than any other field of
science. Now its discoveries are penetrating all aspects of society—new industries,
medicine, agriculture, and the management of natural resources, as well as knowl-
edge and education at all levels. Today nanotechnology researchers are learning to
control and rearrange the basic atomic and molecular building blocks, serving as a
foundational science and technology for understanding nature and creating things that
were not possible before. Nanotechnology outcomes are still at the beginning of the
potential nano-knowledge transformations, and its convergence with other fields such
as biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive sciences is in formation.
The convergence process is defined as the escalating and transformative interactions
among seemingly different disciplines, technologies, communities, and domains of
human activity to achieve mutual compatibility, synergism, and integration and
through this process to create added value and branch out to meet shared goals. In
anticipation of an accelerating world of technology convergence, a corresponding
educational system for nanotechnology needs to be prepared in advance. This volume
aims at disseminating new education models and teaching tools and spreading the
excitement of the nano-world particularly to researchers, teachers, and younger
generations—for whom nanotechnology’s extraordinary potential will start to be
realized.
In 2000, the National Science and Technology Council formulated a national
and global plan for nanotechnology development based on a long-term vision that
promised to create fundamental understanding of nature from the atomic and
molecular levels and a general-purpose technology with mass commercial and
sustainable use by 2020. That vision triggered large investments in nanotechnology
research in the United States and abroad that reached about 60 countries within only
2 years. Now more than 80 countries have such programs. Worldwide production

v
vi Foreword

revenues from nanotechnology have increased by about 25 % annually on average

between 2000 and 2010 and by more than 35 % annually since 2011. Nano-
technology currently is recognized as a megatrend in science and engineering,
and it is imperative to institutionalize education programs to support the
corresponding workforce preparation and ensure continuing future progress in
science and technology.
The R&D focus in nanotechnology is evolving from synthesizing components
by semiempirical processing and creating a library of nanostructures (such as
carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, and sheets of graphene) during 2000–2010, to
science-based design and manufacturing of nanoscale devices and systems (such as
in biomedicine and nanoelectronics) during 2010–2020, and establishing economic
nanotechnology applications in various technology platforms and immersion in
socioeconomic projects during 2020–2030 (such as integration platforms with
biological, digital, and cognitive sciences and development of nanosystem conver-
gence networks). The dominant trend in the interval 2020–2030 is envisioned to be
the immersion of nanotechnology with other emerging and established technolo-
gies, in industry, medicine, and services, as well as in education and training for
societal progress. Nanotechnology’s impacts could equal and even exceed the
digital revolution by 2030 in terms of science and technology breakthroughs,
investments, and societal importance. Education programs must adapt to enable
the new generations of nanotechnology methods and products, as well as to the
increasingly science and engineering convergence trends.
Convergence is increasingly penetrating knowledge and technology systems.
Convergence is a powerful, transforming trend because it changes the systems in
which it acts, going much beyond interdisciplinarity and interactivity. The power of
convergence will affect education as well. For example, what and how we teach in
nanotechnology will be different, because of the improving unifying concepts,
better access to individualized programs anywhere at any time on any subject,
and availability of nano-enabled portable devices. This leads to a confluence of
ideas that in turn leads to new domains of human activity. At the confluence of
information technology, brain research, and nanotechnology, two examples of such
visionary ideas are “brain-like computing” and “a cognitive personal assistant” to
interpret the surroundings, efficient computing, and decision-making.
Nanoscale science and engineering will increasingly integrate with other knowl-
edge and technology domains in a variety of applications. Convergence between
key technologies subsequently leads to bifurcation into new emerging technology
platforms. Nanotechnology development between about 2000 and 2030 may be
seen as a convergence–divergence process for science and technology megatrends.
Knowledge confluence of bottom-up and top-down disciplines, in various sec-
tors from materials to medicine, adopting new tools and methods of investigation
and synthesis, has led to an increasing control of matter at the nanoscale. This
enables the creation/integration of successive generations of nanotechnology prod-
ucts and productive methods. In the divergent phase, the spiral of innovation leads
to new products and applications that are estimated to be over $3 billion by 2020
and branching out thereafter to new activities including spin-off disciplines and
Foreword vii

productive sectors, business models, expertise, and decision-making approaches.

An essential element of progress is the emergence of completely new skills in
nanotechnology, some of which have resulted from the interface with other fields
and others resultant as a spin-off element of nanoscience, such as spintronics,
plasmonics, metamaterials, carbon nanoelectronics, DNA nanotechnology, opto-
genetics, and molecular design to create hierarchical systems. The exponential
growth of nanotechnology through discoveries, technological transition, horizontal
expansion, confluence with other domains, and its spin-off areas are expected to
continue at high rates through 2030.
Convergence may have various facets in education. Here are several illustrations
of applying convergence principles relevant to nanotechnology education:
– Reversing the pyramid of learning. In undergraduate and graduate schools today,
students are typically taught the various disciplines and methods of investigation
first. Only in the last years of their PhD programs, at the top of the “pyramid” of
learning, do they begin to understand the broader connections among various
domains of learning and general principles of the entire system. A suggested
alternative is to provide the freshmen and sophomore students with unifying,
evolutive concepts for matter, information, biology, and cognitive systems at the
beginning and then advance with studying various particular disciplines. In this
way, one could carry the same basic concepts from one field to another and
create a synergistic view for potential applications in multiple areas of relevance.
Reversing the pyramid of learning would provide a coherent view and motiva-
tion to students in physical, chemical, biological, and engineering sciences at all
levels. The overall goal is a more coherent education. Knowledge would be
better connected and integrated, as it would be introduced from lower levels up.
– A new convergent culture that unites all fields while providing personalized
instruction to meet the individual needs of each person, as those needs evolve
over a lifetime. Culture is defined as “the set of values, conventions, or social
practices associated with a particular field or activity.” The field of convergence
education is concerned with the development of global workforce, citizenry, and
institutional networks prepared to solve convergence challenges in a collabora-
tive mode. The main areas of action are seen in vertical integration over the
lifetime (a continuum across grade levels and life stages), horizontal integration
across disciplines, crosscutting societal and economic relevance of convergence
technologies, and integration of education settings and methodologies to support
convergence learning inside and outside the classroom, such as personalized or
individualized learning.
– Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program,
where graduate students select three or more advisors covering various disci-
plines and departments. This program and its successors (such as NSF Research
Traineeship program) supported by the National Science Foundation have
included an interdisciplinary curriculum to help students learn the language
and culture of another discipline and structured settings in which students
learn to collaborate across disciplines and work in teams to solve research
problems.
viii Foreword

Nanotechnology development is an international endeavor with national

research and development efforts worldwide. Collaboration and interdependence
among national and international programs will be an important factor in the overall
success of nanotechnology developments. Across the major advances in founda-
tional science and technology at present, nanotechnology positions itself as the
most exploratory of them. In nanoscale science and engineering, a primary need is
to advance methodologies for building up nanosystems leading to fundamentally
new applications, giving it perhaps the greatest scope for discovery, manufacturing,
and diversification in the coming years.
In nanotechnology education, one needs to integrate unifying, general-purpose
knowledge of nanoscience among supporting disciplines and with the external
knowledge and technology domains. The positive results in educational experi-
ments have to be scaled up. One way is using mass media for nanotechnology
education (such as the NBC Learn video series “Nanotechnology: Super Small
Science” and the national student competition “Generation Nano”).
This volume presents building blocks and trends for nanotechnology education
of tomorrow. It reflects on various implementation opportunities such as integrative
methods, combining education with research and innovation, and bringing experi-
ences from various countries. This is a valuable reference for both students and
teachers of nanotechnology.

McLean, VA Mihail C. Roco

February 2016
Preface

An understanding of nanoscale science and engineering (NSE) contributes to

economic growth in the twenty-first century. During the past 50 years, basic
nanotechnology research laid the foundation for advances in diverse fields includ-
ing medicine, electronics, and consumer goods, among others. Nanotechnology is
now a part of our daily lives and is improving our standard of living through faster
computers, more effective pharmaceuticals, and other applications. Nanotechnol-
ogy can also help us solve major technological challenges faced throughout the
world, such as global climate change, poverty, and scarcity of natural resources.
Nanotechnology occupies a unique position among traditional technological
disciplines as it incorporates knowledge from chemistry, physics, biology, mate-
rials science, mathematics, and engineering. Social scientists are interested in the
impact of this new field on society and how different cultures in turn can influence
the growth of nanotechnology. In order for research and economic progress in
nanotechnology to continue, educators need to teach future scientists, engineers,
and the general public about this field. Teachers will draw upon the growing body
of knowledge created by education researchers specializing in each of the individ-
ual STEM disciplines, and they will also discover new ways to teach this multi- and
interdisciplinary subject.
The discovery of novel materials, processes, and phenomena at the nanoscale
and the development of new experimental and theoretical techniques for research at
the end of the twentieth century provide fresh opportunities for the development of
innovative nanosystems and nanomaterials. At the beginning of the twenty-first
century, we not only gain a greater understanding to manipulate matter on the
nanoscale, we also realize that our world is interconnected as never before. Students
will grow up to solve problems in their local community and in the global commu-
nity. Our approaches to education need to be as diverse as the students we educate.
We must adopt a global perspective toward teaching and learning nanoscience and
engineering.
This book is the first overview of nanotechnology education with a global
perspective. The pressing challenges of teaching nanoscience and engineering to

ix
x Preface

students in all levels of education—K-12, postsecondary, and informal environ-

ments—are presented. Since nanotechnology is a relatively new field, authors
present recommendations for designing nanotechnology education programs.
Chapters describe methods to teach specific topics, such as probe microscopy,
size and scale, and nanomaterial safety, in classrooms around the world. Other
chapters describe the ways that various organizations have influenced informal
nanotechnology education. Information technology plays a growing role in all types
of education, and several chapters are devoted to describing ways that educators can
use online curricula for teaching nanotechnology to students from preschool to
graduate school.
This book was inspired in part by the 2014 NSF workshop for Nanoscience and
Engineering Education. Chapter authors in this book share their expertise in
nanoscience and engineering education programs and initiatives that have a local,
national, and international impact. Although the principles of science are universal,
learning science is an endeavor influenced by the cultures of the learner and teacher.
It is hoped that readers will use the information in this book to improve nanoscience
and engineering education activities for students in their own classroom and
perhaps around the world as well.

Melbourne, FL Kurt Winkelmann

Columbus, OH Bharat Bhushan
February 2016
Contents

1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance

of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Bharat Bhushan

Part I Interdisciplinary Nature of NSE Education

2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Anna-Leena Kähk€onen, Antti Laherto, Anssi Lindell, and Suvi Tala
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first
Century Nano-STEAM+ Educational Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Daniel J.C. Herr
4 What Are the Basic Concepts of Nanoscale Science and Technology
(NST) that Should Be Included in NST Educational Programs? . . . . . 117
Ron Blonder and Sohair Sakhnini

Part II Curriculum Resources and Cutting-Edge Ideas for NSE

Education
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
A.C. Pic, V.A. Moore, and N.A. Burnham
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Sidney R. Cohen, Ron Blonder, Shelley Rap, and Jack Barokas
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience
and Nanotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Konrad J. Sch€onborn, Gunnar E. H€ost,
and Karljohan E. Lundin Palmerius

xi
xii Contents

8 Nanotechnology Safety Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Walt Trybula, Dominick Fazarro, Craig Hanks, and Jitendra Tate
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for
Curricular Innovations in Context of an Education for
a Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Ralph Nonninger, Janina Dege, Timm Wilke, and Thomas Waitz

Part III Informal, College and Graduate School NSE Curricula

10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net . . . . 277
Larry Bell
11 Nanotechnology Education in Community Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Deb Newberry
12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology
Infrastructure Network (NNIN) 2004–2015: History and
Accomplishments of Undergraduate Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Nancy Healy and Lynn Rathbun
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the
University of Basel Offers Excellent Interdisciplinary Education
at All Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Christel M€
oller, Katrein Spieler, Michel Calame, and Ernst Meyer
14 Forging New Connections Between Nanoscience and Society
in the UCSB Center for Nanotechnology in Society Science
and Engineering Fellows Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
Brandon Fastman, Miriam Metzger, and Barbara Herr Harthorn

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
Chapter 1
Introduction to Nanotechnology: History,
Status, and Importance of Nanoscience
and Nanotechnology Education

Bharat Bhushan

Abstract Nanotechnology refers to technology done at nanoscale that has appli-

cations in the real world. Unique physical and chemical properties of nanomaterials
can be exploited for applications that benefit society. Nanotechnology represents a
“megatrend” and has become a “general purpose” technology. An executive action
of 2000, the National Nanotechnology Initiative was formalized with the twenty-
first Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in 2003. Through FY
2015 in the United States, federal R&D investment has been about $20 billion, with
annual investment in FY 2015 of about $1.5B, and more than double that by the
private sector. The revenues from nano-enabled products continue growing, with
over $200B in FY 2012 in the U.S. alone, and over $700B worldwide. This
represents an impressive return on investment. Research on potential safety issues
of nanotechnology, development of workforce, and education and curriculum
should be continued.

A biological system can be exceedingly small. Many of the cells are very tiny, but they are
very active; they manufacture various substances; they walk around; they wiggle; and they
do all kinds of marvelous things—all on a very small scale. Also, they store information.
Consider the possibility that we too can make a thing very small which does what we
want—that we can manufacture an object that maneuvers at that level.
(From the talk “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom,” delivered by Richard
P. Feynman at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society at the California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, on December 29, 1959).

B. Bhushan (*)
Nanoprobe Laboratory for Bio & Nanotechnology and Biomimetics (NLBB), The Ohio State
University, 201 W. 19th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_1
2 B. Bhushan

1.1 Introduction to Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology refers to any technology done on a nanoscale that has applications

in the real world. It is defined as the control or restructuring of matter at the atomic
and molecular levels in the size range of about 1–100 nm [1, 2]. The underlying
science is referred to as nanoscience. The properties of matter at the nanoscale are
different from those at a larger scale. When the dimensions of a material are
reduced from a large size, the properties remain the same at first, then small changes
occur. Finally, when the size drops below 100 nm, dramatic changes in properties
can occur. The unique physical and chemical properties of nanomaterials can be
exploited for commercial applications and for novel performance that benefits
society. The discovery of novel materials, processes, and phenomena at the nano-
scale and the development of new experimental and theoretical techniques for
research at the end of the twentieth century provide fresh opportunities for the
development of innovative nanosystems and nanomaterials. This field is opening
new venues in science and technology [8–10, 12].
Nanotechnology encompasses the nanomanufacturing and application of phys-
ical, chemical, and biological systems at scales ranging from individual atoms or
molecules to submicron dimensions, as well as the integration of the resulting
nanostructures into larger systems. It spans across scientific fields, including chem-
istry, physics, material science, engineering, and manufacturing. Its impact on our
society and economy in the twenty-first century is comparable to that of semicon-
ductor technology, information technology, or cellular and molecular biology in the
twentieth century. The integration of nanotechnology into larger systems has given
break-through solutions to many current environmental, medical, and industrial
problems, including smart materials, nanomanufacturing, electronics, drug deliv-
ery, energy and water, biotechnology, information technology, and national secu-
rity. Nanotechnology will have a profound impact on our economy and society; it is
a modern industrial revolution. Nanotechnology represents a megatrend, bringing
disruptive innovation. It has become a general purpose technology, being applica-
ble across various industrial sectors [8–10].

1.1.1 Nanomanufacturing

Manufacturing at the nanoscale, referred to as nanomanufacturing, is accomplished

by using either a “bottom-up” or “top down” approach to the production of
nanomaterials, structures, devices, and systems [8, 9, 12, 22].
In the bottom-up approach, nanoscale features are mainly built up from their
elemental constituents. Elemental constituents are combined using various
nanomanufacturing processes including self-assembly, chemical synthesis, molec-
ular beam epitaxy, nanoimprint lithography, roll-to-roll processing, and dip pen
lithography (see, nano.gov). Molecular self-assembly, the spontaneous self-
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 3

assembly of molecular clusters, can occur from simple reagents in solution or from
biological molecules (e.g., DNA) used as building blocks for the production of
three-dimensional nanostructures. Chemical synthesis is carried out using gaseous
precursors and solvents. These chemicals react to produce nanostructures. A variety
of vacuum deposition and nonequilibrium plasma chemistry techniques are then
used to produce layered nanocomposites and nanotubes. Molecular beam epitaxy is
a method for deposition of thin films with a thickness of one atom on a surface.
Nanoprint lithography is used to fabricate nanostructures by stamping or printing
them on a surface. Roll-to-roll processing is a high volume process used to produce
nanodevices on a flexible substrate. Dip pen lithography uses an atomic force
microscope tip in a fluid to produce nanoscale features on a surface.
The top down approach uses lithographic and non-lithographic fabrication
technologies. Lithographic technology is an underlying technology to make semi-
conductor chips and components. Continued improvements in lithography for use
in the production of nanocomponents have resulted in line widths as small as 10 nm.
The top down approach is commonly used to fabricate micro- and nanosystem
components, which range in size from micro- to nanometers.

1.1.2 MEMS/NEMS

Micro- and nanosystems include Micro/NanoElectroMechanical Systems (MEMS/

NEMS). The acronym MEMS originated in the U.S. The term commonly used in
Europe is micro/nanosystem technology (MST/NST), and in Japan it is micro/
nanomachines. Another term generally used is micro/nanodevices. Advances in
silicon photolithographic process technology since the 1960s led to the develop-
ment of MEMS in the early 1980s. MEMS combine electrical and mechanical
components to create microscopic devices that have a characteristic length between
100 nm and 1 mm. In the early 2000s, with the development of nanofabrication
techniques, NEMS were fabricated. NEMS combine electrical and mechanical
components to create nanoscopic devices that have a characteristic length of less
than 100 nm. In mesoscale devices, if the functional components are on the micro-
or nanoscale, they may be referred to as MEMS or NEMS, respectively. These are
intelligent miniaturized systems comprised of sensing, processing, and/or actuating
functions that combine electrical and mechanical components [8, 9]. MEMS/NEMS
terms are also now used in a broad sense and include electrical, mechanical, fluidic,
optical, and/or biological function. MEMS/NEMS for optical applications are
referred to as micro/nanooptoelectromechanical systems (MOEMS/NOEMS).
MEMS/NEMS for electronic applications are referred to as radio-frequency-
MEMS/NEMS or RF-MEMS/RF-NEMS. MEMS/NEMS for biological applica-
tions are referred to as BioMEMS/BioNEMS.
To put the dimensions and weights of nanomaterials, MEMS/NEMS, and
BioNEMS in perspective (see Fig. 1.1 and Table 1.1). Examples shown are a single
walled carbon nanotube (SWNT) chemical sensor (adapted from [13]), molecular
4 B. Bhushan

Fig. 1.1 Characteristic dimensions of nanomaterials, MEMS/NEMS, and BioNEMS in perspec-

tive [10]. Examples shown are a single walled carbon nanotube (SWNT) chemical sensor (adapted
from [13]), molecular dynamic simulations of carbon-nanotube based gears (adapted from [33]),
quantum-dot transistor (adapted from [34]), and a digital micromirror device (adapted from [18])

dynamic simulations of carbon-nanotube based gears (adapted from [33]),

quantum-dot transistor (adapted from [34]), and a digital micromirror device
(adapted from [18]). Individual atoms are typically a fraction of a nanometer in
diameter, DNA molecules are about 2.5 nm wide, biological cells are in the range of
thousands of nm in diameter, and human hair is about 75,000 nm (75 μm) in
diameter. The smaller length of a BioNEMS shown in the figure is about 2 nm.
NEMS shown range in size from 10 to 300 nm, and the size of MEMS is on the
order of 12,000 nm (12 μm). The weight of a micromachined silicon structure can
be as low as 1 nN, and NEMS can be built with weight as low as 10 20 N with cross
sections of about 10 nm. In comparison, the weight of a drop of water is about
10 μN, and the weight of an eyelash is about 100 nN.
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 5

Table 1.1 Characteristic dimensions and weights of various objects in perspective [10]
(a) Characteristic dimensions in perspective
NEMS characteristic length <100 nm
MEMS characteristic length <1 mm and >100 nm
SWNT chemical sensor ~2 nm
Molecular gear ~10 nm
Quantum-dots transistor 300 nm
Digital Micromirror 12,000 nm
Individual atoms Typically fraction of a nm in diameter
DNA molecules ~2.5 nm wide
Biological cells In the range of thousands of nm in diameter
Human hair ~75,000 nm in diameter
(b) Weight in perspective
NEMS built with cross sections of about 10 nm As low as 10 20 N
Micromachined silicon structure As low as 1 nN
Eyelash ~100 nN
Water droplet ~10 μN

1.1.3 Convergence

Roco and Bainbridge [31] have discussed convergence of nanotechnology, biotech-

nology, information, and cognitive science for emerging technologies. Conver-
gence is the process of bringing disparate technologies together into a unified
field. Convergence is progressing by stages, beginning with foundational interdis-
ciplinary research at the nanoscale during 2001–2010, followed by integration of
nanoscience and nanotechnology for general purpose technology from approxi-
mately 2010 and continuing.

1.1.4 Industrial Applications

MEMS/NEMS and BioMEMS/BioNEMS are used in industrial, consumer,

defense, and biomedical applications. Some of these applications include electro-
mechanical, electronics, information/communication, chemical, and biological.
Growth of Si-based MEMS/NEMS appears to have slowed down, while growth
of nonsilicon MEMS/NEMS and BioMEMS/BioNEMS has been picking up since
the first decade of the twenty-first century [8, 9]. It is expected that nanomaterials
and biomedical applications as well as nanoelectronics or molecular electronics
would continue to expand. Due to the enabling nature of these systems and because
of the significant impact they can have on both commercial and defense applica-
tions, both industry and national governments have taken special interest in seeing
growth nurtured in this field.
6 B. Bhushan

The first MEMS were commercially introduced in about 1990. These were
accelerometers for the deployment of an air bag in a car in the event of a crash,
piezoresistive pressure sensors for manifold absolute pressure sensing for car
engines, and thermal inkjet print heads. In 2015, additional examples of MEMS
with large and established markets with production volumes of several hundred
million units per year include piezoresistive pressure sensors for disposable blood
pressure sensors, capacitive pressure sensors for tire pressure measurements, digital
micromirror arrays for digital projection display, and optical cross-connections in
telecommunications. Other applications of MEMS devices include chemical/bio-
sensors and gas sensors, microresonators, infrared detectors and focal plane arrays
for earth observations, space science and missile defense applications, pico-
satellites for space applications, fuel cells, and many hydraulic, pneumatic, and
other consumer products.
NEMS applications include both bio and non-biological fields. Examples
include: microcantilevers with integrated sharp nanotips for scanning tunneling
microscopy (STM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM), quantum corral formed
using STM by placing atoms one by one, AFM tips for nanolithography, dip pen
lithography for printing molecules, quantum-dot transistors, nanotube based sen-
sors, biological (DNA) motors, molecular gears made by attaching benzene mole-
cules to the outer walls of carbon nanotubes, devices incorporating nm-thick films
(e.g., in giant magnetoresistive or GMR read/write magnetic heads and magnetic
media) for magnetic rigid disk and magnetic tape drives, and nanopatterned mag-
netic rigid disks.
Nanomaterials include nanoparticles (aggregate of 10–105 atoms bonded
together), nanowires, nanotubes, and quantum wires. Nanomaterials have many
applications. For example, nanoparticles are used in magnetic coatings for infor-
mation storage devices and drug delivery, and nanotubes and nanowires are used in
various sensor applications. Nanoelectronics are being developed from these
nanomaterials. They are used to build computer memory using individual mole-
cules or nanotubes to store bits of information, molecular switches, molecular or
nanotube transistors, nanotube flat-panel displays, nanotube integrated circuits, fast
logic gates, switches, nanoscopic lasers, and nanotubes as electrodes in fuel cells.
BioMEMS/BioNEMS are increasingly used in commercial and defense appli-
cations. They are used for chemical and biochemical analyses (biosensors) in
medical diagnostics (e.g., DNA, RNA, proteins, cells, blood pressure and assays,
and toxin identification), tissue engineering, and implantable pharmaceutical drug
delivery. Biosensors, also referred to as biochips, deal with liquids and gases. There
are two types of biosensors. The first type of biosensors are micro/nanofluidic
devices. A large variety of biosensors are based on micro/nanofluidics. Micro/
nanofluidic devices offer the ability to work with smaller reagent volumes and
shorter reaction times, and perform analyses multiple times at once. The second
type of biosensors are micro/nanoarrays, which perform one type of analysis
thousands of times. Micro/nanoarrays are a tool used in biotechnology research to
analyze DNA or proteins, to diagnose diseases, or discover new drugs. One
microarray of silicon nanowires is used to selectively bind to and detect even a
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 7

single biological molecule, such as DNA or protein. It is roughly a few nanometers

in size and uses nanoelectronics to detect the slight electrical charge caused by the
selective binding. Another type is a microarray of carbon nanotubes used to
electrically detect glucose.
After the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, concern surrounding biological and chem-
ical warfare led to the development of handheld units with bio- and chemical
sensors for detection of biological germs, chemical or nerve agents, and mustard
agents, as well as chemical precursors to protect subways, airports, water supplies,
and the population at large. BioMEMS/BioNEMS are also being developed for
minimally invasive surgery, including endoscopic surgery, laser angioplasty, and
microscopic surgery. Other applications include implantable drug-delivery devices:
micro/nanoparticles with drug molecules encapsulated in functionalized shells for
site-specific targeting applications, and a silicon capsule with a nanoporous mem-
brane filled with drugs for long-term delivery.
Figure 1.2 shows an example of (a) MEMS—a digital micromirror device
(DMD) used for digital projection display (adapted from [18]), (b) NEMS—a single
walled nanotube (SWNT) chemical sensor (adapted from [13]), and
(c) functionalized nanoparticles for cancer detection and drug delivery (adapted
from [19]).
In this chapter, we start with history and early research expenditures followed by
governance of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, nanotechnology research
and development (R&D) funding since 2001, worldwide R&D investments, and
nanoscience and nanotechnology education. Finally, we end with a summary and
outlook.

1.2 History and Early Research Expenditures

On Dec. 29, 1959 at the California Institute of Technology, Nobel Laureate Richard
P. Feynman gave a talk at the Annual Meeting of the American Physical Society
that has become one of the classic science lectures of the twentieth century, titled,
“There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom” [16]. He presented a technological vision
of extreme miniaturization, several years before the word “chip” became part of the
lexicon. He talked about the problem of manipulating and controlling things on a
small scale. Extrapolating from known physical laws, Feynman envisioned a
technology using the ultimate toolbox of nature, building nanoobjects atom by
atom or molecule by molecule. Since the 1980s, many inventions and discoveries in
the fabrication of nanoobjects have been testaments to his vision.
In 1998, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) of the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) created the Interagency
Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN), recogniz-
ing the reality of the proliferation of nanotechnology. In 1999, the IWGN was
elevated to the Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
(NSET). In a January 2000 speech also at the California Institute of Technology,
8 B. Bhushan

Fig. 1.2 Examples of (a) MEMS—digital micromirror device used for digital projection display
(adapted from [18]), (b) NEMS—SWNT chemical sensor (adapted from [13]), and (c)
functionalized nanoparticles for cancer detection and drug delivery (adapted from [19])
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 9

President William J. Clinton talked about the exciting promise of nanotechnology

and the importance of expanding research in nanoscale science and technology
more broadly. Later that month in his State of the Union Address, he announced an
ambitious $497 million federal, multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) in the FY 2001 budget, and made the NNI a top science and technology
priority [2]. The objective of this initiative was to form a broad-based coalition in
which academia, the private sector, and local, state, and federal governments work
together to push the envelope of nanoscience and nanoengineering to reap
nanotechnology’s potential social and economic benefits.
In Jan. 2003, following the creation of the NNI, the U.S. Senate in the 108th
Congress introduced a bill to establish a National Nanotechnology Program. On
Dec. 3, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the twenty-first Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (NRDA) (Public Law 108–153).
The legislation put into law programs and activities supported by the NNI. The bill
gave nanotechnology a permanent home in the federal government and authorized
$3.7 billion to be spent in the four year period beginning in October 2005. This
allocation was for nanotechnology initiatives at six federal agencies: National
Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy
(DOE), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The funds were used to provide grants to researchers, coordinate R&D across the
six agencies, establish interdisciplinary research centers, and accelerate technology
transfer into the private sector.
Nanotechnology R&D is directed towards understanding and controlling matter
at the nanoscale. NNI has four goals [3]: (a) advance world-class nanotechnology
research and development; (b) foster the transfer of new technologies into products
for commercial and public benefit; (c) develop and sustain educational resources, a
skilled workforce, and the supporting infrastructure and tools to advance nanotech-
nology; and (d) support the responsible development of nanotechnology. Further
details are presented in Fig. 1.3.
Regarding international activities in early stages, in 2002, the European Union
(E.U.) made nanosciences and nanotechnologies a priority in the Sixth Framework
Program (FP6) for the period of 2003–2006. They had also dedicated small funds in
the FP4 and FP5 programs before. FP6 was tailored to help better structure
European research and to cope with the strategic objectives set out in the Lisbon
Strategy Development Plan of 2000. Japan identified nanotechnology as one of its
main research priorities in 2001. The funding levels increased from $400 million in
2001 to around $950 million in 2004. In 2003, South Korea embarked upon a
ten-year program with around $2 billion in public funding, and Taiwan had
committed around $600 million in public funding over 6 years. Russia, Singapore,
and China also started to invest on a large scale.
10 B. Bhushan

Fig. 1.3 A Summary of NNI goals and objectives from the 2014 NNI Strategic Plan (adapted
from [3])

1.3 Governance of the National Nanotechnology Initiative

In 2001, OSTP established a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office

(NNCO), and was funded by NSET. The NNCO serves as a central point of contact
for Federal nanotechnology R&D activities, and provides public outreach on behalf
of the NNI. The NNCO Director and Deputy Director are appointed by the White
House Co-Chair of the NSTC Committee on Technology. The NNCO coordinates
the preparation and publication of interagency planning, budget, and various
documents, such as the NNI supplement to the President’s budget. The twenty-
first Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act called for a National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP), to review the NNI triennially. In 2004,
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 11

Fig. 1.4 Organizational structure for management of NNI (adapted from [3])

PCAST was designated as that panel. In addition, the Act had called for a triennial
review by the National Academies.
NNI investments are guided by an annual strategic plan published by the OSTP.
Figure 1.4 shows the organizational structure for management of NNI; OSTP
coordination and assessment of NNI efforts. The NNI reporting requirements
overseen by OSTP include: (a) the triennial strategic plan (Year 1); (b) the triennial
assessment by PCAST (Year 2); (c) the triennial assessment of the program by the
National Academies (Year 3); and (d) the annual supplemental report submitted
with the President’s budget.
It should be noted that since the enactment of the Nanotechnology Act on Dec.
3, 2003, it has not been reauthorized by U.S. Congress. Reauthorization sets the
policy for how funding should be spent by the various agencies that carry out the
vision of the Nanotechnology Act. While the various funding agencies continue to
fund under their current authority, no new direction for that funding has been set.
12 B. Bhushan

1.4 Nanotechnology R&D Funding since 2001

Since 2001, the U. S. Congress has appropriated about $20 billion for nanotech-
nology R&D through FY 2015, with about $1.5 billion spent in FY 2015 alone.
Figure 1.5 shows NNI funding growth from FY 2001 through FY 2015. Twenty
top-level federal agencies (27 including all subsidiary sub-agencies) fund NNI
related research, as shown in Table 1.2. Table 1.3 shows the breakdown of the
NNI budget by agency for the period of FY 2001 to FY 2015. About 93 % of the
funding is spent by five agencies –NIH (28.7 %), NSF (26.8 %), DOE (22.3 %),
DOD (9.4 %), and NIST (5.4 %). U.S. private sector R&D funding, presented in
Table 1.4a, is more than double that of federal and state funding with a focus on
translating fundamental research into commercial products.
The NNI strategic plan for FY 2015 was published in February 2014 by OSTP
[3]. In this plan, priorities for NNI funding by Program Component Area were
(a) Foundational Research (35 % of NNI funding); (b) Applications, Devices, and
Systems (24 %); (c) Signature Initiatives (19 %); (d) Infrastructure and Implemen-
tation (16 %); and (e) Environment, Health, and Safety (EHS) (7 %).
Five areas, called Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives (NSIs), were identified
for targeted program-level interagency collaboration. These NSIs were intended to
enable the rapid advancement of selected science and technology in the service of
national security, economic, and environmental goals by focusing resources on
critical challenges and R&D gaps [3, 4]. These areas were:
• Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion: Contributing to
Energy Solutions for the Future
This NSI will utilize the unique physical phenomena that occur on the nanoscale
to help overcome current performance barriers and substantially improve the
collection and conversion of solar energy. Participating agencies include: DOE,

Fig. 1.5 U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, FY 2001–2015 (based on [6, 10])
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 13

Table 1.2 Federal departments and agencies participating in the NNI [3]
A: Eleven Federal Departments and Independent Agencies and Commissions with Nanotech-
nology R&D Budgets
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
National Institute for Health (NIH)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
Forest Service (FS)
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
B: Nine Other Participating Departments and Independent Agencies and Commissions
Department of Education (DOEd)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Department of State (DOS)
Department of the Treasury (DoTreas)
Intelligence Community (IC)
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)
C: Also participating from the Department of Commerce (DOC), listed above
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
Economic Development Administration (EDA)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

NIST, NSF, DOD, Intelligence Community (IC), and U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA), and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).
• Sustainable Nanomanufacturing: Creating the Industries of the Future
 14

Table 1.3 NNI investments for various funding agencies from FY 2001 to FY 2015 (request)
National nanotechnology initiative investments by agency FY 2001–2015 (dollars in millions)
FY 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009a 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014b 2015c Totald
CPSC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.5 1.8 2.0 1.3 2.0 2.0 9.7
DHS 0 2 1 1 1 1.5 2.0 3.2 9.1 21.9 9.0 18.7 14.0 24.0 32.4 140.7
DOC/ 33 77 64 77 79 77.9 87.6 85.6 93.4 114.7 95.9 95.4 91.4 97.8 82.6 1252.3
NIST
DOD 125 224 220 291 352 423.9 450.2 460.4 459 439.6 425.3 426.1 170.1 175.9 144 4786.4
DOE 88 89 134 202 208 231 236 244.7 332.6 373.8 346.2 313.8 314.2 303.3 343.1 3759.7
DOJ 1 1 1 2 2 0.3 1.7 0.1 1.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 10.5
DOT 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 3.2 1.0 1.0 2.4 2.0 1.5 14.7
EPA 5 6 5 5 7 4.5 7.6 12.1 11.6 17.7 17.4 17.5 14.6 15.5 16.8 163.3
DHHS 40 59 78 106 168 195.4 222.7 311.4 356.0 472.6 428.6 479.6 485.4 469.5 469.6 4341.7
(tot)
FDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 7.3 9.9 13.6 16.1 17.0 17.0 87.4
NIH 40 59 78 106 165 191.6 215.4 304.5 342.8 456.8 408.6 456.0 458.8 441.5 441.5 4165.4
NIOSH 0 0 0 0 3 3.8 7.3 6.9 6.7 8.5 10.0 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.1 88.8
NASA 22 35 36 47 45 50 19.8 17.4 13.7 19.7 17 18.6 16.4 17.9 13.7 389.2
NSF 150 204 221 256 335 359.7 388.8 408.6 408.6 428.7 485.1 466.3 421.0 410.6 412.4 5355.8
USDA 0 0 0 2 3 6.2 6.8 10.1 15.3 20.3 20.0 18.3 19.5 19.1 18.8 159.4
(tot)
ARS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0
FS 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.9 4.6 5.4 7.1 10.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 50.3
NIFA 0 0 0 2 3 3.6 3.9 5.5 9.9 13.2 10.0 11.3 12.5 13.1 12.8 101.1
Totala 464 697 760 989 1200 1351.3 1424.1 1554.5 1701.5 1912.8 1847.3 1857.3 1550.2 1537.5 1536.9 20383.4
a
NOT including American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds for NSF ($101 M), DOE ($239 M), NIST ($43 M), and NIH ($73 M)
b
FY’14 estimated based on 2014 enacted levels and may shift as operating plans are finalized
c
FY’15 Request
B. Bhushan

d
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding
About 93 % of the funding is spent by five agencies shown in bold. Data provided by NNCO [6]
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 15

Table 1.4 R&D funding and Nano-enabled Product Revenues data across all industrial sectors in
various regions in 2012
(a) R&D funding data across all industrial sectors in various regions in 2012, data collected by
Lux Research
U.S. Federal and State $2.1 B
Industry $4.0 B
Venture Capital Investors $0.5 B
Total $6.6 B
Worldwide Federal, State, Industry, and Venture Capital Investors $18.5 B
(b) Nano-enabled Product Revenues data across all industrial sectors in various regions in 2012,
data collected by Lux Research
U.S. $236 B
Europe $235 B
Asia $213 B
Rest of the World $47 B
Total $731 B
(a) Data collected by Lux Research (adapted from [6, 10, 17])
(b) Data collected by Lux Research (adapted from [10, 17, 35])

This NSI will establish manufacturing technologies for economical and sustain-
able integration of nanoscale building blocks into complex, large-scale systems by
supporting product, tool, and process design informed by and adhering to the
overall constraints of safety, sustainability, and scalability. Participating agencies
include: NIST, NSF, DOE, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), IC, NIH,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and USDA/Forestry Service (FS).
• Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond
This NSI is aimed at discovering and using novel nanoscale fabrication pro-
cesses and innovative concepts to produce revolutionary materials, devices, sys-
tems, and architectures to advance the field of nanoelectronics. Participating
agencies include: NSF, DOD, NIST, DOE, and IC.
• Nanotechnology Knowledge Infrastructure (NKI): Enabling National Leader-
ship in Sustainable Design
This NSI will coordinate the nanoscale science, engineering, and technology
communities around the fundamental, interconnected elements of collaborative
modeling, a cyber-toolbox, and data infrastructure that will capitalize on American
strengths in innovation, shorten the time from research to new product develop-
ment, and maintain U.S. leadership in sustainable design of engineered nanoscale
materials. Participating agencies include: Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), DOD, DOE, EPA, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), NASA, NIOSH,
NIST, NSF, OSHA.
16 B. Bhushan

• Nanotechnology for Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology: Improving and

Protecting Health, Safety, and the Environment
This NSI has considerable potential for nanotechnology to open the door to the
development of inexpensive, portable devices that can rapidly detect, identify, and
quantify biological and chemical substances. Participating agencies include: CPSC,
DOD, EPA, FDA, NASA, NIH, NIOSH, NIST, NSF, USDA.
In the international context, Federal investment in FY 2014 and 2015 by the
U.S. of about $1.5B per year is slightly higher than that by the E.U. or Japan. In
2014, the E.U. launched Horizon 2020 (2014–2020) after the conclusion of the
E.U. FP7, with a total budget of 77 billion euros. In Horizon 2020, the
E.U. identified six key areas: nanotechnology, advanced manufacturing, advanced
materials, nanoelectronics, photonics, and biotechnology, and allocated 6.6 billion
euros for these areas over a 6 year period; about 1.1 billion euros per year. An
additional 5 billion euros was planned for public-private partnerships. It should be
noted that, in addition to E.U. expenditure, individual countries within the
E.U. invest additional money on research. In 2014, Japan planned to spend
¥550B over the following 5 year period on nanotechnology, which translates to
about $1B per year. Japanese companies are reported to invest about 90 % of total
R&D in nanotechnology.

1.5 Worldwide R&D Investments and Output

1.5.1 R&D Investments

Figure 1.6 shows Federal R&D funding from FY 1997 to FY 2009 for the U.S., E.
U., Japan, and others. The funding has steadily grown for all countries. The
U.S. and the E.U. have made comparable investments, followed by Japan, China,
Korea, and Taiwan. A substantial change in global investment rate is observed in
about 2000 after introduction of the NNI and about 2006 due to the introduction of
second generation nanotechnology products. The figure also shows the specific
Nano R&D 2008 in dollars per capita. The numbers for the U.S., E.U., and Korea
are comparable, with Japan being higher. Figure 1.7 shows industrial spending for
various countries in 2012. The U.S. spent far more than other countries. However,
the rest of the world, particularly emerging economies such as China, have been
increasing their funding both at the national government and industrial levels at a
rapid rate.
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 17

Fig. 1.6 FY 1997–2009 Federal/national government R&D funding. Specific nanotechnology

R&D per capita is based on the national nanotechnology expenditures and effective expenditure
for all other R&D programs (adapted from [10, 29])

1.5.2 Output

Limited current U.S. data exits on the return on investment in nanotechnology as it

relates to scientific output, the number of jobs created, and product revenues [7, 14,
17, 20, 29, 30]. The European Commission Research Directorate General, Brussels,
and the U.S. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
have published some data on these subjects, though individual U.S. federal agencies
have not published much data themselves. These data are critical for tracking
performance and for planning purposes. They are also critical for Congress to
make educated decisions on reprioritization and total investments in nanotechnol-
ogy R&D. In this section, we present an overview of the U.S. data that exists in the
public domain.
Figure 1.8a shows the number of nanotechnology publications in archival
journals in the SCI database between 1990 and 2013 for the U.S. and other
countries), and (b) and (c) show the number of nanotechnology patents published
for the U.S. and other countries. There is a steady growth in the number of
publications for each country, although unevenly distributed among the various
countries. The metrics of patents published in three of more countries is a more
representative indicator of significance compared to those patents published in just
one or two countries. It should be noted that although the rate of patents published
has decreased over the past decade, the cumulative growth has continued. Addi-
tional data are provided by Roco [29], and Chen et al. [14]. Figure 1.9 gives the
18 B. Bhushan

Fig. 1.7 Industrial R&D spending in 2012 for industry focused on applied R&D for first and
second generations of nanotechnology products (based on [10, 30])

breakdown of the number of patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) by technology area as of December 31, 2012, type of invention in 2012,
and by country of residence of the first-named inventor from 1986 through June
2013.
R&D funding breakdown and nano-enabled product revenues for various
regions in 2012 are presented in Table 1.4a, b. In 2012, for the U.S. alone, nano-
enabled product revenues were $236 billion for a modest annual federal R&D
investment of $1.5 billion, or a total public/private investment of $6.6 billion.
This represents an impressive return on investment.
Table 1.5 presents a summary of six key indicators of nanotechnology R&D
investment and output in the world and the U.S. between 2000 and 2010. The key
indicators include (1) R&D funding (public and private), (2) venture capital,
(3) SCI papers, (4) patent applications, (5) people—primary workforce, and
(6) final products market. The growth rate of the key nanotechnology indicators
of 16–33 % is observed. It is noted that the global market for nanomaterials has
been reported to be tens of billions of dollars in FY 2015 with a rapid growth rate.
The global revenues of nano-enabled products and nanomaterials are approaching
$1 trillion.
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 19

Fig. 1.8 (a) Number of

nanotechnology SCI
publications from 1990 to
2013. Data was generated
from an online search in the
Web of Science using a
“title-abstract” search in the
SCI database for
nanotechnology by
keywords (adapted from
[10, 30]). (b) and (c)
Number of nanotechnology
patents published from 1985
to 2010 for the U.S. and
other countries. The metrics
of patents published in three
or more countries is a more
representative indicator of
significance (adapted from
[6, 10])
20 B. Bhushan

Fig. 1.9 The breakdown of

the number of patents issued
by the USPTO based on (a)
technology area, as of
December 31, 2012, (b)
type of invention in 2012,
and (c) residence—country
of first-named inventor,
1986-June 2013 (adapted
from [10, 21])
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 21

Table 1.5 Summary of six key indicators of nanotechnology R&D investment and output in the
world and the U.S. during 2000–2010 and projections for 2015 (adapted from [10, 30]) (Venture
Capital estimations were made by Lux Research)
R&D funding People— Final
(public and Venture SCI Patents primary products
World/US private) capital papers applications workforce market
2000 ~$1.2B/$0.37B ~$0.21B/ 18,085/ 1197/405 ~60,000/ ~$30B/
$0.17B 5342 25,000 $13B
2010 ~$18B/$4.1B ~$1.3B/ 78,842/ ~20,000/ ~600,000/ ~$300B/
$1.0B 17,978 5000 220,000 $110B
2000–2010 ~31 %/~27 % ~30 %/ ~16 %/ ~33 %/ ~25 %/ ~25 %/
(average ~35 % ~13 % ~28 % ~23 % ~24 %
growth)
2015 ~2,000,000/ ~1000B/
(projected) 800,000 $400B

Figure 1.10 shows the primary applications markets for nano-enabled products
based on reviews gathered from 300 respondents in a 2014 survey project
conducted by the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS), Ann
Arbor, Michigan. The data shows that some industries pursue simultaneous path-
ways for penetrating multiple markets and end users for their products. The largest
application markets are listed below in decreasing order of response rate
(percentage):
• Healthcare, pharmaceuticals, biomedical applications, and biotechnological
applications,
• Electronics,
• Energy and energy storage,
• Chemical and processes,
• Automotive,
• Sensing and environment, and
• Aerospace.
In summary, the U.S. remains a global leader in both investments and output, as
measured by the number of publications and patents, jobs, and nano-enabled
product revenue. However, other countries are slowly catching up and competing
with the U.S., including China which is rapidly increasing its share of investment.
22 B. Bhushan

Fig. 1.10 Primary application markets—2014 for nano-enabled products based on reviews as
ranked in a survey (adapted from [10, 23])

1.6 Translation of Basic Research to Technology

Commercialization

Research and some development occurs in academic labs, primarily funded by

federal and state investments. Translational research is funded jointly by federal/
state and private funding. Product launch is then carried out by startups and funded
by venture capitalists or industry. Federal R&D agencies and public-private part-
nerships need to invest in technology transfer and developing research into a
successful product. Technology transfer will drive the economy and facilitate in
multiplying the investment in basic research. The move of U.S. manufacturing to
locations offshore and around the world has given rise to the idea that we “invest
here and manufacture there.” This exists because the U.S. economy is not able to
provide the necessary investments and incentives for venture capitalists and indus-
tries to continue both development and manufacturing in the U.S. [11].
Various concerns regarding the NNI have been raised in several reports on the
mandated NNI Triennial Reviews; a latest one prepared by The National Acade-
mies on the Triennial Review in 2013 [24]. Major concerns include lack of
information at the project level on who is performing research and its implications;
poor planning, management, and coordination; lack of metrics for assessing pro-
gress; and lack of official data on return on investments. The Government Account-
ability Office (GAO) conducted a study and issued a report in 2014 entitled
“Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 23

Fig. 1.11 Schematic showing the “valley of death” scenario [11]

Environment, and Human Health” [5]. It examined current issues related to nano-
technology and nanomanufacturing. This report also identified various concerns in
the NNI implementation, including the valley of death—gaps in funding or support
for technology development and manufacturing development, for a schematic (see
Fig. 1.11). The report also stated that there is a lack of participation in setting
standards for nanomanufacturing and nanotechnology, a lack of national vision for
nanomanufacturing capability, and a need for integrated framework to help assess
and address the EHS implications.
The PCAST report on the Triennial Review issued in 2014 [6] reiterated many
critiques advanced by the National Academies and GAO reviews. It stated that the
NNI has reached a turning point. Although continued support of fundamental
research in nanotechnology is critical, the transition toward commercialization is
encouraged to translate the technologies and investments into commercial products
and revenues. This may affect a range of technology areas, including drug delivery,
energy technology, smart sensors, clean water, and quantum computing.
The report presented four general constraints to technology commercialization
[6]. It stated that first-time academic entrepreneurs have little training or experience
in moving a technical innovation out of the research lab and into a company. The
second constraint has to do with a lack of marketing knowledge, i.e., how their
innovation might address strategic goals of a company or could be translated into a
successful product. Third, given that venture capitalists prefer to back experienced
entrepreneurs, fund raising for newcomers becomes more difficult. Finally, an
academic may not be allowed by the peer review process to pursue high-risk,
high-return ideas. The report made recommendations to address all these
constraints.
24 B. Bhushan

The report argued that the NSIs being used are shaped by coordination of three
or more federal agencies around a topic. Instead, it recommends creation of “Grand
Challenges,” which are large, outward-facing efforts with specific, measurable
goals. A Grand Challenge has a well-defined technical goal and it addresses an
issue of significant societal impact. It has a measurable end-point with clear
milestones en route.
There needs to be a focus on EHS as the use of nanotechnology products,
particularly nanomaterials, is perceived to have potential EHS risks when exposed
during manufacturing, use, or disposal. Established tools and techniques to study
EHS risks do not exist for nanotechnology products. In addition, it is difficult to
assess risks because nanomaterials may differ in size, shape, and surface chemistry.
NIOSH is responsible for developing recommended exposure limits and necessary
protective actions for nanomaterials [25–28].

1.7 Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Education

Education and training are essential to produce a new generation of scientists,

engineers, and skilled workers with the flexible and interdisciplinary R&D
approach necessary for rapid progress in nanosciences and nanotechnology. A
trained nanotechnology work force at both vocational and professional levels
needs to be developed. This needs to be accomplished with both formal and
informal education efforts, starting with the foundations in children and increasing
in technical and specialized education through the university and continuing edu-
cation levels.
Nanoscience and nanoetechnology education is concerned with five general
topics related to this necessity: interdisciplinary education; K-12 education, excite-
ment, and creativity; vocational, undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education
programs; educator training; and informal science education. These areas are
discussed below.

1.7.1 Interdisciplinary Education

With the decreasing number of people in western countries choosing to study

science and engineering and with the rapid progress being made in nanoscience
and nanotechnology, the problem of a trained work force is expected to be acute.
The question is being asked—is the traditional separation of academic disciplines
into physics, chemistry, biology, and various engineering disciplines meaningful at
the nano-level? Arguably, nanoscience and nanoetechnology education should
begin by covering the broad science topics in order to facilitate new approaches
to problems and new solutions based on broader understanding of foundational
science. However, generic skills and entrepreneurship also are needed to transfer
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 25

scientific knowledge into products, which increases the economic impact, impor-
tance, and continued support for scientific education. Therefore, it is essential that
scientists and engineers no longer confine themselves strictly to the “laboratory;”
broad and fundamental understanding of business, society, politics, and health and
safety are required. To that end, it is also imperative that scientists and engineers are
ready to work in a global environment, prepare to solve global problems, and look
at the implications of their work on a global scale. Scientists and engineers must
therefore collaborate with relevant experts to address the societal, ethical, political,
and health/safety implications of their work for global humanity. Thus, nanoscience
and nanoetechnology education should have as one focus a broad, interdisciplinary
approach to science and engineering at the nanoscale.

1.7.2 K-12 Education, Excitement, and Creativity

To increase the pool of students interested in advanced education in science and

technology, science needs to be conveyed as an exciting and creative endeavor from
its first introduction. Innovative foundational education in traditional education
environments, such as schools and supplementary instruction opportunities, can
help to accomplish this goal.
In order to encourage excitement and creativity in the fields of nanoscience and
nanoetechnology, K-12 education needs to take a cross-disciplinary approach that
includes combining arts and science. Since the mid-1990’s, there has been a global
push for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education,
particularly in the K-12 arena. This push has been designed to increase the number
of people interested in pursuing advanced education in STEM fields, and to ensure
sufficiently educated workers for STEM jobs. This has resulted in a generation of
workers with content knowledge and enthusiasm, but many with limited ability to
apply that knowledge to real-world scenarios and problems and limited experience
with thinking critically and creatively. However, beginning in the early 2010s, there
has been a drive to include the arts in STEM education, an initiative called STEAM,
in order to encourage not only science content, but creativity and critical thinking
skills derived from arts-based education as well. These arts-based skills are essen-
tial for translating discrete content knowledge into broad application. If this
STEAM education approach can be applied to nanoscience and nanoetechnology,
as well as more macro-based science and engineering fields, the beginnings of an
interdisciplinary, broad nanoeducation can be found. However, interdisciplinary
curricula relevant for nanoscience and nanotechnology need to be developed. This
requires revamping the STEAM education model for nanoscience, the development
of new courses, and course material including textbooks and instruction manuals,
and training of new instructors.
26 B. Bhushan

1.7.3 Vocational, Undergraduate, Graduate, and Continuing

Education Programs

Curricula focusing on nanoscience and nanotechnology should continue to be

developed for various levels. These levels include 2-year vocational programs,
traditional 4-year university and graduate education programs, and continuing
education for practicing professionals.
In the U.S., there are two strong examples of vocational level programs devel-
oped by post-secondary education institutions. The first example is the
one-semester, 18 credit-hour “capstone” style program pioneered by Pennsylvania
State University (Penn State). This program is intended to complete a student’s
vocational or bachelor degree at a “home” institution, by drawing traditional,
foundational education disciplines together and integrating nanoscience into
them. In addition to this capstone program, Penn State developed the Nanotech-
nology Applications and Career Knowledge (NACK) network to develop standard-
ized curriculum to assist vocational institutions in those foundations, as well as to
train practitioners.
The second example is the program developed by the Dakota County Technical
College (DCTC) in Rosemount, Minnesota. Inspired by information at a National
Career Path Network conference, DCTC administrators began asking local industry
(including such businesses as 3 M, Honeywell, Synovis, Hysitron, General Mills,
Seagate, Medtronic, among other, smaller companies) what they needed in voca-
tional level training for students. As a result of their inquiries, DCTC developed
their AAS degree Nanoscience Technician program in 2004, the first such four-
semester program in the U.S. This program takes a multidisciplinary approach to
educating not only on tool usage and practical application, but on critical thinking
capabilities as well. Developed from this program, and with funding from the NSF,
DCTC created Nano-Link in 2008 to guide and mentor schools in the evaluation
and validation of nanoscience content.
At the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education (NSEE) workshop held in
December, 2014 and sponsored by the NSF, these two outstanding examples were
noted, but areas of improvement for vocational training were identified more
broadly. In particular, the NSEE identified the opportunity to create a best practices
manual that builds on NACK and Nano-Link experiences, as well as others, to help
with creating nationwide programs that are sufficiently rigid to ensure appropriate
education and training, but sufficiently flexible to account for local and regional
technical needs.
In the U.S., the current state of undergraduate nanoscience education is confined
mostly to opportunities for undergraduate research. Specifically, the NSF funds a
Research Experience for Undergraduates, bringing 80–90 students from across
U.S. universities together at 14 National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network
(NNIN) sites for a summer research experience. This provides students with
nanoscience specific training and research education, and offers them an opportu-
nity to present their work and develop professional connections for advanced
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 27

research opportunities. In addition to research, the NSEE identified the need to

promote interdisciplinary cooperation in existing university programs in order to
facilitate nanoscience education and training at that level. Moreover, the NSEE
recognized the need to promote the societal impacts and interdisciplinary nature of
nanoscience education as a way to increase diversity in the student population.
Various approaches to nanoscience and nanotechnology education are taken
around the world. For example, in Switzerland, the Swiss Nanoscience Institute
(SNI) at the University of Basel developed an interdisciplinary bachelor through
Ph.D. program in Nanoscience. The bachelor program requires students to obtain
foundational education in biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics, with
increasing opportunities for specializations. Research is a required aspect of the
program, with students obliged to participate in eight separate and differing
research teams across the SNI academic network. In the 2 year Master’s program,
students complete two different projects and a Master’s thesis that crosses at least
two different disciplines, continuing the SNI focus on interdsciplinarity. Further,
during their Master’s training, students learn to use a variety of nanoscience tools,
ensuring practical skills, as well as practical and theoretical knowledge. Finally, to
guarantee graduate-level education for nanoscientists, SNI launched a Ph.D. school
in 2012. Students are advised by two advisors from different disciplines (and often
different universities), completing the interdisciplinary focus with opportunities for
presentation of research and communication with other scientists.
In the U.S., the NSEE identified deficiencies in graduate training for
nanoscience, including interdisciplinary education and diversity. As well, the
NSEE noted that graduate programs will improve as the pipeline of students
funneling into the programs are better equipped with foundational nanoscience
knowledge due to strengthening of nanoscience education from kindergarten
through undergraduate training. One school, the University of California, Santa
Barbara (UCSB) is addressing the deficiencies in interdisciplinary focus with a
unique research opportunity. Nanoscience graduate students are awarded fellow-
ships and are embedded within social science and humanities social science pro-
jects. The aim is to reveal connections between the laboratory and broader societal
forces.
After obtaining vocational and professional training, there is a need to continue
education in order to update practitioners on new technology and best practices.
Presently, there is a wealth of information available at a variety of sources on
nanoscience and nanotechnology. The deficiency is in the packaging. Assembling
the information into learning packages or short-courses is required to make the
information accessible and to disseminate the information to those who need it
quickly. Further, assembling the information into discrete packages allows for
flexibility and targeted training, something that is lacking in present continuing
education models.
28 B. Bhushan

1.7.4 Educator Training

In order to accomplish the above education goals and further nanoscience and
nanotechnology education, educator training is essential. Educators are the foun-
dation of not only the technical content, but for encouraging excitement and
creativity in the fields. It is critical to attract and educate students in the growing
field of nanotechnology in order to develop a trained nanotechnology workforce.
Educator training is necessary to accomplish this attraction and education of
students. Presently, educator training is focused broadly on STEM fields, without,
perhaps, specific training in nanoscience and nanotechnology. However, as one
example, the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) has developed and
now offers teacher workshops ranging from 2 h to 1 week for teachers to learn
background and tools necessary to increase student awareness and interest not only
in STEM fields generally, but in nanoscience in particular.

1.7.5 Informal Science Education

Education for the general public on the benefits of nanoscience and nanotechnology
is an important part of increasing nanoscience and nanotechnology education. This
means supporting and engaging community-based opportunities for science and
education, and making them approachable, affordable, inclusive, and interesting.
Currently, this is being done mostly by a mix of science museums [15] and
university groups. In the U.S., these efforts are largely funded by the National
Science Foundation. In Germany, efforts are supported by the Federal Ministry of
Education and Research, who have, for example, provided a “nanoTruck” that visits
schools to supplement formal science curriculum.
A major effort has been carried out at the Boston Museum of Science, led by
curator Larry Bell. They have developed various exhibits with nanotechnology
objects that can be used by visitors of all ages. Additionally, the Nanoscale Informal
Science Education Network has organized to implement broadly informal science
education to the public at large on the benefits of nanoscale technology. Public
understanding and attitudes may also affect the environment for R&D, reputation,
and market acceptance of nanotechnology products [32], so this informal education
is an important area and it requires funding. There is opportunity here to expand
informal science education and address inclusivity, affordability, and approachabil-
ity to ensure that all corners of society are being engaged in these topics, especially
from a young, formative age.
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 29

1.8 Summary and Outlook

Nanotechnology refers to any technology done on a nanoscale that has applications

in the real world. The properties of matter at the nanoscale are different from those
at a larger scale. The unique physical and chemical properties of nanomaterials can
be exploited for commercial applications that benefit society. The discovery of
novel materials, processes, and phenomena at the nanoscale and the development of
new experimental and theoretical techniques for research at the end of the twentieth
century, provide fresh opportunities for the development of innovative nanosystems
and nanomaterials. Nanotechnology represents a “megatrend,” and has become a
“general purpose” technology.
The NNI was launched in the U.S. in 2000 with a $497 million investment in the
FY 2001 budget. In 2003, a twenty-first Century Nanotechnology R&D Act became
law in the U.S., with $3.7 billion to be spent in the 4 year period beginning in
October 2005 over six federal agencies. Through FY 2015, about $20 billion was
spent by 20 federal agencies, with about $1.5 billion for FY 2015. Twenty top-level
federal agencies (27 including all subsidiary and sub-agencies) fund NNI-related
research with about 93 % of the funding being spent by five agencies (NIH, NSF,
DOE, DOD, and NIST). The U.S. private sector R&D investment is estimated to be
twice that of public funding, with a focus on translating fundamental research into
commercial products.
NNI is governed by an intricate organizational structure overseen by OSTP.
NNCO has the responsibility to coordinate R&D activities among various federal
agencies. Congress mandates various Triennial Review reports, including an exter-
nal triennial assessment by the National Academies and another by PCAST, which
reports to OSTP. It should be noted that since the enactment of the Nanotechnology
Act in 2003, it has not been reauthorized by U.S. Congress.
The U.S. and the rest of the world continue to make significant investments. As
of FY 2015, the U.S. and the E.U. have made comparable government investments,
followed by Japan, China, Korea, and Taiwan. U.S. private industry has spent far
more than industry in other countries. However, the rest of the world, particularly
emerging economies such as China, are increasing funding at a rapid rate. Based on
key indicators of nanotechnology development, which include R&D funding,
venture capital, SCI papers, patent applications, primary workforce, and final
product market, a significant growth rate in all of these indicators is observed
worldwide. The revenue from nano-enabled products continues to grow, with
over $200 billion in 2012 in the U.S. alone. This represents an impressive return
on R&D investment.
As an outlook, there appears to be a lack of investments in technology transfer.
Since 2001, as expected, the major focus has been on foundational research, which
has been broadly based. NNI is believed to have reached a turning point. One
should assess the scientific progress made and its economic impact. Based on this
detailed analysis, scientific focus may need to be on only a few areas of economic
importance. In addition, the NNI needs to develop strategies for investment in
30 B. Bhushan

translational research to facilitate commercialization, as well as research on EHS

related issues to protect public life and environment. Finally, development of
nanotechnology workforce and curriculum development, programs to educate the
public of the benefits of nanotechnology and to change attitudes toward nanotech-
nology should be continued.

References

1. Anonymous, Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom. National Science and
Technology Council, Committee on Technology, The Interagency Working Group on
Nanoscience, Engineering, and Technology, Washington, DC (1999)
2. Anonymous, National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution.
National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, The Interagency
Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering, and Technology, Washington, DC (2000)
3. Anonymous, National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February, National Science
and Technology Council Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science,
Engineering, and Technology, Washington, DC (2014)
4. Anonymous, The National Nanotechnology Initiative – Supplement to the President’s 2015
Budget, March, The National Science and Technology Council and the Office of Science &
Technology Policy, Washington, DC (2014)
5. Anonymous, Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the
Environment, and Human Health, January, GAO-14-181SP, Government Accountability
Office, Washington, DC (2014)
6. Anonymous, Report to the President and Congress on the Fifth Assessment of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, October, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technol-
ogy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC (2014)
7. S. Arora, A. Porter, J. Youtie, P. Shapira, Capturing new developments in an emerging
technology: an updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs.
Scientometrics 95, 351–370 (2013)
8. Bhushan, Springer Handbook of Nanotechnology, 3rd edn. (Springer, Heidelberg, 2010)
9. Bhushan, Encyclopedia of Nanotechnology, 2nd edn. (Springer International, Switzerland, 2016)
10. B. Bhushan, Governance, policy, and legislation of nanotechnology: a perspective. Microsyst.
Technol. 21, 1137–1155 (2015)
11. B. Bhushan, Perspective: science and technology policy – what is at stake and why should
scientists participate? Sci. Pub. Policy 42, 887–900 (2015)
12. B. Bhushan, D. Luo, S.R. Schricker, W. Sigmund, S. Zauscher, Handbook of Nanomaterials
Properties (Springer, Heidelberg, 2014), vols. 1–2, 1464 p
13. R.J. Chen, H.C. Choi, S. Bangsaruntip, E. Yenilmex, X. Tang, Q. Wang, Y.L. Chang, H. Dai,
An investigation of the mechanisms of electrode sensing of protein adsorption on carbon
nanotube devices. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126, 1563–1568 (2004)
14. H. Chen, M.C. Roco, J. Son, S. Jiang, C.A. Larson, Q. Gao, Global nanotechnology develop-
ment from 1991 to 2012: patents, scientific publications, and the effect of NSF funding.
J. Nanopart. Res. 15, 1–21 (2013)
15. W.C. Crone, Bringing Nano to the Public: A Collaboration Opportunity for Researchers and
Museums – NISE Network (Science Museums of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 2006)
16. R.P. Feynman, There’s plenty of room at the bottom. Eng. Sci. 23, 22–36 (1960)
17. H. Flynn, Nanotechnology Update: Corporations Up Their Spending as Revenues for Nano-
enabled Products Increase (Lux Research, New York, 2014)
18. L.J. Hornbeck, Digital light processing update – status and future applications. SPIE 3634,
158–170 (1999)
1 Introduction to Nanotechnology: History, Status, and Importance of. . . 31

19. D.J. Irvine, Drug delivery: one nanoparticle, one kill. Nat. Mater. 10, 342–343 (2011)
20. Y. Li, S. Arora, J. Youtie, P. Shapira, S. Carley, Program on Nanotechnology Research and
Innovation System Assessment, March, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Analysis of Publication records of articles indexed in ThomsonReuters Web of Science (SCI,
SSCI, and A&HI) (2014)
21. J. Lorengo, Nanotechnology-Related Patenting: USPTO & Global Statistics. Presented at the
2013 NanoBusiness Commercialization Association Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, PA, Oct
2013
22. M.J. Madou, Fundamentals of Microfabrication and Nanotechnology, 3rd edn. (CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, 2011)
23. M. Mehta, 2014 NCMS Study of Nanotechnology in the U.S. Manufacturing Industry (National
Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS), Ann Arbor, MI, 2015) (Unpublished data)
24. National Research Council, Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (The
National Academies, Washington, DC, 2013)
25. National Research Council, Research Progress on Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects
of Engineering Materials (The National Academies, Washington, DC, 2013)
26. NIOSH, Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology – Managing the Health and Safety Concerns
Associated with Engineering Nanomaterials, Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupa-
tional Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009-125 (2009)
27. NIOSH, Current Strategies for Engineering Controls in Nanomaterial Production and Down-
stream Handling Processes, Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014–102 (2013a)
28. NIOSH, Protecting the Nanotechnology Workforce: NIOSH Nanotechnology Research and
Guidance Strategic Plan, 2013–2016, Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 2014–106 (2013b)
29. M.C. Roco, The long view of nanotechnology development: the national nanotechnology
initiative at 10 years. J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 427–445 (2011)
30. M. Roco, NSF and long-view for nanotechnology development. Presented at the 10th inter-
national nanotechnology conference on communication and cooperation (INC10), NIST,
Gaithersburg, Maryland, 13 May 2014
31. M.C. Roco, W.S. Bainbridge, The new world of discovery, invention, and innovation: con-
vergence of knowledge, technology, and society. J. Nanopart. Res. 15, 1–17 (2013)
32. J.F. Sargent, Jr., Nanotechnology: a policy primer. Report #RL34511, Congressional Research
Service (U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, 2013) (Internal Document)
33. D. Srivastava, Computational nanotechnology of carbon nanotubes, in Carbon Nanotubes:
Science and Applications, ed. by M. Meyyappan (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2004), pp. 25–36
34. W.G. van der Wiel, S. De Franceschi, J.M. Elzerman, T. Fugisawa, S. Tarucha,
L.P. Kauwenhoven, Electron transport through double quantum dots. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75,
1–22 (2003)
35. L. Whitman, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (Washington, DC, 2015)
Personal communication
 Part I
Interdisciplinary Nature of NSE Education
Chapter 2
Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience:
Implications for Education

Anna-Leena Kähk€onen, Antti Laherto, Anssi Lindell, and Suvi Tala

Abstract A lot of expectations rest on the interdisciplinarity of nanoscience, and it

has even been proposed as the deciding factor in the progress of the field. What
opportunities and challenges does the interdisciplinary nature of nanoscience bring
to science education at different levels? This chapter first analyzes the much-
discussed interdisciplinarity of nanoscience today, and then discusses how and
why those features should be addressed in education.

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 Definitions of Interdisciplinarity

Interdisciplinarity has been loosely defined as activities that combine, apply or

integrate two or more disciplines. The field can be further categorized according to
the degree of disciplinary integration, the types of practices involved, or the
rationales [1]. As an example from the first category, interdisciplinarity can be
contrasted with multidisciplinarity, which is much more common. Multi-
disciplinary work juxtaposes the participating disciplines, it is additive instead of
integrative [2]. Interdisciplinarity, on the contrary, requires stronger ties, overlap
and integration of various disciplinary perspectives. Other regularly used terms are
cross-disciplinarity, which does not require active interaction or integration of
different fields—and transdisciplinarity, which goes beyond interdisciplinarity in
merging traditional disciplines and dissolving disciplinary boundaries. Today,
transdisciplinarity is used almost interchangeably with interdisciplinarity, as its
goals are embraced by many interdisciplinarians [3].

A.-L. Kähk€onen (*) • A. Lindell

Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Laherto • S. Tala
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 35

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_2
36 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

The disciplines represent several things: storage of relevant knowledge, a system

for producing said knowledge, and the people drawing from such knowledge,
based on certain methods, interests, standards, and traditions [4]. The development
of the discipline as a social institution with closed membership, journals, societies,
and job openings—all beneficial developments for the scientist!—and the per-
ceived competition from scientific research institutes has shifted the University
from education- to research-oriented [5, 6].
The drive for interdisciplinary research can result from the needs to tackle a
multi-faceted, complex problem [7–9] that cannot be addressed by a single disci-
pline. Krohn [10] describes all interdisciplinary ventures as tackling problems
that include the real-world complexities, whereas a mono-disciplinary approach
theorizes and simplifies the complexities away. This is the perspective of inter-
disciplinarity applied at the demands of a problem.
On the other hand, it can arise from a shared interest in an object of study, or
pressing social concerns and demands that do not fit within a single disciplinary
frame—such is the case, e.g., in environmental research. Such shared interest and a
will to see if there is more to a question than meets the eye can be the starting point
to creative collaboration and discovery [11]. This perspective recognizes that
people may be inherently interested in seeking integrated views and new perspec-
tives or applications. Jacobs [12] lists other reasons for interdisciplinary research;
they include validation of results by other disciplines, overlapping claims to
intellectual terrains, and the mundane lure of funding available in solving contem-
porary problems.
Finally, the complete picture of interdisciplinarity comprises both cognitive and
socio-psychological elements; the discipline as a body and production methodology
of knowledge, and the social body of the disciplinary knowers and their socio-
cultural dynamics. Both of these elements are crucial to enabling and understanding
interdisciplinary research [13, 14].

2.1.2 Disciplines Contributing to Nanoscience

The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering [15] define nanoscience
as “the study of phenomena and manipulation of materials at atomic, molecular
and macromolecular scales, where properties differ significantly from those at a
larger scale.” This definition does not bind nanoscience into any specific discipline,
but leaves the research methods open. Nanoscience is open for interdisciplinary
research of material samples at a specific scale. By nanoscience and technology
(NST) we refer to utilization and application of nanoscience and -techniques in
products.
Many fields of nanoscience clearly interlink two or more of the traditional
disciplines, mostly physics, chemistry, biology, material science, medicine, and
engineering. An example of such a field is research on steric effects of cell
membranes, where chemists, biologists and physicists have overlapping research
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 37

interests and approaches that complement each other, and the scientists from
different fields come to share the same, novel instruments to observe the pheno-
mena and probe the samples. When researchers from different origins take part in
interdisciplinary projects, they have little common ground in their disciplinary
expertise. It must lay elsewhere; suggestions include the objective of research, as
well as the approaches, instrumentation and technology. While the nanoscale is
shared, there are signs that it is viewed very differently by physicists, chemists, and
biologists, each taking the point of view based on their disciplinary tradition and
epistemology [16]. In addition to the different backgrounds and approaches, they
can have different objectives. The local co-operation is motivated by the mutual
interdependence: it helps different actors to reach their goals.
It is clear from a multitude of case studies that a minimum requirement for
successful interdisciplinarity is that the participants learn to see the situation from the
viewpoints of collaborators with different backgrounds [17]. This means that an
interdisciplinarian has to develop a sufficient understanding of the nature of the relevant
disciplines [6]; we discuss later what this understanding might be for nanoscience.

2.1.3 The People That Do Science

James Watson, the co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA molecule

and a Nobel Prize of medicine winner in 1962 expressed the importance of
collaboration as “Nothing new that is really interesting comes without collabo-
ration.” Social and psychological elements of interdisciplinarity are revealed by
numerous studies/writings focusing on the challenges to organize interdisciplinary
research projects in the areas where the viewpoint would be new and interesting.
The challenges of interdisciplinarity relate to the difficulties of crossing histori-
cal disciplinary borders at universities, which have defined the ways of acting and
thinking for hundreds of years, and also provided the foundation of institutions
together with the careers and success in those [4, 5]. The institutional structures,
such as recognition and assessment of work, e.g., for tenure, are still lagging behind,
rather than acknowledging interdisciplinary work as academic credit, and fully
enabling scientists to build a career with interdisciplinary collaboration [18]. This
is a heavy incentive for many researchers to stay in a field they were trained in,
rather than build a new, interdisciplinary identity (see Sect. 2.2.2.3).
The attraction of interdisciplinary work still works for many; it offers explo-
ration, adventure, and possibility of collaboration with very different fields.
Nanoscience has so far also been a field that offers funding possibilities (even
security, in comparison with many less popular fields)—there is high government
funding as well as research collaboration with companies. There are lots of expec-
tations that it will have a big impact on industry and medical technology. It has the
feeling of being a field on the rise, with ever-increasing numbers of citations and
patents [19].
38 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

Whatever the reason people enter the field, they are still confronted by the
institutional and social factors in doing nanoscience. While interdisciplinary sci-
ence can be pursued solo, it is certainly often linked with teamwork and team
science [20], particularly so in natural sciences. Getting collaboration and a com-
munity going with people with different disciplinary identities and habits has its
own difficulties, which we will address in more detail in Sect. 2.2.2.

2.1.4 Why Consider Interdisciplinarity in the Context

of Education?

The concept of discipline has strong educational connotations, as it originates from

the Latin for “teaching.” The disciplines in lower education are called “school
subjects.” They can be thought of as university disciplines translated for use at
schools, but the choice and content of school subjects is of course also a societal and
political decision.
Interdisciplinarity has been a slogan of educational reforms at all levels: from
interdisciplinary universities (in-depth discussion in [2]) to integrated school curri-
cula. The advocates mainly argue that interdisciplinary science teaching supports
students’ understanding of connections and relevance of concepts to other concepts
and broader issues [21]. Indeed, many finer points of epistemology or synthesizing
information will not do much to younger students, who are still working on their
higher-level thinking skills. Currently an interdisciplinary strand in general edu-
cation is included, e.g., in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as the
cross-cutting concepts [22].
Repko [6] reflects on the knowledge intensity of working life. The future of
industry and labor require persons who “understand, use, and integrate knowledge
and methods as well as collaborate with disciplinary teams across industry sectors
and cultures.” Jacobs [12] introduces product development as today’s inter-
disciplinary empire; his example is from making skin cream, where “a diverse
team is needed, including basic scientists, clinicians, specialists with a background
in managing clinical trials, financial analysts, and marketing specialists, among
others.” Such a diverse skillset will not be cultivated within any one faculty or
technical college, be it chemistry, marketing, or dermatology.
We expect the skills of working and coping with information—“hard skills”—
and people—“soft skills”—from different backgrounds and disciplines to be
increasingly important for tomorrow’s adults. They are relevant to everyone within
our world of increasing diversity and multitude of cultures; many of the inter-
disciplinary soft skills are, indeed, the same as cultural competence [23].
Within a higher education perspective, Newell [24] makes a bold prediction that
interdisciplinary undergraduate education will radically increase. At the moment,
researchers that have received a nanoscience and engineering training all the way
from the Master’s or Bachelor’s level, are not yet in positions of power in the
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 39

academy. The long-established nanoscience Bachelor’s or Master’s programs have

recently hit the ten-year mark, with University of Toronto’s Nanoengineering
program being the oldest, launched in 2001 [25]. The first in Finland are now
working as postdoctoral researchers and senior lab managers, or in the case of
Taiwan, some as junior professors [26]. We know that early interdisciplinary
experiences, such as student research, predict future interdisciplinary research
paths [27]. As a new generation of interdisciplinary-minded researchers reach
positions of power, they will be more likely to promote interdisciplinary research
and education, creating a positive feedback loop [24].
Simply predicting or watching over an increase in interdisciplinary education is
not enough. There are social and psychological factors, which should be considered
in the education of the future citizens, customers, workforce, and researchers, to
avoid some of the current problems and pitfalls.
In what follows, we first elaborate on how interdisciplinarity appears and affects
research in nanoscience. On the basis of that synthesis, we discuss implications for
interdisciplinary nanoscience education at general as well as academic levels.

2.2 Interdisciplinarity in Nanoscience

A lot of expectations rest on the notion of interdisciplinarity of nanoscience, and it

has even been proposed as the deciding factor in the progress of nanoscience
[28]. Stevens, Sutherland and Krajcik [29] see in it a promise of a significantly
greater impact on society than previous leaps in scientific knowledge. Perhaps
interdisciplinarity is the only thing that gives a name to nanoscience: after all,
chemists, physicists, biochemists and cell biologists have been studying phenomena
at the nanoscale—the dimension of atoms and molecules—for centuries (see e.g.,
[30]).
There can be various degrees of interdisciplinarity in scientific research. NST
has been referred to in terms of reductionism of the natural sciences (see [31]);
i.e. the scientific ambition is not only to link quantum mechanics, solid-state
physics, inorganic chemistry and molecular biology, but to unify them as well—
at least partially, in the nanoscale. Some scholars have gone even further,
suggesting that nanoscience prepares the way for a greater convergence of sciences,
the so-called nano-bio-info-cogno-, or NBIC (Nanotechnology, Biotechnology,
Information Technology, and Cognitive Science)—convergence [32–34]. As
Schummer [14] puts it, interdisciplinarity “can go as far as to either unify two or
more disciplines or to create a new ‘interdisciplinary’ (hybrid) discipline at the
interface of the mother disciplines.” However he sees no unification in the present,
describing nanoscience research as “several auxiliary disciplines [that] are strongly
associated with one major or also identified as a ‘mother’ discipline and researchers
working in auxiliary disciplines make tremendous efforts to contribute to the major
discipline”, similar to worker bees tending to their queen.
40 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

Both of these ideas—the melting pot, and the queen bee discipline fed by
subordinate disciplines—have been used to describe NST, and we will address
them again in contexts of bibliometry and published nanoscience research, as well
as researchers’ disciplinary or professional identity.
While we are in no way against monodisciplinary research within nanoscience,
in the following sub-chapters we explore how interdisciplinarity appears in
researchers’ work. We seek to show that different degrees of interdisciplinarity
do exist in nanoscience and give the reader an impression of what that inter-
disciplinarity brings to NST. We have a focus on work in groups or teams. We
use this understanding later to discuss what kind of interdisciplinary training would
help future scholars to adjust into an interdisciplinary research world, or help all
citizens appreciate science—especially nanoscience—and society more fully.
In the following, we explore the cognitive and social sides of nanoscience
including a few anecdotes from nanoscience research groups, from both interviews
and self-edited stories [35–39]. A similar structured look at the Nature of Science
has recently been made by Irzik and Nola [40, 41] and Erduran and Dagher [42]; we
share the same two big categories (cognitive-epistemic and social-institutional).
Within the subcategories we have focused on the specifics of interdisciplinary
science, and therefore some of the categories relevant to nature of science(s) in
general are missing.

2.2.1 Nanoscience as a Cognitive-Epistemic System

2.2.1.1 Building an Adequacy in a Discipline

The disciplinary adequacy, prerequisite knowledge, and basic observational cate-

gories mentioned in the previous chapters all fall under the umbrella of establishing
a necessary amount of familiarity with the relevant disciplines. It does not mean
knowing the “important findings” in a discipline as much as it involves an under-
standing of the allowed assumptions, preferred methods, standards for evidence—
much of it unsaid, but tacitly understood by someone educated in the field [43].
In case of nanoscience, the relevant disciplines are usually known from the start
of the research project, and aside from the beginning researcher, participants come
to the table with a disciplinary adequacy rather than attaining it during a project
(as described by [6], as part of the Interdisciplinary Research Process). The disci-
plinary knowledge base is of course extended as required during the project. In an
interdisciplinary education this adequacy could be obtained already during a Bach-
elor’s degree.
With majority of nanoscience researchers still having a background in a
monodisciplinary environment, beginning nanoscientists come to the table without
a general understanding of the methods and typical assumptions used in each of the
natural sciences. Not surprisingly, scientists typically spend little time thinking
about the different methodology or epistemological assumptions of their
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 41

neighboring disciplines. For some, it manifests as a resistance due to their strong

disciplinary identities, and they minimize contact to other disciplines down to a
superficial “borrowing of results [36].” Others begin the process of building ade-
quacy to minimize the cognitive struggles at the edges of their disciplinary world.
One visible difference between disciplines is jargon, or the specific terminology.
Professor Korppi-Tommola from the Nanoscience Center at University of Jyväs-
kylä (NSC-JYU) acknowledges that it is a big barrier to overcome: “Patience and
perseverance are needed—Becoming acquainted with biology terms for example,
takes time. It just doesn’t seem to stick without having read their 1000-page
fundamentals textbook [39].” Once obtained, Chari [36, on pp. 111–114], high-
lights the ease with which people use jargon without noticing it. She shares an
example of a physics background graduate, who described his frustration with other
disciplines’ jargon, simultaneously using “acronyms and terminologies including
UV (ultraviolet), AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy), LASER, TEM (Transmission
Electron Microscopy), plasmon resonance, aliasing, diffraction pattern.” She notes
that “[the graduate] probably assumed I had a physics background as I had met him
earlier at a physics student conference.” Shared jargon becomes an intellectual
shorthand in discussions, and creates a communality among those who share it.
In the social skills section we note that it’s important to be able to ask for
clarification, and if the audience is known to not share the jargon base, to accom-
modate speech to a shared level. For a long-term collaboration, there simply is an
amount of terminology to come to terms with, as a part of developing the disci-
plinary adequacy. Frequent interaction helps establish contact languages, systems
of discourse that can vary from the most function-specific jargons, through
semispecific pidgins, to full-fledged creoles rich enough to support activities as
complex as poetry and metalinguistic reflection [44].
While there are countless examples of jargon inhibiting understanding (see
examples of syno- and homonyms in natural disciplines in [36, p. 144]), there’s
more to disciplinary adequacy. Andersen [17] argues that interdisciplinary research
involves epistemic dependence between researchers of different disciplines, sharing
a conceptual understanding and mental models of the situation. The knowledge of
the group as whole is non-utilizable, if the members are unable to share the
conceptual structures, to varying degrees, determined by their understandings of
each discipline involved. As is typical in nanoscience, graduate students often have
supervisors from different disciplines. If an intellectual connection between the
people doesn’t happen, as either the student, the supervisor, or both lack an
adequacy in the other discipline, the connection is unlikely to be realized in
research either.
Chari [36, on pp. 128–130], describes a student “meeting his second supervisor
only for the administrative updates of his project while his meetings with his first
supervisor (from his discipline) were mainly to discuss research findings and seek
suggestions. He favored the meetings with his first supervisor as they were targeted
to discuss the inputs, suggestions and experimental challenges.” His other group
members saw value in development of multiple types of coating, while his research
was about the optimization and parameters of the process of coating—typical to his
42 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

disciplinary home. He experienced intellectual solitude because of the inadequate

understanding of disciplinary perspectives both ways. In extremes, the solitude
becomes a judgmental trench. Chari [36, on pp. 148–151], found that it’s a very
common experience amongst nanoscientists. Their research, performance, and
actions being judged through the lens of another discipline becomes a form of
criticism, as the judged actions, such as validation of results, do not necessarily
conform to the traditions of the other discipline. To the student, the different
expectations and goals for the research appeared as criticism of the value of his
research.
Without recognition of the inadequate disciplinary understandings as the cause
of this problem, one may simply become more entrenched within their home
discipline. Prompts or hints about the wider context cannot remove these blinds;
even the industry and faculty panelists in a Delphi study [45] rating relevant
competencies in nanomanufacturing “did not rate some of the biology and chem-
istry competencies because they [were] not related to the respondents’
background.”

2.2.1.2 Interdisciplinary Thinking: Networks, Syntheses, Delicate

Adjustments?

There are several studies on how an interdisciplinary understanding—that is, within

an individual mind—is formed. The overarching theme is integrating distinct
epistemologies, whether they be of research methods, targets, validation, or the
choice between inductive and deductive reasoning. We overview theoretical
models of interdisciplinary thinking and exemplify them in a research project in
nanoscience.
Krohn’s [10] idea of an interdisciplinary understanding in an area is a network of
individual cases, within which the similarities and differences between cases are
compared. The tension between understanding the specific details of a case or
system, and searching for generalizable information—laws—demands new types
of competencies. He emphasizes that it is not a search for “typical cases”, but the
individuality of each case be preserved. Situational assessment, a repertoire of
strategies, and recalling components of the case network for comparison to previous
solutions are the main skills to develop. The means are by observation of masters
and most importantly, exercise of solving such cases. The fruitful and accurate
description of cases falls back on the disciplinary knowledge base of the expert.
Neither can be eliminated—the appreciation and feel, the praxis, of cases, nor the
backbone of formal, abstract generalizations.
Boix-Mansilla [46] writes of interdisciplinary learning as a “series of delicate
adjustments” into the previous intellectual commitments on the subject of study.
Her stance on the clash of epistemologies is a pluralistic one; more than one
knowledge system are utilized and the evidence may not all match up, but the
conclusion can be deemed acceptable against the purpose of investigation: does it
help solve the problem. Nordmann [47] explores the purpose within nanoscience;
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 43

he describes the field as an exploration, where (epistemic) success is defined by the

ability to act on the nanoscale.
We see the process as weighing disciplinary insights and revising or abandoning
previous intellectual commitments in place of more reasonable ones—for the
particular problem, on a case basis. In Chari’s [36] interviews, a physicist graduate
mentalized his disciplinary knowledge in physics as “fundamental building
blocks”, which “worked as a platform to construct new knowledge in his research
on.” He learned new disciplinary knowledge by making a connection to his
“building blocks” (p. 113).
Boix-Mansilla [46] determines four core cognitive processes of interdisciplinary
study: “establishing purpose; weighing disciplinary insights; building leveraging
integrations, and maintaining a critical stance.” They are very similar to Repko’s
[6] interdisciplinary research process (IRP) model: Drawing on disciplinary
insights (define the problem; justify interdisciplinary approach; identify relevant
disciplines; conduct literature search; develop adequacy in each relevant discipline;
analyze problem and evaluate each insight or theory) and Integrating disciplinary
insights (identify conflicts between insights or theories and their sources; create
common ground between concepts or theories; construct a more comprehensive
understanding; and reflect on, test, and communicate the understanding).
As a parallel to Boix-Mansilla’s outlined conceptual development, Andersen
[17] maintains that an interdisciplinary group can develop a (partially) shared
conceptual structure. The group members share in the individual substructures
that are related to the specific disciplines, each from their own area of expertise.
To apply these ideas in a real-world example, we describe the interdisciplinary
process in a research project in nanoscience:
Adjunct Professor Toppari [39] looks back at the determination of conductivity of DNA
origami: “During our electrical measurements of DNA origami, we utilized impedance
spectroscopy (IS), i.e., multi-frequency analysis, in addition to the earlier direct current
(DC) techniques.” The problem was determining the electrical resistance of DNA origami.
The purpose and justification for an interdisciplinary approach came from the inconclusive
previous research with monodisciplinary approaches. The chosen, novel method allowed
his group to compare and contrast their result with the conductivities of other, previously
measured combinations of molecules—other cases. From those comparisons they realized
that “the main resistance in the DC measurements was due to so-called linker molecules
used in attaching the thiol groups.”
With a pre-existing adequate understanding of the specific biological and chemical
realities of their samples, such as conformation changes of the DNA relative to the adsorbed
water layer around it, they noted that the available approaches were in epistemic conflict: on
one hand one could describe conductivity mechanisms in terms of electric circuits, or on the
level of molecular charge transfer and chemical reactions. They created common ground
between those levels by modeling equivalent electric components for the contributions of
ionic diffusion, adsorbed water molecules, etc. [48]. The more comprehensive understand-
ing they constructed was an equivalent circuit model of the situation. Falling back on the
physical understanding of electric conductivity of combinations of components, they were
able to determine the components of resistance for a genuine origami in high humidity and
reflect on and test their understanding with other ambient conditions.
44 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

2.2.1.3 Slow Development from Multidisciplinary Towards

Interdisciplinary Practice

It has been argued that the so-called interdisciplinarity of nanoscience turns out to
be merely multidisciplinarity in closer scrutiny of the actual practices [14], and
nanoscience is just an umbrella term for many fields of research with their own
approaches and paradigms. For instance, the ideas of atom-by-atom-manipulation
and self-assembly are fundamentally so different and rooted in their disciplinary
origins that genuine interdisciplinary advancement by utilizing the other method
may be difficult to achieve. Nordmann [47], in footnotes, seconds the notion and
remarks that while imaginable, there appears to be little pressure or movement
toward the development of an integrated thought for nanoscience.
In light of the previous two features of interdisciplinary understanding, we can
only acknowledge the difficulty of interdisciplinary research and that of creating
common ground amidst the viewpoints of different disciplines.
There are examples where epistemological difficulties have not stalled research,
but—though perhaps slowly—an interdisciplinary synthesis and a more compre-
hensive understanding has been acquired. One good example is the studies of
molecular junctions, mentalized first by some as molecular wires with a statistical
distribution of transport properties, and by others as supermolecules, whose struc-
ture determines electron transport. The studies have created a middle ground and
integrated the conflicting disciplinary mindsets. From such ground a more compre-
hensive understanding of the problem can be reached—an integrated view of the
conductance of molecules [47].
In similar vein, Dr. Toppari describes the mental journey from multidisciplinary
origins to integrated understanding of the conductivity of DNA [emphasis added]:
“Gone are the illusions of physicists about DNA as a robust molecule which could
be utilized in any electrical circuit, as well as the notions of biologists about DNA
as purely the carrier of genetic information. Perspectives have changed within both
disciplines, and more importantly—a common “language” between them has
developed to the point of enabling reliable communication without ambiguities
[39, p. 113].”
Other examples might include the determination methods of structures of col-
loidal nanoparticles [49] and function of dye-sensitized solar cells, in particular the
discovery that dyes paired with nanostructures were what enables conductance also
for the visible spectrum of light [50].

2.2.1.4 What Journal Articles Can Tell About Interdisciplinarity

Bibliometric studies can be a window into the cognitive identification of people in

nanoscience—a tendency to publish research in disciplinary groups and journals
[16, 51, 52]. We start with Schummer’s [14] description of some disciplines as
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 45

similar to worker bees tending to their queen, without much recognition from the
queen. This worker bee role certainly can happen, and for some disciplines it takes
place even most of the time—for example toxicology and ethics. While toxicolo-
gists analyze the potential impacts of nanoscale particles, the information they
produce is seen as additional by the engineers: “[t]oxicology is usually seen as a
brakesman and spoilsport. Toxicology focuses on implications that an engineer
does not necessarily see, but which could be of great importance for him [38]”.
In contrast, Rafols and Meyer [53, 54] looked at the cognitive level within a
research project. They reviewed article citations and references, and argue that
there is a high degree of interdisciplinarity as evidenced by the breadth of disci-
plinary knowledge referenced and the similarity of the references. Huang, Notten
and Rasters [55] point out a weakness in interpreting bibliometric studies; the
measurement of interdisciplinarity can be undertaken at several levels; cognitive
aspects of research, such as the use of references and instrumentalities, or the
affiliation and background of the researchers, or the orientation proclaimed by the
journal, and still at different levels of detail (a journal—a paper—a citation). This
yields contrasting results. For example the contributions of biotechnology are often
missed by lexical queries, as they do not explicitly contain the phrase “nano.”
Curiously, one of Chari’s interviewees notes [36, on p. 129], that the graduate
students at her lab were not writing with a journal in mind. Despite being the main
contributors and constructors of the papers, “they trusted their mentors/supervisors
experience in this area and followed their call [on the selection of the journal].” This
yet again makes it difficult to draw conclusions on basis of journal choice alone.

2.2.1.5 Mediating Role of Technology and Experimentation

Nanoscience is closely connected to the technological development: experimen-

tally, nothing can be studied without the technology to excite nanophenomena by
controlling sample conditions, or to make the phenomena readily available for
investigation. Technology becomes a connecting, interdisciplinary layer for scien-
tists who develop and rely on the same technologies. A technological mindset of
“getting it to work” can speed up and encourage the interdisciplinary collaboration
when theoretical underpinnings are less critical than showing what’s possible, e.g.,
electric transport in molecules [47]. The methodologies in experimentation are by
nature shareable. Similarly, computational studies in nanoscience can often utilize
the same algorithms and computing environments, when the templates on which the
computer codes are based [56] are general enough.
How the sharing actually takes place is a different question. Fiore [57] found that
experimentation and laboratories worked in another manner if researchers from
different disciplines were present; they utilized analogies to form shared under-
standing and a concept base, and the analogies led to modifications in the set-ups. In
labs with members from the same background, the conversations took place on the
level of standard manipulations as a way to solve problems, rather than a holistic
understanding of the methods. Chari [36] calls the questioning of methodology and
46 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

techniques of instrumentation one of the big interdisciplinary skills. She found that
some researchers saw value in “learning [the] instruments” while others associated
them as simply “devices” for data collection.
One of the researchers she interviewed did use AFM and scanning electron
microscope as part of her research work, but collected the data with the help of a
technician and was uninterested in learning those instruments, viewing them as
“devices” only [36, pp. 117–119]. While the instruments provided an important link
between the disciplines, they did not automatically become parts of the shared
conceptual understanding and knowledge world. Working with the instruments and
interpreting data was considered as challenging [36, on p. 158], which suggests that
the researchers did have to overcome some hardship in negotiating their initial,
discipline-centered point of view with a technoscientific, instrument-enabled point
of view as they worked to understand what their data could rightly—following the
epistemological constraints—be said to represent.
Professor Nissinen from NSC-JYU [39, on p. 51], describes her experience of
the collaboration around different discipline-specific research methods and equip-
ment. While the first years were spent with getting to know what equipment was
available in the neighboring disciplines, collaborations sped up the use of instru-
ments. She brings up a specific way of collaborating at the layer of instrumentation;
she describes it as “asking for ideas from researchers in other fields as to how they
would go about some study.” As a result, her organic chemistry group benefited
from the expertise of physical chemists and biologists in spectroscopy. The ideas of
other researchers, who had a deep understanding of spectroscopic methods, helped
her group members overcome methodological obstacles as they learned to use and
interpret fluorescence spectrometers. The collaboration that existed most deeply at
the level of instrumentation resulted in joint publications with spectroscopy spe-
cialists, and a more comprehensive understanding of, e.g., the fluorescence mech-
anisms and structural changes in supramolecular assemblies of resorcinarenes [58].
For nanoscience and -technology, we suggest that technology be viewed as one
of the domains where the researcher must establish adequate “disciplinary” under-
standing in; understanding of the different techniques, instruments, and set-ups that
goes deeper than a user manual level—knowing what phenomena the instrument is
based on, understanding its limitations, and having an idea of how the data is
interpreted (either by the user or the device).

2.2.2 Nanoscience as a Socio-Institutional System

2.2.2.1 Importance of Initial Training and Socialization in a Field

Becher and Trowler [59] remark, on pp. 47–50, that the institutional affluence is at
its largest from undergraduate time to the completion of a PhD, shaping the
academic identity of a researcher most intensely. The socialization involves the
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 47

internalization of the myths and legends that shape one’s worldview into highlight-
ing the role of one’s own discipline, all through interactions with instructors and
fellow students, rather than someone “laying down the law.” Gerholm (as quoted in
[59]) suggests that being a student in a discipline forms its own set of tacit,
disciplinary knowledge, of navigating the subject matter as a learner. In settings
where one has only one strong reference group, her facility and ability to develop
interdisciplinary interests is much more limited than in an educational setting where
one has many.
Socialization in the research community plays an essential role in the education
of new scientists, which is a kind of initiation in the culture nurtured in the field.
Socialization into the culture of a field means learning about both the methodolog-
ical and social practices of the field, which can be called contributory expertise in
the field. Contributory expertise enables a scientist to make independent contribu-
tions to the field (see [60–62]). In addition to mastering research practices, contrib-
utory expertise means sensitivity for symbols, meanings, and representations. This
knowledge forms a “map” the researcher uses to navigate his field, and the basis of
his scientific intuition. Such intuition guides both understanding of the subject
under study—its methodological and epistemological aspects—and actions of the
researcher in the social context. For example, in the book Epistemic Cultures [63],
Karin Knorr Cetina argues that in the context of high energy physics, experiments
have replaced individual persons as the things that produce knowledge in the field.
In molecular biology, by contrast, individual persons remain the primary epistemic
subjects (knowers). Internalizing the idea of what produces knowledge, the values
and purposes within the field, and the ease of operation on basis that others share the
same set of tacit, silent knowledge they operate by, the researcher establishes
contributory expertise within a field. It is thought to require full-scale physical
immersion in a culture [43, 60], hence, from this perspective tacit knowledge and
experimental skills are part of contributory expertise.
There’s little research on how the picture changes if the culture and the field are
interdisciplinary from the start. The interdisciplinary collaboration today is of
researchers trained within one field (as described above) extending their contri-
butory expertise to use with colleagues within different fields—as if trading on an
interdisciplinary zone [44]. The features of an interdisciplinary trading zone are that
there is a set of shared local rules, allowing scientists or groups with different
identities to work together without further commitments.
The interactional expertise of working together can be distributed in different
ways in the group [17]. For example, in a study among researchers modeling
nanoscience, the modelers were concluded to have taken an active role in facilitat-
ing the co-operation between the experimental and more theoretical scientists
focusing on same phenomena. The task of modelers was seen as to bridge and
mediate between theoretical and empirical world, thereby developing both [64].
One’s ability to transfer expertise to other fields is especially important in the
scientific fields related to rapidly developing technology, such as computer software
and hardware, where new tools and methodologies continue to emerge. On one
hand, existing knowledge and methods can quickly become obsolete and on the
48 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

other, the technological skills and understanding is often highly applicable into new
fields. In such rapidly developing fields we thus see successful attempts to bridge
different disciplines by experts acting as “brokers” in the transfer of methods and
perspectives to other fields or by producing boundary objects transferring know-
how [65, 66].
When thinking of scientists who studied in interdisciplinary settings and had
experiences of interdisciplinary research when acquiring this tacit knowledge, the
rules and divisions of expertise may be different from the current picture outlined
above. Having disciplinary adequacy in the neighboring fields helps become aware
of some of the tensions and their resolutions inherent to interdisciplinary work; as
well as acquiring (some) of the tacit knowledge within each field. Socializing into
research happening at the trading zone, we expect, leads to an inbuilt expectation of
mediating ideas, unsaid rules, and a habit of contrasting and validating them. The
contributory expertise would already contain much of the interactional expertise
described above.

2.2.2.2 Forming Interdisciplinary Groups and Institutes

As so many nanoscience laboratories are relatively new, they still carry a memory
of how they were established and what the initial difficulties were. For the
researchers that put together a new research group or institute, this feat serves as
a grand quest that they undertook together, forging relations between the people
from different departments and creating interdependence. Things typically do not
go smoothly; one has to settle differences in habits of talking and conventions as
simple as which units to express results in, but also more deep differences such as
the tacit underpinnings and expectations outlined in Sects. 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.1.
At the Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory (NCL) in Frederick, MD,
they recall long, unfruitful discussions over “trivial matters [37].” According to
professor Kunttu from the NSC-JYU [39, p. 50], “at first, it seemed as though
nothing would come of it. It looked like people were withdrawing to their same, old
work.” The people at NSC-JYU mention unifying experiences such as applying for
initial and project funding and negotiating and buying equipment for laboratories
[39, on p. 36].
The other case is when new people enter the field, without a great unifying
experience to draw connections from. Entering a nanoscience research group and
learning to be part of the community, a novice researcher adopts the tacit ideas
guiding the pursuing and warranting knowledge in the field. When learning by
doing, novice researchers are initiated in the ways of action and thinking, they learn
to see the situation as those are seen in their own group(s) of reference. Thus, it is
largely a question of initiation in an epistemic culture, a kind of understanding tacit
rules guiding action in both knowledge building and in relation to others
(cf. Sect. 2.2.2.1). Prof. Manninen from NSC-JYU [39, p. 61], remarks that the
groups that did not migrate under a common roof are more aloof; “There’s an
immediate effect when you don’t go to the same coffee room to get your coffee.”
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 49

2.2.2.3 Professional Identity

Eisenberg and Pellmar [67] note that “a virtue of the traditional approach of
requiring narrow expertise is that students begin to feel a sense of mastery and
develop a professional identity.” There is little information yet on how nanoscience
researchers with an interdisciplinary initial training experience the identity strug-
gle—so far they are few and the first are in the post-doc or junior professor phase of
their careers. David Botstein, professor of genomics, remarks in [18], “I don’t
believe that my generation or the generation immediately after is ever going to
become interdisciplinary in any meaningful sense. It is today’s students who will be
the first real interdisciplinary generation.”
Instead, we have quite a good understanding of the process people go through
when they migrate from a disciplinary expertise position into an interdisciplinary
environment. To change one’s disciplinary expert identity into an interdisciplinary
one is difficult, as illustrated by a study into the NCL unit of translational
nanomedicine. While realizing the ineffectiveness of their original labels as
descriptors of the work they did today, they refused to be categorized as
“nanoscientists” [37]. Chari’s [36] nanoscience doctoral students also labeled
themselves as disciplinary graduates first, with “skills to research at nanoscale”
(p. 163).
Identity formation requires much more than the acquisition of conceptual
knowledge. The study into the initial formation of the NCL revealed a strong
connection between ”knowledge-making, institutional building, and identity for-
mation [37].” An identity formed during education is very slow to change [67], as it
builds so strongly on the contributory expertise gained during one’s socialization
into science.
The story of the chief immunologist Dobrovolskaia at NCL [37] provides an
example of the identity struggle. As immunologist, her work used to take place at
the end of product development, but placed in the lab with chemists and toxicol-
ogists she at first “couldn’t find [her] role in the lab.” She viewed her task of
detecting amounts of endotoxins in various nanoparticle samples as “textbook
knowledge” for every biologist, and was puzzled to discover nanoparticles in fact
modulated endotoxin responses in traditional tests. It was by working with chemists
and toxicologists that she formulated a methodology to discover whether endo-
toxins or nanoparticles were responsible for a positive response. Despite contri-
buting substantial content to “nanoimmunology” at NCL, she continued to state her
identity as “an immunologist with an experience in nanoparticles”, reasoning that it
was the field she trained in—and that “nanoimmunology” as a field, she felt, did not
exist at the moment.
The identity of a research group can more easily be perceived as inter-
disciplinary. The feeling of belonging and community spirit is important in identity
formation, and regular, informal meeting opportunities during terms or within
summer courses or symposia are viewed as especially important for inter-
disciplinary students [67, 68]. The socialization and membership of such a group
50 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

can provide a strong feeling of community despite the differing labels on personal
identities.

2.2.2.4 Establishing Academic Credibility as a Group

As hinted at previously, interdisciplinary research is at first glance viewed as less

challenging and rigorous, for those that “could not succeed in their own discipline”,
a way to “lose their professional identity” [67, 69]. Such statements reflect the deep
socialization to one’s own discipline, and the ease of viewing it as superior to others
[5, 67, 70, 71], but also the academic prestige of “pure” research in natural sciences
[72]. The more sophisticated critique questions the possibility of valid inter-
disciplinary research per se; e.g., arguments that the epistemic differences are
too big to overcome [12, 14].
It is important for both a researcher and a team of researchers to feel they are
doing credible science and attain a position in the academic world; interdisciplinary
research has got to prove its worth and credibility. Some of it may channel into
portraying a better picture to onlookers than reality suggests; the NCL personnel
remember attending meetings and conferences together to “frame” NCL as unified,
integrated entity, “instead of a center hosting individual projects [37].” Nancarrow
et al. [73] remark that one reason why a shared mission statement is important is
that it portrays an unified picture to onlookers.
But portraying and mimicking can lead to doing the right thing—fake it ‘til you
make it—and it certainly is critical to form a collective identity for the team of
researchers. A critical mass of resources can be the deciding factor in attracting
more resources and funding.
The NCL decided that their credibility must come from “collectivity, not
competitiveness.” The collective identity of the lab formed around their special
niche: coming together of three special groups and the (forced upon them) task of
collaborating with the government, industry, and academia. As for the aforemen-
tioned chief immunologist at NCL, she found that her personal credibility stemmed
from her unique skillset, rather than being the “best immunologist”; the immuno-
logy at NCL requires interdisciplinary skills, which she believed to be her strength.
Ku [37] remarks that discovering this marginal, but essential niche, became the
basis of their existence.
The results of this strategy were positive, despite the fact that creating the
collective outlook took time. Professor Kunttu recounts in [39, p. 50], “Now I’ve
seen and heard of many collaborations springing up. It took a few years, but now it
looks really good. Though this is a small department, it is acknowledged highly
among Finnish universities.”
The history of nanoscience is ripe with stories of finding a niche, finding a
“market” for one’s research interest in the other disciplines. Binnig and Rohrer had
a difficult time selling the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) technology to the
surface scientists until they hit upon the then unresolved problem of the surface
structure of (1,1,1) silicon and imaged the unit cell; it marked the entry of the STM
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 51

as tool for surface science. Moreover, the building of a STM became an initiation
ritual of new postdocs and staff scientists in the field, creating yet another new type
of technician/scientist position at the labs. Because the academic groups (unlike
corporate labs, such as IBM) were small, they had to find a niche through other
means, and started on interdisciplinary collaborations—inviting postdocs or junior
professors from other labs to train on probe microscopy, work on their samples, and
stack them with an AFM to bring back home [74].

2.2.2.5 Personal Academic Credibility; Tenure

On a personal level of establishing credibility, the difficulty of getting tenure as an

interdisciplinary researcher in a disciplinary academia is a worrying prospect.
When looking at linkages between interdisciplinary graduate research and the
advancement of an academic career, interdisciplinary research has at least in the
previous years been linked with non-tenure track positions in academia, but the
linkage has faded in recent years [75]. We are not aware of a similar study
specifically within nanoscience.
Nevertheless, there is some attraction to interdisciplinarity, and some of it can be
attributed to finding a personal niche in the academy. The research is seen as
emphasizing working with people; the area is relatively new and void of
(unidentifiable) role models; it offers a niche for the very specialized skillset; and
it may lead to positions of power otherwise unachievable [76]. Rhoten and Pfirman
find preliminary evidence to the idea that women are more attracted to inter-
disciplinary fields; in statistics of time spent on interdisciplinary research, female
researchers not only spend more time than males, but draw from more disciplines
than males do, confirmed in later studies [77]. Millar as well as Rhoten and Pfirman
went on to consider whether the attraction of interdisciplinarity is based on truthful
premises, and whether using those “promises” to attract more underrepresented
minorities into interdisciplinary science is ethical—considering the slower career
advancement opportunities thus far.
Looking at the issue of evaluating a researcher’s performance in an inter-
disciplinary context, some specific problems arise.
While some papers identify the role of each researcher and their contributions in
the paper, others don’t. When working in an interdisciplinary context it can be
difficult to justify the authorship rank, as the seeming importance of contributions
can shift when looking from different disciplines. The time invested in keeping the
collaboration going and mediating between actors is also easily overlooked in the
authorship rank. Chari’s postdoc interviewee notes on p. 125 [36] that “it was not
intentional and could have happened due to the lack of awareness of the researchers
from other disciplines about the details of that particular task in other disciplines”,
but reflects on his instructor’s comments that going uncredited is commonplace. A
similar problem arises with funding and grants—some universities credit the
principal investigator only [67] and the merits are not fairly distributed, even
when the money is.
52 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

Professor Kunttu [39, on p. 50], also reflects on the initial slowness and smaller
rate of publications of collaborative research: “Interdisciplinary research is a great
thing, but it’s tough—really tough. It isn’t a problem for those who want to solve big
problems, but for those who just want to produce publications, it’s a challenge. I try
to ensure people that independent, high quality work done here, though it may take
more time, is more valuable than riding on someone’s coat tails. I think that
mentality has started to spread.”
The NSC-JYU strategy was also to create a collective vision, where certain
common research directions have priority. “If every one of the twenty or so research
groups does their own thing, it is difficult to get a credible research proposal or, for
example, center of excellence status from the Academy of Finland [39, p. 66].” The
solution was to some degree limit personal desires in favor of a group. It is
somewhat debated whether it is difficult or not to get interdisciplinary project
funding; in some fields, there are funding sources available specifically targeted
for interdisciplinary projects [67], but in general it’s not very clear how an inter-
disciplinary project or a researcher’s performance should be evaluated by review
committees or the university (e.g., [67, 78]).
Securing funding and especially a continuity of funding in context of
nanoscience has previously been relatively easy; several countries have or have
had a NST funding program (e.g., FinNano programs in Finland between 2005 and
2010, NANOMAT and NANO2021 in Norway between 2001 and 2021, the
ongoing NNI in the United States since 2001—see more cases in European
nanotechnology landscape report [79]). Many of the funding programs have now
finished or are finishing. Without a funding source with a focus on interdisciplinary
research, the evaluators of the projects are not necessarily competent to evaluate an
interdisciplinary research proposal. As an example, the end of “easy” funding hit
during professor Korppi-Tommola’s term as the head of NSC-JYU starting 2011
[39, p. 59]: “The funding situation was completely different from his first term. The
budget was nearly zero and the big projects had just finished up and the funding
outlook for nanoscience didn’t look as good. The boom was over.” The increasing
competition over funding can be especially detrimental to long-term, inter-
disciplinary collaborations that are slow to produce quick, appealing results to the
funding agencies.
The suggestions for tackling those problems typically include agreements on the
issues within the collaborating schools and the persons themselves, but there are
already some toolkits available for evaluating interdisciplinary research in general.
Begg et al. [78] reviews some options and recommends their use already when
students train as parts of an interdisciplinary research team.

2.2.2.6 Working Alongside People: Trust, Openness, Teamwork,

Leadership, and Soft Skills

Professor T€
ormä from NSC-JYU remembers an influential statement from the
beginnings of the Nanoscience Center [39]: “I remember him always saying that
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 53

we should continually praise each other, not ourselves.” The sentiment was to learn
to respect other fields’ expertise—if it did not come naturally, it could perhaps be
conditioned to take effect. Professor Manninen elaborates on p. 52, “It’s important
that different researchers don’t belittle each other. That’s why I set as a guideline
that we should competitively praise each other. When we speak positively of our
group, we start to believe how good we are ourselves [39].” If the belittling gets the
upper hand, the result is the judgement Chari’s [36] interviewees felt in having their
research’s value evaluated through the lens of another discipline (see Sect. 2.2.1.1).
Establishing positive and respectful images of the collaborators and their disci-
plines can be the starting point. Chari [36] exemplifies on p. 144 this sentiment she
encountered in some of her interviews of nanoscientists; “Being there and being
accessible was of great importance for Alan. I could detect from Alan’s description
that he trusted Siobhan’s knowledge of her discipline and therefore the interactions
were valued and cherished by him.” She called this process trust-building, seem-
ingly both in the person as well as the discipline, and viewed it as the basis for being
able to use results or methods of another researcher—even when the researchers
had no interest in acquiring a deeper understanding of the way the results were
produced.
Being able to appreciate different solutions and ways of working is one of the
traits—openness—that are linked with doing interdisciplinary research. Stokols
[27] lists a few learnable behaviors that facilitate effective collaboration in team
settings: respectful communication, maintaining proper etiquette when sending
electronic messages, gaining experience of collaborative, transdisciplinary research
projects and settings. Begg et al. [78] call for training programs that focus on
interactions; the ”theory and practice of building and sustaining a high-functioning
team, and opportunities to practice interdisciplinary team building, management,
and communication skills.”
Social circles of researchers, as Becher and Trowler on p.92 [59] describe,
consist of an inner circle—with whom one has ongoing intellectual activity and
might send drafts of articles for comments to—and an outer circle, whom one
occasionally meets at conferences or whose publications were in the same book.
The inner circle, they remark, is quite consistent in size across sciences—about
20 people. For an interdisciplinary researcher, the inner circle has to bloat to include
the go-to colleagues from several disciplines—the experts they are able to draw on
and bounce their interpretations off of. The managerial skills of keeping up with
people become invaluable. The regular, close contact across disciplines [27, 67, 78]
is central in keeping up with current disciplinary knowledge developments and
practicing an interdisciplinary synthesis of concepts. Repko [6] notes, on p. 61, that
a willingness to collaborate is especially important in technical and scientific
research, where teamwork is commonly involved. The social relations are time-
consuming, sometimes downright tiresome—and they require interpersonal or
leadership skills, particularly from the one coordinating the work.
Eisenberg and Pellmar [67] emphasize the role of the leader in interdisciplinary
work. It demands “credibility as a research scientist, skill in modulating strong
personalities, the ability to draw out individual strengths, and skill in the use of
54 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

group dynamics to blend individual strengths into a team”—leadership skills in

general, not discipline specific, other than the “credibility” that establishes an
authority. They, as well as Stokols [27], recommend that the leaders have experi-
ence in interdisciplinary research, to be able to foresee possible communicative
difficulties or to discourage disciplinary judgement where disruptive. Derrick, Falk-
Krzesinski, and Roberts [18] also assign the negotiation of departmental issues,
such as teaching and finances handling, which can considerably differ from one
department to another, to the departmental leaders; otherwise it can easily become a
burden on everyone in the community. Relating more directly to research issues,
Chari [35] notes that giving nanoscience graduate students a role in initiating and
leading research alongside senior researchers had a positive effect on their attitudes
toward the collaboration.

2.2.2.7 Methodological Community Near and Far

The community that forms around some relevant equipment or theoretical

approaches can act as a gateway to NST in general, allowing for example the
notation of “nanoscience” in applications or giving a researcher permission to
attend certain conferences. There are some mentions of donning the nano label to
improve funding opportunities [38]—although the funding opportunities and nano-
hype may already be in decline. Mody [74] explains how for example atomic force
microscopes are used to forge a connection to a larger NST community with its
preferable byproducts:
By buying an off-the-shelf AFM, training a student to use it, and producing very ordinary
nanoscale images, though, these groups are able to connect themselves to a community of
people who work on other entities which have a similar nanopresence (which, at Cornell, is
quite a large community). The AFM is hardly central to their work—their knowledge of it is
fairly circumscribed, only one or two of their students may be adept with it, most of their
group’s time is spent preparing samples that will very quickly be put through the AFM as
well as other instruments, and they have little intention of ever tinkering with the instru-
ment. It does, however, help them lay claim to the money, attention, facilities, and
community that are growing up around nanoscience.

Sharing a pool of equipment is perhaps more common for a larger research

facilities; there the connection to others is also formed around the equipment,
whose operation novice researchers come to learn from masters not necessarily
within their own group or discipline. Professor Nissinen from NSC-JYU mentions
on p. 51 [39] that after initial brainstorming, it is the Masters students who are sent
out to “test the waters” with new equipment and methodologies. Chari [36 on
p. 121] describes a research setting where the equipment serviced as a meeting
place for scientists:
Ruth worked in a large research cluster and shared many instruments during her PhD
research with other researchers. These instruments were part of the central facility provided
to the university. Although, most of the researchers associated with the big research cluster
were using these instruments, their research objectives were different, making the central
facility or equipment not necessarily central to their research. However, working with these
instruments provided postgraduate researchers the opportunity to help each other in the area
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 55

they were expert in and share their knowledge. It fostered a good atmosphere within which
they could carry over the reconstructed knowledge to work with other disciplines.

She found that teaching others to use the instruments and techniques helped the
researchers learn the instrumentation themselves. The researchers formed an appre-
ciation for the “role of senior postgraduate researchers as ‘informal teachers’ in
facilitating the project specific knowledge” and continued the informal teaching
themselves [36, p. 155]. The equipment is a place to set ground for relations to other
groups and act as a place to form contacts and establish go-to-person relationships
with other groups and disciplines.

2.3 Interdisciplinarity as an Educational Issue

As discussed already in the Introduction, interdisciplinarity is an important concept

and topical issue not only in scientific research but also in education. Here we
elaborate the educational aspects both regarding basic education (primary and
secondary levels) and tertiary education.

2.3.1 General Education

Bridging and unifying the traditional subjects in school has been one of the most
important goals of curricular reforms worldwide for decades. Recent writings on
modern scientific and technological literacy have emphasized such interdisciplin-
arity (see e.g., [80]). An interdisciplinary approach is central in the recent, highly
influential trends in science education: Context-Based Learning (CBL), Problem-
Based Learning (PBL) and Socio-Scientific Issues (SSI), e.g. [81, 82]. In all these
approaches, it is generally seen that the use of real-world problems in science
education emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature of the sciences and makes them
relevant to students [83]. The cross-disciplinary contexts and cross-cutting concepts
are introduced into curricula all the way from primary to upper secondary education
in order to facilitate students’ understanding of connections and relevance of
concepts [21]. This kind of “seeing the big picture” is considered crucial regarding
scientific literacy and competences of decision-making in modern societies
[80, 84]. In the U.S., the National Research Council’s Framework for K-12 Science
Education [85] stimulates interdisciplinary science education. They ask for engag-
ing students in science and engineering practices by developing and linking disci-
plinary core ideas to cross-cutting concepts to explain phenomena and solve
problems [22]. Interdisciplinary arrangement, then, includes multiple practices
each in the context of multiple core ideas. This develops an integrated understand-
ing of science, which is essential in the future society [86].
Aside from the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in the U.S., there is
official endorsement for teachers to integrate school subjects in other countries. For
56 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

example, the Finnish [87] and the Swedish curricula [88] call for cross-cutting
concepts and increasing interdisciplinary outlook. The German school develop-
ment strategy [89] goes even further in recommending that secondary schools
develop their own curricula to address certain interdisciplinary topics of impor-
tance (e.g., sustainable development, oceans, or development of landscapes). The
German schools are responsible for the development of school-specific programs,
approved by the states, granting a lot of pedagogic freedom and responsibility to
schools.
Stevens, Wineburg, Herrenkohl, and Bell [90] express their worry that
schoolchildren are unlikely to experience the subjects as different and epistemo-
logically distinctive. In fact, most school curricula could be rather characterized as
predisciplinary than as interdisciplinary, because they rarely draw on features of
disciplines that lead to conceptual and practical advances in knowledge [91]. As a
solution, Stevens et al. [90] advocate for a comparative approach to learning: not to
displace the subject-specific organization of education, but to systematically create
more connections to “help students learn what is unique about a discipline as a way
of knowing [epistemology] by learning how that way of knowing compares with
others.” Their project combining history and science (PATHS) shows this key
interdisciplinary skill to be attainable already in the elementary grades.
The soft skills associated with interdisciplinarity also strongly resonate with the
ideas of navigating the society that has intercultural elements and the working life
with its ever-increasing combinations of knowledge from varied fields (cf. [6,
pp. 39–41]).

2.3.2 Tertiary Education

Newell [24] makes a bold prediction that interdisciplinary undergraduate education

will radically increase, on three grounds: the increased diversity and globalization
that both demand and teach interdisciplinary and intercultural skills; the greater
accountability demanded from the university—he writes that interdisciplinary
research is more real-word relevant and applicable—and, lastly, the post-
modernistic movement that approves of coexistence of contesting perspectives. It
is also known that shaking the departmental single-discipline norms by early
interdisciplinary experiences, such as doing student research as part of a research
group, predicts future interdisciplinary research paths [27]. Indeed, it follows that as
a new generation of interdisciplinary-minded researchers reach positions of power
in the academy, they will be more likely to promote interdisciplinary research and
education, thus, creating positive feedback [24].
The education of future scientists has been based in the paradigm of the
epistemological identity of a researcher. Hey, Joyce, Jennings, Kalil and Grossman
[70] describe the socialization of a scientist as adopting the norms and traditions of
their superiors, often including the distrust of other disciplines. Co-teaching by
experts of diverse disciplines fades out this narrowmindedness. Handling the
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 57

conflicts due to the differing points of view productively in education provides tools
to manage the later work in interdisciplinary teams [78].
In tertiary education, the higher order thinking skills are attainable by students
and can be practiced from the beginning. From Repko’s [6] model of an interdis-
ciplinary research process, most aspects of the process appear in any tertiary
instruction: defining the problem, conducting a literature search, reflecting on the
understanding. A typical science instruction includes also experimenting and
applying. What cannot be practiced in a mono- or multidisciplinary setting is
learning the language of discourse over different disciplines, identifying epistemo-
logical differences between them or pinpointing conflicts in their norms or theories.
Without them, constructing comprehensive understanding becomes superficial.
Apart from theory building, the special role of technology and instrumentation in
science likely requires another category of interdisciplinary skills. In addition to
technical performance, these may include identifying sources of uncertainty and
fulfilling quality requirements for experimental results or identifying the innate
differences between the object investigated and its experimentally based model or
image.
Finally, interdisciplinary programs may provide a glimmer of hope in the
problem of declining enrolment in the sciences. The competition of the few
vacancies in science is hard, which suggests that young students seek a more
generally valid education to increase their competitiveness in the labor market.
The IGERT (Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training) programs
principal investigators communicated to Rhoten and Pfirman [76] that they believed
the IGERT programs on bioengineering or environmental systems were what
finally increased female enrollment in their departments. They list other programs
where the interdisciplinary and problem-oriented approach appears to increase
female enrolment, such as in environmental engineering (as opposed to other fields
of engineering). In their account, “individuals who feel marginalized within
established fields or dislike highly competitive disciplines” are more likely to
“seek alternative domains where the size of the research population, the level of
peer attention, and the degree of community composition is less developed than in
core disciplines.” Their data suggests that interdisciplinarity could serve as a strong
entry point into science for females.

2.4 Connecting Interdisciplinary Skills with Educational

Approaches

On the basis of our understanding of the interdisciplinary features in nanoscience

and interdisciplinary science in general, outlined in Sect. 2.2, and the knowledge of
ways interdisciplinarity can be addressed, benefited from, and supported within
education, outlined in Sect. 2.3, we see grounds for breaking down the picture into a
comprehensive network of skills and means to attain those skills. We present this
network in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 The interdisciplinary features of nanoscience and engineering and their implications for education
58

Interdisciplinary Objectives or skills Examples of educational approaches to target objectives

feature of
nanoscience General education Tertiary education General education Tertiary education
Cognitive- Drawing from • Knowing what different • Contributory expertise in • Analyzing how different • Wide basic studies in rele-
Epistemic relevant fields are about a discipline fields contribute to the vant disciplines encouraged
dimension disciplines • Basic knowledge and • Disciplinary adequacy in issue under study • Same problem/concept
literacy relevant disciplines • Using interdisciplinary approached in many disci-
• Ability to look at problem contexts plines (e.g. energy transfor-
from the viewpoint of mations)
another discipline • Study of articles from dif-
ferent disciplines, recogniz-
ing disciplinary
representations and writing
styles
Demand to apply • Learning that and why • Understanding how the • Using variety of methods • Working in a research group
a wide range of different disciplines situation is seen by when studying a phenome- • Shared laboratory work
methodologies employ different methods, researchers with different non courses between departments
e.g., experiments methodological • Evaluating methods when • Assessment of use of trian-
vs. computer modeling approaches studying a phenomenon gulation in lab work
• Realizing special • Familiarity with different
methods are needed to methodologies
observe nanoscale • Striving for triangulation
phenomena
Recognition of • Understanding that dif- • Reflection of contributory • Choosing approaches for • Supported reflection with
epistemological ferent methods lead to dif- expertise school investigations that rubric or guidelines
rules ferent kinds of knowledge • Awareness of disciplin- reflect the nature of science • Explicit discussion about the
ary boundaries and styles • Explicitly highlighting basis of decision making in
• Connecting reasons for nature of science research group
A.-L. Kähk€

different styles with • Tasks with pre-assigned

epistemology disciplinary roles
• Interdisciplinary discussion
onen et al.

groups and seminars

 Technology as • Recognizing special • Awareness of how • Studying the working • Shared laboratory work and
enabler of NST technology is needed to observing phenomena is principles of novel tech- experimentation courses
observe nanoscale phe- interconnected with tech- nology that has a connec- • Analyzing the technology to
nomena nology used to measure or tion to nanoscience (e.g., get and interpret data
• Understanding that tech- produce the phenomena atomic force microscopy, • Tasks to recognize artifacts
nology can interfere with • Alertness for artifacts/ electrophoresis, mass or errors
phenomena errors detection with cantilever) • Interdisciplinary discussion
• Striving for triangulation • Using toy models of groups or seminars on meth-
nanotechnology objects at odology behind the
macroscale technology
Conflicts • Identifying different • Separating conflicting • Age-appropriate study of • Explicit discussion about the
between theories types of knowledge theories or concepts from theory of knowledge or basics of decision making in
and • Recognizing concepts or incompatible results philosophy research group
epistemologies theories can conflict • Identifying conflicts • Science argumentation • Reviewing examples of
because of different initial between theories or con- • Debates common ground building in
assumptions or perspec- cepts arising from different journal articles
tives, but still remain valid perspectives or initial • Writing articles and reports
assumptions • Team taught interdisciplin-
• Creating common ground ary courses
between concepts
Socio- Network and • Self-evaluating one’s • Ability to reason own • Practice of self-evalua- • Working in a research group
Institutional membership strengths field and its methods for tion • Shared laboratory work
dimension skills • Knowing where to look outsiders • Tasks to seek information courses between departments
for information from a • Establishing relations to from persons rather than • Interdisciplinary discussion
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education

particular perspective others Wikipedia groups and seminars

• Being able to co-operate • Knowing whom to go to • Collaborative learning • Collaborative learning
in group tasks fairly for ideas or feedback methods (e.g., jigsaw tech- methods
• Keeping up relations, nique) to learn sharing first • Tasks with pre-assigned
offering reciprocity, and later sharing the work roles
acknowledging help in a way the group sees
(e.g. in publications) best
(continued)
59
Table 2.1 (continued)
60

Interdisciplinary Objectives or skills Examples of educational approaches to target objectives

feature of
nanoscience General education Tertiary education General education Tertiary education
Finding a niche • Self-evaluating one’s • Developing a sense of • Practice of self-evalua- • Working in a research group
and establishing strengths belonging within a disci- tion during studies
identity • Recognizing different pline and/or in the • Career advise or coun- • Hearing from faculty,
demands and benefits of nanoscience community selor meetings alumni, or senior students
different career paths • Acknowledging difficul- • Finding relatable role about different career paths
ties and benefits of doing models in science or other • Learning about current
interdisciplinary work professions research directions
• Consciousness about • Reflection of identity
identity development and
its impact
Acknowledging • Assessing new people, • Recognizing validity of • Learning to recognize • Working in a research group
value in other information, or directions research done in method- bias and reasons for bias • Shared laboratory work
disciplines without prejudice ologies of other disciplines • Hearing about interdisci- courses between departments
• Judging whether a disci- plinary science and its • Wide basic studies in rele-
pline’s validity protocols results vant disciplines encouraged
apply in particular • Conscious effort to stay
situation open to different methodolo-
gies and results
• Team taught interdisciplin-
ary courses
Collaborating • Giving and receiving • Giving and receiving • Collaborative learning • Collaboration technology
closely feedback and criticism feedback and criticism environments, and tools
• Collaboration, decision • Adapting talk for discus- • Shared tasks to practice • Progress reports
making, task-completion, sion at shared level division of or mutual labor • Pre-assigned roles in tasks
trust-building, • Collaboration, decision • Open prompts from indi- • Responsibilities shared
A.-L. Kähk€

conflict-management and making, task-completion, vidual to group ideas within student group with
communication skills trust-building, gradually lessening faculty
conflict-management and input
onen et al.

communication skills
 Mediating disci- • Experiences of organiza- • Organization and leader- • Open inquiry tasks • Project-based tasks
plinary perspec- tion and leadership roles ship skills • Structured roles for group • Tasks to use knowledge of
tives and people • Negotiating differences • Recognizing differing tasks epistemology to foresee con-
in habits ideas of importance or flicts
validity of research • Working in varied groups,
• Negotiating differences initially under pre-assigned
in habits roles
• Leadership studies
• Team taught interdisciplin-
ary courses
Creativity • Discussing and develop- • Utilizing input from • Ill-structured problems • Working in a research group
ing one’s own ideas and others to create new ideas • Brainstorming techniques • Tasks to apply familiar
methods • Coming up with hypoth- such as round-robin, mind- methods/theories to new
eses to test mapping objects/settings
• Suggesting methodolo- • Brainstorming techniques
gies for others’ research such as round-robin, concept
• Recognizing and apply- mapping
ing non-visual analogies
Nanoscience • Understanding ethics and • Finding meaningful ways • Socio-scientific issues in • Interdisciplinary student
community and politics’ effect on science to connect with larger the context of nanoscience groups within department
nanoscience in • Understanding how nanoscience community • Inquiries on commercial • Student conferences
society development of NST is • Taking responsibilities in products (INASCON) or (research-
dependent of a net of actors society as nanoscience • Connecting with local inclusive) exchange abroad
in society expert institutes and businesses • Socio-scientific issues in
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education

• Responsible Research • Representing context of nanoscience

and Innovation nanoscience • Participation in outreach
• Responsible Research projects
and Innovation
The features and skills are divided into the cognitive-epistemic and socio-institutional dimensions according to their foundations in Sect. 2.2. The skills related
to the features and examples of educational approaches are addressed in both general and tertiary education
61
62 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

The structure of the table follows the two perspectives we took in the beginning:
it is split into sections of cognitive-epistemic and socio-institutional dimensions.
Horizontally, we address the possibilities for general as well as tertiary education.
The objectives or skills as well as the suggested ways to address them in
education are elaborated in the following Sects. 2.5 and 2.6 respectively.

2.5 Objectives for Interdisciplinary Nanoscience

Education

2.5.1 Interdisciplinary “Nano-literacy” for All

Due to the great prospects of applications and implications, it seems likely that in
the near future citizens have to make more and more decisions on NST issues—
both at the personal level, as consumers, and also at the societal and global levels,
regarding the future paths of NST. Therefore it has been argued that public
understanding of these fields should be enhanced, so that people could better
participate in the public debate and make decisions on the related issues [92–
94]. Some level of understanding of these fields has been suggested to be relevant
concerning up-to-date scientific literacy in modern societies [29, 30, 93, 95, 96].
What kind of understanding of NST should an individual have to be considered
‘nano-literate’? Building on the notion of scientific literacy by Bybee [97], Gilbert
and Lin [93] specified different levels of such literacy: nano-illiterate, nominally
nano-literate, functionally nano-literate and multi-dimensionally nano-literate.
They argued that functional nano-literacy is a reasonable yet also ambitious goal
in general education, signifying a person who is able to “use accepted understand-
ing of nano ideas” and “meaningfully discuss a limited range of nano phenomena.”
In science education literature, there is an emerging agreement on the ”nano
ideas” which are important for general education and scientific literacy. The widely
accepted list of “Big Ideas of Nanoscale Science and Engineering” [29] is the
consensus result of extensive discussions between experts from a variety of fields. It
should be noted that all nine Big Ideas are interdisciplinary by nature: size and
scale, structure of matter, forces and interactions, quantum effects, size-dependent
properties, self-assembly, tools and instrumentation, models and simulations, and
science, technology and society. If being functionally nano-literate entails an
ability to use and discuss these ideas, it also requires awareness about the variety
of research methods and why they are used and that different methods lead to
different knowledge (nature of knowledge). The central role of technology in
nanoscience was highlighted in the Big Ideas and it also shows up in our suggestion
for cognitive-epistemic skills important in general NST education in Table 2.1.
Apart from this conceptual understanding, as discussed before, being scientifi-
cally literate requires interdisciplinary soft skills which are important cultural
competences in modern societies [23]. They provide, apart from skills required in
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 63

any position in the information society, also an ability to realistically visualize

oneself in a science or technology profession—whether or not it results in pursuit of
such a career. It enables people to better understand what scientists do and how they
interact with each other as well as the society.
Such interdisciplinary nano-literacy for all, dealing with the Big Ideas of
nanoscience, has been pursued through a number of initiatives to incorporate
nanoscience into school curricula [29, 30, 95, 98], but also many measures of
scientific outreach and informal education [92, 93].
The general awareness and understanding of nanoscience serves not only as an
interdisciplinary nano-literacy for all citizens, but also a foundation for higher
education aiming at disciplinary adequacy of NST professionals. Such vocational
skills, which in part turn out to be extensions of nano-literacy skills, are discussed in
the following section.

2.5.2 Interdisciplinary Skills Needed in NST Professions

Referring back to the twofold picture of interdisciplinarity in nanoscience—the

cognitive side and the social side—we see a variety of challenges as well as
important opportunities. To combat the challenges and to seize the opportunities,
an individual needs different kinds of skills and expertise, as laid out in Table 2.1.
Another level would be added by looking at the function of a group and how it can
learn to work together better; here we address skills of an individual, transferred
along with him/her as he/she moves from one position to another.
In our review of nanoscientists’ experiences of interactions across disciplinary
borders, two big challenges were difficulties in understanding the language or
approach used, and one’s objectives being judged through a disciplinary lens.
They both relate to the ideas of disciplinary adequacy, or within the context of
working between communities, trading [44]: trade of ideas, methodological abili-
ties, resources, models, explanations and data at a level that is approachable to all
parties.
The ability to facilitate the interactions on the trading zone is vital for interdis-
ciplinary projects, as they are reasoned and developed through the comparisons and
trades of input from their members. It breaks down to a few more specific skills or
objectives; ranging from contributory expertise within one’s own discipline (see
Sect. 2.2.2.1) to an adequate methodological and epistemological understanding in
other relevant disciplines. A fluent trading means recognizing how others have
different methodological backgrounds. It means they work for different practical
objectives and thus their objectives in trading are different. Being able to envision
objects or tasks through different viewpoints, to a reasonable extent, makes it
possible to plan collaboratively and with benefit to all parties. In sum, the basis of
trading lies in understanding the viewpoints of one’s own community, and can be
facilitated by understanding the objectives and basis of viewpoints held by collab-
oration partners.
64 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

In terms of the socio-institutional dimension, finding one’s place and contribu-

tion at the trading zone equals to establishing a niche based on an evaluation of the
strengths of oneself and the needs of others; the niche may lie in bringing in
contributory expertise from a disciplinary perspective, or in the expertise in medi-
ating the inputs from different fields and “translating” or modifying the ideas for
interdisciplinary contexts. Either skill is supported by the abilities to function as a
productive group member or as a group leader, and navigating a social network of
people or a more closely collaborating team.
The researchers coming from different fields use different languages. Such
languages are at least partly commensurable, because they aim to explain the
same phenomenon under study [99]. To be able to build connections between
fields, scientists need also develop intercultural modes of communication [100–
102]. This means that they have to learn at least some terminology and about the
cultures of communication.
Sensitivity for detecting the appropriate register for shared discussion and
knowledge of shared or conflicting vocabularies is also an example of the commu-
nication skills learnable in nanoscience. Since in NST, groups of different practi-
tioners already tend to have established collaboration, there already is a regular,
shared contact language and other means of communication [100]. It includes the
shared metaphors or analogies that researchers have devised to reason their ideas to
others without the jargon and discipline-specific vocabulary [57]. Taking part in
building the shared language is also a part of building common ground between
disciplinary concepts or theories [6, p. 326].
One of the skills that is critical in interdisciplinary science is identifying these
kinds of conflicts and building common ground [6] between the concepts or
theories. This requires both knowledge in the disciplines as well as ability to see
where the conflict arises from in the epistemological foundations in the fields, and
what approaches have potential to fill in the gap. A wide knowledge base of cases
(in detail in Sect. 2.2.1.2) or a creative skill and intuition of combining ideas or
re-defining concepts—including some specific techniques for starting the work
(cf. [6], Chap. 11)—are two ways to approach the problem. One way of envisioning
the building of common ground is as bringing experiences from one field and
indirectly applying them in another—classified as referred expertise [103].The
merging of experiences, ideas, and methodologies can happen also in other ways,
such as gradual changes in one discipline or the development of a common
language over a research object (outlined in Sects. 2.2.1.2 and 2.2.1.3). On the
social side this is part of being open to value in other sciences and learning to let
judgement pass—particularly when the student scientists socialize into one disci-
pline (as opposed to an interdisciplinary context from the beginning). The related
skills are about understanding the applicability of different approaches in different
contexts and ability to use other kinds of indicators for quality of research than ones
that are in use within one’s own field.
The demand for different methodologies or approaches and the special nature of
technology are the two remaining cognitive-epistemic interdisciplinary features
listed in Table 2.1. The relevant methodological skills relate to utilizing the
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 65

technoscientific nature of nanoscience and the beneficial collaboration around

instrumentation. It’s also critical in the sense that without an understanding of the
technology producing phenomena or data, the new researcher is in danger of letting
artifacts pass as results (e.g., in Scanning probe microscopy technologies, see [104],
and Chap. 10 [Perspectives on AFM Education by Moore, Pic, Burnham]).
Discussing the technology beyond operating rules and using analogies was shown
to be beneficial and contingent on the participation of other disciplines. The ana-
logical thinking and trading is enabled by an openness and acceptance of diversity of
points of views, leading to diversity of methods and standards applicable [27, 46].
Finally we refer to the societal dimension of nanoscience. Sharing in the larger
nanoscience community—in distinction from the local community of researchers or
the close-knit research team—is a big part of being a research scientist. This is
particularly important for students who do not have a nanoscience student commu-
nity in their local settings; finding a peer group and receiving and offering support,
being able to connect with people with shared interests, is essential to navigating
the difficulties of interdisciplinary study and research (e.g., [67, p. 61]). Alongside
with building an (additional) identity in nanoscience, one acquires the role of a
nanoscientist in society and skills related to communicating science to various
audiences. This we see as a professional skill required in any science position,
but perhaps more so in a field that is characterized by large expectations, public
interest, and wild scenarios of Grey Goo and the like that raise questions that any
nanoscience student can report to having been asked by relatives or new
acquaintances.

2.5.2.1 Comparison to Existing Collections of Learning Objectives

The list of objectives has a good alignment with the few other listings of
nanoscience and/or interdisciplinary competences, with its limitations: attention
to the interdisciplinary features of nanoscience only. Some differences are illus-
trated in the following.
Elbadawi [45] conducted a Delphi survey on the competencies that a person
working in nanomanufacturing needs. While the target group is slightly different
from researchers, it can provide a good comparison. The main competences on
pp. 112–113 appear consistently, although not in as much detail (e.g., which
microscopies to learn) in our cognitive learning objectives. From the socio-
institutional learning objectives he only includes “awareness of NM teaching and
learning, research, commercialization, companies, careers, and business” and
“awareness of the national organizations and government agencies involved in
Nanomanufacturing”, which in our table appear as nanoscience community and
nanoscience in society. The difference is emphasis is due to Elbadawi’s decision to
limit the survey to the “nature of the scientific knowledge, skills, and practices”
involved in nanomanufacturing—nevertheless some of the community membership
objectives do appear in his list, showcasing how difficult it is to separate the social
from the cognitive in an interdisciplinary effort.
66 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

Borrego and Cutler [105] list examples of interdisciplinary learning outcomes

that are applicable to engineering curricula, and that could be adapted for
nanoscience:
• “Apply [tool or analysis method] to problems in [technical area]
• Describe the perspectives, methods and expertise that [disciplines] bring to
[technical area]
• Identify important research problems in [technical area]
• Assemble a team of disciplinary experts to solve a specific problem in [technical
area]
• Work with researchers trained in other disciplines to solve problems in [techni-
cal area]
• Teach undergraduates and the public about [technical area]
• Write professional reports and papers describing the results of their interdisci-
plinary research”
While their list is shorter, they appear to have two learning outcomes that are not
on our list of objectives or educational actions directly—identifying research
problems, and teaching undergraduates and the public. Identifying research prob-
lems per se is at the edge of what can be expected from undergraduate students;
identifying problems/themes that it is valuable to study with different viewpoints
would be a valid learning objective, were the students not already constrained
operating within the field of nanoscience, and with freedom to applied perspectives
or disciplines on their own. Learning about current research directions does
appear—connected with finding a niche and other features of “referring exper-
tise”—but we recognize it’s not quite what Borrego and Cutler envision.
Teaching has been left out also as it’s not expected from undergraduates;
however participation in outreach is included in the list of suggested educational
actions, as a means of identifying with the nanoscience community and taking on
the membership role and responsibility. Teaching would be a natural follow-up
when further in one’s studies.
Finally, Repko [106] defines four cognitive abilities developed by interdisci-
plinary education that interlink nicely with the cognitive-epistemic features in our
table:
1. “Ability to take perspective: student is able to use multiple perspectives and
methods to solve complicated problems.
2. Ability to develop structural knowledge of an interdisciplinary core idea. A
typical outcome of this is a student’s interdisciplinary mental model.
3. Ability to integrate ideas of experts in different disciplines. Students are able to
create a more comprehensive understanding of a particular problem.
4. Ability to produce interdisciplinary understanding. Students are able to explain a
phenomenon or create products “in ways that would have been unlikely through
single disciplinary means.””
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 67

The ability to develop structural knowledge is not on our list; structure and
modeling are seen as inherent qualities of all knowledge in natural sciences,
therefore parts of any interdisciplinary venture arising from them.

2.5.3 Assessment

As learning nanoscience must include both factual knowledge—for example,

building a network of cases in nanoscience, or learning discipline-specific method-
ologies and knowledge—and interdisciplinary thinking and working skills, the
assessment needs to take into account this nature of the field.
It’s imperative to give formative and summative assessment of interdisciplinary
skills [107]; the formative assessment provides guidance in interdisciplinary think-
ing skills, and a summative assessment provides recognition and places value on the
learning outcome—which may not be easy for students to recognize on their own.
Learning to make connections between existing disciplinary knowledge or learning
effective ways to organize teamwork may not appear to pupils as learning—they do
not necessarily gain an additional “fact” in the process. Interdisciplinary learning
outcomes, such as projects and solutions to real world problems, often go assessed
by generic indicators, such as effort or logic of argument, that do not reflect the
interdisciplinary features [108].
Spelt et al. [107] write that “interdisciplinary higher education is still being
defined not in terms of what students gain in ability but in terms of its own
pedagogical characteristics.” Borrego and Newswander [109] note that the problem
might lie in that science and engineering faculty are used to writing learning
outcomes for technical work, but find teamwork or interdisciplinarity to lie beyond
their experience—even if they are involved in it themselves. Conceptualizing it as
outcomes is difficult. Here in Sect. 2.5 and the associated Table 2.1. we have
presented one way of framing interdisciplinary learning objectives within
nanoscience.
How does one, then, assess the interdisciplinary features of student work? There
are at least some examples that can be adapted for assessing nanoscience learning
outcomes. First is the targeted assessment rubric for interdisciplinary writing
[108]. It provides a qualitative scale ranging from novice to master levels of
interdisciplinary thought over four main categories—purposefulness (as in there
is reason to look at the issue from several disciplinary perspectives), disciplinary
grounding, integration, and critical awareness—of the learning outcome.
The rubric for writing does not take into account any collaborative skills; their
assessment might better rely on metrics that universities or funding agencies use for
evaluating researchers. Derrick et al. [18] suggest indicators such as number of
collaborators, their fields—in the pupil’s world this would translate to knowledge of
whom one would work with on different kinds of tasks. Hall et al. [110] uses the
concept of collaborative readiness, elicited via the TREC (Transdisciplinary
Research on Energetics and Cancer) questionnaire. It is designed to be a measure
of how willing people are to collaborate and if they see value in collaboration. Yet
68 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

another possibility is the resources of the TOOLBOX project [111] that is in

practice a formative assessment of the awareness of philosophical or epistemolog-
ical dimensions of interdisciplinary collaboration. To our knowledge, no evaluation
or assessment tool focused on students’ interdisciplinary skills within the socio-
institutional domain exist.
To assess success and effectiveness of interdisciplinary teaching or training
programs as a whole, however, some long-term measurement strategies—alongside
with careful, interdisciplinary analysis—are called for. Those strategies include
looking at the levels of what comes of the students “whether graduates maintain an
interdisciplinary approach in their work, as reflected by the nature of their collab-
orations, joint appointments in multiple departments, publishing of interdisciplin-
ary papers, or obtaining grants with interdisciplinary themes” but also the
institutions: “institutions [might] revise promotion policies, actively encourage
collaborations across departments, or promote training programs with interdisci-
plinary perspectives.” Funding agencies in turn may “alter the peer review system,
improve profiles for funding of interdisciplinary proposals, or introduce new
mechanisms to support interdisciplinary efforts [67].” Such a long-term evaluation
of different ways of entering the field and differences between students trained in
single discipline or in an interdisciplinary program would be most welcome in
nanoscience.

2.6 Recommendations for Interdisciplinary Nanoscience

Education

2.6.1 General Approaches and Ideas

An interdisciplinary approach presents challenges to the formal educational system

with traditional disciplinary boundaries in both curricula and practices. In general,
designing and teaching interdisciplinary courses differs significantly from tradi-
tional single subject courses that the teachers and the students are used to [112]. The
methods and approaches of interdisciplinary teaching are naturally closely linked to
the context—the level of teaching and the prevalent traditions. There are some
universal ideas which we suggest to be considered at every level of education.
Scientific activities take place in a certain (disciplinary) framework and para-
digm, which define the appropriate means and methods. The interdisciplinary
approach demands identifying the rules and assumptions which guide action and
thinking—the “latent” in the approach of a discipline [43].
Approaching the disciplines and the philosophical or epistemological questions
is not a typical approach in natural sciences, neither in general nor tertiary educa-
tion. A starting point always is how the knowledge under study has been
constructed. This understanding is essential for depicting what the borders being
crossed in fact are. From today’s point of view, these boundaries are often
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 69

unreasonable or can be conveniently overlooked, but the disciplinary borders are

historical by nature. Thus, it is worth to consider also the situation when the content
under study was built.
Integrating teaching not only between natural scientific disciplines, but also with
the humanities—as also called per the NBIC convergence [32, 33]—can help in
reflecting “how science operates.” Understanding disciplinary differences or dif-
ferences in production of knowledge may also be easier when the differences are
clearer, particularly for younger students.
The cognitive and metacognitive state of being an expert1 is often seen as the
goal of education, and practicing in authentic contexts plays a central role in
developing it. Interdisciplinary settings are different; they impose limits on the
expertise based on a single discipline, and evoke the feelings of being an explorer
rather than expert, operating with an incomplete understanding of the field, and
enforce a dependence on other scientists—downplaying expertise as the goal of
education. In interdisciplinary education, we envision a need to develop students’
expertises but to avoid making it a central part of being a scientist. An iconic
description of interdisciplinary work—“liv[ing] without the comfort of expertise”
[118]—argues the case that often expectations of what it is to do science are not
met, and are likely based on false premises of science as a fixed set of knowledge
and the mastery of that knowledge. Education at all levels should never be about a
set of knowledge, but on high levels of understanding, building a working base
knowledge to reform and integrate into new ideas. The more connections students
develop between the disciplines and scientific practices and methods and the more
they understand about the basis of different approaches, the better they will be in
solving problems, making decisions, explaining phenomena, and making sense of
new information [22].
There are some general approaches that have already been shown to work well in
interdisciplinary education, and which are well suited for nanoscience activities,
curricula, and university programs. The first is the development of communication
and social skills in the interdisciplinary context (rather than off-context, separated
into “communication” courses) with explicit attention to open-mindedness to
different interpretations, civility to opinions, listener skills and other “soft skills”
[107]. The other is utilizing problem-based learning activities. They justify an
interdisciplinary context, whether the participants are from diverse disciplines or
just one. For a multidisciplinary group, the object is to develop co-operation to the
extent that participants can share objectives. The problem-based activity can be
organized around a nanoscientific “boundary object” [44, 119], a document, model,
or specimen, to which everyone has a different viewpoint, but no shared theoretical
basis. The final important approach is team teaching, which has been shown to be

1
Expertise studies have concentrated on cognitive excelling. They provide an understanding of
expertise as improved cognitive skills, such as improvement of one’s problem-solving ability, or as
attaining a high-level capacity, requiring in turn a large organized body of domain knowledge and
diverse experience (e.g., [113–117]).
70 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

particularly beneficial, as it offers students an example of the negotiation of

disciplinary rules or implicit knowledge [27, 78, 120].
In the next two sections, we give examples of how the skills needed in interdis-
ciplinary working are naturally developed by interactive methods, in the integrated
settings, which encourage reflective thinking. The suggestions are divided into
general education, by which is meant the education for every citizen and every
profession, and into tertiary education, which refers to the education of future
scientists and technologists.

2.6.2 Implementation in General Education

Small children learn mostly in a pre-disciplinary mindset [91]. The questions they
are interested in are not limited by disciplinary boundaries. Slowly as they progress
through the school system, the latter parts of secondary school begin to offer
students pointers to distinguish the natural sciences from each other. Much younger
children are able to evaluate types of evidence or statements, as shown by Stevens
et al. [90] and Sandoval, Sodian, Koerber, and Wong [121]. The elementary
schoolchildren can explore disciplinary features of the evidence in natural sciences
through these kinds of interdisciplinary activities.
It is important for children to be able to inquire and not only learn uncontested,
consensual, established knowledge—the latter promotes a naive conception of
science and a scientific method. In addition, while making investigations and
conducting experiments, it is valuable to give pupils the space to voice their
questions and ideas and use their findings to make the world better
[122]. Nanoscience offers a great context for such interdisciplinary, inquiry-based
activities. The problems in nanoscience have several (disciplinary) perspectives and
approaches, so they are authentic, complex problems that have justification for
being studied from different disciplinary perspectives. There are several products
that children are familiar with that involve NST, such as sunscreens or skis, which
could be the starting point of an inquiry [123]. Or one may choose some not-quite-
nano everyday substances that involve the same kinds of phenomena (e.g., size-
dependent properties in different coffee or sugar grain sizes, which are in the
micron range at their finest). There are also different toy models, constructible by
teachers or pupils, that pupils can operate and learn about NST [124, 125]. Using
them in class gives the pupils a tangible object to relate to the problems and
possibilities of using technology to e.g., image nano-objects.
Problem-based learning is a good starting point for developing the kind of
network of cases that Krohn [10] described. The unique nanoscale behavior in
each different case can be compared and contrasted against the students’ disciplin-
ary knowledge base.
In addition to cognitive skills, the interdisciplinary context of nanoscience
should be utilized for learning soft skills. There are many good guides for helping
students take part in dialogic collaboration in science classes, e.g., [126, 127] or
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 71

improving their argumentation skills, e.g., [128, 129]. Promoting sharing of scien-
tific ideas and teamwork as basis of science significantly helps more students
identify as “science persons” as Carlone, Haun-Franck and Webb [130] show in a
study of fourth-graders.
Social relevance and making a difference attract people to interdisciplinary
science [76]. The surveys and polls on public’s perspectives on NST have shown
that the general interest is chiefly focused on visions of issues people can relate to,
e.g., energy production, pollution or medicine [131, 132]. Also, ethical issues
related to NST [33] are of public interest. However, it has been argued that using
scientific visions in public debate to a considerable extent can result in serious
problems of communication between science and society. Balanced and realistic
information is needed, and speculative visions should be communicated only
deliberately, pointing out also the uncertain and partly unscientific nature of them
[28]. Several learning modules of science with an action component—many
connected to nanoscience—are provided by the EU-funded Project IRRESIST-
IBLE [133]. As an example from secondary school, students are given the problem
of deciding whether they would allow their school to have perovskite-based win-
dows, and they investigate the benefits and dangers of using perovskite for solar
cells. At the end of the project, the students made an informative exhibition of their
findings to the school and organized a student vote (Blonder et al. 2015).
Finally, there are certain contents in nanoscience education that are exception-
ally well suited for interdisciplinarity on any level of education; such include the
size and scale and the size-dependent properties, imaging and models (Chap. 5),
nanotechnology applications (Chap. 8), and the socio-scientific issues of those
(Chap. 4)—which are in detail discussed within of this book.
Since the shared size and scale of objects forms the basis for interdisciplinary
nanoscience research [14, 47], and since scale conception plays a significant role in
scientific literacy [134] and is one of the Big Ideas of nanoscience, it deserves to be
discussed briefly here too. Research has shown that people of all ages have
substantial difficulties in understanding the structure and properties of matter at
submicroscopic scales [92, 135] that is now accessed through imagery and descrip-
tion provided by the microscopy and instrumentation in NST. Scientists and
educators tend to erroneously assume that lay people are familiar with the basic
ideas of the structure of matter and able to comprehend the size and scale of
nanoscience objects [92]. An understanding of nanoscience phenomena can only
be built on an understanding of atoms as building blocks, including the size of them,
and utilizing it as an approximate reference unit of length. Therefore, education
should provide learners with possibilities to familiarize themselves with the basics
of the dimension and the structure of matter before going into actual topics of
nanoscience. However, the scale and the invisibility of nanoscience objects pose
several educational challenges [136]. Learners’ scale conception may be supported
by presenting scales as a continuum with size landmarks, using relative size
comparisons instead of absolute sizes, and promoting proportional reasoning
[134, 135].
72 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

2.6.3 Implementation in Tertiary Education

2.6.3.1 Interdisciplinary Programs or not?

A critical question from institutional or education politics point of view is how the
education of future interdisciplinary scientists should be organized. Several natural
scientists and communities recommend that students acquire a solid understanding
of one discipline [18, 67, 137]. In p. 59 of the report from the National Academy of
Sciences [67], the writers compare pros and cons of the “traditional”, one-discipline
approach: “The virtue of the traditional approach of requiring narrow expertise is
that students begin to feel a sense of mastery and develop a professional identity.
However, neither the expertise nor the professional identity is suited for rapid
changes in the life sciences.” The sentiment rings true in NST as well. In a sense,
the question is about whether it’s better to make a (difficult) transition in the
beginning of studies, or later in life.
Having a major disciplinary affiliation can give students a simple answer—they
belong to a certain department and community, which have a large role in building
their identity as a scientist, the importance of which was discussed earlier. Partic-
ularly in cases where no identifiable community of nanoscience students exist at the
university in question, we recognize the students’ need to build their identity in the
social context of a peer group as higher priority than that of establishing a trophy
group called nanoscience students. Within a loosely organized program, “views
expressed by interdisciplinary students are frequently ignored because it is not clear
who is responsible for doing anything about them. Even worse, no one asks
questions, in the first place, that are germane to interdisciplinary students [138]”.
And of course having an affiliation at a specific department does not close doors
from learning in an interdisciplinary manner.2 Learning about the nature of sci-
ences, namely making the disciplinary differences visible, can instill the mindset
and pave ground for later interdisciplinary research paths.
More so today, interdisciplinary stances are widely established and can be
reasoned. The interdisciplinary program legitimizes the need for interdisciplinary
staff effort in teaching, a major challenge for faculties. Calculating institution-
specific student involvement or numbers of students is no longer critical when the
instructors’ co-operation is necessary to demonstrate collaboration [139]. It also
gives the student group a community of their own and the strengthening of this
community can be set as a priority—by means of organizing student conferences,

2
Allowing for large minor subject(s), we expect the students to gain a good understanding of the
discipline as well—the adequacy that allows students to fully utilize the perspective and the
conventions of the discipline. Removing some of the requirements to attend certain courses
(especially when there is room for more students) can help interdisciplinary-minded students
assemble a relevant study program without signing up for minors in fields. Some requirements are
of course relevant, but could be formulated as recommended prerequisites—the students will pass
on the informal knowledge of which recommendations are necessary for completing the course,
and which can be overcome with some extra effort on the student’s behalf.
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 73

opportunities to meet with staff, and involving students in research [27, 67, 71, 120,
140]. It provides a peer group for interdisciplinary networking and support for each
other as they face similar problems—institutional, social, or cognitive. The inter-
national nanoscience community and the student community in particular are also
within the students’ reach.3 In the long run, we begin to see more and more places
offer interdisciplinary training, evolving a shared interdisciplinary identity of being
nanoscientists, and more career opportunities become available for
interdisciplinary-trained researchers (for detailed discussion see [142]).

2.6.3.2 Developing Reflective Skills

A major learning objective is building students disciplinary adequacy; to equip

students with explicit knowledge about the backgrounds of their fields of study, its
history and philosophy as explained at the highly practical level, and components of
expertise they are acquiring in the fields, especially the tacit components [43, 143]
of the expertise. The challenge of learning the skills needed in research through
studying the subjects and working in labs is not that the expert scientists would like
to hide something, but that part of the knowledge that new scientists are in the
process of gaining is often unrecognized (cf. the classification of tacit knowledge in
[103]) and not explicitly discussed in education or research labs.
The potential to contribute to the development of expertise on the basis for the
explicit analysis of experts’ tacit knowledge has been advocated by a number of
scholars [144–147]. As a method, we suggest employing a highly contextualized
understanding about philosophy of science [64], developed in the third wave of
science and technological studies. The scientists build their expertise by reflection.
The first step is to understand the need for reflection and knowing how it can be
developed. Contextualized philosophy is an effective tool. The reflective ability
develops naturally through practicing it, by reflecting on practices they engage in,
on the basis and limits of applying the approaches used and developed- and also on
the basis and possibilities of the approaches employed by the co-operators, coming
from a variety of fields (cf. Sect. 2.2.1). Patterns of reflective questions can be used,
for example, in the supervision of student research. Indeed, interdisciplinary con-
texts—such as student groups or research groups—for discussing and sharing
diverse experiences are essential. This is something that students enculturated in
single disciplines may never come across in their studies.
Interdisciplinarity do not need to be limited to the different fields of natural
science and mathematics only; it is natural to stretch limits to include humanities. In
historical times, it was natural that scientists discussed the background of their field

3
The international nanoscience student community gathers every year for the INASCON [141],
International Nanoscience Student Conference, already in its 10th year in 2016. Other interna-
tional student experiences are reachable via, e.g., the International Research Experiences for
Students (IRES) program sponsored by the NSF, which supports interdisciplinary research pro-
posals as well.
74 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

in the same documents as they discussed the methods and what we now call the
subject of science [148]. The first philosophers of science were often scientists
themselves. Nowadays, when scientists have to specialize more and more and such
multi-expertise does not appear as frequently, it could be replaced with scientists
co-operating more with philosophers and sociologists of science, for example, in
order to analyze their field. Such co-operation is likely to be attractive also from the
philosophers’ point of view, as recently it has become difficult to publish a study in
philosophy of science without a reference to an empirical case.

2.6.3.3 Examples of Realized Interdisciplinary Approaches

A jointly held seminar with speakers from various disciplines—usually under a

shared, larger theme—is perhaps the most common way of introducing interdisci-
plinarity [67, 71, 139, 140, 149]. In part, it is likely because the seminar is separate
from and in addition to all other learning requirements. Nevertheless, it can be a
good resource for students when it is accessible to them (time and level-wise).
Making it relevant to their education with awarding of credit points or inclusion of
assessment can help bring in the students; otherwise, it will compete with activities
that appear more compulsory and are direct degree requirements. The aforemen-
tioned articles also discuss whether the presence of senior staff is intimidating to
students; discussions in small groups rather than only for the whole audience may
help alleviate this problem. The discussions groups in connection to the seminar are
also grounds for discussing the basis and possibilities of different methods with
experts or apprentices coming from other fields, and learning to develop shared
modes of communication and cooperation.
Another way to introduce interdisciplinarity without necessarily altering the
degree requirements much is adapting laboratory and instrumentation courses.
They are often easiest—and possibly the best ones, as they enhance the possibilities
for collaboration over instrumentation [36, 57]—to adapt. At University of Jyväs-
kylä we have good experiences of doing this with the Atomic Force Microscopy
course [125] as well as other, short courses in nanoscience, metrology and NST.
The undergraduate Finnish Nanoscience program at NSC-JYU also has compulsory
laboratory courses in interdisciplinary groups. The lab environment makes it easy to
introduce teamwork, pairing students from different disciplines, and allows for
informal discussions around the instruments, working conventions and habits.
Adding structured, reflective questions to “traditional” laboratory programs can
step the conversations from the operational to the technical or foundational princi-
ples level. Knowing that not everybody will be interested in deep understanding of
the instruments, it may become more attractive when studied in an interdisciplinary
group and context, discussing not only operating principles but also different
applications and results using the technology.
One practical way of introducing the communication skills or social skills within
context include using structured roles—pre-assigned, or once students become
familiar with taking different roles at tasks, allowing self-organization. Mobley
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 75

et al. [71] provide an example of practicing leadership skills; in a seminar course

that involved freely flowing discussions, a need for more structure arose. The
course was developed so that it has a coordinator to facilitate the discussions and
the role of coordinator was circulated among graduate students. Utilizing role
playing tasks can also help with reflection and recognition of disciplinary ideas.
Asking students deliberately to look at situations or tasks from the point of view of a
single discipline—as chemists, biologists, physicists, engineers—gives them access
to exercising recognition of the tacit, implicit, and latent in a disciplinary mindset
[43] as well as processing some preconceptions or judgements they might have of
the neighboring disciplines.
Ensuring that students do research in interdisciplinary research groups during
their studies—graduate but also undergraduate—has a high payoff. The possibili-
ties for reflection (see Sect. 2.4.2), finding role models and building one’s identity
as a research scientist, and learning conventions of negotiating disciplinary con-
flicts or using analogies in discussions, are not available elsewhere with such
intensity. Experiences of organizing interdisciplinary student research are well
documented (for examples, see [120, 137, 140, 150]) and positive, often yielding
research papers as well as motivational benefits.
Using student research as a means in students’ identity building and association
with the research community is widely employed in single disciplinary settings; it
serves the same purpose also in interdisciplinary nanoscience. Equally helpful are
other means of associating oneself with the nanoscience community, such as
participating in outreach or student community activities. We also acknowledge
the motivational side of using science as a means to act in the society; organizing
projects or collaborating with companies (also a means of networking and
establishing one’s name for the future), and discussing societal problems and taking
action on them (see e.g., [122]). An initial societal point of view can be helpful also
in directing thought towards why certain things are pursued in NST (is there a
benefit for society?) and further reflecting on what is characteristic to research in
nanoscience.
During such courses it is natural to employ methods developing skills needed in
communication and co-operation, such as teamwork and team teaching. Student-
centered and constructive methods supporting creative usage of ones abilities and
co-operative problem solving are natural. For example, a problem-based learning
group work starts naturally by identifying disciplinary-specific features in knowl-
edge provided (e.g., role play, vocabulary exercises if needed), goes then on to the
identifying of conflicts between disciplinary perspectives and to building common
ground across conflicting views.
In conclusion, an education that aims to support the cognitive and social
development of young scientists, and offer contacts with other disciplines and
researchers, is natural to organize in interdisciplinary co-operation. The
co-operators available include (but are not limited to)
76 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

• the practicing scientists, employing different methods in their research practices

and willing to reflect on their knowledge-building, via team teaching courses or
supervising student research;
• researchers analyzing the nature of scientific knowledge (e.g., philosophers);
• societal actors and industries providing a background for all scientific activities,
and
• the peer group of interdisciplinary students.
Without a long history of interdisciplinary research work to model processes
after, the teaching of interdisciplinary nanoscience is very much connected with
learning interdisciplinary nanoscience and crossing the disciplinary borders along-
side the students [151]. It can be a learning experience for the instructors, and
without the burden of how things have been done in the past, a venue for trying new
ways of organizing university teaching and studies—such as introducing team
teaching, role playing tasks, or collaborative or brainstorming techniques.

2.7 Summary and Conclusion

Our detailed review of NST research practices and their comparison with findings
from other interdisciplinary studies show that nanoscience is inherently interdisci-
plinary. While the environment and practices may not all reflect interdisciplinary
thinking or collaboration, the reason is not that the field or the objects of study are
not suited for interdisciplinary investigation. It’s rather that doing interdisciplinary
work is difficult, and that people are capable or willing to realize it to varying
extents. The combination of disciplines in the field as a whole is quite established,
but participation from all disciplines is not realized in all activities within the field,
nor are the publishing or financing channels set in stone. It is the field that currently
educated nanoscientists—whether coming from disciplinary or interdisciplinary
programs—are still finding themselves in.
This means there is a need to address the problems withholding people from
realizing interdisciplinarity to a greater extent—to enable nanoscience researchers
to make decisions based on their own interests or the needs of the field, rather than
on preconceptions or institutional barriers. By supporting today’s students and
researchers in this, we expect to see the positive feedback loop described by Newell
[24]. One indirect result might be the fostering of NBIC convergence—the greater
convergence of sciences, envisioned as the next big step in science [32].
Taking a step back from the research world, we envision benefits for all citizens
from learning sciences with an interdisciplinary mindset. Both the cognitive and
social skills supported by interdisciplinary activities will be beneficial in today’s
world. Helping children put presumptions and biases aside and develop an open
outlook, looking for the value and rigor in all sciences, and looking for the value in
all people, are big goals. We have shown in the sections above that we can and
should use interdisciplinarity to strive towards this better world.
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 77

In addressing general education, one cannot forgo the role of teachers in any
reform. Since the background of teacher education is in academic system dividing
sciences into disciplines and school subjects, it produces teachers socialized in the
disciplines themselves—or in the mindset of knowledge grouped in disciplines. The
educational reforms of Germany, Finland and the United States are already inviting
teachers to cross those disciplinary borders and explore the ideas of disciplines or
different ways of knowing at schools.
Our ideas of reaching across the disciplines with nanoscience should be pursued
by engaging and supporting science teachers through professional development
programs, networking possibilities, and material resources. Teachers’ views and
needs have been analyzed and recommendations for addressing them presented
elsewhere [98, 152, 153]. Teacher professional development as well as the devel-
opment of teaching and learning materials should concentrate on interdisciplinary
unification of the existing school science, rather than on including additional
nanoscience modules in the curriculum [98]. Professional development for univer-
sity researchers, lecturers, mentors, and supervisors on interdisciplinarity and its
implications for their students, if not themselves, is similarly necessary ([107];
examples and possibilities are outlined in [71, 111, 149]).
The development of the features of interdisciplinarity into the skills required and
approaches in education is the first step in enhancing interdisciplinary education.
The application of these approaches has already begun by those to whose work we
refer; the use of an interdisciplinary approach in a large scale, the evaluation of best
practices, and investigation of the results of such reforms—particularly long-
term—are the following steps. In this path, the students learning interdisciplinary
nanoscience today continue to have a contribution to both the science and science
education of tomorrow.

Acknowledgements We thank Lorenz Kampschulte (IPN Kiel) and Paul Hix (Deutsches
Museum) for a clarifying discussion about school reforms within Germany and Liisa Antila
(Uppsala University) for insights into the history of dye-sensitized solar cells.

References

1. K. Huutoniemi, J.T. Klein, H. Bruun, J. Hukkinen, Res. Policy 39, 79 (2010)

2. J.T. Klein, Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice (Wayne State University Press,
Detroit, 1990)
3. R. Szostak, J. Res. Pract. 3, 17 (2007)
4. R. Stichweh, Unity of Knowledge (in Transdisciplinary Research for Sustainability), Ency-
clopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO
(Eolss Publishers, Oxford, 2003), Retrieved 31 July 2006
5. J.J. Kockelmans, Iss. Integr. Stud. 4, 1 (1986)
6. A.F. Repko, Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2012)
7. J.T. Klein, E: CO 6, 2 (2004)
8. W.H. Newell, Iss. Integr. Stud. 19, 1 (2001)
78 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

9. W.H. Newell, R. Frodeman, J.T. Klein, C. Mitcham, eds., in The Oxford Handbook on
Interdisciplinarity (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009) (In press)
10. W. Krohn, Interdisciplinary Cases and Disciplinary Knowledge (Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2010), p. 31
11. A.I. Miller, Insights of Genius: Imagery and Creativity in Science and Art (Springer,
New York, 2013)
12. J.A. Jacobs, In Defense of Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research
University (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013)
13. A. McMurtry, Iss. Integr. Stud. 1 (2009)
14. J. Schummer, Interdisciplinary Issues in Nanoscale Research (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2004),
p. 9
15. Science Policy Section of The Royal Society, Nanoscience and nanotechnology: Opportu-
nities and uncertainties, Nanoscience and nanotechnologies (The Royal Society and The
Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004)
16. J. Schummer, Scientometrics 59, 425 (2004)
17. H. Andersen, S. Wagenknecht, Synthese 190, 1881 (2013)
18. E.G. Derrick, H.J. Falk-Krzesinski, M.R. Roberts, (American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science, Boulder, CO, 2011)
19. L.G. Zucker, M.R. Darby, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 11181,
2005
20. D. Stokols, K.L. Hall, B.K. Taylor, R.P. Moser, Am. J. Prev. Med. 35, S77 (2008)
21. C. Czerniak, Interdisciplinary Science Teaching (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah,
NJ, 2007), p. 537
22. J. Krajcik, S. Codere, C. Dahsah, R. Bayer, K. Mun, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 25, 157 (2014)
23. S.M. Reich, J.A. Reich, Am. J. Community Psychol. 38, 51 (2006)
24. W.H. Newell, Undergraduate General Education (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010),
p. 360
25. P.J. Greenbaum, Eng. Dimen. 32 (2003)
26. D. -. Jao (private communication)
27. D. Stokols, Training the Next Generation of Transdisciplinarians (Sage, Los Angeles, CA,
2014), p. 56
28. H. Brune, H. Ernst, A. Grunwald, W. Gr€ unwald, H. Hofmann, H. Krug, P. Janich, M. Mayor,
W. Rathgeber, G. Schmid, Nanotechnology: Assessment and Perspectives (Springer, Berlin,
2006), p. 27
29. S. Stevens, L. Sutherland, J. Krajcik, The Big Ideas of Nanoscale Science and Engineering
(NSTA, Arlington, VA, 2009)
30. N. Sabelli, P. Schank, A. Rosenquist, T. Stanford, C. Patton, R. Cormia, Report of the
Workshop on Science and Technology Education at the Nanoscale. Draft, October (SRI
International, Menlo Park, CA, 2005)
31. J. Schmidt, Unbounded Technologies: Working Through the Technological Reductionism of
Nanotechnology (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2004), p. 35
32. M.C. Roco, W.S. Bainbridge, J. Nanopart. Res. 15, 1 (2013)
33. G. Hunt, M. Mehta, Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law (Earthscan, London, 2006)
34. G. Khushf, A Hierarchical Architecture for Nano-scale Science and Technology: Taking
Stock of the Claims About Science made by Advocates of NBIC Convergence (IOS Press,
Amsterdam, 2004), p. 21
35. D. Chari, P. Irving, R. Howard, B. Bowe, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 28, 1046 (2012)
36. D. Chari, Doctoral dissertation, Dublin Institute of Technology, 2014
37. T. Ku, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 4, 366 (2012)
38. M. Kurath, S. Maasen, Part. Fibre Toxicol. 3, 1 (2006)
39. M. Heikkilä, Pienest€a syntyi suurta – Nano came to Jyv€ askyl€
a (University of Jyväskylä,
Nanotiedekeskus, Jyväskylä, 2014)
40. G. Irzik, R. Nola, Sci. Educ. 20, 591 (2011)
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 79

41. G. Irzik, R. Nola, New Directions for Nature of Science Research (Springer, Berlin, 2014),
p. 999
42. S. Erduran, Z.R. Dagher, Family Resemblance Approach to Characterizing Science
(Springer, Berlin, 2014), p. 19
43. D.A. Stone, Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 12, 289 (2013)
44. P. Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, 1997)
45. I.A. Elbadawi, Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, Indiana, 2010
46. V. Boix-Mansilla, Learning to Synthesize: The Development of Interdisciplinary Under-
standing (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010)
47. A. Nordmann, Molecular Disjunctions: Staking Claims at the Nanoscale (IOS Press, Amster-
dam, 2004), p. 51
48. V. Linko, S. Paasonen, A. Kuzyk, P. T€ ormä, J.J. Toppari, Small 5, 2382 (2009)
49. C. Colliex, Science 349, 232 (2015)
50. A. Hagfeldt, G. Boschloo, L. Sun, L. Kloo, H. Pettersson, Chem. Rev. 110, 6595 (2010)
51. A.L. Porter, J. Youtie, J. Nanopart. Res. 11, 1023 (2009)
52. A.L. Porter, J. Youtie, Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 534 (2009)
53. I. Rafols, M. Meyer, Scientometrics 82, 263 (2010)
54. I. Rafols, M. Meyer, Scientometrics 70, 633 (2007)
55. C. Huang, A. Notten, N. Rasters, J. Technol. Transf. 36, 145 (2011)
56. P. Humphreys, Extending Ourselves (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2004)
57. S.M. Fiore, Small Group Res. 39, 251 (2008)
58. T. Tero, K. Salorinne, H. Lehtivuori, J.A. Ihalainen, M. Nissinen, Chem. Asian J. 9, 1860
(2014)
59. T. Becher, P. Trowler, Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture
of Disciplines (McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead, 2001)
60. H. Collins, R. Evans, R. Ribeiro, M. Hall, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. A 37, 656 (2006)
61. H. Collins, R. Evans, Soc. Stud. Sci. 32, 235 (2002)
62. H. Collins, Tacit and Explicit Knowledge (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2010)
63. K.K. Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999)
64. S. Tala, Doctoral dissertation, Helsingin yliopisto, Helsinki, 2015
65. J.H. Fujimura, Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and “transla-
tion” (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1992), p. 168
66. S.L. Star, J.R. Griesemer, Soc. Stud. Sci. 19, 387 (1989)
67. L. Eisenberg, T.C. Pellmar, Bridging Disciplines in the Brain, Behavioral, and Clinical
Sciences (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2000)
68. Science & Justice Research Center (Collaborations Group), PLoS Biol. 11, 1 (2013)
69. B. Nagle, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 144 (2013)
70. J. Hey, C.K. Joyce, K.E. Jennings, T. Kalil, J. Grossman, J. Nanosci. Educ. 1, 75 (2009)
71. C. Mobley, C. Lee, J.C. Morse, J. Allen, C. Murphy, Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 15, 16 (2014)
72. S. Lélé, R.B. Norgaard, Bioscience 55, 967 (2005)
73. S.A. Nancarrow, A. Booth, S. Ariss, T. Smith, P. Enderby, A. Roots, Hum Resour Health 11,
19 (2013)
74. C. Mody, How Probe Microscopists Became Nanotechnologists (IOS Press, Amsterdam,
2004), p. 119
75. M.M. Millar, Res. Policy 42, 1152 (2013)
76. D. Rhoten, S. Pfirman, Res. Policy 36, 56 (2007)
77. F.J. van Rijnsoever, L.K. Hessels, Res. Policy 40, 463 (2011)
78. M.D. Begg, G. Crumley, A.M. Fair, C.A. Martina, W.T. McCormack, C. Merchant,
C.M. Patino-Sutton, J.G. Umans, J. Investig. Med. 62, 14 (2014)
79. ObservatoryNANO, European Nanotechology Landscape Report, WP3 Deliverable, 2011
80 A.-L. Kähk€
onen et al.

80. D.A. Roberts, Scientific Literacy/Science Literacy (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah,
NJ, 2007), p. 729
81. J.K. Gilbert, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 957 (2006)
82. D. Zeidler, T. Sadler, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 909 (2009)
83. D. Mandler, R. Mamlok-Naaman, R. Blonder, M. Yayon, A. Hofstein, Chem. Educ. Res.
Pract. 13, 80 (2012)
84. M. Lang, S. Drake, J. Olson, J. Curric. Stud. 38, 177 (2006)
85. National Research Council of the National Academies, in A Framework for K-12 Science
Education:: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, ed. by H. Schweingruber,
T. Keller, H. Quinn (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012)
86. NGSS Lead States (2013)
87. Finnish National Board of Education, National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (Finn-
ish National Board of Education, Helsinki, 2014)
88. M. Åstr€om, Doctoral dissertation, Swedish National Graduate School in Science and Tech-
nology Education, 2008
89. B. Lohmar, T. Eckhardt, The Education System in the Federal Republic of Germany 2012/
2013 (Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural
Affairs, Bonn, 2014)
90. R. Stevens, S. Wineburg, L.R. Herrenkohl, P. Bell, Rev. Educ. Res. 75, 125 (2005)
91. H. Gardner, V. Boix-Mansilla, Teaching for Understanding in the Disciplines – and Beyond
(Paul Chapman Publishing, London, 1999), p. 78
92. O. Castellini, G. Walejko, C. Holladay, T. Theim, G. Zenner, W. Crone, J. Nanopart. Res. 9,
183 (2007)
93. J.K. Gilbert, H. Lin, Int. J. Sci. Educ. B 3, 267 (2013)
94. N. Healy, J. Nano Educ. 1, 6 (2009)
95. A. Laherto, Sci. Educ. Int. 21, 160 (2010)
96. G. Gardner, G. Jones, A. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Robertson, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 1951 (2010)
97. R.W. Bybee, Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practices (Heinemann, Ports-
mouth, NH, 1997)
98. A. Kähk€onen, A. Laherto, A. Lindell, J. Nano Educ. 3, 1 (2011)
99. T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago press, Chicago,
1962)
100. H. Collins, R. Evans, M. Gorman, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. A 38, 657 (2007)
101. E.C. Wenger, W.M. Snyder, Harv. Bus. Rev. 78, 139 (2000)
102. R. Ribeiro, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. A 38, 713 (2007)
103. H. Collins, R. Evans, Rethinking Expertise (University of Chicago Press, London, 2008)
104. D. Baird, A. Shew, Probing the History of Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (IOS Press,
Amsterdam, 2004), p. 145
105. M. Borrego, S. Cutler, J. Eng. Educ. 99, 355 (2010)
106. A.F. Repko, Acad. Exchange Q. 12, 171 (2008)
107. E.J. Spelt, H.J. Biemans, H. Tobi, P.A. Luning, M. Mulder, Ed. Psych. Rev. 21, 365 (2009)
108. V. Boix-Mansilla, E.D. Duraisingh, C.R. Wolfe, C. Haynes, J. High. Educ. 80, 334 (2009)
109. M. Borrego, L.K. Newswander, Rev. High. Educ. 34, 61 (2010)
110. K.L. Hall, D. Stokols, R.P. Moser, B.K. Taylor, M.D. Thornquist, L.C. Nebeling, C.C. Ehret,
M.J. Barnett, A. McTiernan, N.A. Berger, Am. J. Prev. Med. 35, S161 (2008)
111. M. O’Rourke, S.J. Crowley, Synthese 190, 1937 (2013)
112. W.H. Newell, W.J. Green, Improv. Coll. Univ. Teach. 30, 23 (1982)
113. M.T. Chi, P.J. Feltovich, R. Glaser, Cogn. Sci. 5, 121 (1981)
114. A. Eteläpelto, Scand. J. Educ. Res. 37, 243 (1993)
115. J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D.P. Simon, H.A. Simon, Science 208, 1335 (1980)
116. J.L. Snyder, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 979 (2000)
117. S. Sonnentag, C. Niessen, J. Volmer, Expertise in Software Design (Cambridge University
Press, New York, 2006), p. 373
2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Nanoscience: Implications for Education 81

118. L.R. Lattuca, Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among
College and University Faculty (Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TN, 2001)
119. E. Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, 1999)
120. I. Karsai, J. Knisley, D. Knisley, L. Yampolsky, A. Godbole, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 10,
250 (2011)
121. W.A. Sandoval, B. Sodian, S. Koerber, J. Wong, Educ. Psychol. 49, 139 (2014)
122. P. Reis, Promoting Students’ Collective Socio-scientific Activism: Teachers’ Perspectives
(Springer, Berlin, 2014), p. 547
123. Nano & Me—Nano Products, H. Sutcliffe and The Responsible Nano Forum. http://www.
nanoandme.org/nano-products/. Accessed 21 Jan 2016
124. A. Lindell, J. Viiri, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 18, 556 (2009)
125. A. Lindell, A. Kähk€ onen, Nanotechnol. Rev. 2, 229 (2013)
126. N. Mercer, L. Dawes, R. Wegerif, C. Sams, Br. Educ. Res. J. 30, 359 (2004)
127. N. Mercer, C. Howe, Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 1, 12 (2012)
128. R. Driver, P. Newton, J. Osborne, Sci. Educ. 84, 287 (2000)
129. J. Osborne, S. Erduran, S. Simon, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 994 (2004)
130. H.B. Carlone, J. Haun‐Frank, A. Webb, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 459 (2011)
131. J. Macoubrie, Public Underst. Sci. 15, 221 (2006)
132. A.M. Waldron, D. Spencer, C.A. Batt, J. Nanopart. Res. 8, 569 (2006)
133. IRRESISTIBLE—Engaging the Youth with Responsible Research and Innovation, IRRE-
SISTIBLE consortium. www.irresistible-project.eu/. Accessed 21 Jan 2016
134. R. Blonder et al., in Presentation at the 11th Conference of the European Science Education
Research Association (ESERA), Helsinki, Finland, 2015
135. T. Tretter, A. Sweeney, S. Seal, Nanoscience and Conceptions of Size and Scale in Precollege
Education (American Scientific, Stevenson Ranch, CA, 2008), p. 149
136. T. Tretter, M. Jones, T. Andre, A. Negishi, J. Minogue, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 282 (2006)
137. S. Murriello, D. Contier, M. Knobel, J. Nano Educ. 1, 96 (2009)
138. P. MacKinnon, D. Hine, R. Barnard, High. Educ. Res. Dev. 32, 407 (2013)
139. L. Harvey, Student Feedback on Interdisciplinary Programs (Routledge, New York, 2008),
p. 91
140. K. Clark, S. Gerstenblith, D. Alonso, R. Wright, N. Pandya, J. Crim. Just. Educ. 24,
357 (2013)
141. L. Caudill, A. Hill, K. Hoke, O. Lipan, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 9, 212 (2010)
142. INASCON, International Nanoscience Student Conference, INASCON Organizing Commit-
tee. http://inascon.eu/. Accessed 21 Jan 2016
143. D. Boden, M. Borrego, L.K. Newswander, High. Educ. 62, 741 (2011)
144. M. Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (Doubleday, New York, 1966)
145. C. Argyris, Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational
Change (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1993)
146. J.S. Brown, P. Duguid, Org. Sci. 2, 40 (1991)
147. A. Cianciolo, C.T. Matthew, R. Sternberg, R. Wagner, Tacit Knowledge, Practical Intelli-
gence and Expertise (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005), p. 613
148. D.A. Sch€on, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Basic Books,
New York, 1983)
149. H. Chang, Sci. Educ. 8, 413 (1999)
150. E.L. Larson, T.F. Landers, M.D. Begg, Clin. Transl. Sci. 4, 38 (2011)
151. J. Legler, P. Roback, K. Ziegler-Graham, J. Scott, S. Lane-Getaz, M. Richey, Am. Stat. 64, 56
(2010)
152. H. Mikkeli, J. Pakkasvirta, Tieteiden v€aliss€
a. Johdatus monitieteisyyteen, tieteidenv€
alisyyteen
ja poikkitieteisyyteen (Helsinki, WSOY, 2007)
153. A. Laherto, Nordic Stud. Sci. Educ. 7, 126 (2011)
154. Y. Bamberger, J. Krajcik. Paper presented in Annual Conference of the National Association
of Research in Science Teaching. Philadelphia, PA, 2010
Chapter 3
The Need for Convergence and Emergence
in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+
Educational Ecosystems

Daniel J.C. Herr

Let not what you do define what you are.

Rather, let what you want to become define what you do.
—John Hurt, NSF (1997) [1]

Abstract This chapter examines the necessary attributes of Nanoscale STEAM+

education systems that can address strategic twenty-first century academic, gov-
ernment, industrial and societal needs. Such systems leverage the mutually sup-
portive interdependence of all key stakeholders within the educational supply
chain. They also nurture convergent, transdisciplinary and hands-on platform-
enhanced educational opportunities. In this chapter, I share two sets of stories that
highlight some similarities between the processes of innovation and education.
These stories drive the proposed recommendations and guiding principles for
twenty-first century educational ecosystems. Key chapter goals are to stimulate
conversations on best practice processes and systems that: (1) Catalyze and sustain
interest in Nano-STEAM+ education and (2) enable adaptive, convergent and
innovative educational infrastructures. This chapter also recognizes that it may be
a challenge for some stakeholders to engage in the proposed educational ecosystem,
and recommends options to enhance accessibility.

Some Working Definitions

• An [educational] ecosystem is a complex community of [educators and learners]
and their environment, e.g., schools, museums, companies, etc., functioning as
an ecological system of relationships [2].
• The term nanoscale refers to a size range at which the attributes of extremely
small interface structures and processes become dominant over bulk material

D.J.C. Herr (*)

Nanoscience Department, The Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering, The
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27401, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 83

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_3
84 D.J.C. Herr

properties and processes, and new and useful attributes emerge. “Nanotechnol-
ogy is concerned with development and utilization of structures and devices with
organizational features at the intermediate scale between individual molecules
and about 100 nm where novel properties occur as compared to bulk materials. It
implies the capability to build up tailored nanostructures and devices for given
functions by control at the atomic and molecular levels” [3].
Transdisciplinary environments can greatly enhance a student’s educational expe-
rience, as they are particularly conducive to accelerating the convergence and
synthesis of seemingly disparate ideas into new discoveries and foundational
knowledge. Sometimes, terms like multidisciplinary, crossdisciplinary, interdisci-
plinary, and transdisciplinary are confounded, and tend to be used interchangeably.
As this chapter emphasizes the benefits of transdisciplinary experiences, please
consider Fig. 3.1 as a pictorial clarification of these terms. The pictographs reflect
the following working definitions for these relationships and approaches to
problem-solving within the disciplinary hierarchy, which expand upon those pro-
posed by Jensenius, Stember, Snow, and others: [3]
• Intradisciplinary ¼ Perspectives and approaches to problem-solving that lever-
age the knowledgebase within a single discipline. This term also may represent
the ultimate state of convergence, when traditional disciplinary boundaries give
way to a new and blended discipline.
• Multidisciplinary ¼ Perspectives and approaches to problem-solving that lever-
age the knowledge-base from different disciplines.
• Crossdisciplinary ¼ Perspectives and approaches to problem-solving that lever-
age another discipline’s knowledge-base and coordinate the interface between
different disciplines.
• Interdisciplinary ¼ Perspectives and approaches to problem-solving that inte-
grate and synthesize the knowledgebase and methods from different disciplines.
For example, interdisciplinary curricula often weave common thematic threads
through courses from different disciplines, e.g. applied math, physics, chemistry,
and biology. This approach tends to create a common focus, while preserving
disciplinary boundaries, with little attempt to establish a common language
[8, 9]. “A problem is more suitable for interdisciplinary study when a single
discipline appears inadequate, the problem is on the fringe of two disciplines,
conceptual integration of previous work is needed, and relevant disciplines
appear ready and able to collaborate” [10].
• Transdisciplinary ¼ Perspectives and approaches to problem-solving that create
a deep convergence of intellectual frameworks beyond the disciplinary perspec-
tives. A key attribute of transdisciplinary activities is the creation of a common
language that enhances conversation among all key stakeholders.
Premise 1: A well designed educational ecosystem nurtures, leverages, and
engages a diverse set of convergent and divergent ideas, inclusive relationships,
interdependent networks, and creative hands-on opportunities throughout the for-
mal and informal educational supply chain. Yet, as physicist, systems theorist, and
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 85

Fig. 3.1 Pictorial summary of different relationships within the disciplinary hierarchy [4–7]

philosopher Fritjof Capra asserts in his classic text, The Web of Life, “diversity is a
strategic advantage only if there is a truly vibrant community, sustained by a web of
relationships. If the community is fragmented into isolated groups and individuals,
diversity can easily become a source of prejudice and friction. But if the community
is aware of the interdependence of all its members, diversity will enrich all the
relationships and thus enrich the community as a whole, as well as each individual
member. In such a community information and ideas flow freely through the entire
network, and the diversity of interpretations and learning styles-even the diversity
of mistakes-will enrich the entire community. . . .The more complex the network is,
the more complex its pattern of interconnections, the more resilient it will
be. (However), if one tries to maximize any single variable instead of optimizing
it, this will invariably lead to the destruction of the system as a whole” [11]. “We
are all interconnected. . . . [An educational ecosystem] is not just about the structure
and shape of things, but more importantly, it is about our relationships with those
things” [12]. Such an educational ecosystem thrives on a well networked infra-
structure that reflects and engages the natural web of adaptive processes and
mentoring relationships. Long term support for these processes and relationships
enhances the strategic value of this living educational network for all key
stakeholders.
Premise 2: Nano-STEAM+ education is a transdisciplinary and platform-
enhanced educational process that promotes scientific, mathematical, technological
and engineering depth and breadth, hence the “+”, as well as seamless integration
with the arts. It helps prepare students for careers that value creativity and innova-
tion. It thrives on hands-on problem solving, critical thinking and communication
skills. It also stimulates the discovery, understanding, application, integration,
implications and communication of extremely small nano-materials and nanoscopic
processes for future nanotechnologies that will benefit society and address global
challenges. This emerging twenty-first century educational paradigm already has
begun to weave through several adjacent sectors, such as information, energy,
transportation, agriculture, healthcare and bio-technologies. Nano-STEAM+
education provides a platform, which catalyzes innovation and communication,
facilitates the scientific convergence of nanoscale applied science, e.g., math,
physics, chemistry, biology, materials, computer science and engineering, and
engages and stimulates conversations with other important disciplinary fields, such
as the humanities and sociology.
86 D.J.C. Herr

3.1 Background

On the Role of Convergence and Emergence in the Evolution and Growth of

Future Technologies: As with all living and societal systems, educational and
technological systems must evolve and adapt to survive and thrive. Within this
context, learning and innovation processes that lead to the creation of new concepts
and technologies share some similar attributes. This chapter compares processes
that enable emergent technologies with educational processes that stimulate learn-
ing and knowledge creation. In this section, I share two stories on how concepts and
discoveries evolve, respond to environmental opportunities, and eventually benefit
society. The following brief histories of vacuum tubes and integrated circuits
illustrate the progression from convergence to synthesis and feasibility to emer-
gence in the evolution of new technologies. These process attributes align well with
a student’s progression through the educational process, i.e., from experience and
learning to discovery and understanding to knowledge creation and application.
These similarities provide clues to underlying guiding principles for a robust
twenty-first century educational ecosystem.
Breakthrough concepts tend to emerge and impact society after a 34  5 (1σ)
year latency period, which roughly corresponds to present typical career horizons.
This time interval between idea conception and product realization usually evolves
in two phases, as schematically shown in Table 3.1.
The transition from idea to industrial implementation typically begins with a
22 year incubation and infrastructure development phase, followed by a 12 year
innovation phase, as shown in Fig. 3.2. During the first phase, novel ideas erupt,
incubate in unexpected places, and coalesce across disciplinary boundaries. This
sustained period of refinement, knowledge exchange, convergence and basic infra-
structure enhancement eventually achieves a tangible demonstration of the idea,
which drives the emergence of a commercially viable technology.
For example, modern vacuum tube and transistor technologies owe their begin-
nings to the collective transdisciplinary contributions of scientists, engineers,
technologists, inventors, and businessmen. The evolution of these technologies
also reflects the quality and timing of the relationships and the knowledge exchange
among key contributors. Figure 3.2 schematically summarizes this latency period
for the progression from early light bulb technology to the demonstration of a
working prototype through the emergence of the vacuum tube industry.

On the Evolution of Vacuum Tube Technology

1. The convergence phase: In 1880, Thomas Edison, inventor and businessman,
first observed thermionic emission, 17 years before J.J. Thomson discovered the
electron as a particle. “During the next 20 years, many investigators used the
Edison tube for studying the nature of thermionic emission, but nobody
suggested its use as a rectifier, which converts alternating current to direct
current, for it would be obviously inefficient to consume a heating current of
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 87

Table 3.1 Trends in the evolution of emergent electronics technologies [13, 14]
Technology Incubation phase (Yrs.) Innovation phase (Yrs.)
Solid state diode 1874–1900 1900–1913
Vacuum tube 1883–1904 1904–1919
Transistor 1923–1948 1948–1959
Integrated circuit 1942–1959 1959–1966
Mean phase duration (Yrs.) 22  4 (1σ) 12  3 (1σ)

Fig. 3.2 The evolution of emergent technologies, i.e., typical time-scales for breakthrough ideas
to impact society and address societal needs [13–16]

two to three amperes in order to obtain a rectified current of a few milli-

amperes.” [17]
2. The feasibility phase: In 1904, John Ambrose Fleming, who was an electrical
engineer and physicist, patented the two-element (diode) vacuum tube, which
was based on the “Edison effect.” This electronic device demonstrated the
feasibility of demodulating radio signals, by converting them from AC to DC
pulses, and enabled the commercialization of radio services. Two years later, in
1906, Lee de Forest, an inventor and media pioneer, invented the three-element
(triode) vacuum tube, which catalyzed the vacuum tube era [18].
3. The emergence phase: In 1906, few people recognized the vacuum tube’s
transformative potential. Early vacuum tube prototypes were hand-built and
crude-looking devices that exhibited significant performance and reliability
issues. Fortunately, the Navy and others recognized their strategic potential for
ship-to-shore radiotelephone transmissions, such as the Marconi technology
transmissions from the Titanic that saved many lives in 1912 [19]. Significant
sponsor support from the military and the entertainment community fueled this
emergent technology’s innovation phase, and successfully launched a new
industry. Figure 3.3 compares a typical mature, commercially available vacuum
tube, Fig. 3.3b, with an early de Forest prototype, Fig. 3.3a, the 1906 Audion,
which represents this technology’s feasibility phase of development [21].
The push to launch new vacuum tube manufacturing companies grew through
the 1920s, ceased during the depression years, and resumed after World War
II. Driven by the computing era, the space race, and the military industrial
88 D.J.C. Herr

Fig. 3.3 (a) An example of

an early de Forest vacuum
tube prototype, the 1906
Audion, and (b) a modern
vacuum tube [20]

complex, the number of new vacuum manufacturing start-up companies peaked

in the late 1950s.
4. The maturation phase: Just as quickly, the number of vacuum tube start-ups
dropped precipitously through the 1960s and 1970s, and approached zero by the
mid-1980s. The emergence of manufacturable integrated circuit technologies
drove most of the vacuum tube industry into commoditized obsolescence. In the
first decade of the twenty-first century, China invested in a few specialty vacuum
tube manufacturing companies, which served as a modest echo of this
technology’s former strength. These trends in vacuum tube manufacturing
start-ups over time are shown by the dashed blue line in Fig. 3.4.

On the Evolution of Integrated Circuit Technology

1. The convergence phase: Julius Lilienfied, a physicist and electronic engineer, is
credited with inventing the transistor concept. On October 8, 1926, he filed a
patent for a field effect transistor, as a replacement for the fragile and power-
consuming vacuum triode. His patent (US 1745175 A) describes “a method of
and apparatus for controlling the flow of an electric current between two
terminals of an electrically conducting solid by establishing a third potential
between said terminals; and is particularly adaptable to the amplification of
oscillating currents such as prevail, for example, in radio communication”
[22]. Lilienfeld’s patent showed no device data, nor did he ever demonstrate a
working prototype device, as it required high-quality semiconductor materials
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 89

Fig. 3.4 Manufacturing trends, as measured by new fabrications start-ups for (a) Vacuum tubes,
(b) Integrated circuits, and (c) the next disruptive technology

that would not be available for another 20 years [23]. Then, on December 23rd,
1947, after two decades of advances in materials science and engineering,
purification technologies, and related disciplines, William Shockley, John Bar-
deen, and Walter Brattain demonstrated the first point contact transistor, shown
in Fig. 3.5a.
2. The feasibility phase: In 1947, who would have guessed that a transistor would
be the technology to replace vacuum tubes? Compared to Bell Lab’s first point-
contact transistor, a mature vacuum tube, as shown in Fig. 3.3b, was a work of
art. As with the early vacuum tubes, that first hand-built transistor exhibited
significant reliability and performance issues. Like the Audion, the first point-
contact transistor represents a crude demonstration of an emerging disruptive
technology.
3. The emergence phase: Fortunately, the U.S. government and the commercial
sector recognized the potential impact of a scalable transistor and successfully
supported the innovation phase of this emergent technology through commer-
cialization. On September 12, 1958, Jack Kilby demonstrated the first working
prototype of an integrated circuit (IC), “wherein all the components of the
electronic circuit are completely integrated” [26]. The following year, Robert
Noyce demonstrated a planar process for mass producing integrated circuits.
These contributions launched the IC era and displaced vacuum tubes as the
dominant switch in many information processing applications. Figure 3.5 pro-
vides a comparison between the original 1947 transistor and the 2015 Core i7
chip, shown in Fig. 3.5b, which contains 2.6B transistors and beautiful
symmetry.
4. The maturation phase: The yearly number of semiconductor manufacturing
start-up companies tracked with the U.S. space program and peaked between
1965 and 1975. For the next 30 years, new semiconductor manufacturing
companies formed at diminishing rates. The extant industry has seen no new
90 D.J.C. Herr

Fig. 3.5 (a) A replica of the first point-contact transistor and (b) an Intel I7 microprocessor chip,
which contains 2.6 billion switches [24, 25]

semiconductor companies launched since around 2005. Instead, since the

mid-1990s, the semiconductor industry has experienced significant consolida-
tion. By 2014, of almost 100 companies that engaged in semiconductor
manufacturing, no more than eight companies now dominate the market,
accounting for 80 % of the sales revenue. This trend, shown as Fig. 3.4b, can
be explained as a manifestation of Moore’s Second Law, i.e., the cost of
semiconductor manufacturing increases exponentially with the complexity of
the devices. The increasing facility and equipment costs for maintaining the
traditional manufacturing paradigm present increasingly difficult barriers to
entry, as the cost to build state-of-the-art semiconductor facilities now exceeds
$11B.
The vacuum tube and semiconductor industries share some common attributes.
Each technology first went through an incubation phase that leveraged, refined, and
synthesized the transdisciplinary ideas of many people. During this phase, new
materials, processes, and analytical capabilities developed that enabled the first
demonstrations of these fledgling technologies. At this feasibility stage, these
technologies were considerably less competitive than the dominant sustaining
technologies, as they suffered from performance, reliability, and manufacturability
issues. These prototype technologies required a tremendous follow-on investment
to successfully launch industries that addressed strategic governmental and societal
needs. Once launched, these industries tended to incrementally improve their
product’s performance and reliability to satisfy evolving customer demands.
Doors to new resources are opening for people looking for the “next big thing”.
Figure 3.4c suggests that perceived opportunities, investment pressure and expec-
tations are growing for the emergence of the next technology wave. This pressure
gap actually stimulates the emergence of new technologies that will benefit society.
With a 34 year latency period, the next big wave should soon emerge. These trends
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 91

are clear for information processing related technologies, and also may apply to
adjacent technology market sectors and educational systems.
On Changing Landscapes and New Paradigms. As each technology matured,
the industry consolidated until only a handful of manufacturers dominated the
market. Today, almost none of the original vacuum tube manufacturers remain in
business or continue to manufacture vacuum tubes. Their core technology became
obsolete, and gave way to a more competitive integrated circuit technology. The
semiconductor industry’s inertia and tendency not to look for potentially disruptive
fledgling technologies, i.e., “ugly ducklings,” are symptomatic of what Clayton
Christensen calls “The Innovator’s Dilemma” [27]. He asserts that disruptive
technologies cause problems because they do not initially satisfy the demands of
even the high end of the market. Because of that weakness, large companies tend to
overlook their potential until they become more attractive profit-wise. Eventually,
these technologies surpass sustaining technologies in satisfying market demand,
with lower costs. When this happens, large companies, who did not invest in the
disruptive technology sooner, are left behind. This general principle applies to
many societal sectors, including the field of education.
In the summer of 1994, Jack Kilby participated in a strategic semiconductor
industry retreat that focused on how best to maintain Moore’s Law. Participants
aligned identified knowledge gaps in the new National Technology Roadmap for
Semiconductors (NTRS), a strategic research and technology needs document, with
research that would enable evolutionary improvements in scaled semiconductor
materials, manufacturing, device, and design technologies. As the two-day meeting
was about to adjourn, Jack rose and addressed his colleagues. He began by thanking
them for their efforts to align resources with the NTRS’s strategic fifteen-year set of
research needs. He concluded by saying, “If I were a young entrepreneur, I would
know exactly how to broadside you, as all of this industry’s research was now
focused along a single evolutionary technology path [28].” His last words resounded
with foundational truth and reminded us to keep one eye looking outside-of-the-box
for those serendipitous opportunities. The key message for a future educational
ecosystem is that breakthrough technologies and benefits tend to emerge from
environments that enable many disparate ideas to come together and coalesce.
The future is ripe with convergent opportunities. As the scaled electronics era
continues to mature, with ever diminishing returns, the rising need for an Internet of
Things (IoT) is driving the next waves of ideas and platforms. The nano-enabled
technology platform is particularly well positioned to integrate increasingly dense
and complex functionality into single systems and interdependent networks. The
IoT is stimulating exciting advances across a number of convergent,
interdependent, and adjacent nano-enabled technology market sectors, such as:
mobile and ubiquitous communication and information processing, big data, med-
ical and healthcare, energy, smart transportation and infrastructure, green materials
and sustainable manufacturing, and security. For example, consider the following
set of convergent opportunities between the nanoelectronics and healthcare sectors.
The Semiconductor Research Corporation’s (SRC’s) 2010 Bioelectronics Round-
table brought together industrial and government stakeholders to explore win-win
92 D.J.C. Herr

opportunities for the semiconductor and medical device communities. The biomed-
ical device community recognized the potential of harnessing the semiconductor
industry’s robust, precise, reliable, and low cost high volume manufacturing infra-
structure. During that meeting, the participants from the biomedical device com-
munity also identified specific high impact needs, which offered tremendous market
potential for their semiconductor colleagues. The participants reached unanimous
agreement on the following three high priority application opportunities: (1) Per-
sonalized medical diagnostics and monitoring, (2) Prosthetics and implantable
devices, and (3) Multi-scale medical imaging.
These fledgling technologies are well into their incubation period and infrastruc-
ture development phase, and early prototypes are beginning to emerge. Initially, the
semiconductor community sought to expand functionality from a semiconductor-
centric perspective. This community tended to apply traditional core material,
device, manufacturing, and architectural paradigms to achieve these desired
enhancements in complex functional density. For example, early prototypes of
artificial retinal implants and prosthetic devices were based on electrical devices
and abiotic electrode interfaces with living tissues. Unfortunately, such interfaces
exhibit chronic biofouling, which dramatically reduces prosthetic performance over
time [29]. Recent efforts to achieve a more natural biomimetic prosthetic lifetime
leverage a variety of perspectives to achieve softer and less invasive interfaces, e.g.,
wireless protocols.
As a more recent example of a new technology’s evolution through convergent
incubation and emergent innovation, Hugh Herr’s passion for climbing and an
unanticipated climbing accident led him to tinker with and develop custom feet
that were optimized for various mountain terrains. Prof. Herr now ranks as one of
the world’s leading experts in prosthetics and biotic-abiotic interfaces, and he is
achieving remarkable results in restoring natural gait and limb function to ampu-
tees. He also is a gifted educator, and his 2015 TED Talk entitled, “The new bionics
that let us run, climb and dance” effectively conveys his love of science with the
community [30]. His work reinforces the creative potential of integrating informal
and formal learning that leverages each person’s passions, curiosity, playfulness,
life experiences, and expertise.
A new field of Nature aware design, biomimetics, fabrication, and complex
functionality suggests novel transdisciplinary paths for achieving these goals. For
example, consider a white blood cell. While it has no brain, it has sensors, pro-
cessors, and actuators that enable it to track down and engulf an invading bacterium
in our blood stream. The white blood cell represents one manifestation of the
natural convergence and integration of form and function. In fact, most cells offer
a wide array of integrated complex functionality, as summarized in Fig. 3.6. For the
moment, consider the potential economic impact of Fig. 3.6 processing and
bioelectronics related functionalities.
Much of today’s scaled semiconductor market resides in the processing cate-
gory. In 2013, world-wide semiconductor revenues topped $300B. Now compare
this market to the blood testing market, where health care providers can charge
insurance companies approximately $1000 for a routine series of blood tests. With
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 93

Fig. 3.6 Examples of some

Nature-inspired
monolithically integrated
complex functionality
within living systems

~7.5B people in the world, routine blood test technology alone represents a poten-
tial multi-trillion-dollar market. A mass produced, portable, and reliable lab-on-a-
chip platform would revolutionize medical care delivery, as this technology would
enable real-time testing and increased accessibility, at significantly lower testing
costs. This emerging transdisciplinary nanoenabled technology platform is creating
significant new business opportunities that could dwarf those achieved by the global
semiconductor industry. It also suggests significant demand for a new generation of
scientists and engineers, who are skilled in convergent and transdisciplinary Nano-
STEAM+ approaches to research and innovation that will address high impact
societal needs and enable the Internet of Things era.
What’s next? How can we prepare future generations of Nano-STEAM+ stu-
dents for careers and leadership positions in such a challenging, dynamic, and
uncertain and exciting environment? This question warrants a national discussion
on formal and informal educational priorities that leverages ideas from many
sectors. As a starting point for this conversation, entrepreneur and social critic
Peter Theil suggests several clues as educational and entrepreneurial guideposts,
which include: (1) every breakthrough discovery’s catalytic moment in history only
happens once, (2) there is no cookie-cutter formula that pioneers can follow, and
(3) identify a new truth that few people agree with you on [31].
Begin with the end in mind.—S. Covey (2004) [32]

Nano-STEAM+ education’s strategic goals should align with new truths that
anticipate our strategic priorities, address emergent societal needs, and nurture
unconventional perspectives and ideas. Several of these nano-enabled high impact
priorities identified in the February 2014 National Nanotechnology Initiative Stra-
tegic Plan [33, 34] include: nanomanufacturing; nano-bio-info-cogno convergence
and emergence; convergence of knowledge, technology, and society and new
socioeconomic capabilities.
94 D.J.C. Herr

Fig. 3.7 A natural alignment of educational and technological growth processes [10, 35]

Design educational ecosystems that achieve desired results and that look for and
support educational prototypes, e.g., “ugly ducklings,” which address future needs,
rather than perpetuate entrenched processes. It is interesting to note how well a
disruptive technology’s evolutionary growth process, discussed above, aligns with
natural learning processes, as shown in Fig. 3.7.
To achieve these goals, disciplinary depth will continue to be an important and
necessary part of the educational experience. But, it also may be time to step back
and ask whether a traditional disciplinary-centric educational approach will be
sufficient for our children and their descendants. Nano-STEAM+ education pro-
vides opportunities to look outside of the traditionally siloed educational experi-
ence, to establish and to communicate with a more universal transdisciplinary
language, and to explore relationships with adjacent, convergent, and seemingly
unrelated disciplines. Nano-STEAM+ approaches augment and enhance the cur-
rent disciplinary-centric teaching experience with hands-on platform experiences
that bridge disciplines and disciplinary languages, nurture critical thinking skills,
and reveal unexpected relationships and convergences.
On December 29, 1959, Richard Feynman gave a talk entitled, “‘Plenty of
Room’ at the Bottom,” which laid out a vision and scientific challenge for minia-
turization comparable to the challenge of reaching the moon by 1969 [36]. Today,
we face a similar frontier, as we have the tools to uncover other novel and useful
nanomaterial properties. We are beginning to understand the language of
nanomaterials, how these materials interact, and how they can efficiently self-
assemble into structures with useful properties. Consider the larger end of the
nano-world, which starts with stuff that is about one-thousandth the diameter of a
human hair, or about 500 atoms wide. Below that size, much of the material that we
use every day begins to take on new and interesting properties. For example, metals
melt at lower temperatures and wires can behave more like liquids. Carbon, which
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 95

is a main elemental component of wood, charcoal, graphite, and diamond, can exist
in new biocompatible forms that are flexible and stronger than steel. Each discovery
and new nanoscopic property may stimulate waves of innovation and catalyze new
industries. Emerging nanoscience and nanoengineering technologies can deliver
unprecedented benefits to society, especially in the areas of health care, information
technology, energy, communication, transportation, sustainable
nanomanufacturing, smart agriculture, textiles, and construction.
Where should we look for the next big thing? Everywhere. For example, Thomas
Edison, one of America’s most creative and prolific inventors and businessman,
greatly benefited from an informal education. His mother home-schooled him and
nurtured his interest in qualitative analysis and chemistry. Like Edison, pioneers
such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg gathered much of their
knowledge and launched new technologies that benefited society with
non-traditional educational experiences. Each day, we are surrounded by opportu-
nities to discover, learn, and innovate in the nanoworld [37].
The following two sections focus on recommendations, which recognize that
Nano-STEAM+ education cannot be viewed as an isolated specialty, but as an
integral attribute of the STEAM educational network. In fact, one may argue
whether young children and elementary school students benefit more from purely
nanocentric experiences or from stories that communicate the joy of science and
experiences that fully engage and exercise their critical thinking skills, their
creativity, and their ability to tinker and innovate. It is important that the educa-
tional system finds specific personalized ways to connect with each student and
their world view. For completeness, the first section provides some recommenda-
tions that apply to all STEAM+ related educational ecosystems.

3.2 General Recommendations to Catalyze a Sustainable

STEAM Ecosystem

Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets. [38]—Deming, Berwick, and
Betalden (1980s)

What adaptive infrastructures optimize our educational experiences? Global

education and business dynamics are having a profound impact on how our nation
positions its R&D infrastructure and workforce. For example, in 2011, the Boston
Consulting Group, a global business and management consulting firm, asserted that
“We expect net labor costs for manufacturing in China and the U.S. to converge by
around 2015. As a result of the changing economics, you’re going to see a lot more
products ‘Made in the USA’ in the next 5 years” [39]. Boston Consulting Group’s
2014 data indicate that these metrics continue to converge, with labor and
manufacturing costs in China approaching 60 % and 96 %, respectively, of those
in the United States [40]. More importantly, “the share of executives saying that
their companies are actively reshoring production increased by 9 % since 2014 and
96 D.J.C. Herr

by about 250 % since 2012. This suggests that companies that were considering
reshoring in previous years are now taking action. By a two-to-one margin, exec-
utives said they believe that reshoring will help create U.S. jobs at their companies
rather than lead to a net loss of jobs” [41].
With small shifts in our educational infrastructure, we can accelerate the
research and incubation of new ideas, and usher in a new era of nano-enabled
products and nanomanufacturing. Prakash Nair, one of the world’s leading futurists
and visionaries in educational system design, advocates for the “alignment” of the
environments in which we teach and learn with twenty-first-century learning goals.
In his classic text, Blueprint for Tomorrow: Redesigning Schools for Student-
Centered Learning [42], Nair promotes project-based, student-centered environ-
ments that strengthens critical thinking skills through a series of thematic projects,
hands-on platforms, team collaboration, peer-to-peer learning, and independent
study. He makes a compelling case for a new transdisciplinary educational ecosys-
tem that will prepare the next generation of students to address future challenges.
An educational infrastructure that is designed to achieve our strategic goals may:
(1) Reduce overall educational costs and (2) better enable a skilled workforce that
addresses academic, industrial, and societal challenges and thrives on emerging
career opportunities. We have an opportunity to revitalize our educational infra-
structure by leveraging the vision and passions of traditional and non-traditional
leaders [educational, government, business, and community] in nanoscience,
nanoengineering (and liberal arts education and) innovation [43].
This section examines synergistic relationships within a recommended Nano-
STEAM+ educational ecosystem. Figure 3.8 conveys a typical set of stakeholders
and their expected relationships. It suggests some mutually beneficial engagement
opportunities. Please note that the octahedral arrangement of stakeholders repre-
sents one set of many possible relationships within a living and highly networked
educational infrastructure. In this proposed ecosystem, each stakeholder group
shares best practices, learns from each other, and supports mutually beneficial
opportunities. In this sense, this network is more multidimensional than that
represented by the traditional academic pipeline and supply chain.
The Family and Care Giver: The family and care giver represent two of this
ecosystem’s most critical stakeholders, as each one’s culture and values have a
profound impact on a student’s growth and decision whether or not to pursue a
STEAM related education. They share stewardship responsibility for their chil-
dren’s safety and for preparing them to thrive as adults. Parents and care givers,
such as day care providers, may create an infrastructure that enables a child to
observe, explore, and engage the world around them, and to tinker. Parents,
surrogate parents, and care givers who nurture nature walks, critical thinking skills,
hands-on tinkering, kitchen science, and solving puzzles convey to children an
environment that is conducive to catalyzing curiosity and sustaining STEAM
educational pathways. Many meaningful experiences can emerge from these
unstructured activities. On simple nature walks, there are always new stones to
pick up and unexpected treasures to discover. For example, one day, while walking
past a small tree, I naively extended my hand to a young chickadee that was perched
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 97

Fig. 3.8 Representative relationships within an educational ecosystem that leverage interdepen-
dencies, expertise, and engagement among key stakeholders [10]

on one of its lower branches. It hopped onto my finger and our eyes locked. As I
became aware that this other life also was studying me, I understood that we are all
interconnected. Such small epiphanies are not uncommon in casual walks through
nature.
In some localities, a school may position itself as a community resource to
engage children and their families and/or their care givers in a collective learning
and community building process. Home school co-operatives often share a similar
leveraged approach to STEAM education, where people with different skills and
expertise share their knowledge with other parents, caregivers, and the children.
This inclusive neighbor-helping-neighbor process may benefit all children, fami-
lies, and care givers, especially those stakeholders with gifts and skills in
non-STEAM related areas.
We should not take for granted the STEAM related gifts and problem solving
skills that families and care givers share, even unknowingly, or do not share, with
their children. Consider, for example, the child on a farm who learns to fix tractor
engines, milks the cows, and helps with the birth of a distressed animal. These
experiences can have a profound impact on the development of a student’s critical
thinking and problem solving skills and enhance their creativity within a Nano-
98 D.J.C. Herr

STEAM environment. It is one thing to read about cows and birthing in a text book,
and quite another experience to engage in that process. Such life experiences
provide access to knowledge beyond what is captured within pages of a book.
Academic Outreach: With a few additional resources, the formal higher educa-
tional infrastructure could collaborate with other stakeholders to develop and offer
a coordinated set of outreach activities that can catalyze and sustain student interest
in STEAM+ education. Colleges and universities sustain post-secondary students’
interest in Nano-STEAM careers, e.g., through internship programs and targeted
collaborations with trade schools, community colleges, and museums. While par-
ticipants can greatly benefit from these outreach activities, additional consideration
must be given to enhance access to these opportunities. Programs should be
designed that enable engagement by all students and their families, especially
those participants with significant time, resource, and transportation constraints.
For example, family-inclusive activities and those organizations that reach under-
represented minorities, make accessible the joy of a Nano-STEAM+ experience
and provide role models for the next generation of scientists and engineers. One
such organization is the Rainbow Push Coalition, whose mission is to protect,
defend, and gain civil rights by leveling the economic and educational playing
fields, and to promote peace and justice around the world [44]. Each year, this
organization actively supports a 2 week bus tour, throughout the southeastern
United States, for rising senior high school students to visit universities and
experience STEAM related events.
Systemic Considerations: The future educational ecosystem is dynamic and
adaptive. It tends towards balanced engagement through direct communication
between academia, government, industry, and community. It also empowers indi-
viduals, as continual learners, at every stage of their development. Conversations
among all key stakeholders help to maintain that strategic balance, and a common
language is the currency that enables informed and mutually beneficial decisions.
Other Considerations: A significant number of children may be the first in their
families to consider higher education and STEAM related careers. As they progress
towards post-secondary options, it may be difficult for the student to leave their
community and for their family or care giver to let them go without a safe and
smooth hand-off plan for their child. Family and care giver roles in their child’s
education, their child’s transition plan, and safety concerns for their children in a
new environment are important considerations that impact each child’s academic
career path. Additionally, a recent AAC&U report entitled, “Bringing Equity and
Quality Learning Together: Institutional Priorities for Tracking and Advancing
Underserved Students’ Success” suggests several general factors, e.g. race/ethnic-
ity, income levels, and/or parental education levels that impact educational out-
comes and that warrant greater consideration [45].
The internet and media serve valuable STEAM educational functions. Media
personalities, such as Mr. Wizard, Carl Sagan, James Burke, Bill Nye, Neil de
Grasse Tyson, Alan Alda, the many TED Talk speakers and others bring the joy of
science into our homes, and arouse our interest in and curiosity about the wonders
of the natural world. They are excellent story tellers, and they share a gift for
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 99

communicating science, as well as the stories about the people and events behind
the science. These story tellers can help to introduce us to the process of discovering
the world around us. They provide nearly ubiquitous access to information in ways
not dreamed of just a few generations ago. In this way, such communication tools
can catalyze and spark an interest in STEAM related education. Yet, even with
today’s access to nearly unlimited online information, why are so few students
embracing STEAM career paths? There is no substitute for hands-on learning.
While these wonderful resources are necessary and enable access to information,
they are not sufficient to sustain learner interest and achieve our twenty-fist century
educational goals.

3.3 Strategic recommendations for platform enhanced

Nano-STEAM+ education

The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may
be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new
possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and
marks real advances in science.—Albert Einstein (1879–1955) [46]

In the 2008 book entitled, The Global Achievement Gap, Tony Wagner, Inno-
vation Education Fellow at the Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard
University, highlights a “strategic challenge for American education: in today’s
highly competitive global knowledge economy, all students need new skills for
college, careers, and citizenship. To fail to give all students these new skills leaves
today’s youth—and our country—at an alarming competitive disadvantage.
Schools have not changed; the world has. And so our schools, then, are not failing.
They are obsolete—even the ones that score the best on standardized tests—which
is a very different problem requiring an altogether different solution.” He also
asserts that “in the twenty-first century, mastery of the basic skills of reading,
writing, and math is no longer enough. Increasingly, almost any job that pays
more than minimum wage today—both blue and white collar—requires employees
who know how to solve a range of intellectual and technical problems. . . . In
addition, we face an exponential increase of readily available information, new
technologies that are constantly changing, and more complex societal challenges
such as global warming. Thus, work, learning, and citizenship in the twenty-first
century demand that we all know how to think—to reason, analyze, weigh evi-
dence, problem solve. These are no longer skills that only the elites in a society
must master; they are essential survival skills for all of us” [47].
The “2009 High School Survey of Student Engagement,” conducted by the
Center for Evaluation and Education Policy at Indiana University, reports that
active classroom learning, such as through discussion and debate, group projects,
and projects and lessons involving technology, most excite and engage students.
This survey also notes that 82 % of students would welcome more ways to
exercise their creative skills in school [48, 49].
100 D.J.C. Herr

This section provides a partial response to the strategic need for active and
engaging classroom learning opportunities that exercise each student’s creative
skills. It also builds upon the NSF sponsored 2015 report entitled, Nanoscale
Science and Engineering Education (NSEE)—he Next Steps [50]. This document
reflects the consensus output from the December 11–12, 2014 NSF sponsored
NSEE Workshop, which “involved representatives from the various global stake-
holder communities, including K-12, community colleges, universities, continuing
education, various professional communities, industry, foundations, state/local
education authorities, and pertinent national agencies. The workshop participants
reviewed the current status of nanoscale education, and developed recommenda-
tions toward:
• “What knowledge base will be needed in the workforce/population 5–10 years
from now, and how to prepare the students for that future;
• An assessment of the global NSEE efforts and identification of best practices;
• A process to scale-up availability/usage of the best NSEE resources;
• A plan for the incorporation of NSEE into curricula being developed for the
newly released U.S. Next Generation K-12 Science Standards and similar
standards in other countries;
• The symbiosis among NSE, information technology, biology/medicine, and
cognitive processes (U.S. BRAIN and European Union Brain Project
initiatives);
• A mechanism(s) to keep abreast of the changing workforce education needs as
nanotechnology continues its rapid market penetration;
• The need and possible mechanisms for ongoing public education and engage-
ment with nanoscale science, engineering, and technology; and
• Roles for NSEE in broadening participation in the STEM workforce.” [51]
Participants in the workshop were selected in order to provide perspectives on NSEE from
various stakeholder communities, including Federal agencies with STEM activities, state
and local governments, teachers and researchers from different levels of education, pro-
fessional science and engineering organizations, industry, and international education
perspectives. There was a balance between those with primary knowledge of NSE and
others involved in STEM education [52].

Many of the report’s stakeholder sections share common attributes. It was

interesting to analyze selected key word and phrase frequencies in the Nanoscale
Science and Engineering Education (NSEE)—the Next Steps’ Workshop report. A
meta-frequency analysis of the recommendations reveals several shared themes that
weave throughout the text. The following data reflect relevant word count summa-
ries from that report.
• Interdisciplinary, crossdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, integrated and/or con-
vergent learning was noted 96 times [Word search summary: Interdisciplin*
(36), integrat* (33), converg* (13), multidisciplin* (8), cross-disciplin* (3),
transdiscip* or trans-discip*(2), holist* (1)].
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 101

• Community engagement was highlighted 90 times, while family and parent

related engagement was mentioned only 11 times [Word search summary:
Community* (79), famil* (7), parent* (4)].
• Industry or translational activities were mentioned 89 times [Word search
summary: Industr* (77), Entrepren* (7), Translat* (5)].
• Learning that emphasizes application, innovation, projects, platforms, and
hands-on tinkering was mentioned 74 times. [Word search summary: Applica-
tion* (23), Innovat* (17), project (14), creativity (8), platform (5), hands-on (4),
tinker* (0)]. It also is interesting that on-line learning was mentioned 11 times
[Word search summary: Online (10), on-line (1) problem solving (3)].
• Science communication was mentioned at least 53 times [Word count:
Communic* (26), media* (27)].
• Environmental awareness was mentioned 39 times [Word count: Environ* (30),
Sustain* (9)].
• Math and critical thinking were mentioned 21 times, but these needed NSE skills
were not consistently recognized by all groups [Word count: Math* (20), critical
thinking (1)].
An analysis of these attribute frequency distributions suggests general workshop
participant consensus on several strategic guiding principles for Nano-STEAM+ edu-
cation. This analysis identified the following rank ordered list of strategic recommen-
dations and guiding principles for the next generation STEAM+ educational ecosystem:
• Integrate transdisciplinary enhanced Nano-STEAM+ experiences throughout
the educational ecosystem that leverage convergent opportunities and multi-
stakeholder perspectives.
• Support informal community and family/care-giver engaged education from
an early age.
• Nurture entrepreneurship and a passion for translating discoveries into appli-
cations that benefit society and address humanity’s strategic challenges, i.e.,
Energy, water, food, environment, poverty, terrorism and war, disease, educa-
tion, democracy, and population [53].
• Develop and exercise creativity and innovation skills through hands-on, plat-
form oriented projects that reinforce disciplinary depth and breadth.
• Refine, exercise, and integrate science communication skills that make the
nanoworld accessible and relevant to all communities.
• Create a Nano-STEAM+ culture that promotes and integrates environmental
awareness in nanoscience and nanoengineering education and sustainable,
high-performance nanotechnologies.
• Strengthen foundational competence in math and critical thinking.
This information supports several NSE success factors, which include transdis-
ciplinary and informal experiences that emphasize discovery platforms, exercise
hand-on tinkering and communication skills, and nurture a passion for entrepre-
neurial sustainability.
On achieving these goals: The following section offers some specific examples
for achieving each of these recommendations and guiding principles.
102 D.J.C. Herr

Fig. 3.9 Transdisciplinary platforms and interdependencies among representative (a) Science and
(b) Engineering disciplines [10]

• Integrate transdisciplinary enhanced Nano-STEAM+ experiences. Figure 3.9a,

b schematically convey representative interrelationships among science and
engineering disciplines, respectively. They suggest opportunities for moving
the Nano-STEAM+ educational network and process towards a more transdis-
ciplinary experience.
At the post-secondary level, the trend towards offering convergent
nanoscience and nanoengineering courses that bridge disciplines, such as bio-
chemistry, molecular biology, neurophysics, biomedical engineering, etc., likely
will expand to link other nanorelated fields. One way to begin the Nano-STEAM
+ integration process is for colleagues from different departments to consider
common, perhaps applied, thematic threads that they can incorporate into their
course syllabus. For example, interactions between soft nanomatter, e.g., pro-
teins, with hard nanoparticles, e.g. quantum dots, may be considered from
several disciplinary perspectives. For chemistry, this theme may examine the
synthetic and physical organic chemistry of these nanomaterials and their
interactions. A related biology course could focus on changes in protein confor-
mation and protein-nanoparticle binding dynamics. A corresponding physics
course may include molecular dynamic simulations of these systems and predict
their spectroscopic attributes, such as surface plasmon resonances. Applied
mathematicians may be interested in this system’s symmetry and the optimiza-
tion of protein-nanoparticle interactions. Engineers might be interested in study-
ing this system’s potential as a sensing device for biomarkers. Ultimately, this
set of coordinated courses, taught or co-taught by multiple departments, might
converge into a new transdisciplinary department that examines fundamental
Nano-STEAM+ questions with appropriate depth and breadth.
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 103

In a similar way, larger team taught classes may bring a broader STEAM
perspective into K-12 classrooms. Each team could co-design thematic threads
throughout their curriculum that provide a holistic and age appropriate Nano-
STEAM perspective. This approach creates an educational environment that
helps to prepare the next generation of students for a transdisciplinary undergrad-
uate and graduate education. A number of federally funded initiatives, such as the
Department of Education’s Teacher Quality Partnership program [54], can serve as
effective vehicles for integrating of Nano-STEAM education within in the teacher
education curriculum. For example, under this program, the University of North
Carolina at Greensboro’s Transforming Teaching through Technology (T4) project
pairs several Nanoscience graduate students from the Joint School of Nanoscience
and Nanoengineering (JSNN) with local elementary, middle school and high
school classes to bring nanoscience into the classroom. These graduate students
collaborate with the teachers to develop nanoscience modules that can be easily
integrated within the current curriculum. They also spend significant time each
week with the students in the classroom, where they: help to explain challenging
STEM and Nano-STEAM concepts, share stories of their own career paths and
research, and encourage the students to think critically and creatively. They listen
to and serve as role models for the students. Benefits of establishing a long-term
collaborative relationship between the Nanoscience graduate students and the K-12
teachers include increased engagement of public school students in innovation,
creativity, problem-solving and entrepreneurship through the development of
collaborative project-based learning environments that apply emerging nanotech-
nology and twenty-first Century skills [55].
• Support informal family, care-giver and community engaged education from
an early age. Another guiding principle is to support an increased emphasis on
family engaged learning. This approach integrates science and problem solving
activities early in a child’s educational experience. Home-based Nano-STEAM+
experiences are fun and stimulate student interest in the natural world. For
example, parents and care givers can introduce children to the Nano-STEAM
experience through the use of kitchen chemistry. These activities could use
nanomaterials that are available in most households. Examples of such home-
based activities with nanomaterials include the classic fire extinguisher experi-
ment, with baking soda and vinegar; acid and base induced color changes in
curry powder, and the use of capillary action to transport nanosized molecules of
food coloring into plant stems and leaves. The internet offers a number of sites
for additional nanomaterial related projects for the home environment [56]. Such
experiences could increase and help to sustain the number of students who
choose to pursue Nano-STEAM+ education and career paths. It is interesting
to see significant workshop consensus support for community and industry
engaged scholarship, as well as for translational activities. The participants
also recognize the need to communicate their passion for science to students
and to the community, and to train their students to effectively share their NSE
experiences with the community. Such convergent opportunities will lead to
104 D.J.C. Herr

unexpected “Aha!” moments, and increase confidence in our ability to under-

stand the world around us.
Informal educational opportunities, such as those through museums; like
Boston’s Museum of Science, California’s Exploratorium, Chicago’s Museum
of Science and Industry and Field Museum, and North Carolina’s Museum of
Life and Science and Discovery Place; offer integrated science, arts and human-
ities experiences, and are very popular outings among families, care-givers, and
students of all ages. Consider, for example, Chicago’s Museum of Science and
Industry. Its Center for the Advancement of Science Education engages students,
teachers, and other members of the community with a wide variety of hands-on,
platform-based and convergent STEAM opportunities. Their staff are well
trained in science communication skills, which make their activities fun and
accessible to people from all walks of life. These teams are inspiring and
empowering the next generation of scientists, engineers, educators, innovators,
and entrepreneurs [57]. Additionally, programs such as the Nanoscale Informal
Science Education (NISE) network also “foster public awareness, engagement,
and understanding of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology through
establishment of a Network, a national infrastructure that links science museums
and other informal science education organizations with nanoscale science and
engineering research organizations” [58]. This network “is” a national commu-
nity of researchers and informal science educators dedicated to fostering public
awareness, engagement, and understanding of nanoscale science, engineering,
and technology. Nisenet.org is an online digital library of public nano educa-
tional products and tools designed for educators and scientists” [59]. These
products include traveling exhibits, videos, and kits, as well as sponsored events,
such as NanoDays.
• Nurture entrepreneurship and a passion for translating discoveries into
applications that benefit society and address humanity’s strategic chal-
lenges, i.e., Energy, water, food, environment, poverty, terrorism and war,
disease, education, democracy, and population [53]. Nano-STEAM+ educa-
tion enables discoveries and technologies in one field to be applied and trans-
lated to seemingly unrelated markets that will benefit society. For example, a
nanoscience student developed a novel nanoscale drug delivery system inspired
the creation of a sustainable bait, called Organobait, and launched a new
company in the $6B crustacean bait market [60]. This new nano-product not
only offers commercial fisherman an alternative to traditional and unsustainable
dead fish bait, but it also reduces the unwanted capture of dolphins, turtles and
other fish that often get stuck in nets. It was the breadth and depth of the student’s
Nano-STEAM+ education that enabled him to recognize and translate this
research into an emerging sustainable nanotechnology.
• Develop and exercise creativity and innovation skills through hands-on,
platform-oriented projects that reinforce disciplinary depth and breadth.
Students and others throughout the educational ecosystem are hungry for rele-
vant hands-on learning experiences. In conversations with today’s older and
retired professionals, many of them report how they benefitted from yesterday’s
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 105

Fig. 3.10 Representative inter-relationships among technology disciplines that may contribute to
convergent and potentially disruptive technology platforms [10]

shop and home economics classes, which provided significant opportunities to

tinker and innovate. Where can today’s students exercise similar innovative
hands-on experiences, and express their scientific, engineering, entrepreneurial,
communication, and artistic creativity? Activities such as the annual Joint
School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering (JSNN)—Canterbury School Sum-
mer Science Academy (SSA) provide rising high school students with immer-
sion experiences in a Nano-STEAM+ environment that leverage one or more
convergent nanotechnology platforms, such as those shown in Fig. 3.10.
This type of experience exercises their hands-on tinkering, innovation,
design, observational, critical thinking, and presentation skills. Each year, this
program introduces small teams of rising ninth graders to advanced techniques
in nanoenabled agriculture. The students build and operate their own low cost
hydroponic systems, as shown in Fig. 3.11, and design their growth experiments,
which may include functional nanomaterials. This program provides an inten-
sive Nano-STEAM+ experience, in which participants learn the nanoscience of
how plants grow, e.g., relevant physics, nanochemistry, plant nanobiology, as
well as basic statistics; develop testable hypotheses; design and run experiments,
make daily observations, analyze data for significant effects; develop
106 D.J.C. Herr

Fig. 3.11 (a) A Summer Science Academy student constructing a low cost hydroponic system
and (b) a student designed nanoenabled plant growth experiment underway in a typical hydroponic
chamber [61]

PowerPoint presentations; and present their findings to their peers, academic

mentors, and their families/care givers. During this program, students learn how
to use plants as efficient factories for growing functionalized tissue, without
genetic engineering.
During the camp, they also tour a state-of-the-art research facility, e.g., the
JSNN, and Nanoscience graduate students engage the students in other hands-on
demonstrations. The following letter from one student to the Editor of a local
newspaper reflects the consensus of this year’s rising ninth grade SSA students: “I
had the honor of participating in this program. The focus was on hydroponics, on
which we did experiments at the JSNN, while learning basic physics and chemistry
in the process. We got to work with graduate students at the school, who talked with
us about the fundamentals of science and introduced us to their projects. The week
concluded with a tour of the JSNN, and a formal presentation of our findings. The
camp reconfirmed my passion for science. I had an amazing time, being around
students as interested in the field as I am, and would suggest the camp to anyone
who is interested in learning in general” [62]. Such experiences are stimulating a
new generation of K-12 scientists and engineers to pursue new STEAM+ related
educational paths. It is interesting to note that Jacob also is a musician, and he now
is considering ways to combine his love of music and science.
Undergraduate and graduate institutions and museums across the country are
beginning to engage K-12 students and the community to Nano-STEAM edu-
cation through various outreach experiences. For example, the Joint School of
Nanoscience and Nanoengineering’s graduate students and NanoBus deliver
weekly hands-on nanorelated experiments, demonstrations, and guided conver-
sations to K-12 students throughout the region. Such programs can introduce
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 107

these students to the nanoworld through powerful portable nanoanalytical tech-

nologies, such as a scanning electron microscope or atomic force microscope.
These tools transform everyday materials, such as our hair, into beautiful and
unexpected complex sculptures.
Over time, such Nano-STEAM+ immersion platforms plant thematic threads
that students can extend to their other full year K-12 courses, such as math,
physics, chemistry, biology, social studies, English, art, etc. These experiences
also broaden each student’s set of perspectives and communicative competence
in relevant fields, at a relatively low cost. Such transdisciplinary, hand-on and
platform based learning opportunities, such as those proposed by Prakash Nair,
mentioned above, should be encouraged and expanded, as they engage students,
their families and care givers in Nano-Steam education and stimulate new
questions. They help to catalyze and enhance performance outcomes, and
prepare students well for dynamic NSE related careers.
• Refine, exercise, and integrate science communication skills that make the
nanoworld accessible and relevant to all communities: This recommendation
highlights the “A” in Nano-STEAM+, and links Nano-STEAM+ with all forms of
media, as appropriate. The importance of story-telling and the effective communi-
cation of discoveries cannot be over stated. It is wonderful to watch colleagues and
graduate students share their joy of nanoscience, nanoengineering, and technology
with tour groups visiting the JSNN. They have learned to communicate break-
through results in a way that our visitors can understand and appreciate, whether
they are 4 or 94 years old, other technical colleagues, politicians, etc. During the
tours, these visitors often ask questions that offer fresh perspectives, insights and
ideas. Guests can stimulate new and unanticipated paths of research and inquiry. It is
especially fun to listen to K-12 students, and others, who may be from other
disciplines or are new to the nanoworld. For example, one sixth grader inquired
whether a nano-enriched tea made from garlic, oregano, and thyme introduced into
the nutrient feed-stream of hydroponically grown lettuce taste would make the
lettuce taste more like a salad. They are our “wild-cards,” since they do not know
what cannot be done, and sometimes they suggest simple and unexpected insights
into foundational questions and potential solutions to difficult challenges.
Graduate students and faculty also engage K-12 students through more
formal hands-on programs, such as NASA’s Space Station Experimental Pro-
gram (SSEP), summer science camps, family inclusive science festivals, and
related outreach activities, e.g., The JSNN’s touring NanoBus program that
provides Nano-STEM outreach activities. For NASA’s SSEP, graduate students
facilitate discussions within classes of middle school students to design, prepare,
and analyze experiments that compare the impact of the Space Station’s micro-
gravity environment with that of a terrestrial environment on observed results.
Astronauts on the International Space Station run the experiments according to
the students’ specifications. Science camps also are becoming popular around
the country and engage K-12 students in stimulating hands-on STEAM related
experiences. These activities enable students to gain hands-on experience and
exercise the scientific method and critical thinking skills.
108 D.J.C. Herr

Effective communication skills are particularly important for informing com-

munities and policy makers about emerging technologies, such as to the benefits
and potential risks related to emerging nanotechnologies. In the long run, it is
always easier to have proactive constructive conversations that help stakeholders
to make informed decisions and address potential concerns, than to wait and
address misperceptions that arise from a lack of communication. The entire
educational ecosystem would benefit from an enhanced emphasis on science
communication skills and on forums, such as EDNC [63], which enable stake-
holders to share best practices. This foundational ability brings colleagues from
academia, government, industry, and society into a shared conversation about
the value and importance of STEAM+ education.
• Create a Nano-STEAM+ culture that promotes and integrates environmen-
tal awareness in nanoscience and nanoengineering education and sustain-
able, high-performance nanotechnologies. Several workshop participants
identified the integration of environmental awareness and impact into the NSE
curriculum. This recommendation presents an emerging educational opportunity
that warrants additional focus. In 1996, The National Science Foundation (NSF)
and the Semiconductor Research Corporation launched an Engineering Research
Center (ERC) for Environmentally Benign Semiconductor Manufacturing [64],
which became one of the NSF’s flagship centers. At that time, the semiconductor
industry was entering the era of nanoscaled devices. This ERC’s vision is to
develop high performance nanomaterials and processes that enable sustainable
high volume semiconductor manufacturing. This vision emerged from the
industry’s recognition that material stewardship is also good for the bottom line,
and that sustainable high performance technologies provide significant competitive
advantages. During the first year of the ERC, the students understood that it would
take more than their technical skills to change an employer’s perspective on
environmentally sustainable nanotechnologies. The students brought in business
school faculty, who introduced them to language of business. Today, much of the
semiconductor industry uses this nano-filtration technology to recycle the process
water, at a significant cost savings. This center is entering its twentieth year and
serves as a model for promoting and integrating environmental awareness in
nanoscience and nanoengineering education and sustainable, high-performance
nanotechnologies.
Environmental awareness and sustainable, high performance nanotechnol-
ogies is becoming a community conversations, e.g., through crowd sourced
science programs, community forums, and projects that apply Nano-STEAM
related skills to address specific community needs, e.g., sustainability, energy
efficient facilities, and food deserts. It is time for this thematic thread to become
well integrated within the K-12 curriculum.
• Strengthen foundational competence in math and critical thinking. Several of
the report’s stakeholder teams recognize math as a key enabling discipline that
warrants more emphasis. Make it accessible, relevant, and fun. Math and critical
thinking skills represent strategic gaps in the educational infrastructure. These
empowering skills are critical NSE enablers that also deserve additional emphasis
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 109

throughout the educational ecosystem. A key challenge is to make them engaging,

fun, and relevant for preK-12 students. This recommendation from the NSE
workshop reflects a well-known need that transcends Nano-STEAM+ concerns.
Such convergent transdisciplinary educational experiences plant seeds that may
germinate into potentially disruptive ideas, and fresh areas of interest and inquiry.
They weave together seemingly disparate disciplinary threads, nurture deep foun-
dational understanding, and enable new and unexpected insights at the boundaries
between traditionally siloed science, engineering, and technology disciplines and
other schools of thought. The shift from solely intradisciplinary to transdisciplinary
based inquiry profoundly impacts how we relate to the world around us. This shift
in perspective reflects a more holistic and natural vision of a sustainable and
adaptive educational ecosystem. This vision supports the ongoing need for foun-
dational disciplinary depth, and embraces the fundamental relationships and inter-
actions between traditional disciplines that catalyze idea incubation and innovation.
Specifically, twenty-first century educational ecosystems, such as those suggested
in Fig. 3.12, exercise the living networks and processes that enable new paths of
inquiry and drive novel incubation and innovation platforms.

Fig. 3.12 A holistic educational ecosystem; with representative disciplinary sectors, relation-
ships, and key stakeholders, which nurtures the emergence of useful ideas and supports a
sustainable incubation and innovation platform [8, 9]
110 D.J.C. Herr

a Like Dislike Favorite b

Favorite Song

1 3

Fig. 3.13 Functional MRI study of the effect of music on the brain. Arrows show liked and
disliked music connect the auditory cortex and hippocampus. A favorite song fully connects the
hippocampus as a separate module of connectivity [66]

Consider Robin Wilkins’ recent findings and insights on the effect of music on
the brain. In this study, she asked subjects which specific music they liked and
disliked, as well as which music most moved them. While each type of music
played, a functional MRI recorded each subject’s brain activity. Though the specific
sets of music selections differed for each subject, the effects on the functional
MRI’s were remarkably similar, with regards to whether the music was labeled as
“liked,” “disliked,” and “favorite” [65]. It appears that music may impact at least
two regions of the brain, i.e., the auditory cortex and the hippocampus. The auditory
cortex is the brain’s primary region for processing sound. Whereas, the hippocam-
pus serves as the brain’s center for our emotions and enables spatial navigation. It
also helps with the formation of long-term memories, and acts a router to access
those stored memories. Figure 3.13 summarizes the study’s combined results.
When a subject listened to music they liked, their auditory cortex lit up, while it
was much less active when music they disliked was played, as shown in Fig. 3.13a.
When functional MRIs were taken while subjects were listening to their favorite
music, both the auditory cortex and the hippocampus lit up, as shown in Fig. 3.13b.
This recent work is stimulating new questions about the interactions between
bioactive nanomaterials, such as endorphins and oxytocin, with neural receptors,
nanomaterial transport across the blood-brain barrier, and the implications for novel
and less invasive neural therapies.
These results might help to explain why a stroke patient, who was unable to
speak, suddenly regained her ability to sing and speak after listening to music that
she used to play with her husband [67]. We also know that music can stimulate the
release of biochemical, such as endorphins and oxytocin, which suggests that
playing a patient’s favorite music may enhance the healing process [68]. These
unexpected convergences between music, neuroscience, and MRI technology may
represent the beginning of a new avenue of research into non-invasive, or less-
invasive, therapies. By engaging regions in the brain like the hippocampus, sound,
e.g. music, represents only one of the five senses that can impact the healing and
relearning process. Imagine if functional MRI and related studies could reveal new
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 111

ways to tune and enhance personal learning environments, at home, in school and
other venues by optimally engaging each student’s five senses.
The transdisciplinary Nano-STEAM+ educational ecosystem is creating a new
culture and new generations of nanoscientists and nanoengineers, who have the
depth and breadth to ask and answer foundational questions where disciplines
converge. These emerging nanotechnologists are charting new paths of inquiry
and transforming traditional knowledge workers into tomorrow’s “smart creatives”,
who Google asserts will be the key to achieving success in the Internet Century.
Smart creatives are technically deep and analytically smart. They possess a foun-
dational understanding of the business, competitive, and end user landscape. The
smart creative is curious, self-directed, not afraid to fail and a firehose of new ideas.
Smart creatives freely collaborate, pay attention to details, judge ideas and analyses
based on their merits and are excellent communicators and story tellers. A smart
creative is a new kind of animal, who is multidimensional and who comfortably
combines creative energy, technical knowledge and business savvy with a hands-on
approach to getting things done [69]. Nano-STEAM+ education provides a nurtur-
ing environment for tomorrow’s smart creative nanotechnologists, who will enable
the era of the Internet of Things.

3.4 Summary

I was like a (child) playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a
smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all
undiscovered before me.—Isaac Newton

The natural nanoworld offers us hope for a bright future through a treasure hunt of
clues that are already benefitting society, in areas such as information processing;
stealth, adhesive, and structural technologies; energy; and healthcare. It invites us to
step out of our comfort zones, to share our discoveries, and to apply what we learn.
Each day, we are surrounded by opportunities to discover, learn and innovate.
Nano-STEAM+ education is a deep and broad transdisciplinary and platform
enhanced educational process. This process prepares students for careers that
value creativity and innovation. A well-designed twenty-first century educational
ecosystem needs a Nano-STEAM+ infrastructure that will:
• Leverage interdependent formal and informal expertise and infrastructures,
• Engage natural learning networks, e.g., Mentors, nurturing environments, adap-
tive processes and related dynamic relationships,
• Catalyze, nurture, and sustain disciplinary depth and breadth, i.e., “+”,
• Share a common language and make Nano-STEAM+ accessible to all learners,
and
• Enable local adaptability and ensure stakeholder access and engagement
An educational ecosystem that achieves these objectives is well designed to
achieve desired results, i.e., unprecedented discoveries and translational solutions
112 D.J.C. Herr

to humanities greatest challenges. This assertion serves as a corollary to the

opening quote that every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.
The nanoworld is a wonderful and magical place that will inspire us to achieve
great things for generations. Together, we share an unlimited creative potential to
address emerging and future challenges. Now is the time to catch and ride the next
tidal waves of emerging STEAM+ opportunities, which will drive and revolutionize
how we design, integrate, build, and use really small stuff. These convergent
educational waves are coming, regardless . . . and the possibilities are limited
only by our imagination.
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new
eyes.—Marcel Proust

Acknowledgements I thank the friendly readers who provided timely and thoughtful recommen-
dations for enhancing the text and for focusing the key messages. Special thanks goes to Kathleen
Herr, Carolyn Kroehler, James Murday, Mike Roco, and Lynn Sametz for their strategic guidance
and provocative questions.

References

1. J. Hurt, (private communication): Comments made during the annual NSF/SRC Center for
Environmentally Benign Semiconductor Manufacturing Review (1997)
2. Based on Meriam Webster Dictionary (2015), http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
ecosystem. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
3. M. Roco, J. Nanopart. Res. 1, 1 (1999)
4. A.R. Jensenius, Univ Oslo, Dept Musicol, Norway, 2012. http://www.arj.no/2012/03/12/disci
plinarities-2/. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
5. Courtesy of N. Herr, Unpublished original graphics (2016)
6. M. Stember, Soc. Sci. J. 28(1), 1 (1991)
7. C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1959)
8. H.G. Petrie, Educ. Res. 29 (1976)
9. R.R. Wohl, Soc. Forces 33, 374 (1955)
10. G.W. Blackwell, Soc. Forces 33, 367 (1955)
11. F. Capra, The Web of Life (Anchor Books, New York, 1997), p. 303
12. D.J.C. Herr, Nanoinspired by Nature, TEDx Greensboro (2013), http://tedxtalks.ted.com/
video/Nanoinspired-by-Nature-Daniel-2. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
13. D.J.C. Herr, V. Zhirnov, Latency of the R&D Pipeline: From Concept to Market Impact
(Internal Report), Semiconductor Research Corporation (2003)
14. David Laws, Computer History Museum, Who Invented the IC? (2015), http://www.
computerhistory.org/atchm/who-invented-the-diode/. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
15. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, Edison Effect bulb.jpg, before 1922. https://commons.
wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edison_effect_bulb_1.jpg
16. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, Fleming valv.jpg, before 1922. https://commons.
wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fleming_valves.jpg
17. The Cyclopædia of American Biography (Thomas Alva Edison), ed. by J.E. Homans. https://en.
wikisource.org/wiki/The_Cyclop%C3%A6dia_of_American_Biography/Edison,_Thomas_Alva.
Accessed 23 Jan 2016
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 113

18. W.H. Eccles, The Royal Society Publishing, Obituary for John Ambrose Fleming
(1849–1945), 1945. http://rsbm.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royobits/5/14/231, DOI:
10.1098/rsbm.1945.0014. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
19. The Old Pennisular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company (c1835-1972), Radio Officers—
The ‘vital sparks’, http://www.pandosnco.co.uk/radio_officers.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
20. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, Audion tube.jpg, before August 1922. https://commons.
wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Audion_tube.jpg. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
21. H.C. Anderson, The Ugly Duckling, New Fairy Tales (C.A. Reitzel, Copenhagen, 1843)
22. J.E. Lilienfeld, Patents, US 1745175 A, 1925. http://www.google.com/patents/US1745175.
Accessed 23 Jan 2016
23. A. Emmerson, Telephone Collectors Int. Sing. Wires Newsl. 21(12), 1 (2007)
24. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, The First Transistor ever made, built in 1947—Bell Labs.
jpg, Author: W. Oskay, 2012. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0
Generic license. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_First_Transistor_ever_made,
_built_in_1947_-_Bell_Labs.jpg. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
25. Courtesy of I. Cutress, AnandTech, August 29, 2014. [TBD] http://www.anandtech.com/show/
8426/the-intel-haswell-e-cpu-review-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested. Accessed
23 Jan 2016
26. B. Winston, Media Technology and Society: A History: From the Telegraph to the Internet
(Routledge, New York, 1998), p. 221. ISBN 978-0-415-14230-4
27. C. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail
(Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1997)
28. D.J.C. Herr (unpublished, 1994).
29. A. Batrchenko, R.K. Cavin III, D.J.C. Herr, C.I. Merzbacher, V. Zhirnov, Vision and Path for
Bioelectronics Discovery & Innovation (Semiconductor Research Corporation Research Tri-
angle Park, Durham, NC, 2010)
30. H. Herr, The new bionics that let us run, climb and dance, TED2014, Vancouver, 2014. http://
www.ted.com/talks/hugh_herr_the_new_bionics_that_let_us_run_climb_and_dance. Accessed
23 Jan 2016
31. P. Theil, B. Masters, Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future (Crown
Business, New York, 2014)
32. S.R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic (Free
Press, New York, 2004)
33. T. Kalil (CoT Chair), R. Paris (CoT Chair), National nanotechnology Initiative—Strategic
Plan, National Science and Technology Council—Committee on Technology (CoT)—Sub-
committee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) (2014), http://www.
nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
34. M. Roco, NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering Grantees Conference, Nanoscale Science
and Engineering at NSF (2015), http://www.nseresearch.org/2015/presentations/NNI_15-
1209_Grantees_MRoco_20%20min%20web.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
35. D.J.C. Herr, NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering Grantees Conference, The Need for
Convergence and Emergence in 21st Century Nano-STEAM+ Education (Invited Presenta-
tion) (2015), http://www.nseresearch.org/2015/presentations/Daniel_Herr~33_Herr_NSEG_
Conference_DHerr_121015.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
36. R.F. Feynman, Eng. Sci. 23, 5 (1960) (Editorial, Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 2009, 781)
37. D.J.C. Herr, National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, Triennial Review of
the National Nanotechnology Initiative—Meeting #2, Human Infrastructure for Nanotechnol-
ogy: Convergent and Collaborative Needs (Invited/Unpublished Presentation), 30 July 2015
38. S. Carr, Patient Safety & Quality Healthcare (2008), http://www.psqh.com/julaug08/editor.
html. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
39. H.L. Sirkin, M. Zinser, D. Hohner, Boston Consulting Group, Made in the USA, Again: Why
Manufacturing Will Return to the U.S. (2011), https://www.bcg.com/documents/file84471.
pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
114 D.J.C. Herr

40. Boston Consulting Group, The BCG Global Manufacturing Cost-Competitiveness Index
(2014), https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/interactive/lean_manufacturing_globaliza
tion_bcg_global_manufacturing_cost_competitiveness_index/. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
41. Boston Consulting Group, Reshoring of Manufacturing to the U.S. Gains Momentum (2015),
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/lean-manufacturing-outsourcing-bpo-reshori
ng-manufacturing-us-gains-momentum/. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
42. P. Nair, Blueprint for Tomorrow: Redesigning Schools for Student-Centered Learning, 14th
edn. (Harvard Education Publishing Group, Cambridge, 2014)
43. R. Compton, 2 Million Minutes: A Global Examination (Video) (Broken Pencil Productions,
Indianapolis, 2008)
44. Rainbow Push Coalition, Mission (2016), http://rainbowpush.org/pages/the_organization.
Accessed 23 Jan 2016
45. Hart Research Associates, The Association of American Colleges & Universities (2015),
http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015AACUEquityReport.pdf. Accessed
23 Jan 2016
46. A. Einstein, L. Infeld, Evolution of Physics (1938)
47. T. Wagner, The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don’t Teach the New
Survival Skills Our Children Need—and What We Can Do About It (Basic Books, New York,
2008)
48. E. Yazzie-Mints, Indiana University at Bloomington—Center for Evaluation & Education
Policy, A Report on the 2009 High School Survey of Student Engagement (2010), http://ceep.
indiana.edu/hssse/images/HSSSE_2010_Report.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
49. A. Rebora, Education Week Teacher (2010), http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pdfs/High%20Scho
ol%20Students%20Are%20Bored%20EdWeek%20Blog%2001%20Jul%2010.pdf. Accessed
23 Jan 2016
50. J. Murday (Chair), National Science Foundation, Report from the Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Education (NSEE)—the Next Steps Workshop (2015), http://nseeducation.org/
2014-documents/NSEE%20The%20Next%20Steps-Final.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
51. Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education- the Next Steps, National Science Foundation,
http://nseeducation.org/2014/. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
52. J. Murday, National Science Foundation, Report from the Nanoscale Science and Engineering
Education (NSEE)—the Next Steps Workshop (2015)
53. R.E. Smalley, Rice University, Smalley Institute Grand Challenges (2003), http://cnst.rice.
edu/content.aspx?id¼246. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
54. Department of Education, Teacher Quality Partnership Program (2016), http://www2.ed.gov/
programs/tqpartnership/index.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
55. Department of Education, Teacher Quality Partnership Program awards, Transforming Teach-
ing through Technology (UNC-Greensboro), Award # U336S140055 (2014), http://www2.ed.
gov/programs/tqpartnership/awards.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
56. K. Ceceri, Home Physics (2010), http://homephysics.blogspot.com/2010/01/kitchen-
nanoscience.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
57. Museum of Science + Industry Chicago, Center for the Advancement of Science Education
(2016), http://www.msichicago.org/education/. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
58. L. Bell, NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering Grantees Conference, Nanoscale Informal
Science Education Network Legacy and Future Plans (Invited Presentation) (2015), http://
www.nseresearch.org/2015/presentations/Larry_Bell~30_Bell_NSE_Grantee_2015_reduced.
pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
59. NISE Network, Home (2015), http://nisenet.org/. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
60. K. Arcieri, Triad Business Journal, Triad startup planning to raise $1M for manufacturing
facility (2015), http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2015/07/14/triadcrustacean-bait-
startup-planning-to-raise-1m.html
61. Courtesy of N. Schutt, Canterbury School, images 20150720_15505507.jpg and 20150720_
152047.jpg (2015), https://drive.google.com/folderview?id¼0B6PZqdSvokn-fl9IVTdSanpHQU
3 The Need for Convergence and Emergence in Twenty-first Century Nano-STEAM+. . . 115

VDMGFJY3d6VThBVEtNMHczLWpBdjdvS05IOEo3UEdxaFU&usp¼sharing. Accessed
23 Jan 2016
62. J. McClinton, Greensboro News and Record, Program Confirmed a Passion for Science, A7,
4 Aug 2015
63. EdNC, Home (2015), https://www.ednc.org/. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
64. SRC Engineering Research Center for Environmentally Benign Semiconductor Manufactur-
ing, Home (2015), http://www.erc.arizona.edu/. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
65. R.W. Wilkins, D.A. Hodges, P.J. Laurienti, et al., Nat. Sci. Rep. 4, Article # 6130 (2014)
66. Courtesy of R.W. Wilkins, D.A. Hodges, P.J. Laurienti, et al., Nat. Sci. Rep. 4, Article # 6130
(2014), Fig. 4
67. D. Franklin, NBC News, NewsChannel4 (2015), http://kfor.com/2015/02/05/after-suffering-
stroke-woman-learns-to-speak-again-through-music-therapy/. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
68. Deanna Choi, How Music Can Be Better For You Than Sex and Chocolate, TEDx QueensU
(2012), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼XZFKpkDUMB4. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
69. E. Schmidt, J. Rosenberg, Google—How It Works (Grand Central Publishing, New York,
2014), p. 16
Chapter 4
What Are the Basic Concepts of Nanoscale
Science and Technology (NST) that Should
Be Included in NST Educational Programs?

Ron Blonder and Sohair Sakhnini

Abstract One of the challenges, nanoscience and technology (NST) encounters is

education. Dealing with this challenge resulted in many educational programs,
curricula, and modules in the area of NST. However, in order to establish an
adequate basis for developing the educational aspect of NST there is a need to
determine the NST concepts that should be taught. To address this issue, it is
required to map the essential concepts constructing NST and to design suitable
educational programs upon these concepts. In this chapter we review studies that
were conducted to address this need.

Nanoscale science and technology (NST) is an emerging field in modern science

[1]. Nano has been rapidly establishing itself in the world’s consciousness, almost
in every aspect of science and engineering, with implications for ethics, economics,
international relations, day-to-day life, and even humanity’s conceptions of its
place in the universe [2, 3]. Engineers are concerned with better understanding
and utilizing nanoscale materials. Materials’ scientists and electrical, chemical, and
mechanical engineers deal with the unique properties of nanostructures and with
how those special properties can best be utilized in manufacturing entirely new
materials that could provide new capabilities in medicine, industry, recreation, and
the environment. Therefore, nanotechnology has brought about a big challenge for
science educators. Roco [2] described the importance of education for the future
development of this field: “One of the ‘grand challenges’ for nanotechnology is
education, which is looming as a bottleneck for the development of the field” ([2],
p. 1247). Trying to deal with this challenge has resulted in many educational
programs, curricula, and modules in the area of NST [4, 5].
However, in order to establish an adequate basis for developing the educational
aspect of NST there is a need to determine those NST concepts that should be
taught, and to address this issue we need to map the basic concepts that make up

R. Blonder (*) • S. Sakhnini

Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 117

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_4
118 R. Blonder and S. Sakhnini

NST and to build upon them suitable educational programs. In this chapter we will
describe the studies that were conducted to address this need. For each study we
will describe its research methodology, the education level to which it was aimed,
and the resulting recommendation regarding the basic concepts of NST. The studies
will be presented starting with primary (grades 1–6), intermediate (grades 7–9), and
high school (grades 10–12) levels, accordingly. In discussing the chapter, the
different studies will be compared and recommendations for policy makers will
be drawn.
An approach for embedding NST education at the primary school level has been
published (e.g., [6]). The study was aimed at identifying the core concepts of
nanotechnology [7] at the elementary school level. This study, which was
conducted in Taiwan, looked for the connections between core nanotechnology
concepts and the elementary school curriculum in Taiwan. In the first step, the
researchers summarized nanotechnology concepts, based on a literature review, and
developed a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire for externally evaluating the impor-
tance of the core concepts of nanotechnology. Next, they conducted a three-round
Delphi study [8] involving 28 experts who evaluated the importance of each
concept. These experts included professors from the college of science and engi-
neering, professors of science education, and elementary school teachers. After
three rounds of the Delphi survey, the researchers ranked five core concept cate-
gories of nanotechnology for elementary school science. The main nanotechnology
core concepts are as follows: (1) nanotechnology definitions, (2) nanoscale features,
(3) nanophenomena in the natural world, (4) nanomaterials, and (5) the develop-
ment of nanotechnology. Each researcher included several items, as presented in
Table 4.1.
Based on the consensus of the Delphi panel of experts, Huang et al. ranked the
nanotechnology core concepts that they found according to the different grade
levels of elementary school (low, medium, and high grades) [7]. For each of the
elementary school grades, additional items should be included in order to complete
the whole program, which includes the five main concepts that should be consi-
dered during elementary school. These results established the basis for developing a
concepts map of nanotechnology as a reference for future nanotechnology curri-
cular design in elementary school.
Jones et al. [10] analyzed different kind of thinking that is required for under-
standing different NST concepts. Children in different ages have different thinking
abilities and therefore different concepts should be taught at different age levels.
Recently, a study to map the essential concepts of NST that should be taught in high
school science was conducted in Israel [11]. A three-round Delphi methodology [8]
was applied for reaching a consensus regarding the essential concepts that should be
taught in high school science. The Delphi technique [12] is well suited as a method
for consensus-building because of its use of a series of questionnaires using
multiple iterations to collect data from respondents within their domain of expertise
about incomplete knowledge of a problem or phenomenon [13–18].
Forty-two participants from two different communities of experts (nanoscience
researchers and science teachers) participated in the research: 21 NST researchers,
4 What Are the Basic Concepts of Nanoscale Science and Technology (NST) that. . . 119

Table 4.1 Nanotechnology core concept and the included items for each concept for elementary
school science [7]
Nanotechnology core concepts Included items
1. Nanotechnology definitions • Students should refer to a small scale in a large space
• Students should understand the meaning of a nano-
meter
• Nano is the scale of a length
• 1 nm ¼ 109
• 1 nm ¼ 1/100,000 of a human hair
• Nano can be used to measure the size of bacteria
• Microscope is needed to observe nanometer size
• The certificate symbol for nano products is

(http://www.nanomark.org.tw/Eng/About/use.asp#1)
[9]
2. Nanoscale features • New functions
• Optical properties
• Melting points
• Mechanical properties
• Surface effects
• Chemical properties
3. Nanophenomena in the natural • Self-cleaning (Lotus effect)
world • Butterfly effect
• Nano-magnet
• Shell hardness
• Duck and hydrophobicity
• Gecko effects
• Dolphins’ slippery skin and their surface area
• Wings of insects
4. Nanomaterials • Fullerene (size, shape, and structure)
• Carbon nanotubes (C.N.T)
• Monitors made from C.N.T.
5. The development of • Definition of nanotechnology products
nanotechnology • STM
• Nano-coating
• CD and hard disk
• TiO2
• Nanosensors
• Light and energy (high mechanical properties)
• History of nano
• Risks and benefits
• Environmental, medical, and economical potential
• Artificial organs
120 R. Blonder and S. Sakhnini

from Israeli universities and industries, representing several scientific backgrounds

and 21 experienced high school science teachers who had taught different science
disciplines (chemistry, biology biotechnology, and physics), all of whom had a
solid background in NST from different sources [11]. The participants completed
an open-ended questionnaire in which they were asked to suggest essential concepts
in NST that they perceive as important and should be taught in school science.
These results formed the basis for the next two rounds of the Delphi study (In this
Delphi study the source of NST concepts was the panel experts and not from the
literature as was done in Huang et al. 2011 presented above). A Likert questionnaire
that included these NST concepts was sent to the participants; they were asked to
rate the importance of each concept. In addition, they were asked to justify their
rating, and to comment on the accuracy of the title and the wording of the concept.
In the third round the participants received the questionnaire for the last iterative
part; they were given the results of the second round and could change their rating if
they so desired. The Delphi study’s final results are presented in Table 4.2, which
presents the essential concepts that should be taught in high school science after a
consensus was reached between both expert communities (nanoscience researchers
and science teachers).
Mapping the essential concepts of nanoscale science and technology (NST) that
should be taught in high school science revealed several new concepts that had not

Table 4.2 Essential concepts of NST [11] and their components

Essential concepts The components of the essential concepts
1. Size-dependent properties • The surface-area-to-volume ratio
• Quantum properties
• Optical properties
• Defects
2. Innovations and applications of • Current and future applications
nanotechnology • Mimicking nature
• Risks and benefits of nanotechnology
• Tailoring nano-materials to the application
3. Size and scale It includes a modern definition for scale
4. Characterization methods • SPM (Scanning probe microscopy)
• EM (Electron microscopy)
• Resolution
5. Functionality It includes a definition of functionality in
nanoscience
6. Classification of nanomaterials • Type of nanomaterials
• Electrical conductivity
• The origin of the nanomaterial
• Dimensionality
7. Fabrication approaches of nanomaterials • Top down vs. bottom up
• Self-assembly
8. The making of nanotechnology • Multidisciplinary science and technology
• Team work
• Development of nanotechnology
4 What Are the Basic Concepts of Nanoscale Science and Technology (NST) that. . . 121

emerged in other studies: (1) functionality (a property provided for a material or for
a specific area in it that endows the material with a specific activity or bonding
ability), (2) Classification of nanomaterials (categorization of nanomaterials
according to their chemical composition, electrical conductivity, or their source:
natural nanomaterials, organic molecules, and synthetic nanomaterials and their
dimensionality (the number of dimensions in which a nanostructure expands
beyond 100 nm (0D, 1D, 2D, 3D), and (3) the making of nanotechnology (how
nanoscience research is performed and how innovations are transformed into
applications). Sakhnini and Blonder’s research [11] adds another alternative per-
spective that might contribute to the development and growth of knowledge in NST
education internationally and which is not related to US-central sources or to a
country’s specific curriculum. The emerging essential concepts are specific for NST
and can be integrated into scientific disciplines.
The first attempt to reach a consensus regarding the big ideas of nanoscale
science and engineering (NSE) that are appropriate for intermediate and high
school students (grades 7–12) was conducted by Stevens, Sutherland, and Krajcik
[19]. Big ideas are core concepts that are critical and fundamental for understanding
a given field (e.g., nanoscience). Big ideas are considered as building blocks for
developing a deep understanding of other concepts in that field. Thirty-three
scientists and science educators who are involved in NSE research were chosen
to represent different scientific disciplines (e.g. chemistry, physics, and biology).
The goals of the research [19] were to develop a consensus among the participants,
which is related to the big ideas in NSE and to determine how these ideas might be
introduced into the US science curriculum. The participants were asked to suggest
three ideas that they believed to be most important for understanding the NSE field
before the workshop began. Then during the workshops a brainstorming process
took place in which all the participants discussed the important ideas. The resulting
ideas were assembled, posted, and shared among the participants. A subset of
participants categorized those ideas that were brought back to the whole group
for further discussion. The whole group was divided into six sub-groups to debate
and clarify the big ideas. The participants also specified the related concepts and the
prior knowledge needed for understanding each of the big ideas. Then they were
asked to determine the learning goals of each big idea according to the grade level
(grades 7–12). Finally, the participants were asked to find links among the big ideas,
their learning goals, and the national science education standards (NSES). The
resulting big ideas underwent additional collaborative editing by the participants
via a wiki page until the big ideas were totally refined and a consensus was reached.
Stevens et al. [19] presented the final consensus of the nine big ideas for grades
7–12 that are important for understanding the NSE field: each big idea’s meaning,
its related grade 7–12 learning goals, and students’ prior knowledge required to
understand it. The nine big ideas are as follows: (1) size and scale, (2) the structure
of matter, (3) forces and interactions, (4) quantum effects, (5) size-dependent
properties, (6) self-assembly, (7) tools and instrumentation, (8) models and simu-
lations, and (9) science technology and society. The information presented in
Stevens et al. can help teachers develop their NSE knowledge and incorporate it
122 R. Blonder and S. Sakhnini

into their science classrooms, and shape the design of the school science
curriculum.
Following the first workshop, a second workshop was held, aimed at discussing
whether the resulting big ideas from the first workshop would be appropriate for on
college (grades 13–16) students [19]. Thirty-two faculty members from 17 US.
institutions participated in the workshop. All participants were active in nanoscale
research, nano-related education, or both. The authors reported that there was a
good balance of expertise from different disciplines (chemistry, physics, materials
science, general engineering, and the learning sciences) that participated in the
workshop. This workshop resulted in a list of the final big ideas for grades 13–16.
The overlap between the big ideas of both workshops (grades 7–12 and grades
13–16) is presented in Table 4.3.
Based on the two workshops that were sponsored by the National Center for
Learning and Teaching (NCLT) and SRI International, followed by another work-
shop for middle and high school teachers and NCLT members, few changes were
recommended for the big ideas for better understanding the field of NSE.
Wansom, Mason, Hersam, Drane, Light, Cormia, Stevens, and Bodner (2009)
based their research on the set of “big ideas” that were identified by the two
workshops, mentioned above, and developed a broad curriculum framework for
degree programs in NSE [20]. The framework of the curriculum was built around
four aspects or areas in NSE (P-N-P-A): Processing (how nano-entities are fabri-
cated), Nanostructure (how the structure of nano-entities can be imaged and
characterized), Properties (the resulting size-dependent and surface-related proper-
ties of nanostructured materials/devices), and Applications (how nanomaterials and
nanodevices can be designed and engineered for the benefit of society). Wanson
et al. organized the big ideas [19] into the four aspects of P-N-P-A nodes. They
presented the links between the four P-N-P-A nodes and then sorted the big ideas

Table 4.3 A summary of the big ideas identified by the two workshops for grades 7–12 and grades
13–16 [19]
Big Ideas of Grades 7–12 Big Ideas of Grades 13–16
Size and scale Size and scale
Structure of mattera Size-dependent properties
Forces and interactionsb
Quantum effects Quantum mechanics
Size-dependent properties Surface-dominated behavior
Surface to volume ratio
Self-assembly Self-assembly
Tools and instrumentation Tools and instrumentation/characterization
Models and simulationsc Models and simulations
Science, technology, and societyd Societal impact/public education
a
In the first workshop this big idea was called the Particular nature of matter
b
In the first workshop this big idea was called Dominant forces
c
In the first workshop this big idea was called Modeling
d
In the first workshop this big idea was called Technology and society
4 What Are the Basic Concepts of Nanoscale Science and Technology (NST) that. . . 123

according to the relevant nodes of the P-N-P-A diagram. For example, the big idea
“self-assembly” was classified as the “Processing” node (how nano-entities are
fabricated). Three big ideas were classified in “Nanostructure” (how the structure of
nano-entities can be imaged and characterized): Tools/instrumentation/characteri-
zation, size and scale and surface-to-volume ratio. The big ideas of surface-
dominated behavior and size-dependent properties were listed under the “Proper-
ties” node. Societal impact is listed under the “Applications” node. Two additional
big ideas, “quantum mechanics” and “models and simulations”, were identified,
including cutting-edge big ideas spanning the P-N-P-A continuum. These two big
ideas were considered as fundamental for understanding NST at all levels.
The researchers argued that the P-N-P-A rubric serves as a tool for program and
course construction and evaluation in higher education, and improves the US NSE
degrees. Using this framework and taking into consideration the interdisciplinary
nature of NSE and its societal impact (ethics, safety, policy, and environmental
issues), Wanson et al. (2009) analyzed a sample of the NSE degree programs in the
US in terms of the essential features of the P-N-P-A model and their links to the big
ideas. They found that only a few programs exhibited a balance across the P-N-P-A
continuum. As a result, they recommended four areas for designing nano-education
programs: (1) a balance of program content that requires course content spanning
the P-N-P-A continuum, (2) interdisciplinary exposure offering interdisciplinary
courses and requiring elective courses outside the home department, (3) experience
with advanced nano instrumentation requiring hands-on laboratory courses involv-
ing electron microscopes, STM, AFM, etc., and (4) exposure to nano-related
societal issues incorporating societal aspects into required nano-courses or requir-
ing stand-alone “Nano and Society” courses. It would be interesting to clarify the
differences between this model and the P-N-P-A model.

4.1 Discussion

What Are the Similarities and Differences Between the Studies?

In this chapter, we presented four studies that introduced the core concepts of
nanoscale science and technology education. Different studies used different methodo-
logies to identify the concepts and perceived differently their scope (big ideas,
essential concepts, and core concepts). Taken together, the different studies present
the NST core concepts from elementary school up to undergraduate level.
There is general agreement regarding the importance of the concepts of size and
scale, size-dependent properties, and the societal impacts (risks and benefits) of
nanotechnology. However, there are differences in the components composing
these concepts. In Huang et al. [7] “the size and scale” concept is detailed with
specific knowledge for elementary students, whereas the other studies [11, 19] did
not contain components or sub-concepts of the size and scale concept. The same is
found in the “size-dependent properties” concept. Optical properties, mechanical
properties, surface effects, and chemical properties are all mentioned [7] as
124 R. Blonder and S. Sakhnini

components having this concept. According to Sakhnini and Blonder (2015) [11],
the sub-concepts of size-dependent properties are the surface-area-to-volume ratio,
quantum properties, optical properties, and defects. Stevens et al. [19] included
surface-dominated properties and size-dominated properties as a sub-concept of the
surface-area-to-volume ratio.
Huang et al. [7] recommended that nanomaterials, specifically, Fullerene and
carbon nanotubes (CNT), are important concepts that should be taught at the
elementary school science level. Sakhnini and Blonder’s [11] study referred to
different kinds of nanomaterials when classifying the essential concepts of nano-
materials using different classification schemes: (1) categorizing nanomaterials
according to their chemical composition, (2) the electrical conductivity of the
nanomaterials, (3) categorizing nanomaterials according to their source (natural
nanomaterials, organic molecules, and synthetic nanomaterials), and (4) dimension-
ality (dimensions in which a nanostructure expands beyond 100 nm, 0D, 1D, 2D,
and 3D).
Nanophenomena in the natural world is a core concept in nanotechnology for
elementary school students, according to Huang et al. [7]. This concept includes
several nanophenomena that are applied in nature: self-cleaning of the Lotus effect,
the butterfly effect, nano-magnet, shell hardness, duck and hydrophobicity, gecko
effects, dolphins’ slippery skin and its surface area, and the wings of insects.
Sakhnini and Blonder [11] categorized this concept as a sub-concept mimicking
nature, which is part of the concept innovation and application of nanotechnology.
Another common concept within the three studies is related to nanoscience,
technology, society, and applications. Haung et al. [7] called it “The development
of nanotechnology” and included several items: (the definition of the nanotechno-
logy product, STM, nano-coating, CD and hard disk, TiO2, nano-sensors, light and
energy (high mechanical properties), the history of nano, risks and benefits, environ-
mental, medical and economical potential artificial organs), part of which relate to
nanotechnology applications and others to nanotechnology risks and benefits and to
the historical development of the field. Stevens et al. [19] included this concept
under a big idea called “Nanoscience, technology, and society”. Sakhnini and
Blonder [11] referred to this concept by using two separate categories: (1) inno-
vation and application of nanotechnology, which included the sub-concepts current
and future applications, the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, tailoring nano-
materials to the application, in addition to the mimicking nature mentioned above;
and in the concept (2) the making of nanotechnology that includes the history of
nanotechnology (development of nanotechnology) in addition to another two
sub-concepts (multidisciplinary science and technology, team work).
What Concepts Are Well Recognized and Already Have Been Treated
in Educational Programs?
As discussed above, there is wide agreement regarding several of the NST core
concepts. These concepts have already been integrated into many educational NST
programs. The concepts of size and scale and size-dependent properties were part of
4 What Are the Basic Concepts of Nanoscale Science and Technology (NST) that. . . 125

most of the programs. Next, we describe several NST programs that focused on
these two concepts.
A module developed in Israel for middle-school students [21] included two of
the essential concepts, “size and scale” and surface area-to-volume ratio (SA/V) for
ninth grade students in the context of teaching chemistry. The researchers used a
wide spectrum of instructional methods for teaching the two concepts. They found
that implementing different teaching methods was shown to be effective in teaching
students having different learning levels and that it influences students’ understand-
ing of the two nanotechnology concepts. The module formulated recommendations
for teaching nanotechnology in the future.
Delgado, Stevens, Shin, and Krajcik [22] described a 12-h instructional unit for
size and scale, in a summer science camp for middle-school students. The
researchers designed instructional activities that included the use of microscopes,
computer simulations, and 2-D and 3-D scale models. The unit followed a project-
based instructional approach and was contextualized with a driving question
concerning nanotechnology and how it can keep people from getting sick. The
study’s results showed that the students markedly increased their knowledge about
the size of objects. According to Delgado et al. [22], the reason for the students’
increased knowledge is that many of the activities that were used supported the
students’ prerequisite understanding while teaching advanced concepts. For
instance, the computer visualization “Size and Scale” was aimed at taking students
beyond the realm of the optical microscope and have them interact with represen-
tations of atoms, DNA, and viruses. However, the list of objects on the sidebar
emphasized that cells, viruses, and atoms are actually smaller than the smallest
visible object, which helps students develop a sense of ordinal relations among the
objects.
Blonder and Rap [23] designed and evaluated a nano-activity for a science
festival called “It’s a small world after all”, for children aged 9–10 years old. The
researchers aimed at selecting activities and teaching methods that support chil-
dren’s learning and that increase their motivation. The nano-activity focused on the
concepts of size and scale and on nanotechnology applications that are relevant to
elementary school children. A variety of teaching methods were used in the activity
(e.g., hands-on experiments, movies, touching, and preparing a model) to support
children’s understanding and to engage students in different learning styles. It was
found that after the activity, the children were able to define nanotechnology; they
expressed their knowledge of the “size and scale” concept and mentioned all the
applications that were introduced in the activity. A deeper discussion regarding
using an informal educational setting for teaching (or communicating) nanotech-
nology topics is presented in Chaps. 1, 13, and 14.
Jones, Favlo, Taylor, and Broadwell [6] developed a program for introducing
nanoscale science while maintaining a broad inquiry approach. The activities
provided in the book are related to scale, tools, and techniques, unique properties
and behaviors, nanotechnology applications, and societal implications. These acti-
vities were designed to motivate the students to learn more about nanotechnology.
The book presents an activity for each essential concept followed by detailed
126 R. Blonder and S. Sakhnini

information about the concept’s activity, purpose, and objectives followed by

students’ worksheets to evaluate the students’ understanding of the concept. The
activities of the book are geared toward middle and high school students. Other
activities and programs that were developed in order to teach the concepts of size
and scale and size-dependent properties are presented in [24].

4.2 Future Policy Recommendations

Although many nanoscale science and technology (NST) programs for students and
teachers have been developed (as presented in the discussion), no direct connection
between these programs and a systematical mapping of NST concepts has been
established. In order to improve any NST program or to design a new one, one
should utilize research-based mapping of the NST field. The P-N-P-A rubric [20]
provides a good example of how research-based analysis of the NST field supports
the construction and evaluation of NST undergraduate programs in different uni-
versities in the US. Using the results of studies that identified the basic concepts of
NST in education programs will shift the field from using only anecdotal examples
to coherent programs that present a wider and more complete picture of the NST
field.
Since the NST field is at the cutting edge of science research and development, it
is therefore under continuous change. Differences between the big ideas study,
which was published in 2009 [19], and the Delphi study, which was published in
2015 [11], indicate that with the development of the field we are gaining a deeper
understanding of its essential concepts. We therefore recommend continuing the
science educational research goal of identifying the essential NST concepts in order
to bridge the gap between the development of NST and the implementation of
appropriate educational programs that incorporate NST concepts.

References

1. M.C. Roco, From vision to the implementation of the U.S. national nanotechnology initiative.
J. Nanopart. Res. 3, 5–11 (2001)
2. M.C. Roco, Converging science and technology at the nanoscale: opportunities for education and
training. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 1247–1249 (2003)
3. M.A. Ratner, D. Ratner, Nanotechnology: a gentle introduction to the next big idea
(Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003)
4. L.A. Bryan, A.J. Magana, D. Sederberg, Published research on pre-college students’ and
teachers’ nanoscale science, engineering, and technology learning. Nanotechnol. Rev. 4,
7–32 (2015)
5. M.G. Jones, R. Blonder, G.E. Gardner, V. Albe, M. Falvo, J. Chevrier, Nanotechnology and
nanoscale science: educational challenges. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 1490–1512 (2013)
6. M.G. Jones, M.R. Falvo, A.R. Taylor, B.P. Broadwell, Nanoscale Science: Activities for
Grades 6–12 (NSTA, Arlington, VA, 2007)
4 What Are the Basic Concepts of Nanoscale Science and Technology (NST) that. . . 127

7. C.Y. Huang, L.R. Hsu, H.C. Chen, A study on the core concepts of nanotechnology for the
elementary school. J. Natl. Taichung Univ.Math. Sci. Technol. 25, 1–22 (2011)
8. J.W.J. Murray, J.O. Hammons, Delphi: a versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research.
Rev. Hig. Educ. 18, 423–436 (1995)
9. I.D.B. Nanomark – Introduction, Ministry of Economic Affairs. http://taiwaninfo.nat.gov.tw/
ct.asp?xItem=23198&ctNode=103
10. M.G. Jones, E. Gardner, M. Falvo, A. Taylor, Precollege nanotechnology education:
a different kind of thinking. Nanotechnol. Rev. 4, 117–127 (2015)
11. S. Sakhnini, R. Blonder, Essential concepts of nanoscale science and technology for high school
students based on a Delphi study by the expert community. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 1699–1738
(2015)
12. C.-C. Hsu, A. Brian, The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval.
12, 1–8 (2007)
13. N.C. Dalkey, An experimental study of group opinion. Futures 1, 408–426 (1969)
14. N.C. Dalkey, O. Helmer, An experimental application of the Delphi method to use of experts.
Manage. Sci. 9, 458–467 (1963)
15. H.A. Linstone, M. Turoff, Introduction, in The Delphi Method: Technique and Applications,
ed. by H.A. Linstone, M. Turoff (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975), pp. 3–12
16. C.A. Lindeman, Priorities within the Health Care System: A Delphi Survey (American Nurses’
Association, Kansas City, MO, 1981)
17. J.P. Martino, Technological Forecasting for Decision Making (North Holland, New York, NY,
1983)
18. S.J. Young, L.M. Jamieson, Delivery methodology of the Delphi: a comparison of
two approaches. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 19, 42–58 (2001)
19. S. Stevens, L.M. Sutherland, J.S. Krajcik, The Big Ideas of Nanoscale Science and Engineering:
A Guidebook for Secondary Teachers (NSTA, Arlington, VA, 2009)
20. S. Wanson, T.O. Mason, M.C. Hershman, D. Drane, G. Light, R. Cormia, S. Stevens,
G. Bodner, A rubric for post-secondary degree programs in nanoscience and nanotechnology.
Int. J. Eng. Educ. 25, 615–627 (2009)
21. R. Blonder, S. Sakhnini, Teaching two basic nanotechnology concepts in secondary school by
using a variety of teaching methods. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13, 500–516 (2012)
22. C. Delgado, S.Y. Stevens, N. Shin, J. Krajcik, A middle school instructional unit for size and
scale contextualized in nanotechnology. Nanotechnol. Rev. 4, 51–69 (2015)
23. R. Blonder, S. Rap, It’s a small world after all: a nanotechnology activity in a science festival.
J. Nano Educ. 4, 47–56 (2013)
24. J. Light Feather, M.F. Aznar, Nanoscience education, workforce training, and K-12 resources
(CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2011)
 Part II
Curriculum Resources and Cutting-Edge
Ideas for NSE Education
Chapter 5
Atomic Force Microscopy Education

A.C. Pic, V.A. Moore, and N.A. Burnham

Abstract Atomic force microscopy (AFM) is a crucial part of nanoscience.

Despite the simplicity of its design—a cantilever with a sharp tip—learning and
teaching AFM can be difficult. For this study, five levels of AFM education were
identified from existing educational literature. Information was gathered from a
survey as well as interviews given to established AFM educators. Advice, general
practices, and a list of resources were compiled into a website and this chapter.
These are intended to become a resource to help educators design their own AFM
educational experiences.

5.1 Introduction

A future physicist, a mechanical engineer, a biologist, a chemist, and an electrical

engineer take their places in the same classroom on the first day of class. They each take
notes on various aspects of the natural world as the professor discusses the outline of the
day’s lecture topics. With different backgrounds, each sees the world through their
major as a product of an educational system tailored to their future career [1]. None of
these students recognize that they are sitting in a classroom with a professor who is
about to change their life. This class wields the power to change perception and
understanding and foster deep respect for life at its core level of existence, at the
nanoscale. What is life at the nanoscale? It is chemistry, physics, materials science,
biology, and electrical engineering—life at the nanoscale is overwhelmingly beautiful.
Humans are privy to life at the nanoscale, but only through complex imaging
systems and analysis. A common tool to witness the world at the nanoscale used in
industry, research, and in classrooms is the Atomic Force Microscope (AFM). The
operation of the atomic force microscope is sensitive and does require substantial
patience at times, but the information gleaned from its tiny tip and focused laser is

A.C. Pic • V.A. Moore • N.A. Burnham (*)

Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 131

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_5
132 A.C. Pic et al.

renowned for its capacity to image and collect data. The atomic force microscope
has nearly boundless applications, making it an important multidisciplinary tool.
AFM plays a central role in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Its design princi-
ple is simple—a cantilever with a sharp tip is moved over a sample surface and the
resulting force interactions are plotted as a function of its lateral position over the
surface. This approach provides an image of the topography of the sample. The
images can be beautiful and can draw students into learning more about science and
technology. AFM is not only used for producing aesthetically pleasing images but,
from chemistry to biology and physics to materials science, atomic force micros-
copy is an important tool providing researchers with qualitative and quantitative
data from a sample, including its surface and mechanical properties. However,
while AFM is intriguing and useful, it is a daunting instrument to learn and teach.
Despite the simplicity of its design and usefulness of the data it collects, learning
to use an AFM can be challenging. In addition, the cost, time, and proper educa-
tional materials for teaching AFM have long been an afterthought in the
multidisciplinary nanoscience boom of recent decades. AFM educators recognize
this problem and have adapted various approaches to introduce people to the
technique and quickly climb the AFM learning curve. Such approaches vary with
educational level but are—just as the multitude of uses for the atomic force
microscope—spread throughout several disciplines. Thus the extensive list of
technical uses for atomic force microscopy greatly outnumbers the quantity of
educational resources. AFM is widely used but rarely taught to its full extent;
taught mainly as part of a larger course on microscopy or as one simple method
for one specific research task. This situation further cements full spectrum AFM
usage as an extraordinarily specialized field reserved for those pursuing masters or
doctoral degrees, or for those using atomic force microscopy daily for jobs in
industry, where AFM has clearly defined benefits and easy access.
Some benefits to graduate and undergraduate level students include raising the
student into an upper echelon of the workforce. Those in the workforce generally
only receive on-the-job training or attend week-long AFM workshops, leading to
partial knowledge and excellence only in repetitive tasks. Proper training, which
eases students into the challenges of AFM operation, immediately increases the
marketability of students in industry and other types of post collegiate opportuni-
ties. Hands-on lab courses also allow the student creative leeway and simulate a
situation where they must use intuition to solve complex problems under time
constraints. Multifaceted teaching strategies can be employed during the under-
graduate or graduate course in order to prepare students for the daunting task of
researching, displaying results in concise figures, and writing their scientific find-
ings for the modern scientific community. Collecting and improving existing
educational resources has become important in order to advance and familiarize
more students, educators, and researchers with the instrument and its capabilities. A
chapter of educational insights and advice will provide educators with the ability to
improve existing courses, labs, and workshops.
Atomic force microscopy also has impact earlier than in the graduate and
undergraduate curriculum. Teaching AFM at the high school and primary school
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 133

grade levels also benefits students. Images generated during a classroom demon-
stration can pique curiosity in students. This curiosity, innate to students at any
level, is tapped very easily as they begin to witness the surface of a material
appearing before their eyes. This curiosity inspires students to pursue the growing
field of nanotechnology. In addition, exposure to the nano-world offers these
students a rare opportunity to witness materials, their shapes, and properties, at a
scale which would normally be impossible to attain without an expensive research
facility. Many students will hear about nanotechnology, the size of a micron, atomic
lattices, etc., but in most cases they will not be in contact with any instrument or
procedure that exposes these properties first hand, even throughout their under-
graduate career. After all, “seeing is believing” and through this, atomic force
microscopy can be an extremely useful teaching instrument.
While it is generally common for communities such as primary or secondary
schools to avoid purchasing a research grade AFM, it is not unheard of for some
schools to invest in a teaching AFM used in nanotechnology courses or in physics
lectures through demonstrations. Additionally certain schools that cannot afford
teaching AFMs, as even these are still expensive, have utilized or created “macro”
sized AFMs to achieve similar results at a much lower cost. Macro-AFMs are
extremely useful to teach principles of AFM. They also allow teachers to aid
students in discovering the physics of lasers, forces, and springs.
The AFM’s potential as a teaching tool is only limited by the instructor’s
creativity and willingness. The virtually limitless sample scope of the AFM
makes it a robust and useful tool while discussing the future of science. A future
that sees nanoparticles lining socks to make them waterproof, a future that con-
tinues to improve the quality of materials that go into the body for transplant or
surgery, and a future that utilizes the atomic force microscope to accomplish
research tasks quickly and efficiently. The potential for this future can only be
recognized if AFM is offered to students in their curriculum or as supplemental
labs. Exposure is key to igniting curiosity.
This study followed the work-flow diagram in Fig. 5.1 and was conducted in
accordance with Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s graduation requirements for an
Interactive Qualifying Project, a science-in-society project. The first two authors of
this chapter conducted background research over the summer of 2015 (May–
August). This included research on AFM education and as a mid-summer deliver-
able, a website was created for the purpose of organizing educational material as a
resource for future educators. The website is linked to the university’s AFM
laboratory web page [2]. Upon conclusion of this project, the resulting text was
revised by the third author and submitted for publication in this book.
Atomic force microscopy has benefits to educators, workers and students of all
levels. The motivation for an increase in awareness, access, and knowledge of this
powerful tool stems from the rising prevalence of nanoscience and engineering in
primary and secondary schools as well as the usefulness of AFM as a trade skill for
undergraduate and graduate students. The expanding prevalence and usefulness has
led educators to offer atomic force microscopy as a college course or as a portion of
another course. However, successfully implementing AFM as a course in of itself
134 A.C. Pic et al.

Fig. 5.1 A general work-

flow diagram to visualize
the information gathering
steps—background
research, website creation,
and survey and
interviews—that leads to a
report on materials and
advice for future AFM
educators, i.e. this chapter

can be an intimidating task. The time, cost, access to equipment, and availability of
materials are large hurdles to overcome in the implementation of AFM in the
classroom setting. For this reason in the following text, a summary of the current
status of AFM education, a collection of advice from current educators, and
solutions to hurdles are presented.

5.2 Five Levels of Atomic Force Microscopy Education

Atomic force microscopy in education can be broken down into five distinct levels
with increasing specificity. This classification is based on existing AFM courses
found through online research. When reviewing existing courses, it was found that
courses fell into different levels of intensity. These levels can be organized by
targeted audience as displayed in Fig. 5.2. AFM education begins as at a basic level
with demonstrations. Demonstrations are generally geared to an audience of grade
school to high school students. Advancing further along the educational system,
undergraduate and graduate audiences receive more focused attention with single or
several laboratories within another course, term or semester based courses devoted
to AFM, and personalized hands-on instruction. This is then followed by post-
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 135

Fig. 5.2 The five levels of AFM education—demonstrations, single or several laboratories within
another course, term or semester based courses devoted to AFM, personalized hands-on instruc-
tion, and short courses—are outlined with a brief description and organized in increasing level of
education from primary school to post-graduate programs

collegiate instruction, where professionals and workers attend short courses to learn
or brush up on specialized skills. In this section, the five levels of AFM education
will be described and references given for further information.

5.2.1 High School and Grade School Integration of Atomic

Force Microscopy

5.2.1.1 Background, Benefits, and Motivation

The integration of nanoscience and nanotechnology into the high school and grade
school setting has many benefits to students, educators, and ultimately the work
force. Educating students in nanotechnology has the potential to increase their
interest in science and engineering careers [3]; these jobs are the backbone in
modern times to both the advancement of technology and the proliferation of a
strong and productive workforce. Jobs in nanotechnology continue to grow as
technology becomes smaller—the need for a larger workforce is paramount to the
136 A.C. Pic et al.

success of the field. Thus, teaching nanoscience and engineering from an early
educational level is beneficial to both students and society [4].
Currently nanotechnology is not extensively taught throughout all grade levels.
AFM also remains exceedingly specific to the collegiate curriculum, graduate
students, and work force training. Nanotechnology has begun to enter high school
level classes but has hit several roadblocks. These roadblocks include cost of
implementation, difficulty finding teachers who specialize in nanoscience or
nano-engineering, and student challenges with visualization at the nanoscale
level. Some of these challenges can be overcome through aid of atomic force
microscopy, used as a nanotechnology teaching tool. It can help students visualize
the nanoscale. As it has interdisciplinary applications, teachers from several disci-
plines can be educated on AFM operation. The AFM offers a wide range of
functions, and can be adapted to integrate within many STEM courses in high
school or grade school. Additional information for K-12 AFM education and
nanoscience can be found in the references at the end of this report [5–9].

5.2.1.2 AFM in Grade School

As competitive nanoscience jobs flood the market, background knowledge is

required to interest and introduce students to the powerful tools and concepts of
the field. The task of educating students in nanoscience begins in grades K-8 where
the subject has become integrated in some STEM preparatory schools [8, 9]. As
listed above, the introduction of nanotechnology into these settings is not without
challenges. Specifically, visualization of the atomic scale proves difficult as two
dimensional models fall short in explaining the three dimensional world that we all
experience daily [9]. A solution to the difficulties embedded in atomic structure and
visualization can be developed through the integration of AFM demonstrations,
labs, or hands-on experience.
Atomic force microscopy has the potential to address the challenges presented to
the educational system such that students have the capability to comprehend and
excel in the fields of science, technology, and math. AFM can be introduced in
chemistry and biology as well as physics. Its multidisciplinary nature is advanta-
geous to teachers, allowing for many demonstrations across several subject areas to
be implemented for the purpose of introducing and reinforcing nanotechnology
concepts. These benefits have proved successful in upper level education and can be
adapted to cover earlier levels as well.
Atomic force microscopy can be used in a chemistry demonstration that explains
the atomic scale through experiments with graphite [8]. This can also be a door to
explaining the organization of atoms, bonds, and the structure of life on earth. In an
introductory physics course, AFM can be utilized to explain the interaction of
magnets, force, repulsion, electricity and other concepts. However the applications
of atomic force microscopy in grade school are only limited by the creativity of the
educator and the detail at which they wish to introduce concepts to students.
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 137

Fig. 5.3 This figure shows a creative alternative to the atomic force microscope. While it does not
image at the nanoscale, the AFM pictured here is a representative teaching model that can help
introduce nanoscience concepts in grade school through upper-level education. The basic parts of
this teaching model are shown (a), as well as the total assembly (b), and the bottle caps,
representative of atoms (c). Reprinted with permission from Dr. Gorazad Planinsic and IOP
Publishing Ltd [8]

One specific adaption of the AFM for a grade school setting was achieved by
creating a macro-AFM. This AFM was designed for use in teaching the principles
of atomic force microscopy without purchasing a research or even teaching grade
AFM [8]. As seen in Fig. 5.3, the model highlighted here was created out of Legos®.
This macro-AFM has a cantilever, created from a CD, with a magnetic tip. This
has its benefits as it is more cost effective and can also aid in teaching the students
about magnetism. A laser was aimed at the cantilever which was shined onto a
projector screen or piece of paper. The sample was created from a line of bottle caps
and a magnet. This allows for subtle deflection over the bottle caps and greater
deflection over the magnet. The laser bounces across the screen or paper and the
points are recorded. This AFM can be applied in any general case while explaining
introductory physics or chemistry.
Atomic force microscopy can connect many disciplines even in the grade school
setting, inspiring and intriguing students, guiding them to pursue careers in science
and technology. The applications of AFM solidify it as one of the most useful tools
138 A.C. Pic et al.

in the field of nanotechnology and as one of the most useful tools used to teach
nanoscience, being mutually beneficial for teachers, schools, and students at the
primary school level.

5.2.1.3 AFM in the High School Classroom

As with nanotechnology in primary school, nanotechnology has been integrated in

several high school curricula. The same limitations and hurdles have been
documented between K-8 and high school educators. An additional challenge is
finding time in a course to teach a topic, such as nanotechnology, that is not a part of
the national science curriculum [10]. Innovative teaching methods and a
multidisciplinary approach to learning are required to sustain a successful program.
The AFM can help teachers and students engage in productive discussion, facili-
tating the learning process. While there is no standard curriculum integrating
nanoscience—let alone atomic force microscopy—the following will highlight
where AFM has been used to successfully integrate nanoscience into the high
school curriculum.
Utah High Schools Introduce Nanotechnology
One area where AFM may have a large impact is the implementation of nanotech-
nology in high schools in Utah [11]. In Utah, high schools began a pilot program in
order to prepare students for careers in technology, sciences, and math. However,
these schools were met with hurdles common to nanotechnology and AFM imple-
mentation. The problems facing the high schools include where to integrate nano-
technology into their course work: should it be integrated in other courses or in a
standalone course? There are benefits to integrating AFM into another course, just
as there are benefits to a standalone AFM course.
Here the integration of nanotechnology into other courses can be aided by
introducing the AFM into the course structure. Explaining copious amounts of
theory may not have as large of an impact as demonstrations or laboratory exper-
iments, especially for visual or tactile learners. These nanotechnology implemen-
tation hurdles can be solved by hosting an atomic force microscopy demonstration
or a brief hands-on experiment to reinforce in-class concepts. AFM can be the
bridge between the various subjects in which nanotechnology is being integrated.
AFM has the capabilities and flexibility to bridge physics, chemistry, and biology.
The nanoscale is important to understand for applications ranging from the under-
graduate curriculum to the work place.
Introducing atomic force microscopy into the high school curriculum as a short
demonstration or experiment also solves the issue of who should teach nanotech-
nology. It would not require additional teachers. Having one or two teachers trained
in the use of AFM will eliminate the need for additional nanotechnology teachers as
long as chemistry, physics, biology, and math introduce nanotechnology concepts
that can be reinforced later. A high school could possible borrow another
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 139

institution’s transportable AFM, instead of acquiring an AFM of their own, greatly

decreasing cost.
Rural-Suburban North Carolina High School Experiment
In a North Carolina high school, an interesting and extremely successful program
brought nanoscience into the classroom through the use of the atomic force
microscope [12]. This program was created to investigate alternative teaching
techniques for incorporating nanoscience education into the school curriculum.
This approach is unique in that it utilizes atomic force microscopy to characterize
viruses in a high school setting. It connects the fields of biology and nanotechnol-
ogy in a seamless application of AFM as a teaching tool.
The atomic force microscope used in this project was connected through the
internet and remotely operated. This eliminated several of the common hurdles
present in the use of atomic force microscopy. It helped alleviate the knowledge
required to operate an AFM, which at the high-school level may not be necessary,
as well as additional staff to teach specific AFM labs or courses. It helped to
alleviate cost as well by limiting the amount of money required for startup as
well as the amount of money required in consumables and labor.
In this course the atomic force microscope was controlled by means of joystick.
The joystick was connected to the AFM, which was controlled remotely over the
internet and the resulting topographical image was translated into a three dimen-
sional figure that was constructed on the computer screen as shown in Fig. 5.4. An
additional feature of this remote AFM is the haptic feedback design. The remote
AFM was designed with an interactive “glove” which moved with the AFM tip.
Thus through this design the user is able to feel, in first person, what the atomic
force microscope is imaging. This further reinforces concepts taught earlier in the
class. Now students can feel features with sizes on the order of nanometers.
This experiment was implemented in an introductory biology class in high
school due to the variety of students that will come in contact with the course. In
addition to the experiments that were run, the students were required to take pre and
post quizzes to assess their knowledge and determine the usefulness of the course.
The target for imaging was an adenovirus, an integral topic in biology, further
relating many subjects to the target audience. The students were required to
organize their experiments and findings in a newspaper article, increasing the
multidisciplinary aspect of AFM, biology, and nanoscience. This course was
successful, with positive reviews from students and teachers alike.
One German and one Turkish High School: Case Study
In 2015, a case study was conducted involving two high schools, one in Germany
and one in Turkey, which utilized AFM principles to effectively teach nanoscience
concepts [10]. In these high schools, the students participated in an hour-long
extracurricular session. Creative methods were used in two activities in both
schools where students cut paper until it became too small to cut and students
probed objects inside of a concealed box with different sized sticks. These concepts
of scale and forces between two bodies were then reinforced through the use of a
teaching AFM (in Germany) and guided questions and student predictions
140 A.C. Pic et al.

Fig. 5.4 In this figure haptic feedback is explored by high school students. In an effort to
introduce nanoscience into the high school curriculum, the remote AFM was connected to a
feedback “glove” that students wore over their finger. They could feel the nanotopography as the
AFM provides tactile feedback as well as visual cues to aid students in understanding the nano-
landscape. Reprinted with permission from Journal of Research in Science Teaching [12]

(in Turkey). Worksheets as well as detailed accounts of the activities are included in
the reference. Additional enticing conclusions determined that most students
benefited from the knowledge gained in the extra-curricular activity while using
the AFM as well as teaching models, even being able to correctly formulate ideas
about central nanoscience concepts.
Atomic force microscopy can act as a guide and an extremely useful tool for
teachers to engage students from the high school level and younger in the field of
nanotechnology. The AFM can be particularly useful while connecting concepts
from one class to another, and is a powerful instrument to intrigue and inspire
students. It benefits schools and teachers by offering many applications for lab
exercises and demonstrations. The AFM may be the solution to the challenges
facing teachers and schools interested in incorporating nanoscience or nanotech-
nology into their high school curriculum.

5.2.2 Atomic Force Microscopy Offered to Undergraduate or

Graduate Students

5.2.2.1 An Introduction to Collegiate AFM Education

As nanotechnology remains at the forefront of advancing technology, medicine,

and other areas of science, proper characterization methods are important to
understanding the properties and usefulness of materials. This can be done through
force curve analysis, electrical or magnetic analysis, and other sample-tip interac-
tions with the atomic force microscope. The bounds of the AFM’s usefulness can be
stretched as far as creativity can accomplish. As the world becomes “smaller” (as in
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 141

technology), current college students require knowledge of materials as well as

knowledge in material characterizing instruments. As “lab on a chip” techniques
become more common, as computer processers shrink, and nanoparticles become
increasingly more useful in research and industrial applications, information about
nano-instrumentation spreads further across many disciplines.
Introducing atomic force microscopy into the undergraduate or graduate curric-
ulum can be a costly and time consuming task. However, the enormous benefit to
students has encouraged several educators to take on the challenge. The benefits to
students include increased job placement, increased graduate school placement, a
useful trade skill, as well as an introduction to physics phenomena at the nanoscale.
The following subsections will cover current course applications and laboratories in
the college setting. The corresponding references are [1, 13–33].

5.2.2.2 Undergraduate and Graduate Courses

Generally courses are broken up into several pieces within the overarching unit.
Most courses start with a brief introduction to the field of nanotechnology, its
applications and importance. Most courses then advance to include scale and
size; it is sometimes difficult for students to understand the vast differences between
the nanoscale and the macro-world in which they live. After scale and size are
introduced, the physical principles on which the AFM are founded are typically
discussed at length. After students begin to grasp the concepts behind AFM, the
instrument is introduced in a simplistic form, constant-force contact mode. Con-
stant-force contact mode, while simplistic, may be the most inspirational for stu-
dents. It can produce beautiful images at scales students can barely conceptualize.
This can provide the motivation for students to comprehend abstract physics con-
cepts that the AFM employs.
After the basic introduction to the AFM and its theory and practice, most courses
have already accomplished one of their end goals: to familiarize students with the
type and capability of instruments available to them in industry and research. At
this point many courses and laboratories diverge [1, 13–24]. Some courses and labs
may conclude on that note, only to race past AFM and introduce many other
materials characterization instruments. Some courses may have additional lab
time teaching different techniques, while deepening students’ understanding of
the physical principles and image processing through additional lecture time. A
few courses and labs include intensive projects where the students create and
implement their own experimental design and present their findings at the conclu-
sion of the segment or class. Most of the labor-intensive courses, hands-on exper-
iments, and presentations are geared toward graduate students looking to utilize the
atomic force microscope in their research or future career. The major difference
between graduate and undergraduate courses lies in the context. The content for the
courses are often similar; however, the expectations for projects, talks, quality of
work, and homework are higher for most graduate courses. The following
142 A.C. Pic et al.

paragraphs will include information taken from both undergraduate as well as

graduate courses.
University of Southern Colorado
At the University of Southern Colorado, atomic force microscopy was utilized
throughout the entire college career for chemistry majors [13]. The intent of the
program was to provide instruction on an important characterization instrument, the
AFM, as well as visualize the nano-world in an understandable hands-on approach.
AFM was successfully used as a professor-led demonstration to small groups of
8–10 in the general chemistry course. When chemistry majors return to take an
Instrumental Analysis course after general chemistry, there are accompanying
AFM labs, which include two three-hour labs, after which the students’ findings
are documented in a well-written scientific report. From there, hands-on experience
and additional opportunities are reserved for upper class and graduate students.
Purdue University
At Purdue University, a course on nanotechnology is partially dedicated to AFM
[18]. It is a general undergraduate course based on nanotechnology with units
covering AFM. This course is an example of an instrumentation overview course
where AFM is only a unit in a greater course. This course begins with background
about nanotechnology and the recent boom and excitement regarding the topic. The
multidisciplinary nature of nanoscience is also discussed at length; there are units
on nanoscience applications of biology, physics, and chemistry. As students
advance through this course they are introduced to nano-electronics and online
simulations as well as lectures to prepare them for the AFM labs. AFM operation is
taught through interactive simulations, and the theory is taught in lecture. The
students are finally trained in lab in constant-force contact mode. This offers the
students just enough information to have a concise understanding of the potential of
the AFM, but places a limit on their proficiency with the instrument. For graduate
students, the same introductory topics are covered at a quicker pace, allowing time
in the course for students to apply AFM to their own fields. Graduate students tests
and reports are also held to higher standard.
University of Nevada Reno
A shorter course was created at the University of Nevada, Reno with help from
Stanford University [19]. In this course the target audience was a small subset of the
University of Nevada Reno’s population, four undergraduate and six graduate
students. Here the course was taught with both lecture and lab portions. Lecture
periods were dedicated to theory and quizzes and examinations. Handouts for the
class placed an emphasis on doctoral work and scholarly publication. Lectures,
labs, handouts, and additional videos used for supplementary content emphasized
both theory and practice. Through this course, upper-level students were introduced
to the multiple uses of atomic force microscopy in a practical way.
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Undergraduate and graduate courses were created at Worcester Polytechnic Insti-
tute, where every senior must conduct a thesis, in order that students make more
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 143

immediate progress in their research [20]. These courses have six portions. In the
first portion, students participate in hands-on laboratory experiments specifically
designed to teach AFM as well as introduce them to academic writing in reports that
follow each lab. Mandatory pre-lab quizzes offered an easy way to prepare students
for the labs, saving time which is used to gain better proficiency on the AFM. The
concepts are introduced in videos that are available on YouTube [33]. During the
lecture periods, discussions are held, writing exercises are performed in groups, and
in-class problems are worked through. While the problems are not graded, the
students know that the exams will consist of modified versions of the problems that
they have already seen. Thus their motivation to participate is strong. Concepts are
again tested in “macro-labs” with macroscopic cantilevers, which teach the physics
theory behind atomic force microscopy. Computer labs add additional reinforce-
ment to concepts learned in class as well as an introduction to image processing.
Students often remark how they like to see the same ideas repeated in the different
activities so that they develop a sound understanding of the material. These courses
are a comprehensive, succinct, and detailed collection of information and knowl-
edge. The demographics are displayed in Fig. 5.5.
While there are many approaches to achieving similar results, many courses are
taught in a similar fashion that reserves the classroom for theory, while lab time is
devoted to learning the “black art” that is operating an AFM. (“Black art” from
Survey Respondent 9, Question 1; See Appendix A.) This offers students an
introduction to a powerful research tool that will help them in senior projects,
graduate theses and dissertations, future academic work, or in industry.

Fig. 5.5 Data taken from Worcester Polytechnic Institute describes the make-up of the Institute’s
AFM courses, which are offered in alternating years [20]. About half of the students are physics
majors, but the multidisciplinary nature is highlighted by the wide range of additional majors
included
144 A.C. Pic et al.

5.2.2.3 Labs

Courses are not the only means of teaching atomic force microscopy to undergrad-
uate and graduate students. Labs are a successful way to help students receive
hands-on experience with the atomic force microscope. Lab courses, as they
generally meet less than normal full credit hour courses, do have certain limitations.
They may offer more time using an atomic force microscope but the theoretical and
aspects of the full course may be lost to the students. However this may be an
alternative method for educators in lieu of creating a full course. Overall, lab
courses are much more varied in structure and implementation than full courses.
They are widely dependent on the targeted major and range from one lab session in
a greater course to a full lab course in its own.
University of San Diego
An atomic force microscopy lab class was created at the University of San Diego
[21]. This lab course was implemented in 1998 and consists of a single 1-h lab that
has three stages. The lab manager set up the AFM such that it could be used as a one
button imaging tool. The lab at the University of San Diego consisted of parts that
include an optical observation with the naked eye as well as an optical microscope.
The remaining time was spent looking at the AFM, learning its technique, and
taking one image. While this is a brief introduction, it is the bare minimum when it
comes to introducing and making the AFM a useful tool for the students. This
course was intended to be a junior level material science course, required for all
engineering majors.
Another lab course is specifically targeted at chemistry majors; the use of AFM
is to aid in understanding the complexities of working at and visualizing the
nanoscale. This lab is centered on two main projects that offer students the ability
to characterize crystalline materials. Atomic force microscopy is used to determine
their structure and properties. This is extremely useful to the target audience
because it allows them to experience the nanoscale properties of a material,
then compare and relate those properties to the macroscale characteristics of the
material [13].
Arizona State University
An example of a full lab class was presented by Arizona State University [22]. This
laboratory course is offered to upperclassmen as an elective. This limits the number
of participants but allows for small classes, which is beneficial during lab times.
The students are presented with a 50-min short lecture on atomic force microscopy
with a 4-h lab per week. This class is broken down into three major components
from which students gather the necessary background, hands-on experience, and
experimental process and report generation. The three categories are: fundamental
principles, core experiments, and special projects. Here the students have access to
the lab equipment in order to design their own experiment, to be presented at the
end of the course.
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 145

University of Waterloo
A final lab course at the University of Waterloo is perhaps the most intensive of the
lab courses available yet [23]. The course requires roughly 18–36 h of combined
course and outside work. Taught as part of a nanotechnology engineering degree at
the University of Waterloo, it is a lecture of 70–130 students, a significantly larger
number of students than other labs had. However the course was designed for this
high capacity and is structured such that the professor explains and demonstrates
atomic force microscopy techniques with an AFM hooked up to a projector, as
shown in Fig. 5.6. After watching the instructor on the projector, the students break
into groups to use the AFM stations, of which the AFM lab at the University of

Fig. 5.6 This figure highlights the lab setup as well as the desktop AFM used in the intensive
AFM lab course at the University of Waterloo. The lab is widely used by researchers and graduate
students, as well as for the undergraduate lab course. The lab consists of five AFM desks, cabinets
for materials and sample prep, and a projector screen. Reprinted with permission from IEEE
Transactions on Education [23]
146 A.C. Pic et al.

Waterloo has five. This allows for multiple groups to access an AFM at one time.
Additionally this lab is extensively used for senior projects.
Lab courses are an effective means to integrate the usefulness of an AFM course
into the curriculum. Labs offer more hands-on time but less time for theory. Based
on the target audience, and the amount of background knowledge needed, lab
courses may be more efficient than full-term or semester-based courses.

5.2.3 Post-graduate AFM Education

Atomic force microscopy is widely used in industry. This creates a need for post
collegiate AFM education. Educating workers and professionals requires different
strategies to accomplish the educational outcomes. Generally, educators will host a
workshop or brief course geared toward the specific use of the AFM needed by the
student. These short courses are used as a brush-up on standard uses of the AFM as
well as to learn, in depth, very specific techniques. They can be aimed at pro-
fessionals who have previous experience operating the AFM or those who need to
learn a specific skill.
A pilot short course was taught at ETH Zurich in the summer of 2015 by
Professor Nancy Burnham using the course materials she developed at Worcester
Polytechnic Institute [20, 25]. This short course was taught to graduate students, as
an experiment in feasibility for adapting the current, term-long undergraduate and
semester-long graduate courses, into an intensive workshop. The format is ideally
suited for post-collegiate AFM education. This pilot course ran over a period of
7 business days, during which students became proficient in the usage of the AFM
in several different modes. The differences between the short course and the
undergraduate or graduate courses lie in the exclusion of the time consuming lab
reports, writing assignments, in-class work, and exams. The parts of this course are
illustrated in Fig. 5.7. The course was successful and will be expanded from 7 to
10 days to allow for more time for short projects.

Fig. 5.7 Students at ETH Zurich take part in a summer short course on AFM operation. It was a
7-day intensive course emphasizing hands-on operation. Highlighted here are the three main
aspects of the course: instrument labs with an AFM [orange device in foreground of (a)], computer
labs (b), and macro-labs (c). Figure from “An Intensive Short Course on Atomic-Force Micros-
copy,” which was released under a creative commons attribution license [25]
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 147

Many of these courses are available to take and are publically offered by atomic
force microscope manufacturers [34–38]. Additional resources for AFM educa-
tional materials can be found in Appendix B: Bibliography. The following section
will review a survey given to experienced educators in AFM.

5.3 Survey and Interviews

A survey and interviews were utilized to collect multiple points of view from
previously published authors within the field of AFM education.

5.3.1 Survey

A survey was created and sent out to prominent figures in atomic force microscopy
education. The survey had three sections. The first section was made up of three
questions regarding the respondents’ personal information. This allowed the
respondents’ other responses to be put into the context of their background. The
second section was made up of five long-form response questions regarding the
survey participant’s personal views on AFM education. Most of the information
gathered was collected from the responses to questions in this second section of the
survey. The third section assessed the survey takers willingness and availability to
participate in an interview. Our survey questions can be found in Table 5.1.
As part of research for the earlier section of this report, 260 figures in AFM
education were identified. Each contact was sent the survey by email. Two weeks

Table 5.1 An index of questions asked in the survey

Question 1 Name
Question 2 Organization/Affiliation
Question 3 Years Experience in AFM Education
Question 4 What hurdles did you have to overcome in teaching Atomic Force Microscopy
(e.g. cost of AFMs or consumables)? Do any remain?
Question 5 Did you have any hesitations about creating an AFM lab or course? If so, what
were they? Are they now assuaged?
Question 6 What is your advice to prospective AFM educators?
Question 7 Do you believe exposure to AFM benefits students? Why?
Question 8 Do you see a future where AFM becomes more prevalent throughout all levels of
education? Why or why not?
Question 9 Would you be willing talk to a student researcher for a half an hour (e.g. Skype or
Google Hangouts or FaceTime) to discuss your AFM lab or course? If so, please
indicate some dates before the August 22 that you would be available. Thank you
for your time
148 A.C. Pic et al.

later, a reminder email was sent out to those who had not yet responded. We
received 23 survey responses, a response rate of about 9 %.
There was consensus for some questions. However, a few questions returned
responses that varied in opinion. Instead of merely listing all of the responses to our
survey questions, which can be found in Appendix A, we are instead highlighting
recurring themes, as well as mentioning a few specific responses.
Question one, was “Name” In respect of our survey responder’s privacy, their
names have been removed and have been replaced with a number corresponding to
the order the surveys were submitted, with one being the first survey submitted.
Question two was simply: Organization/Affiliation. Of the 23 survey respon-
dents, 22 responded to this question. Those 22 responses included 19 unique
institutions. A list of those institutions can be found in Appendix A: Survey
Questions and Responses. Affiliation has been removed from the responses to
protect each respondent’s identity. The different organizations are a good repre-
sentation of different types of establishments, but only in the United States. The
survey was sent to organizations across the globe, however only people in the
United States responded. This may be due to a language barrier, as the survey was
written in English. It is important to keep in mind that while this was written with
global AFM education in mind, there is a heavy leaning towards what occurs in the
United States due to the responses we received.
Question three was: “Years Experience” in AFM education. This optional
question was answered by 22 of the 23 participants. The maximum was 27 years,
while the minimum was 0 years. The arithmetic mean of the number of years
involved in AFM education was 15, with a standard deviation of 7. Overall, our
survey respondents have had a significant amount of experience in AFM education,
with more than 75 % of the respondents having a decade, or more, of experience.
There was a rough correlation between the number of years’ experience and the
length of responses, with the more veteran survey respondents submitting longer
responses than those with less experience.
Question four, the first long-form response question, was: “What hurdles did
you have to overcome in teaching Atomic Force Microscopy (e.g. cost of AFMs or
consumables)? Do any remain?” The responses were varied, but tended to follow
common themes, as shown in Fig. 5.8. The primary themes were cost, proper
educational tools and materials, time professors spend teaching, and time for
students to learn theory. Most of the respondents were concerned with multiple
hurdles. For example, Respondent 17 was concerned with both cost and proper
educational tools, in this case access to an AFM. Respondent 17 said: “Cost of
consumables is an issue. It creates some difficulties for us that our research
instrument is also used for teaching.” And Respondent 23 expressed: “the difficulty
in exposing teams of students to AFM when only one person at a time can really use
it (with others watching)—time involved in training and writing documentation to
prep students.” It is the combination of these four hurdles that hinder educators
teaching atomic force microscopy.
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 149

Major Hurdles in AFM Education

0.19
Cost, 24 times
0.35
Proper Educational Tools and Materials, 17 times

0.21 Time Professors Spend Teaching, 13 times

Time for Students to Learn Theory, 9 times

0.25

Fig. 5.8 The four most prevalent hurdles in AFM education as determined by our survey are: cost,
proper educational tools and materials, time for teaching, labs and TA’s, and time for students to
learn the theory of AFM. Ratios on the pie chart are calculated by dividing the individual hurdle
number by the total number of hurdles mentioned (e.g. Cost/total hurdles
mentioned
100 ¼ 35.5 %)

Question five, the second long-form response question was: “Did you have any
hesitations about creating an AFM lab or course? If so, what were they? Are they
now assuaged?” The most common response was along the lines of no, none, or
N/A. One of a few respondents who explained their lack of hesitations was
Respondent Five, who said: “No. In the mid-1990s I saw the increasing applications
of AFM in diverse fields as well as the preparation of students for future careers or
graduate studies, the training of the use of AFM will be helpful. Besides the concept
of nanoscale is easier to believe by seeing an AFM image. Now the AFM are used in
many fields and it may be easier to sell the need of AFM education.” Respondent
5 identifies what most of others left unsaid: that s/he recognized the pros of AFM
education far outweighing the cons. Despite the advantages of AFM, other respon-
dents had concerns, mainly students damaging expensive equipment and the time
commitment required. And yet, even those with concerns acknowledged that
despite the difficulties, it was worth it. As Respondent 6 said: “The difficulty of
getting students trained and the risk of them breaking equipment. It’s still a struggle
to train students, but I think it’s worth it. . .” It is clear that creating an AFM lab or
course takes a significant amount of effort, as Respondent 19 explained: “Creating
innovative labs for AFM requires that one tries things out first and creates good
documentation—that takes time.” However, despite the hesitations educators might
have, and the hurdles that they face, in general they acknowledge that the rewards
of teaching AFM make it worthwhile.
Question six, the third long-form response question was: “What is your advice
to prospective AFM educators?” Once again, the responses shared similar themes.
By far the most common theme was to be patient. Respondent 3 simply put it: “Be
150 A.C. Pic et al.

very patient.” There are many things that can go wrong, whether it be with the
equipment, or with the students, and many respondents stressed the necessity to be
patient and work through these problems. One major problem the respondents said
to watch for was things breaking. Respondent 13 summed it up saying: “students
will break a lot of probes and even the AFM.” The reality is that students will break
things, and that extreme patience is necessary to move forward.
Respondents also advised future educators to keep in mind the importance of
creating a balance between theory and practice. Many of the existing courses in
AFM emphasize the necessity of both teaching the theory, as well as creating a
hands-on portion. As Respondent 12 reported: “Include both a significant theoret-
ical and practical component. I think it is important for students to have a good
grasp of the scientific background related to any microstructural tool that a student
will use in his/her work.” Part of the beauty of AFM is its ability to open a door into
the nano-world, and there are significant advantages for the students to be the ones
operating the door, as Respondent 1 emphasized: “You have to allow the students
hands on experience.” Letting the students do the work increases their investment in
their own learning, as Respondent 7 urged, “Let students find out themselves how it
works. Most motivating experience.”
An additional category of advice the respondents gave was about decreasing
cost, which was the biggest hurdle identified by educators in the survey. Respon-
dent 15 suggested a teaching grade AFM saying: “Find a way to purchase a
dedicated teaching AFM that is generally cheaper.” Other respondents gave advice
on funding, for example Respondent 5s response: “Find time and write proposal
applications to funding agencies or talk to school administrators and justify the need
of AFM for education.”
Question seven, the fourth long-form response question was: “Do you believe
exposure to AFM benefits students? Why?” The consensus of the responses was a
resounding yes. Respondents valued AFM’s educational value because of its
widespread presence in industry and research, as well its application of physics,
and its overall versatility. Respondent 2 thought that AFM was especially important
for students majoring in physics, saying: “Sure, especially physics majors. A lot of
our majors are interested in doing research, so it helps them to learn advanced
tools.” Meanwhile, Respondent 15 thought it was particularly useful for material
science majors saying: “Yes. Especially in a Materials Science department. This
technique is becoming very widespread in industry.” Multiple respondents thought
that exposure to AFM benefits students in terms of research, including Respondent
14 who explained, “Yes—SPM techniques are now an essential tool in a wide range
of research fields. It is a skill set that is often in demand. I have had more than a few
students tell me that the AFM course helped them in interviews for Post-doc
experiences and research positions.”
Several respondents thought AFM was especially useful for creating a more
comprehensible hands-on example of concepts that students were learning in class.
Respondent 8 indicated, “Yes—it provides training in a truly modern experiment,
which is rare in Physics.” Respondent 6 pronounced: “Yes, it’s one of the few
accessible tools that give students direct access to the nanotechnology revolution.
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 151

AFM also contains many aspects of fundamentals from their courses, e.g. physics,
optics, controls.”
It is clear that the respondents believed AFM to be extremely useful to students
in terms of academic knowledge and research applications. However, AFM is more
than just a way of learning concepts, it is a tool that motivates curiosity. As
Respondent 7 said: “Yes. They see that a simple instrument can reach atomic
resolution. This is inspiring.”
Question eight, the last long-form response question was: “Do you see a future
where AFM becomes more prevalent throughout all levels of education? Why or
why not?” Unlike the other questions, the responses to this question did not
generally agree, but instead fell along a spectrum. Some respondents felt very
strongly that AFM education will grow: “Yes. There will be increasing numbers
of used AFMs available, making it possible for all levels of schools to have access,
and with the increase in students understanding of nano in the world, an AFM
makes more sense.” While others felt more indifferent to AFM compared to other
options like scanning electron microscopy, or transmission electron microscopy
saying: “Probably not. Why should AFM be more important than some of the light
microscopy imaging technologies, or TEM, or SEM, etc.?” Others were more
negative, saying: “Not really.” The most common thing cited as a barrier to AFM
becoming more prominent was cost: “Not really. It is very nice technique, but is
only one of many. It is not cheap and the bar to entry is somewhat high.”
Question nine, the last question was: “Would you be willing talk to a student
researcher for a half an hour (e.g. Skype or Google Hangouts or FaceTime) to
discuss your AFM lab or course? If so, please indicate some dates before the August
22 that you would be available. Thank you for your time.” Several respondents
indicated a willingness to be interviewed, and two interviews were conducted.
More information on interviews can be found in Sect. 5.3.2.
The general consensus was that the main hesitations and hurdles were cost,
access to equipment and materials, and time. A breakdown of challenges and
hesitations can be found in Fig. 5.4. Despite these challenges, the survey respon-
dents agreed that the advantages of an AFM education make it worthwhile. They
encouraged other educators to greet the challenges of teaching AFM with great
patience. For many difficulties involved with teaching AFM, there are ways to
overcome them. Some such solutions are explained in greater detail in Sect. 5.4.
Additional first-hand information is discussed in the following section, where two
interviews were conducted to get an educator’s perspective on the current status of
AFM education.

5.3.2 Interviews

As mentioned in Sect. 5.3.1, we inquired as to whether or not the survey respon-

dents would be interested in participating in an interview. Out of the 23 survey
participants we received two responses in the positive on a time scale that we could
152 A.C. Pic et al.

accommodate. The goal of our interviews had three parts: first, to obtain free
responses from our contacts, which may cover topics we had not included in our
survey, second, to obtain more information on what students go on to do in
academia or industry, and third, to identify what works well when teaching AFM.
The first interview confirmed for the most part what we had found in the surveys.
The one interesting addition was the usage of a lab fee to help cover costs. Our
interviewee, Professor Sundarajan of Iowa State University, had instructed a course
that was made up of a 1–2 h lecture and a 3-h lab per week. The labs started with the
practical basics, mainly using calibration samples. Then the lab moved onto a topic
that the student was interested in, for which the student would bring in their own lab
samples. Having students examine samples that they were individually interested in
has two main advantages: first, because students prepare the samples themselves,
the samples are relatively low cost. More importantly, it allows the students to be
inspired by the AFM’s usefulness in their own field of interest. The professor stated
that there was not enough time to do everything, so he heavily relied on a graduate
student. If there was no graduate student with the necessary background, he does
not hold the course. In addition to the lab fee, probes were recycled to lower the cost
further. In this course, the students do not handle the scanner to limit damage.
The second interviewee offered a different position in AFM education and
experience. As a part of a national research lab in California this professor has
contact with post graduate and graduate AFM education. He stated no difficulty
with access to material or knowledge but did state some challenges with teaching
students not to pour liquid over the scanner. The biggest hurdle this professor
brought to our attention is summarized in his statement to us, “it is very difficult
to find the right level of information, it is hard to explain to a biomedical engineer
about a mechanical oscillator, while it is hard to explain to a mechanical engineer
about sample prep.” In a succinct way this professor touched on the lack of
information available for each level of education. As with the multidisciplinary
nature of AFM, there are an overwhelming number of sources, and sifting through
that information can be tedious and fruitless. The interviewee also spoke about the
preparation of samples and the difficulties that ensue, “Sample prep is often
underestimated; it may take years to prepare or perfect getting a clean or liquid
free surface.” He specified how, during high level research applications sample
prep plays an integral role and cannot be overlooked while planning a lab course.
For graduate level or post-graduate level AFM courses or labs, a sample prep
section might be integrated to fully develop students as competent researchers.
After discussing common challenges and the current status of atomic force
microscopy education, the following section on major hurdles and solutions was
rounded out with the interviewees’ advice and opinions.
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 153

5.4 Major Hurdles and Solutions

A course on AFM requires arguably more effort than the average college-level
lecture course. For an AFM course that has a lab portion, in addition to the normal
set of tasks associated with a lecture course, there are also the requirements for
running a lab with expensive equipment. As shown in Fig. 5.9, there are four main
hurdles, but there are also solutions for each one of them. Cost is one of the biggest
hurdles. Another big obstacle is the amount of time a course requires, both for the
instructor and the students. A third major impediment is access to AFMs for a lab
portion. A fourth challenge is access to resources, including good preexisting
documentation. The following sections will address each topic of Fig. 5.9 in the
order Cost, Time, Equipment, and Resources.

5.4.1 Cost

Cost is an important factor in AFM education. A research grade AFM can be

extremely expensive, not to mention the cost of consumables. However, a research
grade AFM is not required for every AFM course. There are several more econom-
ical alternatives. One possibility is to use an AFM remotely over the internet. This
removes the possibility of students damaging the AFM, however, it also removes

Fig. 5.9 Solutions for common AFM hurdles are presented in this figure. The solutions are based
on background research as well as responses to the survey and interviews
154 A.C. Pic et al.

Table 5.2 A selection of different teaching AFMs, their prices, type, and where to find them
Name Price Type Distributer
TT-AFM $26–32,000 Tabletop AFM Workshop [39]
Eddy $21,000 Tabletop Anfatec [40]
NaioAFM/ TraxAFM $20–27,000 Transportable Nanosurf/nanoScience Instr. [41, 42]
ezAFM $15–33,000+ Transportable NanoMagnetics [43]
All prices are given in USD as of 2015

some of the hands-on nature of an AFM lab. An example of this is explained in

greater detail in Sect. 5.2.1.3. Another solution is using a macroscale AFM. This is
not an AFM in the traditional sense, but instead has the same components as an
AFM, at the significantly less expensive macroscale. These types of AFMs are
explained in greater detail in Sect. 5.2.1.2.
A third solution is to use a teaching grade AFM. These are still AFMs capable of
measuring on the nanoscale. However, they do not offer as many options or as low a
noise level as their research counterparts. This means that they are less expensive,
but are still useful for teaching. An example of the offerings for teaching AFMs can
be found in Table 5.2. It is important to keep in mind that the prices listed here were
as of 2015 and may have since changed.
The TT-AFM, provided by AFM Workshop, has the option to either be pur-
chased assembled, or purchased as a kit [39, 44]. Accompanying the AFM is the
option to purchase a seat in a TT-AFM assembly workshop. This workshop lasts
5 days, and is advertised to run several times a year. The workshop teaches
participants not only how to assemble and perform maintenance on their AFM,
but also how to run test samples and make images. The Eddy AFM, like the
TT-AFM, is a tabletop model and is provided by Anfatec for a slightly lower
price [40]. Interestingly, both the NaioAFM/TraxAFM and the ezAFM are trans-
portable [41–43]. This opens up a lot of opportunities for using the AFM. A single
AFM could be moved between schools and used for outreach. A university doing
outreach at a high school could bring along the AFM with them, instead of just
bringing images and other media. A transportable AFM could have a very high
return on investment because it could very easily nearly always be in use.
The cost of consumables is also a factor. There are many different manufacturers
of probes. Different probes can have widely varying qualities. Students using an
AFM do not necessarily need high quality probes. Probes with less accuracy could
be acceptable. Teaching probes, in 2015, can cost about $20 each, or $10 if
purchased in bulk. Both MikroMasch and Budget Sensors sell probes appropriate
for education [44, 45]. Existing old research probes, perhaps too dull for research,
but still functional, could be used by students.
Given the expense of running an AFM lab course, it may be necessary to obtain
additional funds to run the course. One option is to apply for grants, or look for a
sponsor. Nanotechnology is an important and growing field, so there are companies
looking for students with a background in AFM. These companies might be willing
to help finance an AFM course, or donate an instrument to use. Another option is to
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 155

charge a lab fee. It is not unusual for a course to require the purchase of a textbook.
In an AFM course, where there may not be any written materials to be purchased, it
may be reasonable to charge a lab fee. As an example, in 2015, the required
textbook with online access for an introductory calculus-based physics course at
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, costs $360 through the official book store
[46]. Although charging $360 would be an additional financial burden for students,
it would be comparable to what they would be expected to pay in other classes.

5.4.2 Time

Time is a precious resource, for both instructors and students. An AFM course is a
big time commitment for both parties. Students often underestimate the difficulty of
participating in an AFM course. To alleviate some of the stress that associated with
such a large time commitment, it is important to make sure that the students
understand, at the beginning of the course, what they are getting themselves into.
Some students may not fully believe exactly how much time a professor says the
class will require, but many will appreciate the warning.
In terms of making the time commitment manageable for instructors, it may be
necessary and advisable to hire one or more lab supervisors. An AFM course with a
lab component will require students, who are relatively inexperienced, to use
expensive equipment. To protect the equipment and the students, it may be neces-
sary to always have someone supervising the students when they are in the lab.
Depending on the number of students, the number of instruments, and the length of
the lab, the number of hours that require supervision will change. Worcester
Polytechnic Institute’s undergraduate AFM course had six lab sessions a week in
2015, each lasting for 2 h. So, each week there were 12 h during which students had
to be supervised. An additional 12 h per week to supervise students in a lab is a huge
burden to expect a professor to take on. Lab monitors or teaching assistants can also
aid the professor in grading homework, exams, and lab reports. Additionally in
order to make the time spent on the equipment more meaningful and efficient,
pre-lab quizzes may be administered. This helps enforce proficiency in the students
as well as reduce wasted lab time.
When creating an AFM course, it may be possible to save time by basing labs,
homework, pre-lab quizzes, and overall class structure on previously existing
courses. Examples can be found in Sect. 5.2.2.2 of this document.

5.4.3 Equipment

Obtaining access to AFMs for a course can be extremely difficult. In a university

where there are existing AFMs, time on the instruments may be completely taken
up by researchers. Additionally, researchers may not want inexperienced students
156 A.C. Pic et al.

using their AFMs. However, in some cases there may be an older AFM that
researchers may be willing to let students use. In a university where there are no
existing AFMs purchasing a research grade one may not be economically feasible.
Additionally, finding lab space for such an instrument may be difficult. There are
several alternatives to purchasing a research grade AFM, such as purchasing a
teaching grade AFM, remotely controlling an AFM, and making a macro AFM.
More details on these alternatives can be found in Sect. 5.4.1.
Additionally, not all lab activities necessarily require an actual AFM. It is
possible to explain the basic concepts in a macro or computer lab, as an alternative
to an AFM lab. For example, Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s undergraduate AFM
course contains only twelve hours of actual lab time for a given student. However,
there are an additional 1–2 h a week spent in a combination of a computer lab and a
macro-AFM lab. These alternative labs allow students to spend time to understand
the concepts while interacting with a model of an AFM, without having to spend
additional time on an AFM. Thus the time spent on the AFM becomes highly
productive, concurrent with a decrease in the number of necessary supervised AFM
lab hours.

5.4.4 Resources

There are few good sources of documentation on AFM education—one motivation

for this book chapter. The existing resources for AFM education tend to be very
spread out, often across multiple disciplines. For information on online nano-
education resources, please refer to chapter three of the book “Global Perspectives
on Nanoscience and Engineering Education.” In an effort to create a singular
resource reference, a website was created [2]. The website includes information
on academic articles, websites, and even YouTube channels which focus on AFM
concepts and theory. There are also several books on atomic force microscopy. Our
recommended starting documents are listed in Appendix B.
Resources, information, interviews, and many other perspectives on atomic
force microscopy education have been gathered and shed light on hurdles and
hesitations of teaching AFM. These hurdles and hesitations have been addressed
with possible solutions. Several concluding thoughts will be addressed in the
following section.

5.5 Conclusions

Atomic force microscopy has proven to be a powerful tool in both research and
industry, yet it has potential for even wider applications. AFM can be used in an
educational setting to provide important knowledge and be utilized as a teaching
aid. The current status of AFM in educational systems can be broken down into five
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 157

general approaches that roughly map to each level of education from primary and
secondary school, college, graduate programs, and to post graduate education.
Throughout these educational platforms AFM can be used to help implement
nanoscience programs in grade schools and high schools. In college AFM is utilized
in a variety of ways: to provide exposure to an industrial tool, to accomplish
research, or as a supplement in other microscopy courses to provide a few exam-
ples. The current status of atomic force microscopy in the educational system has
been discussed and analyzed. AFM has many benefits to students and educators
alike, but it is not without its challenges. Implementing atomic force microscopy
takes significant dedication by students and teachers in the form of time, cost,
access to equipment, and educational materials. These hurdles are formidable,
however the aforementioned surveys, interviews, and a website full of educational
resources have been compiled in an attempt to offer help and advice to prospective
AFM educators.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank our interviewees as well as the survey respondents
for their contributions to our final work. The detail as well as quality of advice found in this
document is attributed to them. This succinct compilation of advice and materials for current and
future AFM educators would not be possible without them.

Statement of Work
As a team, A.C.P. and V.A.M. performed the background research, created the
website, conducted the survey and interviews, and submitted an Interactive Qual-
ifying Project report as part of their undergraduate graduation requirements at
Worcester Polytechnic Institute [47]. N.A.B. advised the project and edited the
report for publication as this book chapter. Note Added in Proof: We recently
became aware of a new, inexpensive AFM supplied by Strømlinet-Nano [48].

Appendix A: Survey Questions and Responses

This appendix contains survey questions with accompanying responses from those
who answered our survey. The responses to question one have been omitted, and the
responses to question two reformatted in respect of the privacy of the survey
respondents. For every other question, respondents’ answers are organized by the
order in which they completed the survey.

Question 2. Organization/Affiliation?

Question 3. Years of experience in AFM education. This question was

answered by 22 of the 23 participants. The maximum was 27 years, while the
minimum was 0 years. The arithmetic mean of the number of years involved in
AFM education was 15, with a standard deviation of 7.
158 A.C. Pic et al.

Table 5.3 Organizations/ Organization/Affiliation

Affiliations reported in the
Appalachian State University
survey
George Washington University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Iowa State University
Johns Hopkins University
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
North Carolina State University
Oregon State University
Pennsylvania State University
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
College of William and Mary
Tufts University
University of Pennsylvania
University of Houston
University of Nebraska Medical Center
University of North Texas
University of Notre Dame
Virginia Tech
Wayne State University

Question 4. What hurdles did you have to overcome in teaching Atomic

Force Microscopy (e.g. cost of AFMs or consumables)? Do any remain?
Respondent 1: “Biggest problem is finding time on the equipment as it is used
heavily in research.”
Respondent 2: “There is no problem if there is a lab with the AFM equipment
and experience.”
Respondent 3: “The cost is not great, in terms of cantilevers, etc. Mostly,
though, AFM is just more delicate than SEM, or optical microscopy. So students
have a tendency to break things. You have to watch them like a hawk.”
Respondent 4: “(1) Lack of research grade AFM for teaching. Cheap alterna-
tives are not as good. Learning by using them would be rather misleading.
(2) Multidisciplinary interest to this technology brings students with different
backgrounds. As a result, I typically need a special course to teach about
intermolecular forces before effective teaching of scanning probe microscopy.”
Respondent 5: “The initial cost of the purchase of an AFM and later the
consumables such as tips, tweezers, etc. In addition, the course or lab needs good
teaching assistants who are experiences in using an AFM and preparing samples.”
Respondent 6: “Cost of consumables, complicated equipment to teach (com-
puter software, electronics hardware, optics, physics of oscillating systems). Stu-
dents have a big hill to climb before they are competent.”
Respondent 7: “AFM to get images is easy but quantitative Images with correct
interpretation can be challenging. It was difficult to get access to instruments to
large classes.”
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 159

Respondent 8: “The only hurdle for me was that there are no “standard”
experiments in microscopy. We were lucky to have a good instrument partly
through university teaching funds that was designated for use in our Senior Lab
course.”
Respondent 9: “The general operation and use of AFM is not too difficult to
teach. Obtaining topographical images of a substrate in air is relatively easy to
do. This becomes more complicated depending on the information you wish to
obtain from the AFM measurement. For instance, obtaining high resolution images
(e.g., lattice imaging) is very difficult. It can be challenging to use techniques such
as phase imaging. Using AFM for more advanced operations, such as in situ
imaging to capture dynamic events in real time, takes time to learn. One of the
most difficult aspects of teaching AFM is that much of it is a “black art.” Over time
you learn how to obtain better images, but it becomes more of an intuitive feel
rather than an exact science. In terms of AFM costs, tips are expensive and it is
important that people operating the instrument know to be careful with them. At the
same time, you aren’t a true AFM operator unless you’ve broken your fair share of
tips! Advancements in technology are making many of the more complicated
aspects of AFM easier. For instance, positioning the laser on the cantilever,
engaging the surface, and tuning are becoming more automated, which makes it
easier for the user to learn the technique. I don’t foresee these advancements
coming to a point that completely eliminates the “art” of AFM; however, this is
what makes it fun!”
Respondent 10: “I have been doing AFM for a very long time and when we first
started even the people who had invented the technique knew relatively little about
how it worked. So, one of the biggest hurdles was figuring out the surface and
interfacial processes and determining what was artifact and what was ‘real’ in an
image. One of the biggest ‘hurdles’ has always been teaching people how to
identify different artifacts and I still get lots of papers to review with incorrectly
interpreted data. There were no textbooks on AFM and most people in my field
didn’t know much surface or interfacial chemistry/physics. I wrote a textbook on
Environmental Surfaces and Interfaces that I have used to teach a course and that
helps. It has a section on different methods including AFM. I think it’s important for
students to actually see an AFM in action which can be difficult for a big class. In
that case, I break the class up into several smaller groups so that some can visit the
AFM lab while others visit XPS, etc. and we rotate.”
Respondent 11: “While we use AFM in our research we do not teach an AFM
course or lab.”
Respondent 12: “AFM enters into my teaching principally through a joint
undergraduate/graduate course I give on Surface Science. It is mostly a classroom
course but sometimes we include an AFM lab module. This module utilizing an
existing AFM in another professor’s lab so we have no issues regarding cost. Since
it is not the principal focus of the class we do not encounter any issues to
overcome.”
160 A.C. Pic et al.

Respondent 13: “consumables”

Respondent 14: “Cost was an issue but alleviated by using the AFM in my lab.
The biggest hurdle was making sure I had TA support—usually one of the students
in my lab. Consumables were covered by a course fee.”
Respondent 15: “Cost for sure. I typically simply describe it in class and show
images. ps—[a colleague] forwarded me this survey since I teach it far more than he
does.”
Respondent 16: “Equipment cost and availability is definitely an issue. Other
issues are: (i) the required background in dynamics takes some time to acquire;
(ii) the field is multidisciplinary, so students aren’t generally prepared for it (e.g.,
engineers like equations but not physics, physicists like the physics, but not
necessarily the dynamics and equations, etc.); (iii) until recently there wasn’t a
good textbook for it, and even now, the available materials are a bit advanced and
geared mostly toward graduate students; and finally, (iv) there aren’t too many
AFM experts who are familiar with most AFM variants and are available to teach
the subject in depth—funding for AFM research is very limited since it is often seen
as ‘only instrumentation’ so most researchers may not have the time/resources to
dedicate themselves to teaching AFM.”
Respondent 17: “Cost of consumables is an issue. It creates some difficulties for
us that our research instrument is also used for teaching.”
Respondent 18: “Cost of AFM was main hurdle. AFM is like many musical
instruments. You can get moderately good pretty quickly. To get the best images
requires quite a bit of practice and patience. This is something that undergrads don’t
always have.”
Respondent 19: “Cost is always an issue. Other issues are instrument mainte-
nance and making sure the instrument does not get damaged. But the biggest issues
is to create meaningful, but doable labs for AFM, which is not always an instrument
that provides immediate results.”
Respondent 20: “The two primary hurdles are (1) cost of instrument/consum-
ables and (2) long time for learning how to operate the instrument and interpret the
data.”
Respondent 21: “I have only taught (a) a graduate course with no lab, hence no
consumables and (b) my own graduate students.”
Respondent 22: “Availability of good text books is still a problem. Eaton/West
has been a step forward, but I feel like there is still a huge need for more and better
books (and other materials).”
Respondent 23: “Cost of a dedicated AFM- access to existing AFM’s (hard to
enable inexperienced students to use expensive AFM’s used for research—risk of
damage, use of time)—the difficulty in exposing teams of students to AFM when
only one person at a time can really use it (with others watching)—time involved in
training and writing documentation to prep students.”
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 161

Question 5. Did you have any hesitations about creating an AFM lab or
course? If so, what were they? Are they now assuaged?
Respondent 1: “I have not taught a specific course on it, but in previous years I
used it as part of a general biomaterials/surface science lab course. I had no
hesitations at that time.”
Respondent 2: “No.”
Respondent 3: “I still haven’t created a course specifically dedicated to AFM.
Rather, I have units on AFM as parts of other courses, like our SEM course, or one
of our senior physics labs. That’s the paper you saw.”
Respondent 4: “None”
Respondent 5: “No. In the mid-1990s I saw the increasing applications of AFM
in diverse fields as well as the preparation of students for future careers or graduate
studies, the training of the use of AFM will be helpful. Besides the concept of
nanoscale is easier to believe by seeing an AFM image. Now the AFM are used in
many fields and it may be easier to sell the need of AFM education.”
Respondent 6: “The difficulty of getting students trained and the risk of them
breaking equipment. It’s still a struggle to train students, but i think it’s worth it. The
risk to damage to the equipment is still there. This year, for example, I was forced to
come up with $3500 to repair a broken part on the AFM.”
Respondent 7: “No.”
Respondent 8: “No.”
Respondent 9: “I did not have any hesitation. Our lab is open to outside users, so
there is always the risk of people using your instrument who have not been properly
trained. My students and I take precautions to make sure that outside users and new
users in our group are properly trained. Since we almost exclusively work with
liquid cells, the most stressful part of AFM is the potential for leaks, which can be
costly. We are in the process of expanding our lab. We currently have three AFMs
and I have no hesitation to establish a user facility where other groups have access
to these instruments. In terms of an AFM course, I have not considered this and do
not think there would be enough interest at my institution for a formalized course,
although many groups do use AFM.”
Respondent 10: “Again, when I first started doing AFM and running the AFM
lab at Stanford, we were using the very first AFM ever sold (by what was then
Digital Instruments) and there wasn’t even a manual for it. But, I just dove in and
started teaching other people individually or in groups. The biggest problem has
always been making sure that people know how to use the instrument correctly and
that they identify artifacts. So, if someone is going to use AFM for an actual project
s/he needs to spend a lot of time getting to know the instrument or else work with
someone who knows it well. Else, data may be produced but they may be incor-
rectly interpreted.”
Respondent 11: “N/A”
Respondent 12: “We have a course (offered by another professor) on various
microscopy tools used for materials characterization that involves AFM. Since
another professor offers it I have not had any motivation to offer my own.”
162 A.C. Pic et al.

Respondent 13: “Students breaking the AFM, no”

Respondent 14: “None at all. I was able to bring an offering that did not exist on
campus despite having several groups using SPM techniques.”
Respondent 15: “We don’t have any AFM labs. It’s too costly and there is too
much chance for something to break and affect research.”
Respondent 16: “I haven’t actually created an AFM course. I have given many
introductory lectures on the topic, I have included AFM in my courses as an
example, and I have taught small groups of students how to use the instrument,
but I have never created nor taught a complete course on it. I have mostly carried
out research on the subject with graduate students (mostly PhD students, since the
required background takes so long to acquire).”
Respondent 17: “No”
Respondent 18: “Don’t have an AFM lab course. Use it in undergrad research”
Respondent 19: “Creating innovative labs for AFM requires that one tries things
out first and creates good documentation—that takes time.”
Respondent 20: “No. “
Respondent 21: “The reason I have never taught a lab class to other students is
that the instrumentation is very expensive so (a) I don’t have multiple sets and (b) it
has been heavily used for research.”
Respondent 22: “No.”
Respondent 23: “No”

Question 6. What is your advice to prospective AFM educators?

Respondent 1: “You have to allow the students hands on experience.”
Respondent 2: “Keep tracking with the methodology progress. In addition to
topographic imaging, there are other AFM modalities, force spectroscopy in the
first place. Time lapse imaging is the major attractive feature for AFM making it
superior to all other nanoimaging techniques. Note the high-speed AFM that is
coming out. It has a lot of potentials with biomedical applications.”
Respondent 3: “Be very patient.”
Respondent 4: “I honestly don’t know. Probably, to learn the AFM technique
before teaching it :-)”
Respondent 5: “Find time and write proposal applications to funding agencies
or talk to school administrators and justify the need of AFM for education.”
Respondent 6: “Structure your program as an apprenticeship if possible with
senior students training the new students, with the instructor as the overseer and
quality control on all levels.”
Respondent 7: “Let students find out themselves how it works. Most motivating
experience.”
Respondent 8: “I think the educational settings involving AFM are so varied
that it is hard to give useful advice to another teacher.”
Respondent 9: “Be patient! This technique, like many others, requires time to
properly learn. In order to get that “intuitive” feel for the instrument, you need to
gain experience. You also must be persistent. Oftentimes you are required to
troubleshoot problems, which can be extremely frustrating. If you stick with it,
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 163

and when necessary consult with the AFM company, you will solve the problems. It
is also important to realize that even after you have become an expert, not all AFM
runs work. You are always going to have a day that is lost because something went
wrong (either with the tip or the sample). This again requires patience.”
Respondent 10: “It takes time. Just because you can produce an image or get a
curve doesn’t mean it’s ‘real’ or easily interpreted. Realize that some students will
have difficulties with all the tiny parts and with being patient enough to get good
images. Modern instruments often are more automated than the older ones but they
still require delicate work such as adding a new tip. If you are just going to teach
about AFM, make sure you include the pros and cons. If you are going to teach ow
to use AFM, take your time so that students can feel comfortable and make sure you
teach about artifacts and potential difficulties. Make sure you teach about surface
forces and surface reactivity. I guess I could recommend my book but that might be
self-serving.;-)”
Respondent 11: “N/A”
Respondent 12: “Include both a significant theoretical and practical component.
I think it is important for students to have a good grasp of the scientific background
related to any microstructural tool that a student will use in his/her work.”
Respondent 13: “Students will break a lot of probes and even the AFM”
Respondent 14: “Ensure good hands on training and let students guide projects
based on their interests.”
Respondent 15: “Find a way to purchase a dedicated teaching AFM that is
generally cheaper.”
Respondent 16: “I would have to give this question a bit more thought, since I
haven’t yet considered what would be the best way to teach AFM given the
constraints. However, careful evaluation of the challenges is always a good start.”
Respondent 17: “It is a good option for upper-division undergraduates.”
Respondent 18: “I would think that a course in AFM is a bit narrow within the
milieu of a liberal arts education? Perhaps a one-credit interest/introductory course?
Or possibly embedded in a course on microscopy that includes several other
technologies.”
Respondent 19: “Take your time to create good documentation and testing
things carefully to identify potential pitfalls.”
Respondent 20: “You should not be intimidated about teaching AFM to under-
graduate students because the basic instrument setup is fairly simple to teach and
students in general show great interest in AFM. We implemented a virtual AFM lab
module with two way communications to teach AFM to a large number of under-
graduate students and it is working very well. There are also a lot of AFM training
materials online.”
Respondent 21: “N/A”
Respondent 22: “None in particular.”
Respondent 23: “Plan ahead, secure access to an instrument, recruit an experi-
enced TA for help with training, take advantage of existing resources e.g. nano hub
website, existing books”
164 A.C. Pic et al.

Question 7. Do you believe exposure to AFM benefits students? Why?

Respondent 1: “Yes. It is a powerful tool, but very different than traditional
surface science tools that are used in vacuum. I don’t believe it occurs to students
that this might be available without being introduced to it.”
Respondent 2: “AFM is getting as a rather routine imaging tool and students
should be exposed to this technique.”
Respondent 3: “Sure, especially physics majors. A lot of our majors are
interested in doing research, so it helps them to learn advanced tools.”
Respondent 4: “Yes, if students decide or think they would work with any
aspect of surface science in the future. AFM is one of the fastest-growing micros-
copy, which is way more than just a microscopy. It is one of the most important
(if not the) techniques responsible for the emergence what is called nowadays
nanotechnology. Knowing it will definitely benefit any students decided to be
familiar with nano tech.”
Respondent 5: “Students who took the AFM course not only can absorb the
scale of nano but can also think its applications in various fields. The skill in AFM is
useful for their future graduate study or work in diversified areas.”
Respondent 6: “Yes, it’s one of the few accessible tools that give students direct
access to the nanotechnology revolution. AFM also contains many aspects of
fundamentals from their courses, e.g. physics, optics, controls.”
Respondent 7: “Yes. They see that a simple instrument can reach atomic
resolution. This is inspiring.”
Respondent 8: “Yes—it provides training in a truly modern experiment, which
is rare in Physics.”
Respondent 9: “I feel that AFM is one of many analytical techniques. I
personally have benefitted from knowing how to use AFM since my research
heavily relies on the technique; however, I would not say it carries any more weight
than other techniques in the sense that it good for scientists to have exposure to a
variety of instruments. If your research can benefit from AFM, then certainly it is
worth learning. If your work only requires occasional use of AFM, then the time
invested to become an expert may not be necessary. I think the benefit really
depends on the user and how AFM can be used in the research project.”
Respondent 10: “Absolutely. Surfaces and interfaces are extremely important in
many fields of science and engineering and AFM is a very approachable instrument
that provides great data as long as one has the background needed to correctly
interpret the data.”
Respondent 11: “N/A”
Respondent 12: “In materials science and engineering (my department) and
related fields AFM is an important characterization tool and all students should
have some exposure to it.”
Respondent 13: “yes, it’s a good characterization technique”
Respondent 14: “Yes—SPM techniques are now an essential tool in a wide
range of research fields. It is a skill set that is often in demand. I have had more than
a few students tell me that the AFM course helped them in interviews for Post-doc
experiences and research positions.”
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 165

Respondent 15: “Yes. Especially in a Materials Science department. This

technique is becoming very widespread in industry.”
Respondent 16: “Most definitely. AFM is one of the most powerful and
versatile tools in nanotechnology. I think that we are at a disadvantage here,
especially relative to Japan and Europe.”
Respondent 17: “A variety of instrumentation experiences are always helpful.”
Respondent 18: “Yes. It’s a tool to interest them in conducting research. A very
powerful tool.”
Respondent 19: “It’s a very common research tool, it’s very versatile and very
visual. It can applied in many different contexts (materials, biology etc).”
Respondent 20: “Yes. Students are impressed by what AFM does and the
exposure motivates students to learn more about nanotechnology.”
Respondent 21: “N/A”
Respondent 22: “Yes, as it is a very versatile and in many ways unique research
tool.”
Respondent 23: “Yes, it gives them the opportunity to use a real research tool;
to visualize something not observable either to the naked eye or through a micro-
scope; to appreciate the importances of contact and tribology; to understand the
instrumental methods that have been a key component of launching nanotechnol-
ogy; to understand how scientific research equipment works.”

Question 8. Do you see a future where AFM becomes more prevalent

throughout all levels of education? Why or why not?
Respondent 1: “Yes. There will be increasing numbers of used AFMs available,
making it possible for all levels of schools to have access, and with the increase in
students understanding of nano in the world, an AFM makes more sense.”
Respondent 2: “I would not say prevalent. It should be taught along with all
other imaging disciplines, such as confocal microscopy.”
Respondent 3: “I see SEM becoming more prevalent before AFM does. SEM
works at TV rates, and even the fastest AFMs aren’t there yet (the ones with scan
rates at ~100 Hz, for example, and that only for flat samples). People aren’t as
patient as they need to be with AFM. SEM is easier. And the tabletop SEMs are
reasonably priced-sort of.”
Respondent 4: “As any technology, AFM has the basic and advanced levels.
The basic level would be okay to include in a course on experimental techniques for
undergrads. The advanced level is definitely for graduate students. The reason for
inclusion I described above.”
Respondent 5: “In the one credit AFM course with lab there were both graduate
students and undergraduate students. But in the experimental physics course mostly
undergraduate junior students perform the AFM experiment.”
Respondent 6: “There is the opportunity certainly, if the issues of cost and ease
of use continue to be improved.”
Respondent 7: “I hope so. Over the last decade instruments have become easier
to use, however, we are still far away from a one-button take image instrument. But
I see this coming in the near future.”
166 A.C. Pic et al.

Respondent 8: “Instrumentation costs are too high for this to become really
common. I think it will increase as the cost of commercial instruments decreases
though.”
Respondent 9: “With the increased interest in nanotechnology and advanced
materials synthesis, I do believe that AFM is becoming, and will continue to
become, more prevalent. I am not certain if undergraduate students need to learn
this technique, but they should at least be aware of its operation and what can be
gained from it. I teach a nanotechnology section as part of a freshman introductory
course, and in this section I introduce the students to AFM. I also teach a graduate
elective (Colloids and Interface Science) where I spend time discussing the tech-
nique. To this end, I do expose a variety of students to AFM.”
Respondent 10: “Yes. I have brought my AFM into elementary and high school
labs many times over the years, and started doing this about 25 years ago. Why?
Because the instrument tends to be fairly portable and inexpensive. It’s also a great
instrument for students working on science fair projects.”
Respondent 11: “Not really. It is very nice technique, but is only one of many. It
is not cheap and the bar to entry is somewhat high.”
Respondent 12: “I think it is important right now for both undergrads and
graduates students to be exposed to AFM as it is an important and standard tool
as mentioned above.”
Respondent 13: “maybe, there are high costs involved”
Respondent 14: “Possibly—at undergraduate levels providing hands-on expe-
riences for large classes will become a challenge. Without hands-on experiences, I
think the impact will be less.”
Respondent 15: “Only if it becomes cheaper.”
Respondent 16: “I am not sure this will be the case in the US. AFM research is
still dominated by Europe and Japan (this has been the case for a long time). We
have a relatively small group of AFM researchers in the US. They are very good,
but they are relatively few. We have many AFM users, but teaching AFM requires a
bit more than that.”
Respondent 17: “No opinion”
Respondent 18: “Probably not. Why should AFM be more important than some
of the light microscopy imaging technologies, or TEM, or SEM, etc.”
Respondent 19: “I think it will remain somewhat specialized, because doing
really interesting things with it requires skill and previous knowledge. Imaging
some prepared sample is nice, but does not really teach very much unless you
prepare the sample yourself and know what you are looking for. Force measure-
ments require even more prior knowledge.”
Respondent 20: “Yes because AFM is an essential tool for nanotechnology.”
Respondent 21: “Yes, there are now cheaper AFMs that could be dedicated to
teaching and that would solve a lot of the problem.”
Respondent 22: “Not really.”
Respondent 23: “Yes, since lower cost mass-produced systems should eventu-
ally become available, allowing students to use, explore, and innovate. This hinges
on easy-to-use mass-produced systems, perhaps through MEMS technology.”
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 167

Appendix B: Bibliography

This appendix contains a list of sources deemed important for future educators. It
contains resources for material as well as textbooks and previous course offerings.
Websites
• http://www.afmworkshop.com/afm-webinars.html
• http://www.afmworkshop.com/atomic-force-microscope-for-educators.html
• http://www.aif.ncsu.edu/hands-on-instrument-operation-and-sample-
preparation/
• https://www.bruker.com/service/education-training/training-courses/afm-opti
cal-training-courses.html
• http://www.education.mrsec.wisc.edu/nanoquest/afm/index.html
• Gwyddion Home, Gwyddion, http://gwyddion.net/. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
• http://lnf.umich.edu/nnin-at-michigan/afm/
• http://nanohub.org/courses/afm1
• http://proed.acs.org/course-catalog/courses/understanding-and-utilizing-
atomic-force-microscopy-from-basic-modes-to-advanced-applications/
• http://www.teachnano.com/education/newsletter/index.html
• http://www.wpi.edu/academics/physics/AFM/nanoed_resources.html
• https://www.youtube.com/user/AtomicForceMicro/playlists
• https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list¼PL3592A61EEF52B29A
Journal Articles
• D. Lehmpuhl, Journal of Chemical Education 80, 5 (2003)
• H. Margel et al, J. Chem. Educ. 81, 4 (2004)
• G. Planinsic and J. Kovac Physics Education 43, 1 (2008)
• N. Burnham, Journal of Nano Education 5, 2 (2013)
• H. A. McNally, IEEE Nanotechnology 7, 19 (2013)
• N. A. Burnham, A. Arcifa, M. Divandari, C. Mathis, S. N. Ramakrishna, and
N. D. Spencer, Accepted for the 2015 Conference on Laboratory Instruction
Beyond the First Year of College, College Park, Maryland, 22–24 July 2015.
Textbooks
• Pier Carlo Braga, Davide Ricci, Atomic Force Microscopy: Biomedical
Methods and Applications, Methods in Molecular Biology, Humana Press 2004
• Peter Eaton, Paul West, Atomic Force Microscopy, OUP Oxford, Mar
25, 2010—Science—256 pages
• Greg Haugstad, Atomic Force Microscopy: Understanding Basic Modes and
Advanced Applications, John Wiley & Sons, INC., Publication, 2012
168 A.C. Pic et al.

References

1. Goonewardene et al., Am. J. Phys. 79, 693 (2011)

2. Nano-Education Resources, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, http://www.wpi.edu/academics/
physics/AFM/nanoed_resources.html. Accessed May-Oct 2015
3. N. Jones, J. Gonçalves, IEEE Trans. Educ. 53, 328 (2010)
4. J.L. Feather, M.F. Aznar, Nanoscience Education, Workforce Training, and K-12 Resources
(CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2011)
5. Fundamentals of Atomic Force Microscopy, Nano-HUB, http://nanohub.org/courses/afm1.
Accessed 7 Feb 2016
6. Atomic Force Microscopy, University of Wisconsin, http://www.education.mrsec.wisc.edu/
nanoquest/afm/index.html. Accessed May-Oct 2015
7. Parts and Instruction to Build Macro-AFM, Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake High School, http://
community.nsee.us/lessons/Macro_AFM_Simulator/Building%20and%20Using%20Tapping
%20Mode%20AFM.pdf. Accessed May-Oct 2015
8. G. Planinsic, J. Kovac, Phys. Educ. 43, 1 (2008)
9. H. Margel et al., J. Chem. Educ. 81, 4 (2004)
10. S. Schwarzer, S. Akaygun et al., J. Nano Educ. 7, 10 (2015)
11. A. Kurtz, M. Anderson, T. Kar, in Proceedings of Nanomodeling II, San Diego, 2006, ed. by
A. Lakhtakia, S.A. Maksimenko
12. M. Jones et al., J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 3 (2003)
13. D. Lehmpuhl, J. Chem. Educ. 80, 5 (2003)
14. M. Maye, J. Luo, C. Zhong, J. Chem. Educ. 79, 2 (2002)
15. C. Zhong et al., J. Chem. Educ. 80, 194 (2003)
16. K. Winkelmann, J. Nano Educ. 1, 1 (2009)
17. R. Blonder et al., J. Chem. Eng. 87, 12 (2010)
18. H.A. McNally, IEEE Nanotechnol. 7, 19 (2013)
19. J.D. Adams, B.S. Rogers, L.J. Leifer, IEEE Trans. Educ. 47, 51 (2004)
20. N. Burnham, J. Nano Educ. 5, 2 (2013)
21. M.A. Hawkins, S.M. Lord, in American Society for Engineering Education National Confer-
ence, Charlotte, NC, 20–23 June 1999, pp. 4.169.1–4.169.6
22. W.S. Glaunsinger, B.L. Ramakrishna, A.A. Garcia, V. Pizziconi, J. Chem. Educ. 74,
310 (1997)
23. D. Russo, R.D. Fagan, T. Hesjedal, IEEE Trans. Educ. 54, 428 (2011)
24. W. Huachuan et al., J. Nano Educ. 5, 79 (2013)
25. N.A. Burnham, A. Arcifa, M. Divandari, C. Mathis, S.N. Ramakrishna, N.D. Spencer, in
Conference on Laboratory Instruction Beyond the First Year of College, College Park, MD,
22–24 July 2015, pp. 24–27, 2015. doi:10.1119/bfy.2015.pr.006
26. Atomic Force Microscopy, University of Cambridge, http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/afm/
index.php. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
27. ME 597: Fundamentals of Atomic Force Microscopy, nanohubtechtalks, https://www.youtube.
com/playlist?list¼PL3592A61EEF52B29A. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
28. The Teaching AFM, GEM4 Summer School, http://www.openwetware.org/images/6/6e/
GEM4_teachAFM.pdf. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
29. Understanding and Utilizing Atomic Force Microscopy, American Chemical Society, http://
proed.acs.org/course-catalog/courses/understanding-and-utilizing-atomic-force-microscopy-
from-basic-modes-to-advanced-applications/. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
30. AFM and Optical Training Courses, Bruker, https://www.bruker.com/service/education-train
ing/training-courses/afm-optical-training-courses.html. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
31. Basic AFM Operation, NC State University, http://www.aif.ncsu.edu/hands-on-instrument-
operation-and-sample-preparation/. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
5 Atomic Force Microscopy Education 169

32. Advanced Course Atomic Force Microscopy, Competence Centre for Materials Science and
Technology, http://www.ccmx.ch/news-amp-events/news-single/article/144/60/. Accessed
7 Feb 2016
33. Atomic Force Microscopy Playlists, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, https://www.youtube.
com/user/AtomicForceMicro. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
34. AFMs for Educators, AFM Workshop, http://www.afmworkshop.com/atomic-force-micro
scope-for-educators.html. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
35. AFM Training, London Centre for Nanotechnology, http://www.london-nano.com/cleanroom-
and-facilities/training/afm-training. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
36. AFM Workshop, Schaefer, http://www.schaefer-tec.com/en/germany/products/scanning-
probe-microscopy/afm-workshop.html. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
37. Short Course on Advanced Methods in Atomic Force Microscopy, University of Michigan,
http://lnf.umich.edu/nnin-at-michigan/afm/. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
38. Atomic Force Microscopy Webinar Videos, AFM Workshop, http://www.afmworkshop.com/
afm-webinars.html. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
39. TT-AFM, AFM Workshop, http://www.afmworkshop.com/tt-afm.html. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
40. Eddy AFM, Anfatec, http://www.anfatec.com/anfatec/eddy/eddy.html. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
41. NaioAFM, Nanosurf, https://www.nanosurf.com/en/products/naioafm. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
42. TraxAFM, Nanoscience Instruments, http://www.nanoscience.com/products/afm/traxafm/.
Accessed 7 Feb 2016
43. ezAFM, NanoMagnetics Instruments, http://www.nanomagnetics-inst.com/en. Accessed
7 Feb 2016
44. SPM Probes and Test Structures, MikroMasch, http://mikromasch.com/. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
45. AFM Probes, Budget Sensors, http://www.budgetsensors.com/. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
46. http://wpi.bncollege.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/BNCBTBListView. Accessed 21 Sept
2015
47. A. Pic, V. Moore, in Atomic Force Microscopy Education, Interactive Qualifying Project
(Worcester Polytechnic Insitute, 2015)
48. X. Strømlingo DIY AFM, Strømlinet-Nano, http://www.stromlinet-nano.com/. Accessed 26
April 2016
Chapter 6
Online Nanoeducation Resources

Sidney R. Cohen, Ron Blonder, Shelley Rap, and Jack Barokas

Abstract The internet has influenced all aspects of modern society, yet likely none
more than education—opening new possibilities for how, where, and when we
learn. Nanoscience and nanotechnology have developed over a similar time frame
as the rapid growth of the internet and thus the use of the internet for nanoscience
education serves as an interesting paradigm for internet-enabled education in
general. In this chapter we give an overview of use of internet in nanoeducation,
first in terms of available resources, then by describing the technological, philo-
sophical, and pedagogical approaches. In order to illustrate the concepts, we
describe as example a for-credit nanoscience curriculum which the authors devel-
oped recently as part of an international team.

6.1 Introduction and Background

The nature and emphasis of education in formal pedagogical frameworks as well as

informal learning has been irreversibly impacted by the world-wide web and other
rapidly changing technologies. Online resources have become a major source of
information and knowledge, replacing texts and face-to-face (F2F) traditional
courses. In the past decade, complete course materials have been made public,
ranging from uploaded lecture notes to full video recorded class presentations.
Various degrees of interactivity have been implemented in the different formats [1].
Whether it is medical assays, materials, or devices, nanotechnology has firmly
rooted itself in our modern lives. In order to meet the growing need for scientists,
engineers, and technicians to service and further develop this trend, the educational
system must provide suitable training [2]. Nanoscience and nanotechnology, due to

S.R. Cohen (*) • R. Blonder • S. Rap

Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Barokas
Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69102, Israel

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 171

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_6
172 S.R. Cohen et al.

their position at the cutting edge of new developments [3], characterized by rapid
introduction of new material and high level of interest are particularly influenced by
this transition in the learning environment. Thus, a myriad of online learning tools
exist for nanoeducation. Nanoscience and technology has blossomed over the past
3 decades from a novelty to a mature science.
It is thus natural that these two trends—which have emerged and matured over
approximately the same time frame—can serve each other. This situation has
provided a fertile ground for extensive and creative use of the internet for instruc-
tion and learning in the nanosciences. This symbiosis takes on several forms:
1. Use of the internet for fact-finding. Using various search engines, or Wikipedia,
students have come to rely upon the internet as the first-line source of informa-
tion for short answers such as locating specific data or definitions, as well as
literature searches for topics of interest.
2. Use of the internet as a tool. Researchers and students can access sites that allow
them to perform problem solving whereby they can plug in parameters relevant
to their experiment and the solution they desire is calculated for them. This can
range from simple analytical solutions to a defined problem such as determining
the spring constant of an AFM cantilever from easily measured observables to
complex and comprehensive problem-solving such as running sophisticated
simulations of a dynamic process.
3. Use of the internet for teaching. Lecturers in almost every institution of higher
learning as standard practice upload their lecture presentations to a server that
the students have access to before the lecture. This is the minimal usage.
However, it is now possible to find for free, to purchase, or to subscribe in
some fashion to full courses using different formats available today. This type of
learning is available over the entire spectrum of higher education from under-
graduate schools and through continuing education. For instance, many com-
mercial companies now deliver and usually archive scientific webinars where
the technology surrounding their product is taught. Participants are required to
register for such webinars, and are subsequently able to ask questions which are
answered in real-time by the lecturer.
The advantage of all of these avenues is that they allow sharing of resources
within an institution, within a wider group, or even globally. This could be
something as simple as a reference book with data on physical properties of
nanoparticles, computing resources, or in the case of teaching, human resources.
Transition to online education requires a paradigm change in the way materials
are taught, absorbed, and prepared, as well as changes in evaluation and credits
[4]. Thus, even though F2F learning will not disappear quickly from the pedagog-
ical environment, it will soon cease to be the main teaching methodology due
intense demand for education. For instance, the student has become a much more
central actor in the learning process and uses self-regulated learning skills which
lead to two-way rather than one-way learning [5]. Furthermore, the different
learning components (e.g., audio, video, slide presentations) can be utilized in a
myriad of combinations and modes. These changes are taking place within the
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources 173

backdrop of increasing reliance on the internet as a formal and informal information

source [6]. Despite this hype and obvious interest, the complexity of providing full
and coherent courses which also grant credits toward a degree is a delicate and
complex undertaking. From the basics of standardized and common credit units to
coordinating the different courses which make up the curriculum with the available
knowledge base of lecturers, to devising proper protocol of student evaluation, such
an effort is clearly treading new ground. This chapter will survey and categorize the
various resources available today in the field of nanotechnology education, and the
nuances of their implementation, as well as provide an in-depth overview of a
comprehensive program currently being developed by the authors and their part-
ners—Education in Nanotechnologies, “E” under the auspices of the EU program
TEMPUS (subsequently replaced by Erasmus+) [7]. This program aims to provide
a broad offering of courses in nanotechnology for students, ranging from teachers
interacting with middle and secondary schools, to undergraduates at both trade
schools and universities, and on through graduate level university education and
continuing education of professionals in the field. The topics covered include
nanoelectronics, nano-medicine, nano-photonics, scanning probe microscopy,
biosensing, atomistic simulation, and others. The courses are given by nanotech-
nology university researchers from an international team centered in Israel but
including institutions from several European countries. This program provides the
opportunity for students to expand their knowledge beyond the available courses in
their own university.
The presentation of this project will provide a paradigm for study into the
advantages and challenges associated with proper online learning such as technical
means available for recording and disseminating the information, evaluation meth-
odology, granting of credit, and logistics of collaboration between the teachers and
teaching facilities which are geographically dispersed. From the basics of standard-
ized and common credit units to coordinating the different courses which make up
the curriculum with the available knowledge base of lecturers, to devising proper
protocol of student evaluation, such an effort is clearly treading new grounds. The
concept capitalizes on the ability to “bring” students from the different locations to
an expert-level course provided at another institution. Thus, maximum utilization of
human resources is achieved in a uniform, degree granting program.

6.2 Overview of Online Resources

According to the Foresight Institution, the first time the word nanotechnology was
used, was by Taniguchi in 1974 [8]. Nonetheless, many credit the first proposal to
Physicist Richard Feynman in a talk in 1959, “there’s plenty of room at the
bottom” [9]. It took over one decade for the first nanotechnology course to be
offered (Stanford, 1987), and the first textbook came in 1992 [10]. The first
company dedicated to nanotechnology, Zyvex, was founded in 1997. Today, a
174 S.R. Cohen et al.

Table 6.1 Some of the main U.S.-based online nanoeducation resource sites
Name [url] Description In this book
National Nano-technology Network of centers providing Chapter 4—History and
Infrastructure Network facilities for doing nanoscience accomplishments of the NNIN
[11] program by Nancy Healy
AtomicForceMicro [12] AFM education Chapter 10—Perspectives on
AFM Education by
V.A. Moore, A.C. Pic,
N.A. Burnham
Mooc List [13] By searching from this page with No
keyword nanotechnology, a list
of online MOOCs in Nanotech-
nology are displayed
Nanotechnology Center for Facilitates communication and No
Learning and Teaching dissemination of STEM
[14]
Nano-technology Knowl- Sharing nanoresources from No
edge Infrastructure [15] variety of institutions
nanoHub [16] Multi-faceted including data- No
bases, online simulations, pre-
sentations, short courses, and
more
Nano-technology and Free resources for nanoeducation No
Applications Career development
Knowledge Network
(NACK) [17]
TryNano.org [18] An open resource for anyone No
interested in learning about
nanoscience and nanotechnology
Nanoscale Informal Sci- Bringing nano to the public Chapters 1 and 15
ence Education (NISE net-
work) [19]

Google search with the word “Nanotechnology” will yield over 23 million hits,
whereas “Nanotechnology courses” retrieve nearly 1.2 million hits.
In this section, we will give an overview of a sampling of some of the online
nanoeducation sites. Due to the sheer volume of these resources, and considering
the nature of this chapter, we will limit these to sites focusing on higher education,
and those in the English language. Even within these restrictions, we will only be
able to cover a fraction of the many resources, however these are chosen to
represent the types of nanoeducation resources now available on the web. A few
of the important resources can be found in other chapters in this book. These sites
are summarized in Table 6.1.
Many of the sites listed are umbrella sites that bring together a number of
resources of value to the nanoeducator/student/researcher. For instance, the NNIN
site is supported by 14 different National Science Foundation-supported
nanocenters. In principle, this network is set up to facilitate research in the
nanosciences by providing facilities that can allow researchers to visit and perform
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources 175

analyses, prepare samples, etc. while taking advantage of the local infrastructure
and expertise. Some activities can also be performed distantly. The site also has an
extensive portion dedicated to nanoeducation. In their words, they “take advantage
of the size and breadth of the network to make a national impact.” Although many
of these programs are dedicated to the K-12 level, they also facilitate undergraduate
students, as well as teachers and researchers and even the general public. A number
of videos/webinars are provided including simulation techniques, equipment train-
ing, and relevant lab procedures.
NanoHub is a rich site which needs to be discussed in depth. This resource was
created by the National Science Foundation-funded Network for Computational
Nanotechnology, but it is now a global effort, active in over 170 countries. Indeed,
there are a number of resources which focus on computational simulations for the
nanosciences, the educational aspects of which will be discussed below. This site
boasts over 300,000 users per year, split relatively evenly into US, Asia, and
Europe—these three accounting for 90 % of the total usage. However, the geo-
graphic breakdown for specific tools is more disparate—for instance, nearly 50 %
of the simulation users are from the US.
The NanoHub site includes extensive nanoeducational material, which is
designed to be easy to use and intuitive. The educational page includes introductory
videos on nano by several leading scientists, as well as more in-depth lecture
material sometimes representing an entire course. One of these groups is
NanoHub-U, a set of free, self-paced courses on nanotechnology. These courses
include quizzes and provide a certificate of completion. There are both full-
semester courses and shorter units. Topics range over the gamut of nano areas:
nanobio, nanoelectrical, NEMS, as well as general topics such as physics, chemis-
try, and materials science. These latter recognize that nanosciences have developed
from the traditional sciences which are a necessary pre-requisite to the more
advanced concepts of nano. In addition to the formal course format, there is an
extensive selection of shorter lecture series or presentations termed “popular
topics” covering subjects such as AFM, Bio-NEMS, and thin film solar cells.
As mentioned above, NanoHub was born from the discipline of simulations. The
site contains over 350 simulation tools. These tools are continually being developed
and augmented as members place their own simulations on the site. A new
simulation tool must meet a few basic criteria: it must address a specific problem
faced in the nanosciences, must contain at least one complex (i.e., not a simple
linear equation) mathematical model which is made into a simulation, and should
be intuitive and interactive. These simulations can be used in a variety of ways—
after teaching about a particular phenomenon, the instructor could ask students to
run simulations on different scenarios to see how input parameters effect the
results—for instance, influence on the optical spectra of nanoparticles on their
size and material dielectric constant can be investigated, or current-voltage char-
acteristics for Field Effect Transistors (FETs) displayed for different device sizes,
geometries, and doping profiles. Since these are sophisticated simulations,
advanced students could even use them to compare experimental results with
theory, or to select parameters for a real experiment in the laboratory.
176 S.R. Cohen et al.

One interesting use of simulations is found on the page “Nano Education

Research” [20] which includes a number of projects/simulations for building
courses. In one of these projects the concept Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) is
introduced, which encourages students to solve practical, complex problems by use
of models [21]. This concept is then used to study roughness on the nanoscale from
images formed by AFM. The range of complexity of the simulations is vast, and in
fact preparing the simulations themselves is an educational activity since capabil-
ities of upper-class undergraduate and graduate students enable them to take on
such activities as a classroom or research project.
The National Applications and Career Knowledge (NACK) site was specifically
set up using support from an NSF grant to foster a workforce that meets the needs of
the nanotechnology sector through 2-year programs, teacher training, and various
resources including even a job-search link. Through a network of partners spread
across the US, and spanning 2-year and community colleges, universities, and
NSF-Advanced Technological Education Centers, the program reaches out to
students and educators across the country. Although the resources are said to be
developed at Penn State, we can find on the site information and links to such
partners not only throughout the US, but also around the world. Resources provided
include remote instrumental access allowing internet-based, online control, course
lectures in HTML, or video format, and webinars (providing a certificate of
completion) on such topics as graphene and other 2D electronic materials, self-
assembled monolayers, and others.
In a comprehensive effort to augment and improve the nanotechnology work-
force, the site recently published a pamphlet “Handbook for Processes and Best
Practices in Nanotechnology Workforce Development [22].” This pamphlet draws
on the experience of nanotechnology educators from around the country and pro-
vides advice on subjects ranging from industry surveys to student recruiting, from
publicity in local media to curriculum development, from internships to on-campus
outreach. There are numerous real examples, and links to the programs and
institutions doing these activities.
Visiting these sites one is immediately struck by the extent of free
nanoeducational content available on the web. For instance, the MOOC (Massive
Open Online Course) list of Coursera includes about a dozen courses, covering
fields that such as graphene science, nanosensors, nanocomposites, as well as
general courses in nanotechnology. Furthermore, several courses with the keyword
of nanotechnology appear including quantum mechanics, chemistry, and even
innovation. Most of the sites listed in Table 6.1 are resource sites which contain
many different types and levels of learning activity, as well as links to other projects
and programs.
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources 177

6.3 Technological Aspects

The blossoming of online learning and widely emerging online course repositories
as described earlier is mainly due to the development of computers with high
computation power and the availability of fast internet connection everywhere
encompassing laptops, tablets, and mobile hand held devices. The constantly
growing need for learning and education in an environment which is becoming
more and more technological is also one of the main reasons making online learning
so popular and essential. Whereas most of the details of this section are general for
online learning technology and not specific to nanoeducation, their inclusion here
provides essential background information. Furthermore, we hope this information
may serve to aid those wishing to embark on similar projects.
Recent developments in the field of computers, computer network infrastructure
and digital media encoding algorithms has facilitated vastly improved technology
for enhanced F2F and online learning environment. In the last decade or so, the
internet connectivity available to domestic consumers in developed countries grew
from the order of several kilobytes per second to megabytes. Commonly available
desktop/laptop computers or even hand held devices such as smart phones or tablets
have more computational power than what were considered to be high-end com-
puters of 15–20 years ago. The very high encoding (compression) ratios which have
become available recently enable large amounts of data to be transferred over the
internet, while consuming only a relatively narrow bandwidth.
The technological developments mentioned above are affecting education in
many aspects and bringing about new paradigms such as “putting the student in the
center”, “recognition vs accreditation”, “hybrid learning” or “flipped classroom”
[23]. The pedagogical approaches have become more diverse and dynamic in order
to catch-up with rapidly emerging new technological tools. Many Learning Man-
agement Software (LMS) systems have been developed recently either commer-
cially or by open source communities. The usage of this kind of software enables
learning on large scales as in MOOC’s.
One of the most recent paradigms/tools for enhanced learning is “adaptive
learning”. Adaptive learning makes use of an intelligent LMS which adapts and
customizes the learning process to learner-specific abilities and skills. If, in the
traditional F2F teaching/learning mode, each student needed to adapt himself to a
single teaching style regardless of his own learning skills or profile (which have
been proven to be very different in terms of speed, memory and thinking styles
[24]) in an adaptive learning process, the software monitors the individual student’s
learning and adapts/adjusts the rate of learning and the difficulty level in a way that
optimizes the whole process. Most probably, although the F2F traditional learning
will remain as a part of the educational environment, it will cease to be the main
teaching methodology in the near future due to an exponentially- growing demand
for education which can be met only by using technology- enhanced teaching/
learning processes.
178 S.R. Cohen et al.

There are different formats for online learning courses, encompassing a wide
variety of resources. The course content is usually provided as video podcasts. Kay
summarized four forms of video podcasts that have been used: (1) lecture-based
(2) enhanced (3) supplementary and (4) worked examples [1]. Lecture-based video
podcasts are recordings of full lectures that the lecturer gives frontally. Students can
review the lectures after the F2F lesson or instead of them. An enhanced video
podcast is a video of a slideshow presented with an audio explanation. Supplemen-
tary video podcasts augment the teaching and learning of a course and include
administrative support, real-world demonstrations, summaries of class lessons or
textbook chapters or additional material that may broaden or deepen student
understanding. Finally, worked examples provide video explanations of specific
problems that students may need to solve in a particular course, often used in the
area of science or mathematics.
In addition to video podcasts, online courses include supplementary components
that enhance learning. These include links to external online materials (e.g., sim-
ulations, animations) that can explain abstract concepts [25]. They can also provide
an interactive platform for student-student interaction in a forum or a Social
Network Site (SNS) (e.g., Facebook). Garrison et al [26] found that to build a
fruitful online community of inquiry (namely a learning community) three dimen-
sions should exist: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. The
podcasts represent the cognitive presence, the forums or SNS provide the social
presence and the teaching presence is provided by the learning management system
of the online course [25].
One of the most complicated strategic decisions in choosing the right LMS,
video recording format or video/audio equipment is related to the anticipated future
developments in the field and how the chosen strategy would support a fruitful
online learning experience. Several reasons stand behind this conundrum. Most of
the time there is more than one technology which can meet each learning need. The
rapid development and concomitant drop in prices has led to shifts in the technol-
ogies used, hence older ones cease being supported and become hard to maintain.
As an illustrative example1 we consider the video compression/streaming solutions,
developed by a variety of independent companies or open source communities
leading to serious compatibility problems amongst them. Until about 10 years ago,
Microsoft video solution by Windows Media Encoding codec (the word “codec” is
a combination of the words “coder” and “decoder”) dominated the video recording
and streaming field and was installed on most computers utilizing MS Internet
Explorer. In the last decade most of the video usage shifted to Flash and recently to
H264 codec. Such rapid changes in the technological environment force institutions

1
Here, and elsewhere specific products are mentioned to illustrate a point. These are not intended
to endorse or cast aspersions on any product. The reader should keep in mind that technologies
change rapidly and up-to-date information should always be sought, for instance from institutional
IT office.
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources 179

Fig. 6.1 Typical end-to-end workflow—from content production, to consumption by the students
(here as used at Tel Aviv University). The lecture video recordings are done either by video
recording teams in the classrooms (using mobile video recording gear) or by permanently situated
cameras on location. At the post production state the recordings go through simple editing/
trimming and then a QA process just before uploading to video server and LMS. The uploaded
content is available to the students by all end point devices like laptops, tablets or smartphones

of higher education to frequently change their video and learning management

infrastructure at the expense of large resources in terms of funding and labor.
In Fig. 6.1 a schematic is presented for typical course video recording systems as
adopted by some universities (in particular, the Tempus EduNano project to be
discussed below).
A lecturer’s video can be used either as live, synchronized “one to many” TV
like broadcast, or video on demand asynchronous (VOD) so the learners can access
them on their own time. In order to make high quality video available on the
internet the video needs to be compressed with very sophisticated algorithms to
reduce its original file size (uncompressed video can contain over 12G per hour of
recording). The video compression is done by video codecs. Most of the codecs
involve “lossy” compression, meaning that due to the compression they will lose a
small fraction of the information in order to reduce the size of the compressed file
significantly (typically from gigabytes to megabytes). When dealing with compres-
sion one needs to distinguish between “media packages” and “video codec”. The
former usually describes the content of the compressed file like in the “zip” files and
the latter concerns the video compression and decompression algorithm. MPEG
4 and Flash are examples of Media packages, vp8 and H264 are examples of video
codecs.
180 S.R. Cohen et al.

In addition to choosing the right video encoding format, it is important to have

the proper recording equipment in order to perform high quality recordings opti-
mized to web utilization. For locating and purchasing such equipment, there is a
need to monitor the rapidly changing market, which continually offers better
quality equipment for less money.
Currently, most of the Full HD low end video cameras provide a proper solution
for standard size class room lecture video recordings. For a standard classroom in
which the lecturer doesn’t use a projector, other than the video camera, a tripod and
wireless neck microphone will be sufficient as basic recording gear. When the
recordings go to mass production it would be advisable to connect the camera to a
computer so that the recorded file will be created in real time on the recording
computer and can be uploaded to the web in a short time without the need to
download it from the camera and transcode to a format suitable for streaming. For
more complicated classroom recording scenarios such as lectures making use of
slideshow presentations, or rich media presentations, there is a need for additional
hardware equipment or software to record the lecturer’s desktop activity. The
situation becomes even more complex when the class takes place in large audito-
riums with sophisticated audio/visual equipment. Connecting the recording gear to
new digital era modern lecture hall audio visual equipment often requires highly
professional technical staff.
Producing the video recordings in specially equipped rooms such as video
recording studios can be a good option, as an alternative to recording in regular
classrooms. Such recordings have of course pros and cons: very high operational
and maintenance cost. Most of the lecturers do not feel in their native environment
when they give their lectures in a recording studio where usually there is no room
for the audience. When high quality video recordings are required, despite these
disadvantages, recording in a studio is the preferable option.
The digital video compression algorithms mostly detect the changes between
successive frames and process only the changes from the current frame to the
previous one. This is the reason why the amount of the information required for
the recording/streaming is directly correlated to the amount of motion captured by
the camera (see Fig. 6.2).
In order to get the optimum video quality in a given bandwidth we need to try to
reduce the amount of the motion captured in the video frame while filming. Using a
tripod is extremely important in order to stabilize the camera and limit the amount
of unnecessary vibrations which increases the amount of motion in the frame. When
recording lectures in which we have talking heads (as in most webcasts) having a
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources 181

Fig. 6.2 Difference coding only codes the first image, shown here on the right. Subsequent
images reference the first picture for the static elements, i.e. the house and tree. This static grey
background is not transmitted. Thus, it is only necessary to code moving parts—the car—which
vastly reduces the data that must be processed

static unchanging background can improve the video quality. Good lighting con-
ditions that eliminate noisy background also enhance the video quality.
Before the recordings, it is very important to brief the lecturer on some basic
rules regarding how to perform in front of the camera during the recordings. It is
recommended to wear clothes with colors in contrast with the background such as
wearing a dark jacket while the background is white or very bright, not using cloths
with vertical or horizontal lines and trying to limit lecturer movement as much as
possible (such as not running rapidly from one end of the board to the other). In case
of large boards a good practice is to divide it to two or three segments which fit the
camera frame and ask the lecturer to move from one sector to the next only when
writing space in the current segment is filled.
Having good audio quality is even trickier than fine tuning the video during the
recordings. Using the internal microphone of the camera is not a good option since
the camera is usually situated at the back end of the classroom just in front of the
lecturer and every whisper of the students sitting nearby will be recorded louder
than the lecturer’s audio. A wireless neck mic attached to the lecturer can solve the
problem providing good audio recording quality.
Whenever the lecturer makes use of a projector to project slides it is advised to
capture the lecturer desktop digitally and not to film it from the screen, since it
would be too bright in contrast to the lecturer image and it would be almost
impossible to combine in one frame the lecturer image and the slides.
There are various frame grabbers which can split the VGA/DVI signal from the
output of the lecturer’s computer and send it to the recording computer in order to
embed the slides digitally in the video frame. An example showing a screenshot of
embedded lecturer desktop presentation with simultaneously recorded video is
shown further below, in Fig. 6.3.
182 S.R. Cohen et al.

Fig. 6.3 Screen-shot from video from Tel-Aviv University recorded in real-time in front of a
classroom using specialized software

6.4 EduNano Project

6.4.1 History and Background of the EduNano Project

To illustrate the concepts presented in the first part of this chapter, we devote the
rest of this chapter to a detailed description of the EduNano project, an EU-funded
e-learning project coordinated between ten different institutions in four different
countries. This program addresses educational needs from K-12 teachers and on
through undergraduate and graduate students, as well as continuing education. In
order to accommodate the latter, the consortium includes an industrial partner. The
program grants EU-approved university credits, and provides a wide spectrum of
courses in the nanosciences.
The center-of-gravity for the program is in Israel, as the idea germinated from a
formal initiative termed the Israel National Nanotechnology Initiative (INNI). This
initiative strove to lead and guide collective efforts and promote research and
development in the nanotechnologies while emphasizing strong collaborations
between academia and industry. In 2007, the Israeli government, jointly with the
Israeli National Academy of Sciences, set national goals for advancing nanotech-
nology in Israel to achieve critical mass and world-class infrastructure within a
5-year program. As a result, significant government and university matching funds
were allocated for the first 5 years of the program. The outcome of the program after
these first 5 years was impressive: six world class nanocenters were established
which include 325 senior faculty and about 1100 researchers, 85 companies were
formed, and 185 patents granted (INNI). Following this, a second 5-year term was
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources 183

approved with emphasis on education, under the realization that this program could
only be sustained over the long-term if young researchers, engineers, and techni-
cians continue to be trained in the relevant fields.
The recognition of the need to develop educational resources in order to support
the development of nanotechnology is quite general. Roco emphasized the impor-
tance of education for the future development of nanotechnology: “One of the
‘grand challenges’ for nanotechnology is education, which is looming as a bottle-
neck for the development of the field” [3]. The same notion is reflected in official
EU reports: “In knowledge-intensive and growing sectors such as nanotechnology,
there will be even greater demand for scientists skilled in more than just one area of
research [27] and in the global scientific community” the studies in this area
(nanoelectronics) point to the urgent need to further develop scientific education
and training with a particular stress on interdisciplinarity [28].
However, there are very few individual research teams, laboratories, companies,
or even universities that can reasonably claim to be capable of responding to the
technological challenges. Even big companies in the sector work with common
R&D resources (such as Motorola and ST Microelectronics). To host all necessary
infrastructure, including clean rooms, fabrication and analytical equipment,
supporting technology and experts in all the multidisciplinary fields of nanotech-
nology in one location, is an enormous challenge.

6.4.2 Concept of the EduNano Project

EduNano strives to meet these challenges of future nanotechnology educational

needs to provide high-quality online educational material which tracks key scien-
tific developments. EduNano harnesses the power of distance learning to globalize
the nanotechnology knowledge base, and to provide a variety of learning opportu-
nities for different target audiences.
The goal of EduNano is to promote nanotechnology excellence, via distance-
learning opportunities that will benefit everyone from high school students and their
teachers, to university and graduate students, academic researchers, technicians,
and industry professionals. Conceived as a framework for inter-university cooper-
ation, the EduNano consortium includes six Israeli Universities and research
institutions—Bar-Ilan University (BIU), Ben Gurion University of the Negev
(BGU), the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJI), Tel Aviv University (TAU),
the Technion (IIT), and the Weizmann Institute of Science (WIS)—as well as
Italy’s Politecnico di Torino (Polito), the Grenoble Institute of Technology in
France (CIME), and Bulgaria’s University of Sofia (TUS), the latter serving as
the program’s overall coordinator. The project also includes the company Elbit
Systems—an Israeli electronics firm, allowing a direct connection between industry
and academia in the nanosciences and technologies.
This project focus is on common course development for the new skills needed
for new jobs in the multidisciplinary nanotechnologies. The EduNano project aims
184 S.R. Cohen et al.

at modernization of curricula and lifelong learning through shared facilities and

expertise in nanotechnology. The project capitalizes on the strengths of each mem-
ber to provide a wide range of learning possibilities which are unattainable at a
single university. The internet courses developed within the project provide new
opportunities for co-operation between universities, high schools, research institu-
tions and enterprises in sharing of knowledge and educational resources. The shared
resources are to be used in the partners’ M.Sc. and Ph.D. degree programs and in
teacher training. The project focuses on close cooperation between the universities,
requiring mobility and transparency of qualifications and recognition methods.
A central characteristic of the project is the extensive interaction amongst the
lecturers. This has arisen naturally as the project guidelines require semiannual
meetings, and frequent (often weekly) communications amongst the participants.
Such meetings encourage collaboration, and foster sharing of experiences, good
and bad, of the different approaches adapted by the member teams. When such
encounters result in a lecturer deciding to try a new approach, they can naturally
turn to the person that introduced it to them for assistance as necessary. This aspect
of the course preparation is very different from what we have experienced for a
frontal-teaching course, where we typically prepare our lectures alone in our office,
and carry them directly to the classroom. This additional level of interaction pro-
vides a degree of peer critique, and furthermore provides an open forum for course
improvement.
In this sense, the instructors can benefit from interactions with their peers in
much the same way that interactions between scientific researchers lead to more
collaborative work and better science. In much the same way that scientists attend
conferences as much to get an overview of new developments in the field as to seek
out their peers, make new acquaintances, and engage in conversations which often
lead to fruitful new ideas and collaborations, a close interaction amongst instructors
is essential in pushing forward the teaching methods and approaches developed or
used by each. All of this can be achieved without even reviewing the lecture content
from other courses. But when content is also shared (for instance by hyperlink from
one lecturer’s presentation to another course that expands on a specific topic) the
full power of the strong collaboration can be exploited.

6.4.3 Course Development Within the Universities

In order to achieve the goal of shared resources, the courses have been carefully
designed to comprise certified modules, based on ECTS (the European accredita-
tion method). The ECTS credit points can then be formally applied toward degree
work in the corresponding partners’ courses. Each course is designed by that
laboratory/department in the field which has the necessary infrastructure, facilities,
and teaching capabilities. They develop e-learning courses, record lectures and
offer the possibility for practical work in clean rooms in nanotechnologies. Despite
the shared resources, each university keeps its autonomy regarding granting degrees
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources 185

and diplomas. The implementation of the joint courses will start during the year
2016 as a part of the regular educational practices at each partner university.
The following is a list of the courses given by the different partners of the
EduNano project:
• Advance Topics in Nano-Photonics and Quantum Structures (BGU)
• Advanced Materials and Nanotechnologies for Electrochemical Energy Storage
(Elbit Systems)
• Atomistic Simulation of Materials (TAU)
• Biochips and Nanostructures Analysis (CIME)
• Bio-Nanoelectronic Devices for BioSensing (Polito)
• CAD for Nanoscale Transistors (TUS)
• Design of Nanoscale ICs (TUS)
• Fundamentals of Nano-Biotechnology: Where Nanotechnology, Biology and
Medicine Interface (Technion)
• Introduction to Materials and Nanotechnology for High School Teachers
(Weizmann)
• Introduction to Surface Science (TAU)
• Kinetics of Materials (BIU)
• Macroscopic Quantum Coherence in Engineered Nano-Systems (HUJI)
• Molecular Electronics for the Realization of Novel Nanoelectronic Devices
(Polito)
• Nanomaterials for Electronics (TUS)
• Nanomaterials from Nanoskills (TUS)
• Nano-Science and Nano-Technology. Why is “Nano” Different and How is it
Useful? (BIU)
• Nanostructures Analysis (CIME)
• Nanotechnology—Journey Through Time and Space Towards Future Drugs
(BGU)
• Nanotechnology in the Service of Humanity (HUJI)
• Quantum Mechanics for the Nano Program (Technion)
• Scanning Probe Microscopy and its Applications in Research and in the Nano-
technology Industry (Weizmann)
• Simulation of Microelectromechanical System -MEMS—Devices (TAU)
All the courses are available online in the project’s Moodle (a website based on
open source learning management software containing all the videos, activities and
resources related to the educational program. For more information (see Refs.
[29, 30]).
In order to meet the needs of academia and industry, two steps were made to
support the final structure of the courses provided by the project. In the first step,
each of the universities participating in the project suggested two or three courses in
the field of nanoscale science and technology that are already successfully taught in
the university. The course syllabi were examined by the partners and overlapping
courses were removed while new courses were suggested to provide an interested
and varied interdisciplinary offering. In the second step a need analysis survey was
186 S.R. Cohen et al.

developed by the Shmuel-Neeman Institute (affiliated with project partner IIT). The
survey included a description of the proposed courses which was distributed to and
filled by 60 nanotechnologists in industry and academia in Israel. They were asked
to rank the importance of each course for future workers (in industry) and future
researchers (in academia). As a result of the survey, additional modification of the
course list was conducted until we reached the final course list presented above.
Upon agreement of the course list, the partners participated in a workshop of
writing and using learning outcomes. As stated in the Bologna Agreement [31], a
key change required in formal education is the need to improve the traditional ways
of describing qualifications and qualification structures: Each course should have
clearly stated goals and competencies expected to be obtained through the
coursework. As a step towards this goal, care was taken to define and provide
learning outcomes. Learning outcomes describe evidence of learning in areas like
knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Using
learning outcomes for a course instead of the course syllabus shifts from the
traditional teacher-centered approach to a student-centered approach, i.e. the
focus is not only on teaching but also on what the students are expected to be
able to do at the end of the course.
In general, when writing learning outcomes one begins with an action verb
followed by the object of that verb. As a demonstration, the learning outcomes
for the course “Scanning Probe Microscopy and its Applications in Research and in
the Nanotechnology Industry are presented here:
Upon successful completion of this course students should be able to:
• Describe the fundamental components of any scanning probe microscope—
detection of physical quantity measured; meaning of setpoint; operation of
control system acting to reduce error signal by feedback; transducing voltage
signal to motion.
• Predict the effect of various scanning parameters—feedback gain, scan speed,
setpoint, on the image obtained.
• Know how to choose an appropriate probe for a specific sample and scientific
problem.
• Decide which of the various modalities of scanning probe microscopy are
appropriate for a specific sample/scientific question.
• Know the advantages and disadvantages of the technique relative to other
microscopies.
• Critically read and review current literature which is based on scanning probe
microscopy
• Identify artifacts in their work and that of others.
• Be familiar with realized and potential applications of SPM in practical and
industrial environments.
• Propose standard SPM experiments for solving a specific scientific problem.
• Perform basic image manipulation and analysis procedures (levelling, filtering,
histogram adjustment, statistical and grain analysis).
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources 187

The proposed learning outcomes for the courses were reviewed by experts from
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and following the feedback received, the
partners started to build and record the course lectures. In the next stage each
institution chose a preferred mode of presentation, although in some cases, different
lecturers within an institution used different approaches. Different considerations
influenced this selection. The courses had to be full online courses and therefore
three main options were feasible (1) lecture-based (i.e., no or minimal use of
slideshows, for instance a film of a F2F lecture typically with use of whiteboard/
chalkboard) (2) enhanced (combination lecture and slideshow) (3) HTML lessons
(the course material is presented as text pages) [1]. In Tel-Aviv University full
lectures were recorded in real-time in front of a student audience and were com-
bined with the slides of the lecturer using software developed by Tel Aviv Univer-
sity. This approach was adapted by several other partners. Figure 6.3 presents a
snapshot taken from a presentation using this approach.
There are several advantages in using this approach to produce video lectures:
The video is recorded during a course that is given anyway in the university and the
lecturer does not have to invest additional efforts. The software that connects the
video of the lecturer and the slideshow presentation works in real-time and there-
fore the video is available immediately when the lesson is completed. However,
there are some limitations as well. The resulting video length is about 45 min,
which is considered to be too long for an online lecture. These can easily be edited
to shorter segments in post-production although the break-points may not be as
natural as in a preplanned shorter videoe4 clip. In addition, the interactions between
the lecturer and the students in the class during the lectures that includes questions,
clarifications and organizational issues are also recorded and makes parts of the
video irrelevant for external students who take the course. Such segments can also
be excluded by editing but in this case the format will lose the main advantage of
short production time.
The second approach that was used in the project was to produce the lectures in a
studio. The lecturer gave the lectures in front of a small number of students in a
studio equipped with video-audio recording system. The quality of the sound and
video in this approach is excellent and the lessons lack the distractions of a large
student audience. However, this approach is more expensive (hiring the recording
studio) and can be used only in academic institutions that have access to a studio
environment. Bar-Ilan University used this approach, as presented in Fig. 6.4. A
professional video editor combined the video of the lessons with the slideshow
presentations and the combined edited product was uploaded to the learning
environment.
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem also decided to record full lectures for the
online course. One of the courses at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem used
recordings of full lectures whereby the lecturer used a chalkboard to develop the
physical equations, as presented in Fig. 6.5.
The three approaches presented above all recorded full lessons and used them to
prepare the complete video lesson. An alternative option used was enhanced videos.
188 S.R. Cohen et al.

Fig. 6.4 Screen-shot from video of Bar-Ilan University recorded in a studio

Fig. 6.5 Screen-shot of video from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where the lecturer used
chalk and board

The Weizmann Institute of Science decided to build their videos using a commer-
cial software package for preparing online course lectures. These courses were
designed as short slideshow presentations that were accompanied by recorded
explanations of the lecturers, as presented in Fig. 6.6.
The enhanced slideshow presentations are recorded directly into the instructor’s
computer without an audience. The advantages of this approach include the possi-
bility to control the length of the videos and thus to split a typical lecture given in
the university environment to several shorter clips. Each topic can be divided into
short videos geared to keep the attention of the students who will watch them
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources 189

Fig. 6.6 Screen-shot from a video from the Weizmann Institute of Science using the approach of
enhanced slideshow presentations

online. Recording the videos without students avoids the distraction of questions
and comments from the audience during the lecture.
The software used also provides additional options such as integrating quizzes in
the lectures, using zoom-in options and editing the video for creating a better
product. Here also, there was a downside: in our experience, lecturers found it
difficult to give an appealing talk in directly to a computer without receiving any
feedback from students who watch the talk. The main disadvantage of this approach
is that it is very time-consuming. The slideshow presentations had to first be
modified to accommodate the screen setting of the final clip (video box at top,
watermark at bottom (see Fig. 6.6). Here, as with a studio lecture, recording has to
be done in addition to the regular teaching tasks, and the editing process could be
very lengthy to get to a good final product.
TUS used HTML format. This format presents slides which students can click
through at their own pace. Such slides are by nature, much more complex than a
single slide in a frontal lecture and each one could contain several equations and
much text. The pages also contain exercises which the students can work through as
they learn the concepts. An example of a relatively simple HTML page is shown in
Fig. 6.7. A major advantage of the HTML format is the ease with which it can be
edited to add new or delete old material. The downside is that this kind of
190 S.R. Cohen et al.

Fig. 6.7 Example of a relatively simple page from HTML-based course Design of Nanoscale
MOS ICs from the Technical University of Sofia

presentation is “dry” in that it cannot impart the excitement that a dynamic lecturer
provides, nor the depth of explanation included in the audio track.

6.4.4 Challenges in Evaluating Online Academic Courses

This TEMPUS project is finishing its pilot run as this chapter is finalized. One of the
major issues for a credit-granting program is evaluation and credit assignment.
Different approaches will be used for course evaluation. The first approach is the
traditional approach of examination. In this approach all students who take the
course (F2F and online) will physically come to the university providing the course
to take a written exam. The evaluation solution is possible in a small country like
Israel (the participating universities are all located well-within a 100 km radius
from the country center). However, if we consider students from other countries this
solution cannot be used. Other courses, (e.g., the Weizmann introductory course for
high school teachers) will use a final assignment that will be peer-reviewed. The
students in the course (high school teachers) prepare a slideshow presentation and
record their lecture on different topics in nanoscience, all sharing the same format.
The lecture begins with the historical development of the topic, subsequently
proceeding with the technological goals of that topic. Most of the lecture is devoted
to the scientific aspects of the topic and its technological applications. The summary
includes relevant Israeli contributions to the specific subject, technological
advances related to the topic, future expectations, and critique. This part of the
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources 191

final report is similar to the assignment that is given in the F2F course [32]. Each
student has to watch three other presentations and provide feedback according a
given rubric. In addition to the final assignment, part of the evaluation is based on
the students’ participation in the weekly forum in which the students will be asked
to discuss possible connections of the nanotechnology concepts to the existing
chemistry curricula in Israel. A different approach will be attempted in the course:
Scanning probe microscopy and its applications in research and in the nanotech-
nology industry (Weizmann). In this course short quizzes, embedded in the pre-
sentations are given. These are automatically evaluated and passed to the course
lecturer. The quizzes are given in addition to a final project at the end of the course.
The course Surface Science at Tel Aviv University gives full homework assign-
ments which must be submitted electronically. In addition, the students gave short
presentations to the instructor over Skype with a shared screen. In all approaches,
the amount of lecturer input in the evaluation will necessarily limit the size of the
course.

6.5 Summary

In many ways, successful education of our workforce—both present and future—in

the nanosciences is the key to our future. In this chapter, we have provided an
overview of how this task is being accomplished using a wide spectrum of online
resources. Rather than attempting a comprehensive survey of the many excellent
existing resources, we have chosen a sampling which provides the possibilities and
challenges of online education in the nanosciences. In particular, we have provided
a synopsis of the TEMPUS EduNano project as a paradigm for the challenges in
for-credit online nanoeducation.
For educators, we hope that this material will provide not only useful examples,
and tips on how to exploit the available technologies, but also a broad perspective of
the issues, challenges, and possibilities available. For students, we feel that an
understanding of the philosophy and motivation behind online education develop-
ment will help guide the learning process. For general readership, we hope that this
material will prove insightful and useful.
As we have noted in the chapter, technological advances in the preparation and
dissemination of online learning materials may be progressing as rapidly as devel-
opments in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Therefore, we expect that significant
improvements may emerge in this area and look forward to experiencing and
benefiting from those changes along with the rest of this dynamic community.
192 S.R. Cohen et al.

6.6 Future Policy and Recommendations

As noted at the outset, and embodied in the needs analysis survey of the EduNano
project, the motivation driving high-quality education in the nanosciences is the
necessity to train a skilled work-force at all levels, which will be expected to
assume key roles in the evolving technologies. The highly interdisciplinary nature
of the nanosciences places pressure on the educators to provide relevant instruction
in widely-ranging fields. Suitable technical education requires a hands-on learning
environment which entails well-equipped laboratories housing often expensive
equipment. To achieve this, funding will need to be allocated for many programs
similar to EduNano.
It is clear that if such high-level training is to be available at any other than the
auspiciously well-endowed (both financially and pedagogically) institutions, then
the means to share the resources need to be exploited. Online learning is slowly
becoming an established mode that can meet such needs, but there is a long-way to
go in providing appropriate hands-on opportunities, and the ability to capitalize on
knowledge base and educational skills in local, regional, or even national
consortiums.
Whereas remotely controlled tools have become more practical in recent years,
in many cases actual travel to the site is still the only solution. The mechanism for
such mobility must be encouraged.
Furthermore, standards for credit-granting need to be widely accepted as with
the ECTS described above. Evidence of similar developments include standardiza-
tion of practices. For example, an ASTM (American Society for Testing and
Materials, the now international organization that engages in the development
and publication of international standards for materials, products, systems and
services) workforce committee E56 was formed in 2005 to provide standard
guidelines for nanotechnology needs and workforce practices in nanotechnology.
This committee initiated the work item wk46489—New Practice for Standard
Practice for Workforce Education in Nanotechnology Characterization [33].
Above all, we feel that the internet has provided an excellent opportunity for us
to learn from our colleagues and by opening up teaching resources, we are making it
much easier for educators to be up to date on the most successful technologies. We
can only hope that the result of these innovations will be better education, which is
open to a wider and more diverse student population.

Acknowledgments This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.
This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held
responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. We further
acknowledge the support of the Helen and Martin Kimmel Center for Nanoscale Science at the
Weizmann Institute of Science.
6 Online Nanoeducation Resources 193

References

1. R.H. Kay, Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 820 (2012)

2. N. Healy, J. Nano Educ. 1, 6 (2009)
3. M.C. Roco, Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 1247 (2003)
4. D.J. Karber, High. Educ. Eur. 26, 533 (2001)
5. B.J. Zimmerman, Educ. Psychol. 25, 3 (1990)
6. N. Selwyn, Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates (Continuum International
Publishing Group, London, 2011)
7. Erasmus + EU programme for education, training, youth and sport, European Commission.
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/index_en.htm. Accessed 17 Jan 2016
8. N. Taniguchi, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Production Engineering,
Tokyo, Part II (1974)
9. Short History of Nanotechnology, Foresight Institute. http://www.foresight.org/nano/history.
html. Accessed 20 Jan 2016
10. K.E. Drexler, Nanosystems Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation, 1st edn.
(Wiley, New York, 1992)
11. National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network, National Science Foundation. http://www.
nnin.org. Accessed 17 Jan 2016
12. Tutorials on the use of the NaioAFM at WPI, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/user/
AtomicforceMicro. Accessed 17 Jan 2016
13. MOOC list, https://www.mooc-list.com/. Accessed 17 Jan 2016
14. Nanotechnology Center for Learning and Teaching, Materials World Modules, Northwestern
University. http://community.nsee.us/. Accessed 17 Jan 2016
15. Nano-technology Knowledge Infrastructure, US National Nanotechnology Initiative. http://
www.nano.gov/NKIPortal. Accessed 17 Jan 2016
16. NanoHub, Network for Computational Nanotechnology. https://nanohub.org/. Accessed
17 Jan 2016
17. Nanotechnology Applications and Career Knowledge Network, Penn State University Center
for Nanotechnology Education and Utilization, http://www.nano4me.org/. Accessed 17 Jan
2016
18. TryNano, IEEE, IBM, New York Hall of Science. TryNano.org. Accessed 17 Jan 2016
19. Nanoscale Informal Science Education, National Science Foundation, www.nisenet.org.
Accessed 17 Jan 2016
20. Nano education research, (within site of ref. 16), https://nanohub.org/groups/edresearch.
Accessed 17 Jan 2016
21. H.A. Diefes-Dux, M.A. Hjalmarson, T.K. Miller, R. Lesh, Model-eliciting activities for
engineering education, in Models and Modeling in Engineering Education: Designing Expe-
riences for all Students, ed. by J.S. Zawojewski, H.A. Diefes-Dux, K.J. Bowman (Sense,
Rotterdam, 2008), Chap. 2, p. 17
22. Handbook for Processes and Best Practices for Nanotechnology Workforce Development,
NACK Network, Pennsylvania State College of Engineering, http://www.nano4me.org/hand
book/NACK%20Handbook%20-%201st%20Edition%20.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2016
23. M. Rosenfeld, S. Rosenfeld, Educ. Psychol. 28, 245 (2008)
24. M.R. Young, B.R. Klemz, J.W. Murphy, J. Market. Educ. 25, 130 (2003)
25. R. Blonder, S. Rap, Educ. Inf. Technol. 1 (2015)
26. D.R. Garrison, T. Anderson, W. Archer, Internet High. Educ. 2, 87 (1999)
27. Communication from the Commission to the European parliament. An Agenda for new skills
and jobs: A European contribution towards full employment, Strasbourg, 23.11.2010, COM
(2010), http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId¼6328&langId¼en. Accessed 21 Jan
2016
194 S.R. Cohen et al.

28. Investing in the Future of Jobs and Skills. Scenarios, implications and options in anticipation of
future skills and knowledge needs for the Computer, Electronic and Optical Products Sector.
Policy Summary, DG EMPL report VC/2007/0866, Lot 7, 05.2009
29. About Moodle, Moodle, https://docs.moodle.org/30/en/About_Moodle. Accessed 16 Jan 2016
30. Education in Nanotechnologies Project, EduNano, http://edunano-lms.tau.ac.il/login/index.
php. Accessed 16 Jan 2016
31. S. Adam, Report on United Kingdom Bologna Seminar, Using Learning Outcomes: A con-
sideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education of
employing learning outcomes at the local, national and international levels, 2004, http://
www.ehea.info/uploads/seminars/040620learning_outcomes-adams.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan
2016
32. R. Blonder, J. Chem. Educ. 88, 49 (2011)
33. Committee E56 on Nanotechnology, ASTM International, http://www.astm.org/COMMIT
TEE/E56.htm. Accessed 17 Jan 2016
Chapter 7
Interactive Visualization for Learning
and Teaching Nanoscience
and Nanotechnology

Konrad J. Sch€
onborn, Gunnar E. H€ost, and Karljohan E. Lundin Palmerius

Abstract Nano education involves tackling the difficult task of conceptualizing

imperceptibly small objects and processes. Interactive visualization serves as one
potential solution for providing access to the nanoworld through active exploration
of nanoscale concepts and principles. This chapter exposes and describes a selec-
tion of interactive visualizations in the literature, and reviews research findings
related to their educational, perceptual and cognitive influence. In closing, we offer
implications of interactive visualization for learning and teaching nano.

7.1 Introduction

The impact of the rapid development and application of nanoscience and nanotech-
nology (hereafter referred to interchangeably as nano) in society increases the need
to cultivate a nano-skilled workforce as well as a nano-literate public [1]. At the
same time, although developing effective instructional strategies to teach nano is a
challenging and non-trivial assignment for science educators [2], nano offers an
exciting basis to ignite students’ interest and motivation in science [3, 4]. Further-
more, exploiting the interdisciplinary nature of nano serves as a powerful platform
from which to communicate otherwise traditionally taught science concepts [5–
9]. Rising to the challenge of developing effective nano education channels calls for
the implementation of meaningful nano education interventions in both formal
(e.g. schools) and informal (e.g. science centers) settings [10–12]. One potential
avenue for contributing to this mandate is in the use of scientifically-informed
interactive digital visualization as a conceptual tool for accessing otherwise

K.J. Sch€onborn (*) • G.E. H€

ost • K.E. Lundin Palmerius
Department of Science and Technology, Link€ oping University, 60174 Norrk€
oping, Sweden
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 195

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_7
196 K.J. Sch€
onborn et al.

imperceptible, complex, and counterintuitive nanoscale structures and processes

(e.g. [13–16]). In unpacking this notion, this chapter focuses on the role of inter-
active digital visualization in nano education. The four-fold aim of the chapter is to:
(1) Argue why and how interactive visualization is a powerful tool for granting
conceptual access to the nanoscale.
(2) Describe a selection of interactive visualization environments available in the
literature for learning and teaching nano in formal and informal settings.
(3) Review international research conducted on the use of interactive visualization
in nano education.
(4) Consider implications of the research findings for implementing interactive
visualizations in nano education praxis.

7.2 Interactive Digital Visualization as a Tool for Accessing

the Nanoworld

A. The Importance and Challenge of Accessing the Nanoworld According to

Stevens et al. [17], development of nano literacy within society needs to be based on
a solid understanding of the structure and behavior of matter at a fundamental level,
including important determinants of emergent properties thereof. Multiple coun-
terintuitive aspects of nanoscale structures and processes make comprehending
nano a challenging assignment [18]. For example, the fact that adhesive forces
between surfaces dominate over gravity in the nanoworld means that intuitive ideas
about object manipulation no longer hold [6, 19, 20]. However, perhaps the most
notorious difficulty in understanding nano is to mentally leap across spatial scales to
interpret the size of objects and relative distances at the nanoscale [21–23].
Conceptualizing nanoscale objects and the links between nanostructures and
material properties is made particularly difficult by the inaccessibility of the objects
to direct visual perception [24]. Work by Swarat et al. [25] indicates that there is a
strong influence of visual experience on students’ understanding of size and scale.
They found that students tended to think of the world as divided into realms of scale
separated by “landmark objects”. This effect may have wider implications for small
scales compared to large scales, since long distances have multiple familiar visual
cues (e.g. mountains, the moon and stars). In contrast, objects at scales smaller than
100 μm cannot be associated with any visual cues at the corresponding scale.
Consistent with this reasoning, Tretter and coworkers [21] found that students’
and experts’ size estimation accuracies declined linearly when scales were larger,
whereas accuracies dropped abruptly when crossing the threshold of visibility at
scales too small to perceive.
The lack of discernible “landmark objects” at the nanoscale could be alleviated
by creating familiarity with certain nano-objects, and using these as scale units
when considering other imperceptibly small objects [21, 26, 27]. For example, ball-
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . . 197

and-stick models of molecules are symbolic representations that may in some

respects convey the nanometer scale to the general public, and could therefore be
built upon in fostering an understanding of nanoscale events [28]. However, utiliz-
ing such strategies requires educators to develop curricula, instructional methods,
and environments to support learners’ engagement with nanoscopic objects and
processes ([21, 29], see Chaps. 4 and 6).
B. The Essential Role of Visualization in Making the Imperceptible Nanoworld
Visible Progress in nanoscopic imaging technology has provided a view of how
building blocks of nature interact at the atomic level [14]. This development allows
scientists and engineers to not only image but also manipulate materials and
structures at the nanoscale [30]. Many educators agree that physically manipulating
and handling nanoscopic entities may be an effective component in learning
nanoscience (e.g. [31, 32]). However, irrespective of the technology used for
imaging and manipulating the nanoworld, there is a step in which the measured
data are transformed to make them accessible to our senses. Thus, visualization of
nanoscale structures and their organization into macroscopic applications is a
crucial proviso in bridging the invisible nanoworld and our sensory experiences
[33, 34]. Hence, visualization techniques, methods and tools play an essential role
in unveiling and conceptualizing the structural and dynamic complexities of the
imperceptibly small nanoscale [35].
In 2005, a workshop on the integration of nanoscience and nanotechnology into
science education identified the importance of models and simulations for curric-
ulum development in nano education [36]. Such significance is also reflected in
Stevens et al.’s [5] identification of models and simulations as one of the ‘big ideas’
of nano. Models and simulations are indeed invaluable for making scientific sense
of structures, properties and behaviors of nanoscale phenomena, as well as for
designing structures with desired properties in the nanotechnological engineering of
materials and devices [5, 11, 30]. For example, work by Daly and Bryan [37] on
teachers’ use of models in nanoscale science and engineering education has found
that students’ interaction with models support the conceptualization of nanoscale
objects and phenomena. Here, teachers intended use of models is often associated
with their use as tools for visualization. This can include how interactive models
such as interactive simulations, where students get to adjust and alter simulation
parameters in the interpretation of nanoscale phenomena, can serve as a platform
for students to be actively involved in the construction of their own nano-related
knowledge.
Given the above, current literature suggests that one potential approach for
constructing understanding of the nanoscale is through exploiting immersive and
interactive visualization technology as an opportunity for learning and teaching
nanoscience (e.g. [7, 38–40]). In addition, developments in web-based technologies
for scaffolding access to information, remote laboratory experiences, and interac-
tive visualizations show promise in promoting active learning, and may support
students’ engagement in learning difficult topics and tasks related to nano ([41], see
Chap. 6).
198 K.J. Sch€
onborn et al.

C. Technical Architectures for Interactive Visualization of the Nanoworld In

the current chapter, we define interactive visualizations as computer-based repre-
sentations of models or data sets that allow humans to explore scientific concepts.
Thus, while the direct instrument output delivered from scientific measurement
equipment may be viewed as both a case of visualization and interactivity, we
exclude the educational use of authentic laboratory equipment from this chapter
unless it contains an explicit component of feeding the data stream into a virtual
learning space (e.g. in the case of the nanoManipulator, see later).
In approaching the different strands of development in interactive visualization,
the employed technologies can be scaffolded by considering the concept of a
Virtual Reality system. Such systems are arguably the most advanced type of
visualization while also offering great potential for scientific visualization in nano
research contexts [42]. Virtual Reality applications can grant users access to
imperceptibly small scales and may therefore be a potentially rich pedagogical
tool for nano education. Virtual Reality refers to computer systems that manifest the
following three components: (1) a computer-generated three-dimensional virtual
environment, (2) an interface between the virtual and the real environment
consisting of equipment that provides stimuli to the user while also monitoring
the user’s actions, and (3) a software application that controls the equipment in
generating an immersive experience for the user. Immersion is a key factor in
creating a sense of presence and allowing a natural and intuitive human-computer
interaction based on fundamental human cognitive mechanisms [43].
Implementing Virtual Reality systems is associated with certain challenges in
relation to hardware as well as software. The hardware must provide appropriate
sensory stimulation while also being sufficiently sensitive in monitoring the user’s
actions. Meanwhile, the software needs to be able to provide a context, render
outputted stimuli and allow users to intuitively navigate and interact with the
system. Here, the sense of vision is typically one main focus in most Virtual Reality
systems given that it can provide a strong sense of presence. Herein, various depth
cues can be graphically rendered to provide a sense of spatial relations and
surrounding context. Among these cues, the stereopsis that results from the dispar-
ity between the two views perceived by the eyes is the most important for visual
scenes at close distances. Other important visual cues for depth include shadows,
motion parallax and perspective effects. Over the years, graphical technologies
ranging from cathode ray tube TVs to head-mounted displays have been used to
communicate virtual visual information. Today, TVs that provide 3D through
stereopsis have become commodity hardware, although their potential for creat-
ing affordable Virtual Reality systems has not yet been fully exploited. Mobile
phones represent another technological trajectory for Virtual Reality purposes, in
that the high-resolution screens, motion tracking and high performance processors
in such devices allow them to be used as components of simple head-mounted
displays (current examples include Google Cardboard and Samsung Gear VR). In
addition, developments within the computer gaming industry have resulted in
multiple options for pure head-mounted displays (e.g. Oculus Rift, HTC Vive and
StarVR).
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . . 199

The human haptic sense, which combines touch and kinesthetic perception, can
also be included in Virtual Reality systems via haptic feedback devices. Although
a range of such devices has been presented in the literature, readily accessible
equipment for touch interaction is typically limited to simple vibration to indicate
events (e.g. vibrotactile feedback on a smartphone), and robotic equipment that
provides mechanical force feedback to simulate aspects such as texture and
spring-like forces. In addition, recent research findings indicate that carefully
designed visual representations of forces may actually provide an intuitive sense
of force interactions at a cognitive level without any actual force feedback
[44]. The sense of hearing is also frequently included in Virtual Reality systems.
In this regard, sound can render an atmosphere that further deepens the sense of
presence as well as provide cues about events and processes that may be outside
of the user’s field of view [45]. For instance, recent advanced technology for 3D
sound takes perceptual aspects of hearing into account by using head-related
transfer functions.
Based on this description of Virtual Reality systems, the interactive visualiza-
tions identified in this chapter are essentially different manifestations of such
technology depending on the application at hand. Thus, interactive visualizations
can be equipped with different technologies in various configurations in terms of
display and interaction techniques, the targeted sensory modes (potentially includ-
ing additional senses such as olfaction), and the level of immersion. Although
technology is an important aspect of interactive visualizations, the choice of actual
content is just as important for successful educational application. Indeed, to be
able to leverage the power of such systems it is necessary to construct virtual
environments that encapsulate the salient properties and behaviors of relevant
concepts. This is true whether the intended message is to convey physical and
abstract objects or to simulate the social dynamics of a complex virtual world with
artificial beings.
D. Cognitive Perspectives on Granting Access to Nano Concepts Through
Interactive Visualization Environments Formal and informal science education
settings are witnessing an increased use of interactive digital tools for communi-
cating scientific knowledge. Interactive visualizations offer users an opportunity to
construct knowledge driven by one’s own actions, such as the direct manipulation
of visual or multimodal content on a screen, or in a virtual environment. Properties
of modern interactive visualizations map onto Meltzoff et al.’s [46] “new science of
learning” by intersecting neuroscience, psychology, and education. The theory
integrates three known foundations of human learning, namely, that learning is
computational (we use statistical patterns obtained from the environment and our
prior experiences to learn), learning is social (social interaction and interactive cues
affect and can enhance learning), and learning is supported by linking perception
and action. From the latter, it follows that by actively linking perception and
inputted action, interactive visualizations can provide a cognitive gateway for
students and citizens to visualize objects, relationships and processes. Similarly,
the tenet that learning is computational and social can be mapped to the potential of
multimodal environments to exploit multisensory learning experiences, and that
200 K.J. Sch€
onborn et al.

sharing cognitive resources in collaborative digital learning spaces may be effective

for learning science concepts. Thus, deploying interactive representations of nano
knowledge could have a deep-seated influence on understanding nanoscale objects
and processes.
The potential learning benefits of multimodal interactive visualization find
further support in the theory of embodied cognition, which purports that
constructing scientific knowledge is intertwined with our sensorimotor interactions
in the world [47, 48]. According to Reiner [49], the integration of embodied
experiences into learning may indicate why tactile feedback affects the learning
of scientific concepts. Her study investigated students’ construction of force field
concepts mediated by a tactile device. Reiner suggests that such bodily experiences
allow students to tap non-propositional embodied knowledge, which directly relates
to acts involving physical objects without concepts or symbols as mediators
[49]. Multisensory information offered by modern interactive visualizations could
thus stimulate learners’ integration of their embodied knowledge into the learning
of abstract and complex nano-related concepts (e.g. [50–53]).
In addition, modern virtual and augmented reality technology may harbor further
cognitively advantageous properties that could have beneficial impacts on learning
with interactive visualizations. In this regard, creating a sense of virtual presence
(i.e. the sensation of being ‘in’ a virtual world) has been associated with increased
learning engagement [40]. Presence may be strongly induced in immersive systems
where the visual display provides users with a surrounding experience in combi-
nation with a matching between the displayed information and users’ bodily
movements [54]. As an example of the latter, research indicates that the induced
sense of presence is stronger when the display provides a perspective that is
responsive to the position of the user’s head [45]. Similarly, augmented reality
applications provide potential advantages by providing a multisensory experience
that engages multiple perceptual pathways for learning, while also providing a
natural interface for interaction and exploration that is not filtered through the
relatively limited mechanisms provided by, for example, a computer mouse [55].

7.3 Examples of Interactive Visualization Environments

for Learning and Teaching Nano

Our review of the literature has revealed multiple interactive digital environments
to visualize and communicate nano-related concepts for educational purposes that
draw on various technologies and forms of implementation. We have synthesized
the emergent literature into five categories of interactive visualization systems,
presented as follows.
A. Microscope Probe-Based Multisensory Platforms One prominent trajectory
in the recent literature is in the form of projects where learners interact with
advanced systems for scanning probe microscope (SPM)-based nanoscopic
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . . 201

exploration of surfaces. Among these, atomic force microscopy (AFM) and scan-
ning tunneling microscopy (STM) are the dominant principles. For example,
Blonder et al. [56] have heralded AFM as a pedagogically powerful interactive
tool for visualizing the nanoscale (also see Chap. 5). According to these authors,
AFM can provide meaningful inroads into students’ learning about nano-objects,
which in turn can increase excitement and interest toward nanoscience. In addition,
students’ use of AFM can help traverse reasoning about size and scale from the
micro to the macro, a perennially challenging and well-documented demand of
science education [7].
Interaction with an AFM can be designed so that users can physically manipulate
nanometer-scale objects such as viruses, while simultaneously receive a visual and
kinesthetic experience of the nanoworld [13]. This potential has been successfully
exploited in the development of the nanoManipulator (see Fig. 7.1), which employs
a haptic force-feedback device that translates SPM signals into kinesthetic sensory
experiences [57]. This tool has been introduced in educational settings by Jones and
colleagues, who have employed a web-based interface allowing school learners to
remotely operate an AFM [58]. The same research group has also used pre-recorded
AFM data to allow the integration of multiple options for data exploration without
requiring access to the actual laboratory equipment [59].
In a project called Interactive Nano-Visualization for Science and Engineering
Education (IN-VSEE), Ong et al. [60, 61] have developed a digital platform where
students can conduct real-time SPM over the internet, participate in a series of
interactive educational modules designed around visualizing the structure and
properties of nanoscale materials, and access images and visualizations
representing different nanoscale materials. The resources are intended for the

Fig. 7.1 The nanoManipulator connects an AFM with a computer that, in turn, translates the
measurement signals into stereoscopic 3D visual feedback and force feedback mediated by a
haptic device. In this manner, a user can explore the surface of a sample in the AFM through
multiple senses (Image courtesy of the UNC CISMM.org NIH National Research Resource grant
#5-P41-EB0020)
202 K.J. Sch€
onborn et al.

final two years of secondary education and subsequent transition into the first
two years of tertiary education. Similar to the work of Ong and co-workers, Hong
et al. [31] have developed a remote web-based education module that employs an
interface consisting of an AFM, computers, and a webcam connected to the
internet. The system offers students (even across different countries) the experience
of handling AFM-based equipment while allowing them to explore the morpho-
logical and mechanical properties of nanomaterials.
B. Visuohaptic Virtual and Augmented Reality Desktop Environments While
it is presently most common to have visual information as the single (or at least
primary) mode of output while interacting with digital visualizations, other sensory
modalities may also be engaged. For example, apart from the nanoManipulator
applications described above, haptic technology can also be used to present aspects
of visualized scientific models to learners through tactile and kinesthetic percep-
tion. Multiple bimodal visualization initiatives have focused on various aspects of
molecular interactions. For instance, the current chapter authors have presented an
immersive system that combines force feedback with stereoscopic 3D visual output
for exploring electrostatic fields around molecules [50]. In this system, learners are
provided with a bimodal representation of molecular electrostatic fields in the form
of force feedback based on the calculated force strength and direction exerted by the
field on a probe point charge, in combination with visual field lines that can be
deployed at will by the user (see Fig. 7.2). Other approaches have focused on the
interaction between molecules in protein-ligand systems, with pioneering work
produced by project GROPE [62]. In such systems, users typically navigate a
relatively small ligand molecule while simultaneously experiencing the calculated
forces resulting from the interaction between the small molecule and the protein
molecule while at their respective relative orientations [63, 64].

Fig. 7.2 Example of a bimodal visualization system [50]. (a) An immersive stereoscopic 3D
workbench is combined with a pen-like haptic device that provides the user with force feedback
based on the calculated forces between a probe point (represented by the tip of the virtual stylus)
and the electrostatic field around a molecule. The user can experience a visuohaptic exploration of
the strength and direction of the fields by moving the stylus and rotating the molecule using a
“mouse” with three degrees of freedom, as well as deploy visual field lines (shown in blue) that
appear in the vicinity of the probe point. (b) The system can provide various visual molecular
representations, including a combined ball-and-stick representation of the atom configuration and
a surface representation that indicates the true size of the molecule’s electronic density. The
topography of the molecule may also be explored by moving the virtual stylus along the surface
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . . 203

Fig. 7.3 Augmented reality visualization of macromolecules. (a) Two tangible models
representing protein molecules are superpositioned with virtual information about field properties
in the vicinity of the molecular surfaces. The precise positioning of the virtual information is
determined by markers on the tangible models. (b) A tangible model of a polypeptide backbone
superpositioned with virtual information about rotatable side-chains and distances. In addition, the
tangible model includes magnets that represent hydrogen bond interactions that form during
protein folding (Images courtesy Arthur J. Olson, Ph.D., The Scripps Research Institute)

Whereas most digital visualizations for learning nano employ mostly virtual
representations of the nanoscopic content, an alternative mechanism is to mix
virtual representations with real physical objects. Such augmented reality
approaches are becoming increasingly common in science education [65]. In rela-
tion to nanoscientific content, an augmented reality application has been developed
by Gillet and coworkers [55] for visualizing biological macromolecules. In this
system, a display of handheld 3D-printed tangible models is augmented by
superpositioning graphical representations of molecular properties of the biological
macromolecules corresponding to the tangible models (see Fig. 7.3). This allows
users to explore the 3D aspects of the molecular properties by simply physically
manipulating the position and orientation of the model.
C. Gesture-Based Immersive Virtual Environments Other work in our own
laboratory has concerned the conceptualization and development of an immersive
and interactive virtual environment (NanoSim) for communicating nano in public
and school contexts [8, 66]. In this work, the developed interactive visualization
makes use of 3D TV technology and Microsoft Kinect tracking in allowing users to
use hand gestures to view and interact with virtual 3D nano-objects (see Fig. 7.4).
The design of the environment is based on the premise that learners’ use of bodily
movements (e.g. gestures) to interact with virtual nano-objects may provide oppor-
tunities for constructing understanding about otherwise largely inaccessible
nanoworld structures and processes.
204 K.J. Sch€
onborn et al.

Fig. 7.4 A gesture-based Virtual Reality system for exploring interactions at the nanoscale
[8, 66]. (a) In a nanomedicine scenario, targeted drug-delivery through functionalized nanotubes
is visualized in immersive stereoscopic 3D using a head-coupled perspective to increase the sense
of presence. The image shows nanotubes moving along the surface of a cancer cell. (b) Users
deploy a grab gesture to make contact with and move nanotubes by forming a ring with their thumb
and index finger in the virtual workspace

Other technological approaches to gesture-based interaction include the use of

specialized gloves (e.g. [67]) that also include sensors and actuators to measure
finger and hand movements as well as allowing tactile feedback. Such devices have
been suggested by Sharma et al. [42] to be potentially useful interfaces for inter-
action with molecular visualizations.
D. Virtual World and Game-Based Learning Environments Much recent inter-
est has been devoted to the educational potential of harnessing learners’ enthusiasm
for computer gaming in science education through game-based learning initiatives
[68]. However, few nano-related games have been described in the published
literature surveyed for this review. One example is Nanoquest 3D, wherein learners
solve construction problems at the nanometer scale [4]. Other initiatives exploit
learners’ familiarity with flexible preexisting interactive virtual worlds (e.g. Second
Life) that are adapted for nano educational purposes [69]. In addition, Chanunan
[70] has presented work on a game for authentic nanoscience learning called Nano-
X Project, where players are required to take on the task of managing a joint science
research and military development project. Apart from the few nano-related games
described in the published literature to date, there is likely to be a number of
available games that have been described and developed outside of formal aca-
demic research contexts, such as Nanomission [71].
E. Interactive Visual Simulations As computer-processing power has increased
so has the application of computational modelling approaches for nanoscientific
research. These developments have been accompanied by the educational use of
computer-based simulations for nano education. Such educational simulation ini-
tiatives range from specialized teaching simulations each constructed to convey a
single or a few related concepts, to complex simulations suited for university level
learners as a way to communicate computational research methods.
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . . 205

The Physics Educational Technology (PhET) project [72] offers online access to
graphical interactive simulations developed with the aims of increasing student
interest, improving learning, and developing active explorative attitudes to learning
[73]. The underlying pedagogical idea is that students will learn as they explore the
dynamic visual representations of scientific models. In addition, the simulations
typically include a linked set of representations, which aids learners’ translation
between different representations of the same concept. The simulations are
designed to be highly interactive with an intuitive interface. The website contains
more than 100 simulations across all educational levels, sorted into categories
corresponding to traditional school science topics (i.e. physics, chemistry, biology
and earth science) and mathematics. Most of the simulations focus on physics
(e.g. [74]) and chemistry (e.g. [75]). Although no simulations are explicitly defined
as being nano-specific, the offered diversity of simulations could be exploited to
cover areas of nano. In addition, some of the PhET simulations do engage principles
and systems that are nanotechnological in nature, including a simulation allowing
for manipulation of a DNA strand using “optical tweezers” and molecular motors
(see Fig. 7.5a).
Charles Xie (e.g. [2, 15]) has developed an interactive digital environment called
the Molecular Workbench (MW), which contains several aspects of nano concepts
and accompanying available dynamic modeling tools for nano education purposes
(e.g. see Fig. 7.5b). The MW offers students the opportunity to conduct interactive
computational investigations with dynamic visualizations that simulate underlying
molecular and quantum dynamics obtained from molecular modelling research

Fig. 7.5 Examples of interactive 2D simulations. (a) An immobilized molecular motor “pulls” a
nano-sized bead via a DNA chain, while the bead is simultaneously influenced by an “optical
tweezer” setup. The influence of various parameters on the outcome of the “tug-of-war” can be
explored by users. The interface also allows multiple linked displays, in this case showing the
potential energy of the bead as a function of position. (PhET Interactive Simulations, University of
Colorado Boulder, http://phet.colorado.edu) (b) Molecular entities with a polar charge distribution
spontaneously form structures through self-assembly following random encounters resulting from
the molecular motion caused by collisions with solvent molecules (solvent not shown in the
simulation). Users can influence the process by moving subunits and manipulating charge strength
and type. The simulation is part of an activity that contains a sequence of simulations intended to
convey the principles of self-assembly (Molecular Workbench, Concord Consortium)
206 K.J. Sch€
onborn et al.

[15]. In this manner, the authors propose one paramount pedagogical implication of
MW as the opportunity to conduct authentic science in the science classroom.
Furthermore, the authors see MW as providing many examples of how students
can gain an understanding of nanoscopic structures and processes through interac-
tive educational technology [76]. Aspects of the embedded computational content
in MW comprise curriculum-based interactive online classroom experiments that
include, inter alia, states of matter, chemical bonding, diffusion, and self-assembly,
all representatives of topics that link to nanoscience and nanotechnology concepts.
Moreover, the authors view interaction with MW as a means to demonstrate the
“unity of science” in showing, for example, how emergent biological properties
arising from chemical interactions are able to unify conceptual connections
between the microscopic and macroscopic fundamentals of the states of matter [15].
The Network for Computational Nanotechnology has constructed an online
platform for open-access nano-related simulations called nanoHUB.org
[77, 78]. On their site, a large number of scientific simulations and other materials
are available for users to run online. The overall focus of the project on simulations
intended for scientific research means that only a subset of the simulations are for
direct educational purposes alone. Nevertheless, nanoHUB.org provides useful
resources explicitly for nano education initiatives, wherein simulations and other
content are packaged together as curricular units for various topics [79].

7.4 Research on the Influence of Interactive Visualization

in Nano Education

Following the above description of published interactive digital environments for

teaching and learning nano, this chapter now embarks on reviewing published
research on the influence of these visualization environments in nano education
contexts. We used four criteria to select studies for review. Firstly, the study should
be drawn from the peer-reviewed international literature (e.g. journal articles or
peer-reviewed conference proceedings). Secondly, the work should be concerned
(at least in part) with nanoscience, nanotechnology, or related nanoscale concepts
by explicitly mentioning the “nano-” prefix in the manuscript text, and not only
implying it. Thirdly, the work should include an aspect(s) associated with percep-
tual, cognitive, educational and/or pedagogical dimensions of the respective inter-
active visualization in focus. Fourthly, the study should include reporting of human
participants’ (such as citizens and/or students) use of a respective interactive
environment.
Our search and synthesis of the literature revealed 20 research works for analysis
and review. Table 7.1 summarizes the studies by arranging them in relation to the
interactive visualization system types described in Sect. 7.3. Although the set
of reviewed publications reflect our own opinion of the principal contributions in
Table 7.1 Summary of reviewed studies that have investigated the role of interactive visualization systems in learning, teaching and/or communicating nano-
related concepts
Author(s) and Nano-related concepts and Description of interaction performed to
year study knowledge associated with Interactive Architecture of the interactive map to and access intended nano-related
published study visualization system visualization under study concepts
Jones et al.: Nanometer scale; microscale; Probe microscopy in The nanoManipulator com- A student moves a pen-like stylus (that
2003, 2004, virus morphology and dimen- combination with a prises an AFM, a desktop receives signals from an AFM probe) over
2006 [13, 58, sionality; virus characteristics visuohaptic virtual computer, haptic device the surface of a virus sample, and receives
59] such as shape, composition, platform (e.g. PHANToM), and accom- a simultaneous 3D visual (200,000
and size; properties and behav- panying software mag.) and tactile perception
ior of nanoscale objects (e.g. hardness, shape and stickiness) of
the nanoscale surface (see Fig. 7.1)
Marchi et al.: Lennard-Jones (LJ) potential; Probe microscopy in A custom-made Various modes of multisensory rendering
2005 [20] approach-retract interaction; combination with a nanomanipulator based on a allow the student to inspect the local sur-
nanomanipulation; differences multisensory virtual multisensory (haptic, visual face approach-retract interactions with an
between nanoscale and macro- platform and auditory) platform AFM probe. The user is able to see, hear
scale physics and feel representations of interaction
between the sample surface and AFM tip
Millet et al.: Behavior of an AFM probe; Virtual microscopy Virtual AFM probe that con- The AFM simulation provides visual and
2013 [23] approach-retract phenomenon; probe with haptic sists of a real-time simulation force feedback of the approach-retract
nanomanipulation; perception Virtual Reality system in combination with a 3D phenomenon. The subject views a graphic
of the nanoscale; nanoscale graphics interface and a analogy of the phenomenon while simul-
mechanics VIRTUOSE haptic device taneously manipulating the haptic device
to receive force feedback related to the
bending of a simulated cantilever
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . .

Vogl et al.: Nanophysical properties; Microscope Probe- An AFM-based interface that A real-time simulation of nanoscale
2006 [80] nanomanipulation; nanoforces; based visual and haptic consists of computer graphics surface interactions is displayed by
surface topography interface and a haptic interface that augmenting graphics derived from
blends sensed and simulated noncontact and contact interaction models
information in real time with force feedback. The user perceives
the simulated information blended with
the information sensed by the AFM probe
207

(continued)
Table 7.1 (continued)
208

Author(s) and Nano-related concepts and Description of interaction performed to

year study knowledge associated with Interactive Architecture of the interactive map to and access intended nano-related
published study visualization system visualization under study concepts
H€ost et al.: Forces and interactions Visuohaptic Virtual The semi-immersive virtual A stylus is used to feel the electrostatic
2013 [50] between nano-objects; shape Reality desktop environment comprises of potential around a molecule. The stylus tip
and topography of nano- environment mirror-displayed stereoscopic is haptically rendered as a positive point
objects; relative volume and 3D graphics that are colocated charge. Simultaneously, 3D visual prop-
scale of nano-objects with a PHANToM haptic erties such as van der Waals radii and
device electrostatic field lines represent the
relative size and scale of these Nano
properties in relation to the molecule
(see Fig. 7.2)
Magnanelli Intermolecular forces at the Visuohaptic Virtual The HaptiChem framework A visual representation of a molecule is
et al.: 2014 nanoscale; intermolecular Reality desktop combines the use of a visual delivered in different modes of chemical
[81] interaction environment interface and Phantom Omni representation (e.g. van der Waals
haptic device spacefill) and the haptic probe is used to
explore the electrostatic field of the
molecule and also experience different
intermolecular interactions such as
hydrogen bonding and halogen bonding
Park et al.: Electric fields generated by Visuohaptic desktop The point-charge simulator Electric fields produced by point charges
2010 [82] nano-objects; point charges simulation combines visual information on are visualized while a user simultaneously
a computer screen and force holds a haptic device to visuohaptically
feedback via OMEGA-3 and perceive point-charge interactions. A test
Falcon haptic devices charge approaching a positive charge is
rendered as a repulsive force, while an
attractive force is rendered upon a test
K.J. Sch€

charge approaching a negative charge

onborn et al.
Gillet et al.: Bio-nanotechnology; spatial Augmented Virtual The tangible interaction envi- A user holds and manipulates a physical
2005 [55] structure; biomolecular proper- Reality system ronment allows computer- 3D model of a complex molecule
ties; interactions between com- based volumetric visualizations (e.g. protein) and views a computer screen
plex molecules to be overlaid onto hand-held that allows the simultaneous manipulation
3D-printed models of the physical model and viewing of an
augmented scene of molecular properties
such as an electrostatic field (see Fig. 7.3)
Sch€onborn Brownian motion; nano-object Gesture-based NanoSim combines tracking of Citizens and students use a head-coupled
et al.: 2014 [8] collisions and forces; relative immersive virtual head movement and defined perspective and defined hand gestures to
size; relative forces; length-to- environment hand gestures (via a Kinect), reach into the virtual volume and interact
diameter ratio; binding speci- visual output on a 3D TV, and with 3D nano-objects. Moving, pulling or
ficity; “scaling-up” from nano- customized simulation pushing the objects serves as the basis for
to-micro-to-macro; nano- software accessing underlying nano concepts in
toxicity; nano-therapy interpreting potential risks and benefits
of nano (see Fig. 7.4)
McWhorter Nanotechnology safety; Virtual world as a A virtual learning environment Via an avatar, users embark on a nano-
and Lindhjem: nanoparticles; nanotubes; learning environment (VLE) designed within the 3D technology safety tour within Second
2013 [69] nano-related products; safety virtual world of Second Life Life that renders a nanotechnology safety
hazards; safety equipment laboratory. Each avatar can interact within
the VLE through learning stations
depicting various nano concepts, with
the opportunity to apply nano safety
equipment to their avatar
Chanunan: Properties of nanomaterials; Game-based learning The Nano-X Project is a com- The main game scenario involves players
2011 [70], size and scale; tools used in environment puter game-based epistemic tasked by the government to lead the
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . .

Chanunan nanoscience and nanotechnol- platform that combines various development of new military protection
et al.: 2009 ogy; historical perspectives of scenario, graphic, narrative, attire for soldiers, by applying the unique
[83] nano and interactive components properties of nanomaterials. By solving
the problem through interaction with
computerized agents, players develop
nano-related conceptual and procedural
knowledge
209

(continued)
 210

Table 7.1 (continued)

Author(s) and Nano-related concepts and Description of interaction performed to
year study knowledge associated with Interactive Architecture of the interactive map to and access intended nano-related
published study visualization system visualization under study concepts
Blonder and Size and scale; nanometric Game-based learning Nanoquest 3D is a character- Nanoquest requires students to construct
Sakhnini: 2012 scale; surface-area-to-volume environment based computer game; The a nanocar by collecting nano-objects,
[4] ratio (SA/V); shapes of nano- Interactive visual nano effect simulation incor- allowing for conceptualizing different
objects; properties of matter at simulations porates different navigation nanomaterial shapes. The nano effect
the nanoscale options within various interac- simulation allows investigation of nano-
tive information screens scale properties of matter through con-
cepts such as when object volume
decreases, surface atom number increases
Xie and Lee: Nanomachines; nanosystems; Interactive visual The Molecular Workbench The learner engages the graphical user
2012 [2] nanoelectronics; nanoscale simulations (MW) is a computer software interfaces incorporated in the MW envi-
processes; all-atom, course- environment based on various ronment to explore, model and interrogate
grained, Gay-Berne, soft-body, molecular dynamics models simulated nanoscale processes outputted
and quantum molecular that provide interactive simu- on the computer screen display in real
dynamics. lations for virtual time. Examples of interactive simulations
experimentation include self-assembly and hypothetical
nanosystems (see Fig. 7.5b)
Pallant and Nanoscale interactions; atomic Interactive visual Molecular Workbench The user interacts with an MW molecular
Tinker: 2004 interactions; molecular dynam- simulations (MW) in combination with dynamics model through various options
[84] ics; phases of matter Pedagogica, a software script such as placing atoms into a container and
that structures the user’s inter- manipulating variables such as mass,
active experience as a linked charge and location. While doing so, the
hypermodel Pedagogica application monitors the
user’s interaction and responses and
K.J. Sch€

structures the learning trajectory

onborn et al.
Shipley et al.: Nanoscale self-assembly; Interactive visual Molecular Workbench (MW) The learner engages with the MW self-
2008 [85] dipole bonding; dipole attrac- simulations assembly simulation through various
tion and repulsion; charge interactions. Starting from a representa-
position; molecular movement; tion of random molecular motion, the
system energy; molecular student manipulates the dipole charge
shape; reversibility strength, charge type, charge placement,
and molecular shape of nano-objects in
subsequent yielding of self-assembled
aggregates
Magana et al.: Various nanotechnology- Interactive visual The NanoHUB.org simulations Interactive nanoHUB simulations are
2012 [86] related concepts including, simulations contain educational computa- accessed through a web portal, where a
inter alia, concentration- tional simulation tools based on participant engages with a user interface
dependent diffusion; quantum mathematical models to run a simulation related to nanotech-
dots; nanowires; nano- processed on distributed- nology concepts. Examples of simulations
materials; carbon nanotubes computing platforms that could be explored included concepts
surrounding concentration-dependent dif-
fusion, carbon nanotubes, and quantum
dots
Delgado et al.: Size and scale; relative size; Interactive visual A computer visualization that Students interact with the visualization to
2015 [9] submacroscopic scale and simulations displays objects by automati- perceive objects (from a hair to an atom)
objects; micro-, nano-, and cally iterating one object across displayed at different levels of scale. For
sub-nano worlds another to convey the relative example, an image of a skin cell is over-
size of different objects laid with an image of multiple bacteria to
convey the concept that the diameter of an
animal cell is equivalent to 15 bacteria
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . .

placed side by side

211
212 K.J. Sch€
onborn et al.

this area, it may not necessarily be an exhaustive account of all published work
available on the topic.
We now further unpack the studies presented in Table 7.1 in relation to findings
on the influence of interactive visualization environments on learning and percep-
tion of nano-related concepts. Upon consulting the synthesis below, the reader is
requested to refer to the summary in Table 7.1 where appropriate, with respect to
each respective author(s) or visualization environment of interest.
A. Studies on Microscope Probe-Based Multisensory Platforms Jones
et al. [13] have investigated high school students’ interactive exploration of AFM
data through the nanoManipulator interactive interface that allowed for multimodal
visual and haptic perception of nanoscale phenomena. The study found that inter-
action had a marked influence on learners’ understanding of nano-related morpho-
logical and topographical features of viruses, as well as of relative scale. In
addition, the students viewed the interaction as inducing an engaging learning
experience. A subsequent study by the authors in 2004 [58] demonstrated signifi-
cant changes in high school students’ conceptions of scale with an accompanying
transition from a 2D to 3D perception of virus morphology. Results also showed
that receiving tactile feedback correlated with a more engaging and motivating
experience. Moreover, a study by the same group in 2006 [59] confirmed earlier
findings that haptic feedback induced a more immersive and engaging environment
for middle and high school students, and also influenced students’ understanding
about the abstract properties and behaviors of nanoscale objects.
In other related work, Marchi et al. [20] conducted a study on the use of a
custom-made nanomanipulator and a classical AFM interface on Masters level
university students’ understanding of nano-object manipulation in relation to the
approach-retract phenomenon. One aspect of the study considered the influence of
each of three offered sensory modes (visual, haptic and sound) on students’
understanding. Results indicated that different modes played different roles in
perception of the phenomenon, with visual cues being crucial for determining
force threshold, and haptic feedback for determining the nature of the force
involved. In keeping on this track, a study by Millet et al. [23] explored the
influence of a virtual AFM probe that combines graphic analogies and haptic
feedback on forty-five engineering students’ understanding of the approach-retract
phenomenon. Findings showed that the researchers’ adoption of a graphic magnet-
spring analogy and accompanying force feedback improved students’ understand-
ing of cantilever dynamics, and that the bimodal experience was positively received
and appreciated by the participants. The authors also purport that the availability of
a virtual tactile experience in solving a task could induce more motivation and
engagement, while experiencing force feedback could also constrain and focus
students’ orientation on relevant procedures of the task.
In a final microscopy-related contribution, Vogl et al. [80] explored subjects’
accuracy, usability, and reliability of their developed AFM-based interface with
tasks involving positioning an AFM probe tip just above, just in contact with, or just
below the surface of three different materials. Data analysis revealed difficulties
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . . 213

(e.g. positioning the tip just on the surface was most demanding) and benefits
(e.g. the system performed well in simulated mode) of using the interface in
exploring noncontact and contact nanoforces in relation to nanomanipulation
applications.
B. Studies on Visuohaptic Virtual and Augmented Reality Desktop
Environments Results from the current chapter authors’ case-based analyses of
four students’ multisensory visuohaptic interaction with electric fields around
molecules [50] revealed distinct interrelationships between students’ interactive
strategies implemented when executing tasks in the virtual system and the nature of
conceptual knowledge deployed. For example, interaction within the virtual envi-
ronment appeared to provide a bimodal sensory basis for students to dissolve the
erroneous view that nonpolar molecules are void of an electric field. In this regard,
the case-based data suggested that the force feedback experience may have induced
an active integration of electric field concepts with ideas of molecular charge
distribution. In addition, the study suggested that multisensory experiences offered
by such interactive visualizations could provide a basis for helping learners con-
ceptualize the shape and topography of nanoscale entities, and the relative size and
scale of nano-object properties. In other work, Magnanelli et al. [81] used molec-
ular exploration tasks, interviews, and written surveys to evaluate 19 bachelor level
students’ use of the HaptiChem interface as part of a chemistry course. Aspects of
preliminary data analysis indicated that students solved the molecular tasks
(e.g. identifying the critical parts of a molecule involved in particular
intermolecular bonding) in a more precise manner with haptics activated than
without. The data also revealed an increase in students’ interest in their learning
upon using the interface, and 89 % of the students considered the interface to have
potential as a device for improving chemistry learning.
The point-charge simulator developed by Park et al. [82] was evaluated by
investigating 38 undergraduate students’ (assigned either to a visuohaptic or visual
only group) learning of electrostatic-related concepts, as well as their attitudes and
motivation. The intervention in a pre-/posttest study design consisted of interaction
with the simulator in the form of participants examining the electric field and
equipotential properties of different charge configurations. Results on a physics
concepts test revealed a significant increase between pre- and posttest scores in both
groups, which indicated that both conditions of interaction were associated with
learning benefits. Albeit so, qualitative observations in the visuohaptic group found
students to be very positive about their interaction experience in relation to the
tasks.
Finally, when it comes to augmented physical modelling systems, Gillet
et al. [55] have performed pilot evaluations of their augmented reality interface in
a high school classroom setting, with university biochemistry students, and with
practicing molecular biologists. In the first setting, augmented hemoglobin models
were used as part of a lesson on protein structure, and results revealed the models as
engaging and instructive. The second setting considered augmented amino acid
models as part of a lesson on protein structure and function, where observations
214 K.J. Sch€
onborn et al.

were conducted while students investigated the role of different amino acids within
a protein structure. The third setting investigated authors’ colleagues use of the
models as bio-nanotechnology research tools in contexts such as biomolecular
complex assembly. Results indicated that the models provided an enhanced repre-
sentation and conceptualization of structural properties.
C. Studies on Gesture-Based Immersive Virtual Environments Research
conducted by the authors of the current chapter has explored citizens’ and learners’
interaction with the NanoSim gesture-based virtual environment [66] in a science
center context [8]. In one study from the research program, quantitative results
obtained from unobtrusively logged interactions from 1600 public visitor activa-
tions of the system verified that the environment offers an engaging, immersive, and
highly interactive experience. In another study, a think-aloud qualitative investiga-
tion with three Swedish students having just completed high school chemistry,
suggested that gestural interaction with the system could serve as a cognitive
gateway for building nano-related understanding necessary to judge perceived
hopes and fears of nano. In addition, analysis also revealed that the interactive
nanocontext provided a stimulating alternative opportunity for students to learn
otherwise traditional chemistry concepts. Intriguingly, currently ongoing qualita-
tive data analysis of use of the system indicates that citizens create nano ideas that
are often divorced of accompanying scientific ‘jargon’, as well as contains the
reporting of a pseudohaptic perception of forces between nano-objects, a result that
has potentially beneficial implications for the implementation of such technology in
classroom use. Herein, it may be well worth exploiting pseudohaptic feedback
(e.g. [87]) in the design of environments where the intention is to understand
nano-object interactions.
D. Studies on Virtual World and Game-Based Learning Environments When
it comes to other variants of virtual learning environments apart from those
discussed above, McWhorter and Lindhjem [69] have investigated the influence
of their designed nanotechnology safety laboratory in the Second Life (SL) virtual
world. The study involved 133 university students from four universities who took a
45-min tour of the laboratory in groups, where activities for their respective avatars
included exposure to learning stations about various nanoparticles and possible
safety hazards that face nanoworkers. One main finding from a post-survey
conducted after the nanotechnology virtual world intervention revealed that 92 %
of the participants answered in the affirmative to whether they thought that SL
could be useful in nanotechnology safety education. In addition, open-ended
responses also revealed that the environment allowed trainee nanoworkers to
learn from laboratory safety mistakes made in the virtual world, and take such
safety implications on board before entering real nanotechnology laboratories.
In other virtual world approaches, work by Chanunan and colleagues [70, 83]
has dealt with the development of the Nano-X Project computer game-based
environment for learning fundamental nano concepts. Initial data collected from
six high school students in response to a pre-/post conceptual understanding test,
focused group discussion and individual interviews showed that participants’
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . . 215

interaction with the game was associated with increased conceptual understanding
surrounding size and scale, the meaning of “nanoscience” and “nanotechnology”,
as well as historical aspects of nano. The initial findings also revealed that students
found learning with the game interface to be a motivating and engaging experience.
Apart from the positive results, usability data obtained from the students revealed
what future modifications to the game-based environment, such as superfluous text
and unrelated graphical components within the environment, could be modified or
removed to increase the learning potential. Continuing within the realm of game-
based learning, amongst other instructional methods, Blonder and Sakhnini [4]
investigated the influence of interactive visualizations on 60 students’ understand-
ing of basic nanoconcepts when used as part of a ninth grade nanotechnology
module. Through interviews and student project-based work, the authors found
that although challenging for some of the students, there were positive conceptual
outcomes associated with playing the Nanoquest 3D game, with one student
suggesting, “Only after playing this game did I really understand what is the
nano-dimension. . .” (p. 513).
E. Studies on Interactive Visual Simulations In continuation of the study by
Blonder and Sakhnini [4] described above, when it came to interaction with the
nano effect visual simulation to expose students to the idea of SA/V properties in
relation to nanometric scale, some of the students found conceptualization of this
concept through the interface to be rather abstract and challenging to interpret.
Albeit so, in the context of interactive visual simulations, influential work by Xie in
the area of representing nanoscale processes has resulted in development of the
Molecular Workbench (MW). In Xie and Lee [2], the authors present results from a
pilot study concerned with 22 university students’ use of three homework MW
modules as part of a solid state physics course. The influence of the modules on
students’ learning was investigated with a pre-/post-test using multiple-choice and
open-ended instruments. Results showed a significant increase in students’ scores
on the multiple-choice items, which suggests that students’ interaction with the
MW simulations was associated with the observed learning gain [2]. In an earlier
study, Pallant and Tinker [84] investigated a MW molecular dynamics model
concerned with atomic interactions and phases of matter incorporated in the
Pedagogica platform in a learning activity provided to students across 10 middle
and high school classrooms. One focus of the study concerned exploring the
influence of the MW dynamic model on students’ reasoning about atomic and
molecular interaction at the nanoscale. Data obtained from implementation of the
activities through pre-/post-test comparisons, analyzing students’ reasoning, and
conducting student interviews indicated that interaction with the interface led to
significant learning gains related to understanding states of matter. The authors
attribute the sense of control and interactivity offered by the interface, making
explicit connections between macroscopic and microscopic scales, and the offered
guided exploration as factors associated with students’ gained understanding of
nanoscale interactions.
216 K.J. Sch€
onborn et al.

While making use of the MW self-assembly simulation as part of a nanotech-

nology design intervention, Shipley et al. [85] explored 41 sixth grade students’
learning of nanoscale concepts related to self-assembly. A paper-and-pencil draw-
ing instrument was included as a measure of students’ generation of solutions and
predictions around how molecular entities might form different self-assembled
aggregates. Results revealed that 77 % of the participants gave correct answers to
the self-assembly design tasks, and that interaction with the MW simulation
significantly influenced students’ accurate prediction of self-assembled configura-
tions. Overall, the aforementioned studies conducted on the educational use of MW
indicate that interactive modelling is associated with students’ attaining an under-
standing of nanoscale ideas that could be transferred to new learning contexts, a
finding that bodes well for suggesting how interactive simulations can enhance
nano-related understanding at large [2, 15, 84].
As part of other research on the role of interactive visual simulations in nano
education, Magana et al. [86] explored 314 science and engineering university
students’ perceptions and experiences of the NanoHUB.org simulations for learn-
ing, as well as measured any differences between graduate and undergraduate
students’ perceptions of the simulations. Data were collected using an online survey
questionnaire following the integration of nanoHub simulations across 20 course
and 9 university contexts. Findings revealed that students placed high positive value
on having the interactive simulations integrated as part of their learning, although
the study identified differences between graduate and undergraduate students’
perceptions of simulation ease of use.
Lastly, a recent study by Delgado et al. [9] centered on the development of an
instructional intervention around the idea of size and scale embedded in a nano-
technology context. Interactive computer simulations were included as part of the
intervention with a total of 66 middle school students from different school
districts, where the overarching theme was on how nanotechnology could prevent
sickness. Qualitative and quantitative pre-/post-test results obtained from inter-
views prior to and following the intervention revealed a significant increase in
students’ scale understanding of object sizes including the atom, viruses and cells,
which indicates that students’ interaction with the visualization may have had a
positive influence on conceptualized size and scale knowledge.

7.5 Implications of Research Findings on the Use

of Interactive Visualization in Nano Education

A. Overall Assertions on the Influence of Interactive Visualization

for Learning and Teaching Nano Based on the conducted literature review,
overall assertions extrapolated from the findings on the influence of interactive
visualization for learning and teaching nano are as follows:
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . . 217

• Sensoriperceptual embodied features afforded by modern interactive visualiza-

tion environments might be cognitively well-suited to learning abstract and
complex nano concepts (e.g. [8, 13, 40, 58, 59]).
• Multisensory engagement offered by activating visual, tactile and proprioceptive
pathways could provide a natural and intuitive basis for constructing abstract
concepts that is different from indirect interactions (e.g. a computer mouse)
(e.g. [55, 88]).
• Millennial student users are comfortable and positive about using interactive
visualization environments as adjuncts to their science learning (e.g. [69, 82]).
• Different sensory modes (and their relative combinations), and different styles of
interaction within an environment can play significantly different roles in
learners’ perception of nanoscale ideas, and offer novel authentic hands-on
learning experiences (e.g. [20, 50, 59, 82], see Chap. 6).
• Multisensory interactive environments may be particularly fruitful for learners
with low or no nano-related knowledge and could compensate for students with
low spatial ability (e.g. [2, 8, 23, 51]).
• Simulation-based modelling through interactive visualization can help students
build an integrated understanding of demanding nano-concepts in a self-paced
manner (e.g. [2, 84]).
• Exposing students to nano ideas through interactive visualization may serve as
an alternative and interdisciplinary platform for learning otherwise traditional
scientific concepts in physics, chemistry and biology (e.g. [7, 8, 50]).
• Interaction with immersive multisensory visualizations is associated with
increased student interest, engagement and motivation in the science content
under study (e.g. [40, 58, 61, 81, 82]).
• Students’ learning with interactive visualization is linked with an increased
ability to transfer newly acquired knowledge of nanoscale processes to different
contexts (e.g. [76, 84–86]).
• Immersive visualization environments could enhance collaboration and social
interaction between students by adding novel actions and opportunities for
inquiry-based learning experiences (e.g. [55, 83]).

B. Potential Challenges of Integrating Interactive Visualization in Nano Edu-

cation Praxis Although the literature indicates that interactive digital visualiza-
tion offers a promising cognitive and pedagogical means for accessing the
nanoworld, it is important to consider the potential challenges that accompany
implementation in formal and informal nano education contexts. The following
three challenges that nano education role-players should take heed of are raised for
consideration during integration of interactive visualization in practice.
Firstly, it is crucial that practitioners consider the danger of trivializing the
complexity and sophistication of nano content through superficial or over-
simplified interactive visualization [1]. For example, Jones et al. [19] have cau-
tioned that although instructional visualization is pivotal for communicating nano-
scale objects and properties, care must be taken to ensure that the content is
218 K.J. Sch€
onborn et al.

interpreted appropriately. Therefore, it is necessary that students and citizens hold

appropriate knowledge frameworks to interpret information depicted through
newly developed visualizations of nano phenomena. In this regard, given the future
impact that nano is bound to have, it is imperative that citizens possess a critical
understanding of how visual images are used to communicate nano [89], and
demonstrate “the ability to discern models that are a translation of scientific data
as compared to fictional models” [28] (p. 1147). Similarly, Goodsell [35] has
suggested that given the relative infancy of scientific endeavor concerned with
visualizing nanoscale entities, it remains a challenge to avoid separating compelling
visual stimuli from scientific reality. Thus, student and public interpreters of
nanoscience require careful descriptions of what is being visualized, and how, in
order to avoid blurring nano-related visual fantasy with science fact.
Secondly, it is essential that practitioners strike a balance between technological,
conceptual, and economical constraints in the implementation of interactive visu-
alization in nano education. Part of this process involves moving beyond the “wow-
factor” [90] and not viewing interactive simulations as a “magic bullet” [91], by
naively affirming that the mere availability of modern interactive visualization
automatically translates into conceptual learning. At the same time, students should
be encouraged not to view interactive models used to represent nanoscale objects
and processes as mere visualization tools for representation purposes alone. Instead,
students should be stimulated to take advantage of the modelling and interactive
opportunities afforded by such visualizations as a means of providing conceptual
access to the nanoworld [37].
Thirdly, integration of interactive visualizations in nano education can be
exploited to both excite students about the swiftly growing area of nano as well
as improve knowledge acquisition in the classroom [61, 76]. Hence, a further
challenge to be met is for designers and developers of pre-university science
curricula to take the influential cognitive and affective role of dynamic interactive
visualization into account when aiming to integrate nano-related concepts and
principles effectively [76, 85, 92]. On this score, interactive simulation and model-
ling of multiple cross-disciplinary and convergent concepts such as self-assembly,
size and scale, and proportion, present concrete and non-traditional opportunities to
include nano concepts and principles in school science curricula [4, 9, 93]. In doing
so, designing interactive visualizations in this manner could bootstrap the effective
integration of inquiry-based curricular materials for technology-enhanced nano
education [86].
C. Future Research on Interactive Visualization in Nano Education This
review has presented various interactive visualization systems available to the
nano education community and has described research related to their influence
on perceiving and understanding nano. In closing, we posit possible avenues for
future research inquiry on the role of interactive nano visualization environments
for learning and teaching.
Since digital interactive visualizations present authentic yet novel “hands-on”
experiences for students to be exposed to nanoscience, and given their general cost
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . . 219

effectiveness and flexibility, it could be pedagogically valuable for future work to

further explore to what extent real laboratory settings could be substituted with
interactive visualization tools for modelling and simulating nanoworld concepts
(e.g. [69]). If feasible, such an approach could increase the accessibility of
nanoscience to citizens and students at large. However, meeting such objectives
would also require realistic models of nano-object interactions for reliable and valid
nanomanipulation with computational data to be ensured. Hence, as suggested by
Sharma et al. [42] more research on real-time virtual rendering of nanodynamic
force simulations (e.g. van der Waals, contact deformation, and electrostatic forces)
are required to be developed to capture the complexity of nanoscale interactions.
This review demonstrates that nano education-related research on interactive
visualization is certainly increasing (all 20 contributions reviewed in this chapter
are from the 2000s). Albeit so, when it comes to investigating the role of immersive
environments for science education overall, Dede [40] suggests that more future
work is required on exploring the specific affordances that such environments
provide for the learning process. Here, in application of Dede’s stance, one
suggested focus is studying the relationship between the nanoscience subject matter
at hand and the need for immersion (i.e. when is immersion important, necessary, or
favorable for learning different nanoconcepts?). Another is on deducing the most
effective combination of situated learning opportunities and immersion environ-
ment design for promoting the transfer of learning nano to other contexts
(i.e. application of knowledge attained in one situation to another situation, such
as from a classroom to a real-world context). On this score, the design of interactive
nano environments that harness multisensory features must depend on detailed
insight into why and how learning may (or may not) be occurring [50, 51]. In this
way, future designers of virtual nanoscale environments should pay attention to
considering how dynamic interactive visualizations best be constructed to “aug-
ment mental processes and not to act as a substitute for those processes” [94]
(p. 715). Overall, it is important that any interactive visualizations that foresee
contributing to future pedagogical application are informed by research and valid
design-based principles [91] in order to move the nano education agenda
forward [95].
In conclusion, though there are certainly compelling reasons for the nano
education community to be excited about the cognitive potential of interactive
visualizations for learning and teaching, in general, a limited amount of research
underpinned primarily by educational research questions has been performed to
date. Continuation of an empirical research agenda for informing the effective
design and implementation of interactive visualization in nano education should
be expanded to include: more investigations across learner demographics and level,
include other formal and informal educational settings, and deploy higher numbers
of participants [2]. In doing so, our field will continue to gain knowledge about the
crucial educational role of interactive visualization in the nano revolution.

Acknowledgment The Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, Grant 2011–5569)

supported the composition of this chapter.
220 K.J. Sch€
onborn et al.

References

1. A. Laherto, Sci. Educ. Int. 21, 160–175 (2010)

2. C. Xie, H.S. Lee, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 28, 1006–1018 (2012)
3. N. Healy, J. Nano Educ. 1, 6–7 (2009)
4. R. Blonder, S. Sakhnini, Chem. Educ. Res. Prac. 13, 500–516 (2012)
5. S.Y. Stevens, L.M. Sutherland, J.S. Krajcik, The Big Ideas of Nanoscale Science and Engi-
neering: A Guidebook for Secondary Teachers (NSTA, Arlington, 2009)
6. P. Schank, J. Krajcik, M. Yunker, in Nanoethics—the Ethical and Social Implications of
Nanotechnology, ed. by F. Allhoff, P. Lin, J. Moor, J. Weckert (Wiley, New York, 2007)
7. M.G. Jones, R. Blonder, G.E. Gardner, V. Albe, M. Falvo, J. Chevrier, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35,
1490–1512 (2013)
8. K.J. Sch€onborn, G.E. H€ ost, K.L. Palmerius, J. Flint, Int. J. Virt. Pers. Learn. Environ. 5, 40–56
(2014)
9. C. Delgado, S.Y. Stevens, N. Shin, J. Krajcik, Nanotechnol. Rev. 4, 51–69 (2015)
10. M.C. Roco, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 14, 337–346 (2003)
11. J.K. Gilbert, H.-S. Lin, Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B. 3, 267–292 (2013)
12. B. Hingant, V. Albe, Stud. Sci. Educ. 46, 121–152 (2010)
13. M.G. Jones, T. Andre, R. Superfine, R. Taylor, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 303–322 (2003)
14. J. LightFeather, in Nanomodeling II, San Diego, 2006, ed. by A. Lakhtakia, S.A. Maksimenko
(SPIE, Bellingham, 2006), p. 63280P
15. C. Xie, R. Tinker, B. Tinker, A. Pallant, D. Damelin, B. Berenfeld, Science 332, 1516–1517
(2011)
16. K.J. Sch€onborn, G.E. H€ ost, K.L. Palmerius, Nano education with interactive visualization.
Nano Today. (2016). doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2015.10.006
17. S.Y. Stevens, C. Delgado, J.S. Krajcik, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 687–715 (2010)
18. K.J. Sch€onborn, G.E. H€ ost, K.L. Palmerius, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 16, 346–354 (2015)
19. M.G. Jones, G.E. Gardner, M. Falvo, A. Taylor, Nanotechnol. Rev. 4, 117–127 (2015)
20. F. Marchi, S. Marlière, D. Urma, J.L. Florens, J. Chevrier, C. Cadoz, A. Luciani, in Recent
Research Developments in Learning Technologies, C aceres, 2005, ed. by A. Méndez-Vilas,
B. González-Pereira, J. Mesa González, J.A. Mesa González (FORMATEX, Badajoz, 2005),
pp. 510–515
21. T.R. Tretter, M.G. Jones, J. Minogue, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 1061–1085 (2006)
22. M.G. Jones, A.R. Taylor, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 460–475 (2009)
23. G. Millet, A. Lécuyer, J.M. Burkhardt, S. Haliyo, S. Régnier, Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 71,
608–626 (2013)
24. R. Shabani, L. Massi, L. Zhai, S. Seal, H.J. Cho, Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 36, 199–210 (2011)
25. S. Swarat, G. Light, E.J. Park, D. Drane, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 512–533 (2011)
26. M.G. Jones, A. Taylor, J. Minogue, B. Broadwell, E. Wiebe, G. Carter, J. Sci. Educ. Technol.
16, 191–202 (2007)
27. J. Bell, T. Moher, in Proceedings of the ASEE Southeastern Section Conference, Louisville,
2007, ed. by B.B. Thomas (American Society for Engineering Education, 2007), p. 1927
28. C.A. Batt, A.M. Waldron, N. Broadwater, J. Nanopart. Res. 10, 1141–1148 (2008)
29. F. Frankel, in Invention and Impact: Building Excellence in Undergraduate Science, Technol-
ogy, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education, ed. by S. Cunningham, Y.S. George
(AAAS, Washington, 2005)
30. S. Wansom, T.O. Mason, M.C. Hersam, D. Drane, G. Light, R. Cormia, S. Stevens, G. Bodner,
Int. J. Eng. Educ. 25, 615–627 (2009)
31. Y. Hong, H. Tao, M. Su, J. Nano Educ. 2, 48–52 (2010)
32. H. Margel, B.S. Eylon, Z. Scherz, J. Chem. Educ. 81, 558–566 (2004)
33. C. O’Connor, H. Hayden, Chem. Educ. Res. Prac. 9, 35–42 (2008)
34. V.L. Hanson, Sci. Commun. 34, 57–83 (2012)
35. D.S. Goodsell, Nano Today 1, 44–49 (2006)
7 Interactive Visualization for Learning and Teaching Nanoscience and. . . 221

36. N. Sabelli, P. Schank, A. Rosenquist, T. Stanford, C. Patton, R. Cormia, K. Hurst, SRI

International, Report of the workshop on science and technology education at the nanoscale
(2005), http://nanosense.sri.com/documents/reports/NanoWorkshopReportDraft.pdf. Accessed
26 Oct 2015
37. S. Daly, L.A. Bryan, J. Nano Educ. 2, 76–90 (2010)
38. A. Ferreira, C. Mavroidis, IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 13, 78–92 (2006)
39. E. Richard, A. Tijou, P. Richard, J.L. Ferrier, Virtual Reality 10, 207–225 (2006)
40. C. Dede, Science 323, 66–69 (2009)
41. A.J. Harmer, L. Columba, J. Nano Educ. 2, 91–101 (2010)
42. G. Sharma, C. Mavroidis, A. Ferreira, in Handbook of theoretical and computational nano-
technology, ed. by M. Rieth, W. Schommers (American Scientific, Valencia, 2005)
43. D.A. Bowman, R.P. McMahan, Computer 40, 36–43 (2007)
44. K. Lundin Palmerius, D. Johansson, G. H€ onborn, in Haptics: Neuroscience,
ost, K. Sch€
Devices, Modeling, and Applications, ed. by M. Auvray, C. Duriez (Springer, Berlin, 2014)
45. C. Hendrix, W. Barfield, Presence (Camb.) 5, 290–301 (1996)
46. A.N. Meltzoff, P.K. Kuhl, J. Movellan, T.J. Sejnowski, Science 325, 284–288 (2009)
47. M. Wilson, Psychon. B. Rev. 9, 625–636 (2002)
48. T.G. Amin, F. Jeppsson, J. Haglund, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 745–758 (2015)
49. M. Reiner, Interact. Learn. Environ. 7, 31–55 (1999)
50. G.E. H€ost, K.J. Sch€
onborn, K.E. Lundin Palmerius, Educ. Res. Int. 2013, 1–11 (2013)
51. K.J. Sch€onborn, P. Bivall, L.A.E. Tibell, Comput. Educ. 57, 2095–2105 (2011)
52. N. Myers, Soc. Stud. Sci. 38, 163–199 (2008)
53. S. Marlière, J.L. Florens, F. Marchi, A. Luciani, J. Chevrier, in Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Enactive Interfaces, Grenoble, 2007, ed. by A. Luciani,
C. Cadoz (ACROE, Grenoble, 2007), pp. 181–184
54. M. Slater, S. Wilbur, Presence (Camb.) 6, 603–616 (1997)
55. A. Gillet, M. Sanner, D. Stoffler, A. Olson, Structure 13, 483–491 (2005)
56. R. Blonder, E. Joselevich, S.R. Cohen, J. Chem. Educ. 87, 1290–1293 (2010)
57. R.M. Taylor, W. Robinett, V.L. Chi, F.P. Brooks Jr., W.V Wright, R.S. Williams, E.J. Snyder,
in SIGGRAPH ‘93 Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and
Interactive Techniques, Anaheim, 1993, edited by M. C. Whitton (ACM, Anaheim, 1993),
pp. 127–134
58. M.G. Jones, T. Andre, D. Kubasko, A. Bokinsky, T. Tretter, A. Negishi, R. Taylor,
R. Superfine, Sci. Educ. 88, 55–71 (2004)
59. M.G. Jones, J. Minogue, T.R. Tretter, A. Negishi, R. Taylor, Sci. Educ. 90, 111–123 (2006)
60. E.W. Ong, V.B. Pizziconi, B.L. Ramakrishna, J. Mater. Educ. 21, 27–40 (1999)
61. E.W. Ong, A. Razdan, A.A. Garcia, V.B. Pizziconi, B.L. Ramakrishna, W.S. Glaunsinger,
J. Chem. Educ. 77, 1114–1115 (2000)
62. F.P. Brooks Jr., M. Ouh-Young, J.J. Batter, P. Jerome Kilpatrick, in SIGGRAPH ‘90 Pro-
ceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and interactive Techniques,
1990, ed. by F. Baskett (ACM, New York, 1990)
63. P. Bivall Persson, M.D. Cooper, L.A. Tibell, S. Ainsworth, A. Ynnerman, and B. H. Jonsson,
in 2007 I.E. Virtual Reality Conference, Charlotte, 2007, ed. by D. Bowman, S. Julier (IEEE,
Charlotte, 2007), pp. 171–178
64. S.K. Lai-Yuen, Y.-S. Lee, in Ninth International Conference on Computer Aided Design and
Computer Graphics, Hong Kong, 2005, ed. by D.C. Martin (IEEE, Hong Kong, 2005),
pp. 199–204
65. K.H. Cheng, C.C. Tsai, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 22, 449–462 (2013)
66. K.E. Lundin Palmerius, G.E. H€ ost, K.J. Sch€onborn, in Haptic and Audio Interaction Design,
ed. by D. Szymczak, S. Brewster (Springer, Berlin, 2012)
67. B. Lu, Z. Fan, J. Zheng, L. Li, Int. J. Image Graph. 6, 251–265 (2006)
68. M.T. Cheng, J.H. Chen, S.J. Chu, S.Y. Chen, J. Comput. Educ. 2, 353–375 (2015)
69. R. McWhorter, K. Lindhjem, IEEE Nanotechnol. Mag. 7, 15–17 (2013)
222 onborn et al.
K.J. Sch€

70. S. Chanunan, Ph.D. thesis, Srinakharinwirot University, 2011

71. Nanomission, PlayGen, http://nanomission.org. Accessed 27 Oct 2015
72. PhET Interactive Simulations, University of Colorado Boulder, http://phet.colorado.edu/.
Accessed 27 Oct 2015
73. C.E. Wieman, K.K. Perkins, W.K. Adams, Am. J. Phys. 76, 393–399 (2008)
74. C.E. Wieman, W.K. Adams, P. Loeblein, K.K. Perkins, Physiol. Teach 48, 225–227 (2010)
75. E.B. Moore, J.M. Chamberlain, R. Parson, K.K. Perkins, J. Chem. Educ. 91, 1191–1197 (2014)
76. C. Xie, A. Pallant, in Models and Modeling, ed. by M.S. Khine, I.M. Saleh (Springer,
Netherlands, 2011)
77. nanoHUB: Online Simulation and More for Nanotechnology, Network for Computational
Nanotechnology, http://nanohub.org/. Accessed 27 Oct 2015
78. G. Klimeck, M. McLennan, S.P. Brophy, G.B. Adams III, M.S. Lundstrom, Comput. Sci. Eng.
10, 17–23 (2008)
79. K. Winkelmann, L. Bernas, M. Saleh, J. Nano Educ. 6, 1–11 (2014)
80. W. Vogl, B.K.L. Ma, M. Sitti, IEEE T. Nanotechnol. 5, 397–406 (2006)
81. E. Magnanelli, G. Brero, R.V.E. Garnier, G. Mazzoletti, A.M. Rizzi, S. Comai, in Learning
and Collaboration Technologies. Technology-Rich Environments for Learning and Collabo-
ration, ed. by P. Zaphiris, A. Ioannou (Springer International, Cham, 2014)
82. J. Park, K. Kim, H.Z. Tan, R. Reifenberger, G. Bertoline, T. Hoberman, D. Bennett, in 2010 I.
E. Haptics Symposium, Waltham, 2010, ed. by K. MacLean, A. Okamura (IEEE, Waltham,
2010), pp. 425–430
83. S. Chanunan, M. Boonprakob, P. Ratananukul, S. Teanrungroj, วารสาร ICT เพื่อพัฒนาการเรียนรู้
1 (2009)
84. A. Pallant, R.F. Tinker, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13, 51–66 (2004)
85. E. Shipley, T. Moher, B. Lopez-Silva, in Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York, 2008, ed. by W.F. Tate IV, J.D. Anderson (AERA,
New York, 2008)
86. A.J. Magana, S.P. Brophy, G.M. Bodner, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 28, 1019–1032 (2012)
87. A. Lécuyer, Presence 18, 39–53 (2009)
88. S. Comai, D. Mazza, in Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2009, ed. by T. Gross,
J. Gulliksen, P. Kotzé, L. Oestreicher, P. Palanque, R. Oliveira Prates, M. Winckler (Springer,
Berlin, 2009)
89. J. Landau, C.R. Groscurth, L. Wright, C.M. Condit, Public Underst. Sci. 18, 325–337 (2009)
90. P. Chandler, Comp. Hum. Behav. 25, 389–392 (2009)
91. N.D. Finkelstein, W.K. Adams, C.J. Keller, P.B. Kohl, K.K. Perkins, N.S. Podolefsky, S. Reid,
R. LeMaster, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010103 (2005)
92. E. Gottschalk, B. Venkataraman, J. Chem. Educ. 91, 666–672 (2014)
93. S. Daly, K. Hutchinson, L. Bryan, in Proceedings of the ASEE Southeastern
Section Conference, Louisville, 2007, ed. by B.B. Thomas (American Society for Engineering
Education, 2007), p. 1686
94. D. Levy, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 22, 702–717 (2013)
95. L.A. Bryan, A.J. Magana, D. Sederberg, Nanotechnol. Rev. 4, 7–32 (2015)
Chapter 8
Nanotechnology Safety Education

Walt Trybula, Dominick Fazarro, Craig Hanks, and Jitendra Tate

Abstract The topic of nanotechnology safety has been the subject of many dis-
cussions. Starting in 2006, a focus was started at Texas State University to develop
an educational process to train workers and students in the elements of nanotech-
nology safety. The progress was slow and had many setbacks, which took 8 years to
overcome. This chapter presents the path to the creation of and details about the two
courses in nanotechnology safety education and the coming nanotechnology safety
certification.

8.1 Background

Nanotechnology, as an identified research area, has been around for a relatively

short time—since the 1990s. One of the issues that arose early on was what impact
will the nanomaterials have on people and the environment. This became a focal
point in the mid 2000s when people started comparing the shape of carbon
nanotubes (CNTs) with a length of up to 2.5 μm with the shape of asbestos with a
much longer length than carbon nanotubes. The thinking was that since both had
similar shapes they should have similar toxicity concerns. The toxicity focus was
quickly addressed by professionals, but definitive results are very difficult to
quantify. A published report indicated that CNTs produced asbestos type lesions
in experimental animal tissues [1]. This was touted as another proof of issues with

W. Trybula (*) • J. Tate

Ingram School of Engineering, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX
78666, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Fazarro
Department of Technology, University of Texas at Tyler, 3900 University Blvd., Tyler, TX
75799, USA
C. Hanks
Department of Philosophy, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX
78666, USA

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 223

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_8
224 W. Trybula et al.

nanomaterials. Overlooked by people citing the report was the fact that the CNTs in
the experiment were roughly 10 times longer than normally produced and the
quantity of CNTs was very large and difficult to occur naturally.
In 2003, Texas State University created a Nanomaterials Application Center
(NAC) that focused on promoting an industry-academia collaborative effort to
establish projects/companies that would produce beneficial applications of nano-
technology. The NAC Advisory Board consisted of members from both academia
and industry. Specifically, members of this Board were drawn from across Texas in
industry and the Texas State University System. In 2006, NanoTox, Inc., joined the
NAC Board. At that time, their primary focus was providing a service for evaluat-
ing specific nanomaterials of industry interest for this potential impact on people
and the environment. The broad industry view was that any material with a
dimension of 100 nm or smaller should be classified as nanomaterial. Thinking
there could be billions of possible nanomaterial considerations, the NAC Director
thought the focus on the evaluating the toxicity of specific nanomaterials was too
restrictive and needed a much broader approach. He cited that the nature of
nanomaterials included being both shape-shifters and property changelings. Con-
sequently, it is next to impossible to develop a single quantitative description that
will cover an entire range of sizes for any given nanomaterial much less size
distributions of large quantities of nanomaterials. An example of this is that
30 nm aluminum and 80 nm aluminum can officially be considered the same
aluminum nanoparticles, but one is explosive and the other is not. The development
of nanotechnology has reached the point where combinations of nanomaterials can
create novel materials with properties that are not possible in bulk materials. How
can these properties be determined before the materials are combined?
As the technology has developed and applications expanded, there has been a
continual concern regarding the potential harmful properties of the nanomaterials.
The physicochemical properties that make nanomaterials, industrial or engineered,
attractive technologically also raise questions and concerns from industry, con-
sumers, and regulators regarding their toxicity and potential for exposure.
Unwanted exposure to engineered particles such as carbon nanotubes require
certain safety protocol while working with them. Improperly handled medical
nanoparticles may pose threats to human heart and lung functions. The long-term,
actual impact is more likely unknown. Therefore it is required for engineers,
scientists, medical personnel, industry workers to implement and employ safe
handling practices. In many cases, guidelines do not exist.
Obviously, an approach was needed to address the possible application of
nanotechnology and ensure that the efforts were addressing safety concerns.
There would need to be instructional guidelines or teaching modules covering
various areas such as, nanoparticle transport, administrative controls, theories of
accident causation, and use of ASTM/OSHA guidelines for working with
nanomaterials. This is what we set out to develop.
8 Nanotechnology Safety Education 225

8.2 The Beginnings

The concept of nanotechnology safety was distributed in the latter half of 2007 [2]
and consisted of four distinct thrusts that are required to create a true effort
addressing the safety of nanomaterials. This white paper was the first document
published on nanomaterial safety. The concept was widely promoted through pre-
sentations and collaborative efforts with other universities.
During this time, there was significant interest throughout the world in develop-
ing nanotechnologies. There was a fortunate convergence of safety focused efforts
in Texas. Many universities were developing research capabilities in nanotechnol-
ogy. The Texas State University System was no different. A System-wide meeting
was held in Austin, Texas to discuss the incorporation of nanotechnology safety
into their efforts. At that meeting, the representatives from the various schools
agreed to formulate an effort to ensure that world address possible health and safety
concerns. Dr. Dominick Fazarro, who was at Sam Houston State University, was
instrumental in leading the system-wide effort.
In 2008, Professor Jitendra Tate needed to upgrade his University Lab to be able
to handle nanomaterials. He organized a group of all the health and safety organi-
zations leaders and the Director of NAC on the San Marcos, Texas campus to advise
them on how to design and construct a laboratory that would be capable of this. This
effort resulted in the specification and implementation of his laboratory to address
concerns in working with nanomaterials. It provides a hands-on learning experience
for his students.
During this time, the NAC had been collaborating with the Smalley Institute at
Rice University. Rice had been developing a number of guidelines and sources,
such as Good Nano [3]. Rice has been a leader in the development of nanotechnol-
ogy. The growth of nanotechnology can be attributed to the discovery of C60
(buckyballs) and the subsequent manufacturing and application of carbon
nanotubes.

8.3 The Early Stages

In 2009, Dr. Kristen Kulinowski of Rice University was the Principal Investigator
(PI) for a Susan Harwood Training Grant from the Occupational Safety Health
Agency (OSHA) awarded to Rice University. The award was for the development
of a short (4 or 8 h) course for people working in nanotechnology [4]. The NAC
Director was the Texas State University PI. The resultant course, which featured
Professor Tate’s lab, was tested at major conferences and the recommendation was
that the 8-h course was superior to the 4-h one. This course is currently available
through OHSA [5].
The course consists of the following seven modules: (1) Introduction to nano-
technology and nanomaterials, (2) What workers need to know about
226 W. Trybula et al.

nanomaterials, (3) Assessing exposure to nano, (4) Controlling exposure to nano,

(5) Task management approaches, (6) Regulations and standards relevant to nano-
technology, and (7) Tools and resources for further study. Each module is briefly
described below.
Description of OSHA Course: Introduction to Nanomaterials and Occupations
Health
Module 1: Introduction to nanotechnology and nanomaterials
This module provides an introduction to nanotechnology and provides examples
on how nanomaterials are different from the bulk materials. The student will learn
about the difference between bulk and nano and how some properties change.
Module 2: What workers need to know about nanomaterials
The goal of this module is to provide workers with information related to the
nanomaterials possible impact on health, safety, and environmental implications.
The student will learn the different mechanism that can enable nanomaterials to
enter a human and the potential effect along with the possible environmental
effects. The student will also learn where the latest research reports are available.
Module 3: Assessing exposure to nano
This module is directed at providing workers/students with an awareness of the
sampling and analytical approaches being used in nanotechnology. The student will
learn about the equipment that can be employed for sampling and how to compare
results with different equipment.
Module 4: Controlling exposure to nano
The purpose of this module is to provide the student with an awareness of the
various controls possible and how to eliminate or reduce exposure to nanomaterials.
The outcome of this module is to provide the student with the ability to identify
needed equipment for various situations and an understanding of the means to
control exposure.
Module 5: Task management approaches
The goal of this module is to provide students with a basis to compare risks of
nanomaterials with other more familiar risks and cover several methods of risk
evaluation. The student will understand the difference between risk and hazard and
be able to apply some techniques for evaluation of risk.
Module 6: Regulations and standards relevant to nanotechnology
This module is directed at understanding existing regulations and be able to
locate sources of regulations. The student will be able to articulate which OSHA
standards apply to nanomaterial workplaces and identify regulations and standards
that are applicable.
Module 7: Tools and resources for further study
The last module is focused on providing the student with the ability to use the
sources of information and how to find the recent developments. The student will be
able to demonstrate his/her ability to find appropriate regulations and identify the
applicable ones.
8 Nanotechnology Safety Education 227

8.4 NSF-NUE Grant

There was a National Science Foundation (NSF) request for a Nanotechnology

Undergraduate Education (NUE) proposal which included topics addressing vari-
ous nanotechnology issues. This was a natural fit for the nanomaterial safety efforts
that had been developed with Texas State University and University of Texas at
Tyler (UT Tyler). The requirement for the proposal to be submitted by an Engi-
neering Department/School made Texas State the choice to lead the effort. Based
on the ongoing work, the decision was to submit a proposal that addressed the goal
developed internally: To educate engineering and technology undergraduate stu-
dents in nanotechnology safety that includes societal, ethical, environment, health,
and safety issues. This goal will be achieved by addressing the following items:
• The concern of nanotechnology safety has been a topic of discussion for years.
This concern needs to be addressed by education for both students and workers.
• Provide both an introductory and an advanced course addressing the issues of
nanotechnology safety.
• Since the science of nanotechnology is still developing, it was necessary to
include elements on handling unknowns in developing technologies. Conse-
quently, this concern is addressed by inclusion of modules on ethics and risk
in working with emerging technologies.
• The format of the courses involved developing nine modules for each, of which
any of the individual modules could be inserted into existing courses as stand-
alone units.
In 2012, Dr. Jitendra Tate submitted a proposal to the National Science Foun-
dation to develop two courses, an introductory and an advanced, to educate students
involved in nanotechnology. The development of the courses was based on two
considerations. The first is that the students will be working after they graduate with
the development of nanomaterials, the application and incorporation of
nanomaterials into products, and the manufacturing of the products for general
distribution and application. The second consideration is that the properties of the
nanomaterials will probably not be fully known by the time the product is available
for distribution to the public. The proposal was approved and the award was given
to Professor Tate with Professor Fazarro as co-PI and Professor Craig Hanks (Texas
State) with Dr. Trybula as Senior Advisor.

8.5 Developing the Courses

The philosophy that we employed is that in the next 10 years, nanotechnology will
emerge as the next industrial revolution. Therefore, the next generation of engineers
and technologists must be prepared to address social, ethical, and environmental
issues related to nanotechnology, particularly health and safety issues. The effort
228 W. Trybula et al.

addresses this need by developing courses that consist of new teaching modules
addressing critical issues related to nanotechnology. Students will learn nanotech-
nology safety issues, developing skill sets to assess and determine appropriate
actions to maintain a safe working environment. To provide a holistic and engaging
learning experience, students will take part in hands-on experimentation, tour and
nanotechnology companies, train in laboratories at the host institution, watch
videos, write a group-based term paper based on case studies, engage in guided
small-group learning, and listen to expert guest speakers. The first step was to
complete the development team.
Development team members include:
• Dr. Jitendra S. Tate, Principal Investigator, Ingram School of Engineering,
Texas State University
• Dr. Dominick E. Fazarro, Department of Technology, UT Tyler
• Dr. Craig Hanks, Department of Philosophy, Texas State University
• Mr. Satyajit Dutta, Ingram School of Engineering, Texas State University
• Dr. Walt Trybula, Ingram School of Engineering, Texas State University
• Dr. Robert McLean, Department of Biology, Texas State University
• Dr. Fritz Allhoff, Department of Philosophy, Western Michigan University
• Graduate Researcher: Mr. Lucio Andres Alvarez Andrade, Texas State Univer-
sity ; Mr. Adam Mokhtari, UT Tyler
• Undergraduate Researcher: Mr. Sergio Espinoza, Ms. Luna Wilson, Texas State
University
The development of the courses was based on two considerations. The first is
that the students will be working after they graduate with the development of
nanomaterials, the application and incorporation of nanomaterials into products,
and the manufacturing of the products for general distribution and application. The
second consideration is that the properties of the nanomaterials will probably not be
fully known by the time the product is available for distribution to the public. The
decision of the team was to:
• Develop two modular undergraduate-level courses dealing with nanotechnology
environment, health, and safety awareness. These courses will better prepare
undergraduate students to advance to graduate nanotechnology programs and to
work with nanomaterials in their future careers.
• Build on pedagogical research by employing a variety of teaching methods to
engage students, particularly women and Hispanic students, including hands-on
training, socially-relevant case studies, plant tours, videos and guest lectures.
• Elucidate emerging needs in nanotechnology environment, health, and safety,
and incorporate them into basic education that can be immediately employed in
industry.
• Promote interdisciplinary interactions among engineering, engineering technol-
ogy, science, and industrial management/technology majors.
This last consideration provides challenges in developing courses that address
nanomaterial safety. The property of the material will probably not be fully known.
8 Nanotechnology Safety Education 229

The application will have benefit for society, or it would not have been undertaken,
so the trade-offs need to be weighed. This implies a need for risk analysis. Part of
this analysis requires an understanding of the possible implications of the usage.
This brought an unfamiliar subject into the technology focus. A background on
ethics needed to be incorporated into the courses. Since there are many unknowns in
nanotechnology, the students must be educated in being able to address situations
where unknown nanomaterials and their unknown properties are involved. Each of
the courses were developed to provide the flexibility to insert individual modules
from the course into existing courses elsewhere in the University.
A Nanotechnology Advisory Council consisting of leading scientists and indus-
try professionals in nanotechnology assists in ensuring the quality and relevance of
course content. The advisory team is highly interdisciplinary with extensive expe-
rience in nanotechnology, ethics, and nanotechnology safety, representing mechan-
ical/manufacturing engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, industrial
education and technology, physics, environmental biology, and philosophy.
The Advisory Council assisted in improving the quality of the contents in each
course. This project is advised by the following, forward-thinking team of experts
from academia and industry.
• Ms. Christie Sayes, RTI International
• Dr. Greg Marshall, Chair, Department of Respirator Care, Texas State
University
• Ms. Deb Newberry, Director, NFS-Nanolink Center
• Ms. Barbara Foster, MIP (Microscopy and Imaging)
• Dr. Chuck Geraci, NIOSH
• Dr. Mark Wiesner, Director, CEINT (Center for Environmental Implications of
Nanotechnology) at Duke University
The operational plan was to develop the first course and introduce it in the 2013
Summer semester at UT Tyler and as modules in the 2013 Fall semester at Texas
State University. The development of the second course was accomplished in the
Fall of 2013 and introduced in the Spring of 2014. Based on feedback interviews,
each of the courses were updated and ready for teaching the year following its
introduction. Both courses were taught as both complete courses and individual
inserted modules. Feedback was obtained from both students and instructors for
enhancing the courses. The enhance courses were taught the following year and are
ready for dissemination.

8.6 The Courses

As mentioned, there were two courses developed. Details of the selection of course
structure and the contents demonstrate the encompassing focus of the educational
effort. Table 8.1 shows the contents of the two courses.
230 W. Trybula et al.

Table 8.1 List of modules in nanotechnology safety courses

Course 1: Introduction to Course 2: Principles of risk management for
nanotechnology safety nanoscale materials
Module Theme of the module Module Theme of the module
1A What is nanotechnology and IB Overview of occupational health and
nano-ethics? safety
2A Ethics of science and 2B Applications of nanotechnology
technology
3A Social impacts 3B Assessing nanotechnology health risks
4A Ethical methods and 4B Sustainable nanotechnology development
processes
5A Nanomaterials and 5B Environmental risks assessment
manufacturing
6A Environmental sustainability 6B Ethical and legal aspects of
nanotechnology
7A Nanotechnology in health and 7B Developing a risk management program
medicine
8A Military and national security 8B Presentations of papers or case studies
implications
9A Nanotechnology issues in the 9B Hands-on training on using safety gear in
distant future non- manufacturing

To assist others in understanding the development and flow of the modules, a

short description is provided for each course and the modules within the course. The
modules that are student presentations or site visits are not included in the descrip-
tions below.
Course 1, Introduction to Nanotechnology Safety was developed so that students
can understand of the basics of nanotechnology, understand the need and means for
incorporating ethics into emerging technologies, understand and address possible
situations that could involve impact on people or the environment, and learn how to
address unknown nanomaterials situations. The structure of the modules permits
insertion into existing courses where the students have experience in some elements
of nanotechnology.
1A. What Are Nanotechnology and Nanoethics?—This is the introduction to the
course. It ensures that there is common understanding of what is called nanotech-
nology using ASTM E2456 terminology. A historical perspective (Richard
Smalley) is covered along with the national agenda based on US congressional
testimony on societal implications nanotechnology. The role of the National Nano-
technology initiatives (NNI) is described. The student will have (1) an understand-
ing of terminology, (2) an appreciation of the rapid development of the technology,
and (3) a knowledge of some government initiatives.
2A. Ethics of Science and Technology—This module provides an explanation of
ethics at intersection of science, business, and governance, understanding that
science and technology are agents of social change. The overriding control must
be moral agents: scientist and engineers, business community and corporations,
policy makers and regulators. Nanotechnology’s promise of overcoming
8 Nanotechnology Safety Education 231

humanity’s more pressing challenges is a driving force in applying the technology.

The students will have an appreciation of (1) how science and technology have
improved the world for the vast majority of people, including their increased life
spans, (2) understand that people can apply/develop controls for both good and bar
results, and, (3) why there is such a push for developing nanotechnology.
3A. Societal Impacts—This module provides a view of defining ethical and
societal implications and covers: interest groups and meanings, spheres of impact
and categories of concern, moral dimensions, and pace, complexity, and uncer-
tainty. The students will learn that (1) a technology revolution cannot be accurately
predicted, (2) there needs to be a precautionary principle in nanotechnology, (3) the
relationship of nanotechnology and privacy: instructive case of RFID,
(4) nanoscience is a catalyst for educational reforms, and (5) the impact of nano-
technology can have on developing countries.
4A. Ethical Methods and Processes—This module covers the language of ethics,
including efforts in human subject research. An ethical framework for technology
assessment with a model for ethical analysis will be discussed. The student will be
able to appreciate the complex interactions among (1) science and engineering,
(2) legal, regulatory, and policy, (3) economic and market, and, (4) environmental
health and safety in nanotechnology.
5A. Nanomaterials and Manufacturing—The purpose of the module is to create
an understanding of manufacturing nanomaterials and of applying both
manufactured nanomaterials and naturally occurring nanomaterials in manufactur-
ing. The student learning outcomes are to (1) understand the concept of manufactur-
ing nanomaterials, (2) demonstrate understanding of actions required to ensure safe
handling of nanomaterials, (3) understand how to respond properly in the event of a
manufacturing issue, and, (4) ensure that proper controls and record keeping is
understood.
6A. Environmental Sustainability—The goal of this module is to have the
student think and learn about a sustainable future. They need to consider the
following questions: (1) What are the issues of nanotechnology? (2) Are there
trade-offs between environmentalism and sustainability? (3) How are environment
risks impacted by nanotechnology? and (4) What are the potential benefits of
nanotechnology for sustainable development.
7A. Nanotechnology in Health and Medicine—This module addresses how
nanotechnology is being employed in the medical professions. The student will
be aware of the issues: (1) pharmaceuticals and therapeutics, (2) diagnostics and
imaging, (3) nanoscale surgery, implants and tissue engineering, (4) multifunctional
nanodevices and nanomaterials, (5) personalized medicine, and (6) the impact on
the broader health care system.
8A. Military and National Security Implications—An introductory course can-
not be complete without examining the implications of nanotechnology and secu-
rity. The students will learn about potential applications of nanotechnology in:
(1) homeland security, (2) challenges of the new era of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD), (3) applications of nanotechnology and art of war, and (4) nanotechnology
and national security.
232 W. Trybula et al.

9A. Technology in the Future—The purpose of this module is to educate the

student so s/he is capable of evaluating new manufacturing concepts and correlating
them to existing ones while evaluating possible environmental issues. The student
learning outcomes are: (1) understand the requirements for moving prototype to
volume manufacturing, (2) demonstrate the methods for controlling materials with
unknown properties, (3) understand differences in manufacturing for med-bio
products from consumer products, and (4) find novel material developments and
the related testing results.
Principles of Risk Management for Nanoscale Materials, the advanced course,
delves more deeply into the various aspects of nanotechnology and includes various
aspects of the challenges of emerging technologies. The structure of the courses is
to provide a very high level of coverage on possibilities with enough supplied
background material that the instructor can dig deeply into one or two examples. By
providing the broad overview, the students can learn more details about specific
item they might be interested in.
1B. Overview of Occupational Health and Safety—This module is a partly a
review of the methods nanomaterials and manufacturing practices. In addition the
theories of accident causation, the methods of accident investigation and reporting,
and considerations of hazards control and communication are covered. The student
will (1) have a review of the introduction course, (2) appreciate the accident
causation work, (3) understand accident investigation, and (4) appreciate hazard
control methodology.
2B. Applications of Nanotechnology—This module will provide the students
with an overview of the applications of nanotechnology that are already occurring
in everyday life. Topics that will be covered include:
Environmental nanomaterials for groundwater remediation and nanoparticle use in
pollution control
Health: drug delivery, gene delivery
Orthopedics Applications
Energy: solar and fuel cells, wind, internal combustion engines,
Information and Communication: memory storage, novel semiconductor devices,
novel optoelectronic devices, displays
Heavy Industry: aerospace, nanoparticles in construction materials, lighter and
energy efficient automobiles
Consumer: cosmetics, textile, optics, agriculture, sports.
The student learning outcomes are to (1) understand that nanomaterials can be
both natural and man-made, (2) know that nanomaterials may have different
properties from the bulk materials, (3) learn how nanomaterials have improved
everyday life, and (4) appreciate that the applications of nanomaterials include all
aspects of everyday life.
3B. Assessing Nanotechnology Health Risks—This module covers the role of
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and various
nanotechnology safety programs in the workplace. The student will have an
8 Nanotechnology Safety Education 233

understanding of: (1) human health and toxicology, (2) short and long term toxicity
studies, and (3) determining toxic doses and dose-response assessment.
4B. Sustainable Nanotechnology Development—With the overall concern about
potential nanomaterials, this module covers the developing environmental regula-
tions pertaining to nanotechnology. The student will learn about: (1) analyses of
nanoparticles in environment, (2) nanotechnology and our energy challenge, and
(3) life cycle risk assessment for sustainable nanotechnology applications.
5B. Environmental Risks Assessment—The focus of this module is on the
environmental aspects of nanotechnology. The student will learn about: (1) nano-
particle transport, aggregation, and deposition, (2) treatment of nanoparticles in
wastewater, (3) potential ecological hazard of nanomaterials, and (4) environmental
toxicology and risk assessment.
6B. Ethical and Legal Aspects of Nanotechnology—With the significant amount
of unknown information about nanomaterials, this module covers the roles of the
OSHA, NIOSH, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The student will
understand: (1) ethical principles (using case scenarios in private industry and
government), (2) legal duties and regulations, and (3) the manager’s responsibility
and worker’s compensation.
7B. Developing a Risk Management Program—This module provides an under-
standing of the requirements to evaluate, understand, and develop a program to
manage risk. The purpose of the module is to ensure that the student is capable of
understanding existing risk management programs as they relate to nanomaterials.
Specifically the student will: (1) understand what risk management is, (2) appreciate
the differences between nanomaterials risk and traditional risk management, and
(3) be able to highlight and identify areas of concern.

8.7 Future Efforts

The insertion of modules into existing courses was directed to address the fact that
most science and engineering curricula are up against the maximum number of
courses permitted to be required for obtaining a degree. Developing new courses
and expecting them to be added to the curriculum will not happen except in cases
where there are a number of optional electives. Unfortunately, nanotechnology is
too recent a development to have these options available. Table 8.2 shows how the
modules are currently incorporated into existing courses and programs.
With the successful insertion of the modules into existing classes, the team has
started discussions with the McCoy College of Business Administration and other
departments within Texas State University to determine how to employ various
modules into their existing curriculum. The expansion beyond STEM is required
because nanotechnology will be ubiquitous in the next few years.
The team realized that courses alone are insufficient to reach out to all the
potential users of nanotechnology. There were discussions over 18 months regard-
ing the creation of a Nano-Safety/Advance Material Certification program. The
234 W. Trybula et al.

Table 8.2 Incorporation of modules into existing courses and programs

Incorporation of nanotechnology safety courses in curriculum or modules into existing courses
Course/
Location Program Course # and Title module
UT-Tyler BS (Industrial Technology): TECH 4350: Introduction to Full
Focus: Nanotechnology Nanotechnology Safety (Online) course
Management
Texas State BS (Industrial Technology): TECH 4330-Principles of Risk Full
Focus: Nanotechnology Management for Nanoscale course
Management Materials
Texas State BS(MFGE), BS(IE), BS(EE), PHIL. 1320: Society and Ethics 1A-4A,
BS(ET), BS(IT), BS(CIM), BS 6A-8A
(CSM)
Texas State BS(MFGE), BS(1E), BS (IT), IE 4380: Industrial Safety 1A, 3B,
BS(ET) 4B, 6B,
7B
Texas State BS(MFGE), BS(IE),BS(EE),BS ENGR2300: Materials 1A, 3A
(ET) Engineering
Texas State BS(MFGE), BS(IE) ENGR2332: Materials Selection 6A, 8A
and Manufacturing Processes
Texas State BS(MFGE), BS(EE), BS(ET) MFGE/EE/TECH 4392: Micro- 3B, 4B
electronics Manufacturing-I
Texas State BS(MFGE), BS(EE), BS(ET) MFGE/EE/TECH 4394: Micro- 5A, 9A
electronics manufacturing-ll
Texas State BS(MFGE) MFGE 4399: Polymer 2B, 4B,
Nanocomposites 5B, 9B,
Guest

initial offering of this Certification will be offered in mid-2016 through the national
Association of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering (ATMAE)
organization.
One of the requests from students is that they would appreciate having more
laboratory time. This even came from students who only had modules inserted into
existing classes. As we expand the Nano-Safety courses outside STEM, we antic-
ipate additional requests. The development of laboratory experiments is currently
under discussion.
The dissemination of the material developed under the NSF award is currently
being expanded. Access to the course material is available through Professor
Jitendra Tate and Dominick Fazarro.

8.8 Conclusions

The need existed for the development of Nano-Safety education, which was not
being addressed. The development of the two courses provides a means of teaching
the elements of nanomaterial safety through complete courses or modules being
8 Nanotechnology Safety Education 235

inserted into existing classes. Both methods have proven to be viable. Selection of
an approach depends on the educational Institution’s policies and establish curric-
ulum. The overall history of this effort provides insight for others who will be trying
to develop a course that is novel and have no history to build on. Persistence is
required for venturing into new technology areas. The key element is that emerging
technologies need to be understood by everyone. Someone needs to be the first.
Venturing into unknown areas requires collaborations. As can be observed by
the make-up of the team and advisory committee, a wide range of experts is
required to be successful.

Acknowledgements The team expresses their heartfelt thanks to all who have contributed in the
successful development of these courses, including instructors for inserting the modules, students
for the critical responses, guidance from the advisory board, and the personnel at NSF.

Disclaimer for the Course Material

The material was developed under NSF-NUE (Nanotechnology Undergraduate
Education) award #1242087, NUE: NanoTRA—Texas Regional Alliance to foster
‘Nanotechnology Environment, Health, and Safety Awareness’ in tomorrow’s
Engineering and Technology Leaders.
This course material was developed pursuant to a National Science Foundation
grant and is to be used strictly for educational purposes. Developers of the material
have used a number of images to enhance understating of various concepts and they
are acknowledged accordingly. Any comments or concerns over the use of these
images should be directed to Dr. Jitendra S. Tate.

References

1. C.-W. Lam, A Review of Carbon Nanotube Toxicity and Assessment of Potential Occupations
and Environmental Health Risks, http://www.temas.ch/IMPART/IMPARTProj.nsf/f41e562f4f
53bf50c12569f30037663e/7e7f33ac404a9dd8c125741100274055/$FILE/12.pdf. Accessed Jan
2016
2. W. Trybula, Nano-Safety White Paper http://www.tryb.org/a_white_paper_on_nano-safety.
pdf. Accessed Jan 2016
3. Good nano Guide, https://nanohub.org/groups/gng. Accessed Jan 2016
4. OSHA award announcement, http://news.rice.edu/2010/09/29/osha-bolsters-rice-based-safety-
program-on-eve-of-buckyball-discovery-conference/. Accessed Jan 2016
5. OSHA course offering. Module 1, https://www.osha.gov/dte/grant_materials/fy10/sh-21008-
10/4-controlling_exposures_to_nano.pptx. Accessed Jan 2016
Chapter 9
Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry:
Perspectives for Curricular Innovations
in Context of an Education for a Sustainable
Development

Ralph Nonninger, Janina Dege, Timm Wilke, and Thomas Waitz

Abstract Due to its diverse connections to everyday-life, industry and research,

nanotechnology provides high potential for science class. For an extensive imple-
mentation of Nanoscience Education into the (German) education system, the
concept Education for a Sustainable Development offers a suitable educational
frame. Beside subject-related contents, ecological, economic and social perspec-
tives for (international) curricular innovations are presented.

9.1 Introduction

Findings based on scientific and technical research play a key role in the techno-
logical and social transition, the protection of living conditions on a national and
global scale as well as ensuring the competitiveness in times of globalization. The
value added by scientific-technical, medical, information-producing as well as
-processing products and services are the essential basis for our wealth and a crucial
factor for economy, industry and education.
It is expected that eight to ten billion people are going to live on earth by 2050,
with all of those people having the right to sufficient amounts of basic supplies,
including clean water, energy and food. At the same time the demand for industrial
commodities such as cars, smartphones and computers and the needs for medical

R. Nonninger (*)
cc-NanoBioNet e.V., Science Park 1, 66123 Saarbr€
ucken, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Dege • T. Wilke • T. Waitz
Department of Chemistry Education, Georg-August-University G€
ottingen, Tammannstraße 4,
37077 G€ottingen, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 237

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_9
238 R. Nonninger et al.

services, transportation systems, housing and jobs will progressively increase. This
development is going to be accompanied by a rapid growth of cities into so called
“megacities” with populations larger than ten million people. Furthermore, over
two thirds of the world’s urban residents will be living in African, Asian or
Latin American cities.
Accordingly, mankind will have to face several great challenges. How are we
going to supply the demand for freshwater and how are we going to manage the
wastewater purification? How can we make sure that the increasing demands for
energy, functioning infrastructures, efficient and affordable healthcare and hygienic
standards are being met? Which actions will we have to take to sufficiently feed the
world’s population? Which challenges will we have to face, technically as well as
socio-economically?
Considering our current knowledge, all of those questions will stay unanswered
unless we come forward with new technologies and innovative ideas. It can be
deduced as well, that an interdisciplinary approach containing scientific and
engineering-oriented aspects is imperative to finding applicable solutions. This
new kind of problem-solving is not just going to call for experts in the different
scientific fields, but also for a proficiently educated generation, capable of thinking
in an interlaced and interdisciplinary way and have been educated in terms of a
sustainable development.
Consequently, adaptations in the education system have to be made while
schools have to start imparting the appropriate knowledge to today’s students, in
order for future generations to solve complex challenges and to recognize inter-
dependencies of global problems. Especially the application of new technologies
requires an anticipatory analyzation of developments in order to recognize and
assess potential risks and reach decisions in an open-minded, collaborative and
autonomous way.
Nanotechnology, as one of the twenty-first century’s key technologies, may
answer many of the issues raised and can thus be helpful in solving some of the
greatest challenges of our time. Because of this technology’s distinct influence on
our future and the fact that local involvement is going to have an impact on a global
scale, it is predestined to be a part of today’s school education. In this context, it is
this chapter’s goal to describe and analyze the role of nanotechnology in formal and
non-formal educational settings, to point out developmental prospects, and to
suggest corresponding educational concepts for implementation into schools.
Furthermore, it will be presented why nanotechnology—due to its multidimensional
interrelations in social, economic and ecological contexts—is especially qualified to
foster competencies with respect to an Education for a Sustainable Development
(ESD).
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 239

9.2 Outline of the German Education System

Since 1990 the Federal Republic of Germany has been comprised of 16 federal
states. This federal system delegates the responsibilities for educational matters to
its different states. In effect, this means that the legislative power over the schools
and higher education sectors lies with each of the states, while the respective
Ministries of Education and their educational acts describe the goals substantiated
by plans and federal curricula. In order to ensure a comparable educational devel-
opment within the federal states, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of
Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK, German abbr.) was established. Its main
tasks include supporting and representing common interests as well as ensuring
comparable living and learning conditions for school and university students,
teachers and academic employees. Since PISA (2000) [1] and other educational
research studies (e.g. TIMSS 1997 [2]) revealed considerable differences in stu-
dents’ performances between the different federal states, the Ministerial Confer-
ence compiled a number of education standards which were passed in 2003, 2004
and 2012 [3–5]. These competence-oriented standards are the basis for integrating
concepts for quality management as well as assurance and have so far been
implemented within most areas of the German education system (school, univer-
sities, etc.).

9.2.1 Areas of the German Education System

The current German education system is essentially structured into five areas
according to the illustration in Fig. 9.1.
The elementary level includes day care centers for children aged 3–6 as well as
some nursery schools for even younger children. The attendance is voluntary,
although day care centers offer a range of activities fostering the young children’s
social skills.

Fig. 9.1 Overview over the different areas of the German education system
240 R. Nonninger et al.

Compulsory education starts at the primary level. After reaching the age of 6 all
students have to attend an elementary school including the grades 1 through 4.
The secondary level includes the grades 5 through 13 and is divided into the
consecutive “Sekundarstufe I” (Sek. I, up until grade 10) and “Sekundarstufe II”
(Sek. II, grade 11 and above). It contains three different types of schools, referred to
as “Hauptschule”, “Realschule” and “Gymnasium”. Including the years 5–9, the
Hauptschule aims to provide students with a general and fundamental education,
enabling them to pursue vocational education pathways. The Realschule offers
students an extended general education with the possibility to either pursue voca-
tional education or to transition into schools providing Sek. II. While the Realschule
just covers the grades 5 through 10, the Gymnasium includes the grades 5 through
13 and is the only type of school including the Sek. II. Its objective is to give
students an in-depth general education, leading up to the “Abitur”
(eq. baccalaureate), the highest educational qualification achievable in schools.
As Germany’s general matriculation standard, the Abitur allows students to
advance to university level. In some regions and states this subdivided school
system is supplemented by other types of schools, e.g. the “Gesamtschule”, com-
bining all three types of schools previously mentioned.
Colleges and universities are part of the tertiary level. They offer students who
finished the Sek. II to obtain bachelor and master degrees and traditionally hold the
right to award doctorates. They distinguish themselves by performing scientific
research, especially on a fundamental level, and by training and supporting young
scientific talents. Technical colleges have different educational goals, mostly char-
acterized by practical relevance in teaching and research, integrated practical
semesters and professors with professional experience outside the university set-
ting. The number of national and nationally certified universities as well as the
number of students are constantly rising; currently there are 427 universities [6]
attended by 2.7 million students [7] (as of winter semester 2015/2016).
The fifth and last educational area (quaternary level) in Germany is the general
vocational and academic training.

9.2.2 STEM Subjects Within the German Education System

Currently, special attention is being devoted to the strengthening of STEM (German

eq.: MINT) subjects in all educational areas. Because of the foreseeable lack of
qualified scientific specialists in the near future, the KMK repeatedly concentrated
on the continuous developing of STEM teaching. Especially the introduction of the
education standards, as mentioned above, allowed the implementation of ambitious
yet achievable goals in the form of four areas of competence, including content
knowledge, acquirement of knowledge (scientific inquiry), communication as well
as socio-scientific reasoning and decision making. These competencies are focusing
on an output-oriented approach, in order to prevent the generation of so-called “dull
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 241

knowledge”. The general goal is the promotion of a scientific literacy, in order to

enable students to
• Deal with and reflect upon scientific ideas and subjects.
• Apply scientific knowledge, in order to recognize central and current issues,
acquire new skills and knowledge, describe scientific phenomena and to draw
conclusions.
• Recognize and appreciate the way, scientific and technical progress shape our
material, intellectual and cultural environment.
• Actively participate in social discourse regarding scientific topics [8].
In order to facilitate those goals, the scientific-didactical community is focusing
increasingly on the development of teaching units with relevance to society
(e.g. socio-scientific issues), promoting interdisciplinary thinking and pointing
out possible professional careers. In this context, nanotechnology has turned out
to be of high didactical and pedagogical value with great potential for the imple-
mentation of educational competencies and standards [9–14].

9.3 Nanoscience Education in Germany

While the nanotechnological progress has been systematically gathered in scientific

and economic fields [15], less focus has been placed on such data collections in the
educational sector. Thus, in the following part of this chapter a review about formal
and non-formal educational programs will be given. Furthermore, selected results
of studies on students’ and teachers’ perspectives regarding Nanoscience Education
will be presented.

9.3.1 Educational Nanotechnology Initiatives

In recent years, an increasing awareness in German-speaking countries for the

necessity of teaching nanotechnological contents has been noted, not least due to
a shortage of skilled professionals and an increasing economic significance. Thus,
in 2015 nanotechnology research has been federally funded with 536 million euros
[16]. Recently, the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF,
German abbr.) launched the “Action Plan Nanotechnology 2015” [17]. Utilizing the
potentials arising from nanotechnology in education and research is one of the main
objectives. The ministry is funding numerous educational programs, of which the
most prominent ones will be presented below.
(1) nanoTruck
The nanoTruck, established by the BMBF as a mobile exhibition and communica-
tion center, presents a variety of nanotechnological activities including more than
242 R. Nonninger et al.

Table 9.1 Selected nanotechnological topics presented by the nanoTruck

Contents
Materials Nanoceramic powders, carbon nanotubes, colloidal gold, ferrofluids
Sports and Lighter and superior sports equipment
leisure
Architecture Fire protection, high performance construction materials
Health New diagnostic systems, cancer treatment
Textiles “Easy-to-clean” (water-repellent), antimicrobial
Computer Increased computer power, high density data storage
Science
Mobility Effective fuel consumption, reduced pollutant emission, scratch resistant
coatings

60 exhibits, multimedia terminals as well as a laboratory area, all spread out over
two floors [18]. The nanoTruck is focusing on informing its visitors about nano-
technology in general and possible career paths. Schools have the opportunity to
invite the truck to their own events. Some of the topics covered by the truck’s
exhibitions are presented in Table 9.1.
During the nanoTruck’s tour through Germany, the BMBF, in cooperation with
the association “Schulen ans Netz” (internet at schools), offered regular workshops
in Nanoscience Education for teachers to support their class preparations. After
lasting 10 years and hosting about one million visitors, the nanoTruck-project was
discontinued at the end of March 2015. As of now, it is unknown if this or a similar
project will be following.
(2) Nanoshuttle
During the last three years more than 40,000 students have been visited at school by
the Nanoshuttle and experienced a great variety of nanotechnological applications
and phenomena [19]. The Nanoshuttle allows students to independently gather
information about next-generation technologies, get to know high-tech microscopes
and actively perform experiments. In addition to adjusting surface characteristics,
particular focus is placed on visualizing the world of nanoparticles and
nanoemulsions respectively, using the appropriate microscopes. The visit of the
mobile nano laboratory is free of charge but unfortunately the Nanoshuttle has only
been offered regionally in the federal state of Bavaria.
(3) Science Experiment Kits, Websites and Teaching Materials
In 2001, the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI, German abbr.) started
funding science education in school chemistry. Since then, more than 25 million
euros have been invested in order to promote experimental chemical education.
Thus, all schools teaching chemistry are entitled to receive up to 5000 € for the
acquisition of suitable teaching materials [20]. One example for materials funded
by the program is the NanoSchoolBox [21]. This experimental kit contains
14 experiments gearing towards a higher accessibility of nanotechnological con-
tents and has been released by the Advanced Material Science GmbH, also
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 243

responsible for producing an experimental nanotechnology kit for children in

collaboration with the KOSMOS publishing house in Stuttgart. The experiments
are suitable for chemistry and physics classes starting at grade 9. Students have the
opportunity to explore either independently or in groups, guided by a brochure
providing precise instructions. A number of short films exist for most of these
experiments, thoroughly describing the procedures, their results and underlying
effects; the videos can be accessed online [21].
With the complimentary NanoBoX, the Fund for the Chemical Industry (FCI)
offers another opportunity for students and teachers to familiarize themselves with
the field of nanotechnology [22]. The well-structured materials can be found in
booklets and on CDs, including fundamental principles as well as several fields of
applications based on chemical nanotechnology. Moreover, the NanoBoX contains
simple experiments accompanied by illustrative models and further information.
In addition to these offers, a variety of teaching materials are available online
provided by different companies and organizations. The Association of German
Engineers (VDI, German abbr.) for example, offers a virtual “journey into the nano-
world” [23]. Using interactive animations, students explore a range of topics
including the human body, electronics and optics.
Summarizing, the presented examples show that nanotechnology has already
been implemented into non-formal educational initiatives. However, thus far not
enough nationwide empirical data and studies on the influence, reach and sustain-
ability of those projects exist. Moreover, some initiatives such as the Nanoshuttle
are only available regionally.
Thus the question remains, if such offers are able to satisfactorily counter the
expected shortage of qualified professionals and systematically implement
nanoscience education into schools. In this context, the benefits of implementing
nanotechnology into formal educational settings become obvious. Whether this has
already been realized in different school and university curricula will be subject of
the following section.

9.3.2 Nanotechnology in the Formal Education Sector

9.3.2.1 Nano Programs at German Universities

According to a report published by the BMBF, the goals of the German “Action
Plan Nanotechnology 2015” include the initiation as well as dissemination of
transparent and attractive nano study programs [24]. By now, more than
45 interdisciplinarily-oriented study programs are being offered in Germany,
including consecutive (12), undergraduate (7) and postgraduate programs (11),
the latter requiring a Bachelor of Science or Engineering [25].
In general, most nano programs are either scientifically- or technically-oriented
[24]. Scientifically-oriented programs, for instance the nanoscience master’s pro-
gram at the University of Bielefeld, mostly specialize in fundamental research, in
244 R. Nonninger et al.

this case experimental and theoretical physics. The Technical College of Iserlohn
provides the undergraduate bio- and nanotechnology bachelor’s program with
emphasis on environmental, nano-, surface, and biotechnology [25].
Technically-oriented nano programs, however, include more practical elements
and mandatory internships in companies. Students enrolled in the New Materials,
Nanotechnology and Production Engineering program at the Technical College of
Nuremberg become acquainted with material systems, production processes and
manufacturing methods for new materials [25]. Whereas at the University of Ulm,
students attending the Advanced Materials master’s program learn about functional
nano- and biomaterials in addition to using top-down and bottom-up structuring
mechanisms as well as lithographic methods at the Center for Micro- and
Nanomaterials [25].
As shown by these examples, the offered nano study programs vary considerably
in their orientation as well as in their content-related structure. While some are
focusing on fundamental research, others are more application-oriented, and still
others are combining both: in most cases the fundamental knowledge is taught in
the bachelor’s program, while areas of applications are being addressed in the
master’s program. The spectrum ranges from traditional natural sciences to elec-
tronic engineering, environmental technology or mechanical engineering. The
variety of programs, differing notably in their content, reflects the numerous
industries typical for the nano sector [24]. Table 9.2 provides an overview of
nano education on the tertiary level itemized by the federal states.
The data show that, in addition to the interdisciplinary nano study programs,
nano-specific lectures and seminars can be attended at both universities and tech-
nical colleges. These lectures and seminars have been integrated into the traditional
study programs in a variety of ways. Depending on the respective universities and
their thematic focus, a number of summer programs and optional seminars are
provided for the specialization during the master’s program [26]. According to the
VDI, the number of German study programs focusing on nano-specific contents is
250, of which 49 are offered at technical colleges and 201 at universities
[26]. Based on these numbers, it becomes apparent that the majority of the univer-
sities and technical colleges tend to integrate nano modules into already existing
science and engineering programs.
Generally, two strategies for constructing nano study programs can be distin-
guished: (1) According to the T-approach, initially basic knowledge (mathematics,
chemistry, physics) is considered within the fundamental studies, followed by
specialized courses in nanotechnology within the postgraduate studies. (2) In con-
trast, the inverted T-approach focuses on a balance between interdisciplinarily
teaching nano concepts and imparting knowledge from basic science disciplines,
already from the beginning of the study. Apparently, most of those 250 educational
offers have been structured according to the T-approach [27], whereas only
30 interdisciplinarily-oriented (inverted T-approach) nano programs have been
established so far. This could be interpreted as a consequence of the requirements
for resources being substantially lower, when nano-relevant contents are
implemented in already existing study programs.
Table 9.2 Number of autonomous nano study programs as well as the number of universities and technical colleges offering nanotechnological contents in their
lectures and seminars, itemized by the different federal states in Germany [26]
Lower Hamburg/ Mecklenburg- North
Baden- Berlin/ Saxony/ Schleswig- Western Rhine- Rhineland- Saxony-
Wuerttemberg Bavaria Brandenburg Bremen Holstein Hesse Pomerania Westphalia Palatinate Saarland Saxony Anhalt Thuringia
Nano study 3 6 0 4 1 1 0 7 2 1 4 0 1
programs
Universities 20 25 8 23 17 22 2 41 4 5 28 1 5
Technical 5 8 4 6 3 4 1 11 1 1 2 3 0
Colleges
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . .
245
246 R. Nonninger et al.

Additionally, Table 9.2 shows that the nano infrastructure has been established
particularly in the western states such as Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, Hesse,
Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia, the latter offering widest range of
teaching activities. It provides the highest number of interdisciplinary nano pro-
grams (7) combined with a large density of scientific and technological study
programs offering nano-related contents (52). Saxony, as one of the eastern states,
offers an extensive nano education on the university level as well. Comparing all
federal states, Saxony is ranked third behind North Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria.
In comparison, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg
and Berlin are not offering their own nano study programs, thus students in these
states only have the opportunity to attend lectures and seminars referring to
nanotechnology. The educational services offered in Rhineland-Palatinate, Thurin-
gia and Saarland are rather minimal as well, although all of these states offer their
own nano study programs.
A regionally unique program can be found at the University of Stuttgart. Since
the winter term 2010/2011 the university offers the program “Nano- and Optoelec-
tronics” as a part-time study [24]. Another part-time program called
“Nanobiotechnology” can be studied at the University of Kaiserslautern as part of
an extra-occupational education.
Since 2002 the BMBF has been supporting excellent young researchers (post-
docs) as part of the competition NanoFutur. They have been helping the young
scientists to develop innovative projects and have been assisting their applied
research within the own research groups, while the ideas and products developed
should be of value for the industry. Moreover, the participants have the opportunity
to gather project and personal management skills, relevant to their prospective
professional careers. The success of the program is reflected in the relatively high
number of participating postdocs advancing to professorships, so far 13 out of
29 postdocs supported by the NanoFutur project. In addition, five start-up compa-
nies were founded during this process. In 2011, the NanoFutur project was
expanded and renamed NanoMatFutur, additionally supporting young scientists
with backgrounds in material sciences and general chemistry [24].
Summarizing, a heterogeneous picture regarding the nano education in Germany
is forming, which Cebulla et al. [28] explain with the high density of universities
and colleges as well as a strong industry in western Germany. Moreover, nano
education is less established at technical colleges than at universities. These gaps,
called “white spots” by the authors, should be dealt with in the future.
Despite the demands of the BMBF, a differentiation between the varieties of
interdisciplinarily-oriented nano study programs is still challenging, due to their
lack of transparency. It is clear though, that all curricula have a multidisciplinary
character, since they include modules and fundamental lectures from different
subjects. However, it remains difficult to evaluate, if those teaching activities are
content-related and thematically coordinated [29]. The detailed description of the
study programs by the VDI primarily allows a comparison of the programs offered
with respect to their content-related orientation. Studies by Deppert et al. [27]
revealed that interdisciplinary study programs can only be found at the Universities
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 247

of Kassel and Duisburg-Essen. Those programs are based on the inverted

T-Approach, whereas programs such as the University of W€urzburg’s “Nanostruc-
ture Technology” rather follow the traditional T-approach structure.

9.3.2.2 Nanotechnology in German Federal Curricula for Schools

During the last years, significant efforts have been made in Germany for the
implementation of nano in schools. However, from our perspective the economic
and scientific relevance of this technology is not yet reflected appropriately in
present federal and school curricula. Although some nano-related topics are taught
within the classic sciences of chemistry, physics and biology, the potential of
fostering competencies such as interdisciplinary thinking has not been realized yet.
Due to the 16 federal states being responsible for their own educational matters,
an overview will be given in this chapter in order to show to what extent nano-
science education has already been implemented into the various curricula of the
federal states.
Baden-Wuerttemberg [30]
In chemistry class at the Gymnasium, students describe and classify substances
according to their properties. They are able to describe changes regarding the
properties of substances depending on their particle sizes (nanoparticles) in corre-
lation with the surface-to-volume-ratio. The students are able to classify the dimen-
sion of particles (atoms, molecules, macromolecules), agglomerates of particles
(nanoparticles) as well as macroscopic objects and to explain interrelations. These
aspects meet the competence areas “knowledge acquisition” and “communication”.
Berlin [31]
As part of the curriculum of Sek. I, Berlin offers the elective subject “Physical-
Micro- and Nanotechnology” as well as the teaching field “From soft to hard—
carbon, its modifications and potential applications in nanotechnology” as part of
the regular chemistry class. Students discuss the different modifications of carbon
as well as their respective properties and familiarize themselves with Fullerenes as
a new form of appearance and their potential for applications within the field of
nanotechnology. These aspects pertain to the competence area “deeper general
education”.
Bremen [32–34]
In the education standards of the Sek. I the functions and goals of science education
are described as an interaction between scientific knowledge and technical appli-
cation. Both ensure progress in developing and applying new methods in the field of
medicine, in enhancing materials and production procedures as well as in nano-
technology and the computer sciences.
Science education allows the individual to actively participate in social com-
munications and to form personal opinions on technological developments and
scientific research and is therefore considered a crucial part of a general education.
248 R. Nonninger et al.

Hence, scientific literacy aims at increasing the tangibility of scientific phenomena

and at properly communicating their results. It further offers an orientation for
scientific-technical professions, establishing a basis for further learning processes.
In Bremen as well as in Hamburg, nanotechnology is considered a technological
application of all sciences. In Bremen, nanotechnology is taught as part of the
elective physics subject within the Sek. I. Furthermore, the thematic field “Micro-
and Nanotechnology” is included in the topic “Technology in Times of Social
Changes”.
Hamburg [35]
Science and technology play an essential role in Hamburg’s education plan for the
Sek. I, due to their relevance for our cultural identity. The interrelations between
scientific findings and technical applications enable progress in various domains
including nanotechnology.
According to the education plan for the Sek. II, chemistry class should cover the
topics “Innovative Products and Methods—from Concept to Synthesis and from
Raw Materials to Products” including drugs, dyes, plastics and nanotechnological
products as potential topics.
North Rhine-Westphalia [36–38]
The thematic field “Products of Chemistry” has been implemented into the curri-
cula for the Realschule, Hauptschule and Gesamtschule, including macromolecules
in nature and technology, nanoparticles and new materials as well as their appli-
cation in plastics, glues, soaps, fragrances and aromas. The students can name
examples for nanoparticles and their applications and correlate the particles’ sizes
with the dimensions of everyday objects.
In the Sek. II curricula for the Gymnasium, the thematic field “Carbon Com-
pounds and Equilibrium Reactions” includes an excursion into the field of
nanocarbons, illustrating the diversity of existing carbon modifications. Moreover,
using nanocarbons as examples, students assess the opportunities and risks ema-
nating from nanotechnological progress.
Furthermore, nanoparticles are covered in biology within the thematic fields
“Products of Chemistry” and “Nanotechnology in Everyday Products”. Other
aspects, such as self-cleaning surfaces, lotus effects and gecko’s feet, are covered
within the thematic field “Bionics”.
Rhineland-Palatinate [39]
Rhineland-Palatinate’s Sek. I science curricula contain the section “Materials
Shaping the Future”. An emphasis is placed on the question, which contributions
chemistry can make towards solving problems of the future. Modern developments
have been an essential part of our everyday lives for years, although most new
products are not associated with chemical advancements. What role is chemistry
playing in the manufacturing process of smartphones, for instance, and how can
chemistry class contribute to students’ responsibly participating in society?
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 249

The curricula suggest discussing nanotechnology as an elective specialization

within the field of “Biotechnology” or as part of the thematic field “New Techno-
logies” found in the Sek. II curriculum for biology.
Saxony-Anhalt [40]
The chemistry curriculum includes the comparison between carbon and silicon as
well as the thematic excursion “Silicon’s Role in the Computer Sciences”,
highlighting the relevance of nanostructured silicon for the computer sciences.
Thuringia [41]
Chemistry class in Thuringia is putting an emphasis on a sustainable education,
making scientific literacy an essential element for a general education. It is a vital
requirement in order to make self-determined decisions for our personal and social
lives, participate in social communication and to actively shape our living condi-
tions with respect to a sustainable development.
Overall, nanotechnology tends to be taught as part of the regular STEM subjects,
rather than being understood as an independent topic. Another interesting aspect is
the increasing promotion of sustainability in class. The concept of sustainability has
been taken into account by several federal states, most of which consider nano-
technology to be a thematically suitable carrier.
Nanotechnology in schools is mostly assigned to chemistry classes (North
Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Hamburg or Thuringia), but can also be
found in the context of biology (North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate,
Saarland or Saxony-Anhalt) and related areas such as bionics. It can also be found
in a physical context. However, the federal states Berlin and Bremen decided
against the implementation of nano contents into already existing courses and
created elective subjects such as “Physical-, Micro and Nanotechnology”. In
some states, nanotechnology is discussed in regard to certain compounds. Berlin
and Saxony-Anhalt, for instance, mention nanotechnology in the context of carbon
and silicon, respectively.
As a whole, nanotechnology has been implemented in less than half of the
federal states’ curricula so far—Bavaria, Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-
Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, Saarland, Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein do
not mention nanotechnology at all. Even if it can be found in the curricula, it is more
of a suggestion than compulsory lesson content. While this evolution highlights the
progress made in the last couple of years, the findings underline the rather poor
implementation of nanotechnology in German curricula for schools. Accordingly, a
nationwide implementation still remains to be realized.
As an immediate consequence of these findings, a study reveals that nanotech-
nology is rarely presented in recent school books. For the analysis, 12 chemistry
school books published by different authors were taken into account. Only little
information about carbon nanotubes and C60-Fullerenes and only one experiment
can be found in the books. The screening of 11 biology and physics books revealed
no references to nano contents.
250 R. Nonninger et al.

9.3.3 Studies on Students’ and Teachers’ Perspectives

The results of the previous investigations illustrate that nanoscience education is

only rarely taught on a mandatory basis. Given this information, it might be
interesting to explore, to what extent this rather sparse curricular implementation
impacts students’ knowledge of nanotechnology. For this investigation, a short
questionnaire was designed for students (N ¼ 268) of different grades (7, 9,
11 and 12). The study primarily captured (1) the students’ general understanding
of the term “nano”, (2) which applications and everyday products the students
associate with the term nanotechnology, (3) the impact of nanotechnology on their
lives and their assessment of this impact. The subsequent multiple-choice questions
give students the opportunity to estimate their own subject-related knowledge and
ask about their interest in the integration of nano contents into chemistry class [42].
Summarized, the results reveal several misconceptions related to the understand-
ing of nanotechnology in all grade levels, which became especially apparent in
younger students who had difficulties in assessing the spatial dimensions correctly.
Specific or even precise answers (e.g. 1  109 m), however, are rarely found in
higher grades either.
The answers obtained with regard to known or assumed applications of nano-
technology in the students everyday life or other domains are quite similar in terms
of misconceptions. The most prominently stated fields of application, by far, were
technology and the computer sciences (55 %) as well as specific products such as
the “iPod nano” or “computer chips”. While the architecture of CPUs is indeed
comprised of nanostructured materials, the suffix nano in “iPod nano” rather
mockingly refers to the products’ size as opposed to its underlying technological
features. The frequent mentioning of this product, though, shows a significant
influence of advertisements on the participants.
In total, only one out of six participants classified nanotechnological products or
nanomaterials into important fields of application (e.g. chemical industry, func-
tional materials, medical fields and cosmetics). The majority of students were not
aware of either the technical application of nanotechnology or other points of
contact within their day-to-day lives.
Regardless of this missing awareness, nearly half the participants (46 %) con-
sider the technology’s impact as “certainly very large”, even though they cannot
explicitly explain their decision. For this reason, 42 % of the participants did not
summit an answer at all. Similar findings were obtained assessing the influence of
nanotechnology on our everyday lives. The question was mainly answered on a
superficial level. Especially the younger students estimated its impact as positive
(90 % of all answers). With respect to the high number of technical applications
mentioned by the students, it can be assumed that only the use of nanotechnology in
rather “harmless” areas was considered, whereas applications in areas such as
cosmetics or food-processing seemed to not have been taken into account.
All in all, the findings reveal that most students do not lean towards concerns,
skepticism and risk or threat awareness regarding new or only partially explored
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 251

Table 9.3 Selected findings of the students’ questionnaires concerning nanotechnology

Results/conclusion Students’ statements
Conceptions  Problems assessing “. . . something very small”
spatial dimensions “. . . smallest particles. . . smaller than atoms”
 Various “. . . a distinct kind of light”
misconceptions
Presence/  Strongly influenced by “. . .iPod nano. Maybe it has something to do with
applications advertisements microchips”
 Frequent connections to “. . .leaves have nanostructures”
physics
Influence on  Lacking expertise “. . . I am not sure, as I do not know anything about
own life  Tending to a positive potential negative impacts”
assessment “. . .good, because it’s more modern”

technologies. The few exceptions (3 %), only mentioned general concerns. Table 9.3
shows the most relevant findings and some of the students’ statements.
Taking all groups participating in this study into account, 95 % of all students
stated that they possess “little” or “no” previous knowledge concerning nanotech-
nology, although 87 % are interested in a respective implementation.
The collected data are in alignment with results obtained by the analysis of the
curricula and emphasize once more the relevance of an appropriate implementation
of nanotechnology into chemistry class. Most students only have a vague idea about
nanotechnology, can name only few applications and are hardly able to assess the
impact and arising risks of this technology. Even though the participants display a
rather positive attitude towards nanotechnology, these statements are rarely based
on knowledge and are lacking a critical reflection.
Based on the findings of the questionnaires, another empirical study was carried
out in order to assess the content and didactical knowledge of the teachers and their
willingness to implement the respective content. Due to the already mentioned lack
of nano-related teaching materials in school books, teachers have to fall back on
material found online or design their own materials. The question arises, if this
circumstance is making it more challenging for the teachers and thus represents a
barrier for integrating nanotechnology into class. If this is the case, how many of
these teachers actually conquer it and can any further intrinsic or extrinsic barriers
be revealed? All of these questions will be investigated in the following.
The questionnaire’s results demonstrate that only few teachers (N ¼ 40) have
already been teaching nanotechnology within a dedicated lesson or even within a
teaching unit, whereas a couple at least referenced the issue. A lot of educational
initiatives were mentioned, for instance the above presented nanoTruck and
NanoSchoolBox, although none of the participants ever used the materials in
class. The majority of the teachers (75 %) stated that nanotechnology should play
a more prominent role in science education. Furthermore, about two thirds desire
appropriate vocational training, emphasizing the fundamental basics.
252 R. Nonninger et al.

However, the teachers also have some concerns when considering the imple-
mentation of nanotechnology into class. Most of the participants evaluate their
subject-related knowledge as “mediocre” to “not sufficient”. In this context, an
analysis of curricula and module descriptions from teacher training institutes
(universities and in-service teacher trainee seminars) reveals that nanotechnology
is only rarely implemented and thus substantially underrepresented in contrast to
the STEM study programs at university level. As a consequence, almost no basic
knowledge about nanotechnology is taught in teacher trainee programs at the
university level, leading to most teachers feeling insecure about teaching nanotech-
nological contents in their classes. This also explains the above-mentioned desire
for more offers in further teacher trainings.
Moreover, a number of teachers mentioned that their schools’ equipment is not
appropriate for teaching nanotechnology—particularly in regard to student and
teacher experiments the respective teachers assessed the quality of their schools’
materials and equipment as “poor” or “very poor”, whereas the general equipment
of the school is regarded as “moderate” to “good”. Besides the lack of instruments
and chemicals, the teachers also desire more teaching materials, particularly
including experiments (76 %). Out of all the participants, only one teacher used
contents found in a school book.
However, the sparse implementation of nanotechnology into the curricula has
been regarded as more relevant than the inadequate schools’ equipment; many
teachers are of the opinions that “the recent education plan is barely manageable
already” and that there is not enough time for “topics without direct relation to the
education plan” due to the “exhausting quantity of teaching contents”. This aspect
is regarded as the highest barrier for teaching nanotechnology in schools. Table 9.4
displays selected statements of the teachers’ questionnaire.
In summary, the study highlights—similar to the students’ study—that the
teachers are interested in implementing nanotechnological contents into their clas-
ses. The findings are in line with a similar study carried out in Finland [43] and
reveal a number of extrinsic and intrinsic barriers as well as teacher desires. Since
the latter decide between “make or break” regarding the implementation of

Table 9.4 Selected results of the teachers’ questionnaire concerning nanotechnology

Role in own teaching Use of educational offers
• “Nano” should play a larger role (28/40) • Various educational offers named
• Held an explicit lesson on “Nano” (1/40) • Educational offers used (0/40)
 Made references (11/40)
Interest in (further) teacher trainings Potential barriers
• High interest in further teacher trainings (26/40) • Intrinsic
• Topics: basics of nanotechnology, coatings,  Lack of knowledge
medical applications, nano and energy  Cannot establish reference to curriculum
• Extrinsic
 Lack of time, sufficient school / lab
equipment and teaching materials
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 253

nanotechnology into STEM class, these perspectives should be taken into account,
according to Kelly [44] and Anderson [45].

9.3.4 Plea for Curricular Adjustments

Within the last section, a status quo for the implementation of nanotechnology into
several fields of the German education infrastructure has been described. A short
overview of some non-formal educational initiatives was followed by the summary
of the implementations within the different curricula of the federal states. The
representation of nanotechnology in school books was analyzed as well. Further-
more, results of studies with both students and teachers have been presented,
focusing on the practical implementation, reflecting the students’ and teachers’
previous knowledge, interests as well as potential barriers for teaching and learning
nanotechnology.
With respect to a comprehensive and systematic implementation of nanotech-
nology into schools, a number of satisfying preliminary results exist so far; how-
ever, a number of barriers have become apparent as well. Particularly encouraging
is the wide range of public and private educational offers, intending to remedy the
lack of teaching materials. Due to (hesitant) reformations, a number of nanotech-
nological aspects are already part of some federal curricula. Especially the students’
and teachers’ general interest is relevant to further proceedings.
However, a number of barriers exist that have to be overcome. Accordingly,
educational initiatives have to become more prominent and should be offered
nationwide, in order for nanotechnology to be more accessible for a wider range
of young people in Germany. The federal states, however, are not able to provide
those offers comprehensively on their own. Consequently, implementation of
nanotechnology into the formal educational sector is mandatory and additional
vocational trainings have to be provided for teachers. With this in mind, the Teacher
Education Center of Dortmund should be mentioned. As a pioneer in its field, the
Education Center gives teachers the opportunity to attend courses, in order to learn
about the fundamentals of nanotechnology and about contexts referencing everyday
situations in which nanotechnological contents can be taught. More such offers as
well as an implementation of nanotechnology into teacher trainings in universities
would therefore be desirable.
At least as important, however, is the development of innovative teaching
concepts for science classes. Cross-linking nanotechnological contents incorporat-
ing modern education concepts seems to have a sustainable and synergistic impact
on the educational potential, both from a professional and an educational stand-
point. In the following section, such a teaching concept, which may act as a catalyst
for the implementation of a nanoscience education in German curricula, will be
presented.
254 R. Nonninger et al.

9.4 Education for a Sustainable Development as a Catalyst

for the Implementation of a Nanoscience Education
in the Formal Education Sector

Within the UN-Decade “Education for a Sustainable Development” (ESD,

2005–2014), Germany has committed itself to embedding the principles of a sustain-
able development in its education system. The concept of ESD in general, intends to be
an educational answer for global challenges (climate changes, energy shortages,
distribution of resources) and at the same time a result obtained from past experiences,
when risks and consequences of scientific and technological progress were neglected.
In order to train competence-oriented students according to ESD standards, edu-
cation standards focus on promoting skills required in dealing with current issues.
Typically, those issues are in conjunction with economy, ecology, society and their
interrelations. Thus a competence-oriented ESD’s main goal has to be spreading
knowledge about challenges and interconnections of global problems, for people to
understand how to accomplish a sustainable development. Furthermore, values and
skills have to be conveyed in order to apply the knowledge and to put sustainable actions
into practice [46]. These aspects are part of the shaping competence concept developed
by de Haan [47], specifying and classifying the ESD’s goals, which is the most popular
and recognized formulation in Germany. De Haan defines the shaping competence as
the “[. . .] ability to utilize the knowledge about sustainable development and recognize
problems of unsustainable development. That is, to draw conclusions from present and
future studies regarding the interrelations of ecological, economical and social events
and to make, understand and individually, collectively and politically implement
decisions accordingly, in order to realize sustainable development processes” [47].
Designed and published in the course of the Transfer-21 program, the shaping
competence has been differentiated into partial competencies. It serves as a guide for
teachers and principals to identify points of references for existing school curricula,
subjects and programs. The 12 partial competencies have been categorized in Table 9.5.
They are oriented towards the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment‘s (OECD’s) educational goals and the resulting key competencies, to enable
people to advocate against discrimination and for social solidarity and commitment.
In order to convey those shaping competencies, it is important to combine
specific topics and contents with innovative teaching and learning methods [49].
A list of criteria developed by de Haan [50] is supposed to facilitate the selection of
relevant topics for an ESD. The criteria imply that the topics
• Should have a long-term relevance for the students, stimulating them to shape
the future,
• Should allow students to experience local action on a global scale,
• Should impart a differentiated knowledge, in order to call different points of
view to attention and to emphasize the interdisciplinary nature as well as
uncertainties, and
• Should include a potential for students to spring into action and actively partic-
ipate in society [50].
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 255

Table 9.5 The partial competencies of the shaping competence according to de Haan [48]
Partial competencies of the shaping competence OECD competence categories
T.1 Competence of changing perspectives Interactive application of
Building up knowledge by incorporating new perspectives media and tools
open-mindedly
T.2 Competence of anticipation
Anticipatorily analyzing and evaluating developments
T.3 Competence of interdisciplinary scientific inquiry
Obtaining and acting upon interdisciplinary findings
T.4 Competence of handling incomplete and overly com-
plex information
Recognizing and assessing risks, hazards and other
concerns
G.1 Competence of cooperation Interaction in heterogeneous
Planning and acting in a joint effort groups
G.2 Competence of successfully managing individual
decision-making dilemmas
Considering conflicts of interest while reflecting upon fur-
ther actions
G.3 Competence of participation
Participating in decision-making processes
G.4 Competence of motivation
Motivating others and oneself to actively participate
E.1 Competence of reflecting guiding principles Acting independently
Reflecting upon the own or other people’s guiding principles
E.2 Competence of moral actions
Using personal ideas of justice as a basis for decisions and
actions
E.3 Competence of acting independently
Independently planning and acting upon it
E.4 Competence of assisting others
Showing empathy for others

These ESD topics characteristically include complex problem constellations and

solutions. They oftentimes include indistinct causes, immediate and long-term
effects, contradictory and conflicting solutions and uncertainties concerning the
outcomes [51].

9.4.1 Methods for the Promotion of an ESD

The question now arising is which tools and methods are suitable for dealing
with these complex topics and for the acquisition of the ESD competencies?
Relevant literature is repeatedly suggesting innovative teaching and learning
methods, such as simulation games and role plays, future conferences, planning
and evaluation methods, computer simulations, mediation procedures,
256 R. Nonninger et al.

workshop techniques (e.g. Open-Space), working with models and the real-
ization of projects [52]. Studies on teaching the course contents and on learning
conditions indicated the benefits of tying the ESD contents to the student’s prior
knowledge [53]. Furthermore, student’s skills developed more easily if real-life
conditions were established and the topics were referencing real-life
situations [52].
The implementation of ESD goals is not just restricted to subject matters.
Because of its holistic and interdisciplinary concept the whole school should get
involved [48]. For this purpose three teaching and organizational principles have
been developed, allowing the students to acquire the appropriate competencies.
These principles include teaching interdisciplinary knowledge, enabling partici-
patory learning and establishing innovative structures [54].
(1) Interdisciplinary knowledge assumes the necessity of interlaced thinking, espe-
cially the cross-linking of nature and the cultural world and the development of
appropriate problem-solving competencies. Accordingly, the goal is to esta-
blish respective contents and working methods in the curricula.
(2) Participatory learning is asking for the participation of all social groups in the
endeavors of sustainably developing the future. Schools can prepare their
students for this participation by expanding their teaching structures with the
introduction of new teaching and learning methods, specifically targeting the
competence to act democratically.
(3) Establishing innovative structures assumes that schools as holistic entities are
educationally effective by broaching and refining the issues of current domains
of reform, such as quality and profile development, opening up schools and
promoting a performance culture. In this context the cooperation with extra-
curricular affiliates is of the utmost importance.
The concept’s implementation requires means and methods going beyond
classroom settings and includes refining school life and culture as well as
organizational and personnel development [55]. For schools planning on aligning
their goals with the ESD principles it has been suggested to act upon the
following guiding principle: “School life is oriented towards ESD values and
goals and provides parties involved to be heard, to help fashion and to partici-
pate in dealing with relevant topics and questions” [56]. Methods named for the
adaption are democratic forums, conferences for students, teachers and parents,
representative committees of co-determination and dispute resolution as well as
mediation. For the field of personnel development, methods such as developing
team structures, supervision and collegial feedback have been mentioned [56]. In
order to establish a learning culture contributing to an ESD, the following
learning arrangements and methods have been suggested: project-oriented learn-
ing, cooperative or service learning, self-assessment of learning processes (learn-
ing portfolios kept by students), learning workshops, self-organized learning,
differentiating between learning and performance settings, options and negoti-
ation processes regarding lesson contents, peer-teaching as well as feedback by
and for students [56].
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 257

Methods suggested in the guidelines include the usage of authentic everyday

items, student-oriented and experimental chemistry learning and student-centric
and cooperative learning strategies, for instance group puzzles or learning circuits.
Moreover, methods for structuring controversial disputes and for the provocation
and explication of individual opinions, e.g. role plays and simulation games, are of
importance as well [57].
Simulation games explicitly encourage the competence of participating in
decision-making processes, by teaching the students to handle disputes while
contemplating different interests and uncertainties [58]. Such games permit the
consideration of arising problems incorporating different perspectives and at the
same time cultivating respective competencies [59]. It further provides the oppor-
tunity to examine ecological, economic and social perspectives and thus to include
the three dimensions of ESD in the evaluation process. By including opinions of
representatives of ecologically, economic and socially active groups into the
simulations, the interrelation between the economy, the environment and society
regarding a sustainable development becomes clearer for the students. Furthermore,
it fosters the student’s analyzation and evaluation techniques and raises their
awareness for the impact emanating from new technologies and chemical products.
Simulation games help to structure and illustrate some of the complex correlations,
facilitating dealing with the oftentimes vast amount of information [60]. Another
advantage is the high amount of student activation, contributing to a higher
motivation in the students [60].

9.4.2 The Potential of Nanotechnology for ESD-Oriented

Chemistry Classes

In order to implement ESD into chemistry lessons, Burmeister and Eilks [61] are
recommending an orientation towards the concept of socio-critical and problem-
oriented chemistry classes [57]. For this concept, a guideline has been developed to
focus on while planning a chemistry lesson (see Fig. 9.2).
For the selection of topics, criteria, such as authenticity, relevance, and con-
troversial as well as open-minded views regarding socially relevant questions,
have been named. The subject should be present in different kinds of media
serving as access points, encouraging initial questions and discussions. Further-
more, it should be associated with chemical and technical ideas [57]. In order to
use the socio-critical and problem-oriented concept in an ESD context, the
criteria need to be modified slightly. In addition to the already named criteria,
the topic has to have a connection to the debate about sustainability and thus has
to explicitly focus on social, economic and ecological dimensions of a sustain-
able development [61].
Apart from using controversial scientific topics in order to integrate an ESD
into chemistry education, Burmeister et al. [63] name several other approaches.
258 R. Nonninger et al.

Methodological
Criteria for the
Goals Consequences for the Lesson Structure
Selection of a Topic
Implementation

General education / Approaching and

Authentic everyday-
„Education through Authenticity 1. analyzing a
items
Science“ controversy
Technical
Student-oriented and
(Multidimensional) clarification by
Relevance experimental learning 2.
Scientific literacy integrating
methods
experiments
Encouraging the
competence of Open-mindedness Student-centered and Re-examining the
socio-scientific regarding socially cooperative learning 3. controversial
reasoning and relevant questions methods problem
decision making
Elaborating and
Encouraging the Methods structuring
discussing
competence of Open discussions controversial 4.
different
communication discussions
perspectives
Developing Questions
Methods provoking
scientific referencing chemical
and explicating 5. Meta-reflection
knowledge and and technical
individual opinions
skills problems

Fig. 9.2 Guideline for the concept of socio-critical and problem-oriented chemistry classes
[57, 62]

They propose, for instance, following and discussing the principles of green
chemistry while experimenting in class, as well as addressing chemical develop-
ments for a sustainable future. Both methods rather promote learning about, than
actually for, a sustainable development [63]. Furthermore, chemistry lessons
could be part of an evolution of school as an institution, generally focused on
sustainability. The culture of learning and teaching as a whole should be designed
to encourage students to become actively participating citizens pursuing a sus-
tainable way of life, with chemistry class playing a significant part in this
evolution [63].
Nanotechnology, with its numerous fields of application, is said to be one of the
key technologies of our time. It is offering new solutions for the protection of our
climate, ensuring a sufficient energy supply, innovative medical procedures as well
as mobility issues and is therefore contributing to a sustainable development [64].
Medical advances of the twenty-first century result in lower infant mortality rates
and generally higher life expectancies. Furthermore, all humans have the right to a
basic supply of food, water and energy. This entails a higher demand for industrial
goods (such as cars, smartphones and computers) as well as medical services,
transportation systems, housing and jobs. The problem being that, as of now,
neither the infrastructure nor the amount of resources is going to be sufficiently
established. Nanotechnology is offering a number of solutions in order to spare
resources and power supplies by allowing products to be manufactured by using
alternative raw materials and easier, more efficient manufacturing processes. We
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 259

have to keep in mind though that new and unknown nanotechnology products can
pose risks as well.
Therefore, it is important to thoroughly deal with all three ESD dimensions
(ecological, economic and social) in chemistry class. Informing students about
chemical technologies and products and their influence on the economy, environ-
ment and society can help in fostering their socio-scientific reasoning skills.
Exploring the science of nanotechnology gives students insights into the social
process of dealing with new technologies and enables them to participate in
decision-making processes through reconstructing and partaking in social debates
about nanotechnology (Competence of Participation G.3, see also Table 9.5). The
subject-matter of nanotechnology offers many controversies and along with it many
open discussions. Numerous fields of applications and the resulting chances for the
environment, health system, and economy help illustrate the possibilities that
nanotechnology offers and the key role it is going to play in sustainably developing
the future. A final assessment of all the chances and risks posed by nanotechnology
is unfortunately hardly achievable. Thus, the subject is suitable for dealing with
dilemmas, uncertainties and open situations (Competence of Handling Incomplete
and Overly-Complex Information T.4, see also Table 9.5). Moreover, it offers
individual courses of action, promoting the students’ competence to reflect the
impact of their lifestyles on the environment and others (competence E.1.3,
according to de Haan [47]).
Because of its relevance, the subject of nanotechnology has the potential to
heighten the students’ interest and motivation [65]. Furthermore, this topic is going
to stay relevant on a long-term basis, because of its predicted influence on our future
lives. Hence, it is fulfilling the criteria of long-term relevance by de Haan [50],
making it an especially relevant subject for an ESD. It is likewise satisfying all
criteria for the choice of topic for socio-critical and problem-oriented chemistry
classes elaborated by Marks and Eilks [57]. Those criteria include authenticity,
relevance, open-mindedness regarding socially relevant questions, open discus-
sions and questions referencing chemical and technical problems [61].
In order to sustainably utilize nano innovations, certain elements for a sustain-
able development have to be regarded. Below, an overview of the topics nanotech-
nology and sustainability will be given by outlining the influence on the three
dimensions: economy, ecology and society by nano advancements.
(1) Economic Dimension
The field of nanotechnological applications is vast, although most are connected
to nanostructures and new materials. In the context of their domestic and research
policies, Germany’s new “High-Tech Strategy” is specifying five areas of need, in
which intense research should be maintained in order to produce nanotechnological
products and methods. These advancements are necessary in order to stay sustain-
able and should therefore be implemented into chemistry, physics and biology
classes.
260 R. Nonninger et al.

(1) Climate and Energy: transformation of the energy supply, with special empha-
sis on intelligent networks, climatically adjusted cities characterized by high
energy efficiencies and CO2-neutrality,
(2) Health and Nutrition: individualized medicine, self-determined life at an old
age, preventative measures for more health and higher quality of life,
(3) Sustainable Mobility: transport and production, autonomous mobility sys-
tems, new materials,
(4) Communication and IT: digitization of productions, internet-based services,
transformation into a “digital economy and society”,
(5) Security: security in virtual spaces, security solutions [66].
In the domain of medicine and pharmacy, for example, nanotechnological
processes and products are resulting in new drugs against cancer or infectious
diseases. Already today, nanotechnological products are already playing an eco-
nomically important role. The number of commercially used nanomedicinal prod-
ucts worldwide is estimated to be over 100, with over 150 products being tested in
clinical trials [64].
Within the last few years, the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare landscape
changed drastically. Decreasing R&D-productivities and the fierce competition
regarding generic drugs resulted in poor growth and low profits. Historically, the
development of pharmaceuticals has always been strongly connected with the
development of new active ingredients and their clinical trials.
Now a more holistic approach is considered, using intelligent “Life Cycle
Managements” in order to improve the process of developing drugs, fast-tracking
the development and saving operational costs. Not only does the development of
new drugs require the active ingredients to properly function, they have to reach
their targeted area within the human body to realize their full potential. In order to
get inside the body, the active ingredients have to cross several barriers: they have
to be directed to the targeted area of the body without being destroyed and have to
stay there for a sufficient period of time. Only at the disease’s point of origin, the
ingredients can unfold their full potential. The more precisely this process can be
steered (e.g. with the help of nanotechnology), the less ingredients are required and
the less drugs have to be administered. This reduces side effects and results in
cheaper drugs and manufacturing processes.
In the chemical industry, nanomaterials are increasingly playing a more impor-
tant economic role. In 2012, the global market for nanomaterials was estimated at
15.9 billion US dollars and is predicted to reach 37.3 billion US dollars in 2017 with
a growth rate of 19 % [64]. Accordingly, nanotechnology is going to play a decisive
role in Germany, since the chemical industry is the third biggest economic sector in
Germany. In 2013, the chemical-pharmaceutical industry’s total turnover was
around 190 billion euros with roundabout 438,000 people working in the
sector [67].
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 261

(2) Social Dimension

(a) Health Risks
Some nanotechnologically fabricated products are envisaged to be harmless, since
they are either based on nanostructures or particles which agglomerate into bigger
structures during the production process. Further, some nanoparticles are strongly
embedded in a matrix and can thus only be released in small quantities. Neverthe-
less, some exceptions exist, in which nanoparticles are part of the end product that
consumers as well as employees could potentially come in contact with. However,
it is assumed that nanoparticles can only cause harm when they are deagglomerated.
Of concern are only inhalable powders as well as solutions and sols containing
nanoparticles. However, following the official work regulations, e.g. wearing suit-
able protective equipment, is considered sufficient to prevent damages from
employees in contact with these materials.
Nanoparticles are able to enter the body through the gastro-intestinal system,
lungs, and skin, although the latter normally is a safe barrier against its environ-
ment, not allowing substances to pass. Unfortunately, nanoparticles contained in
cosmetic care products (e.g. titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in sunscreen) have the
ability to pass this barrier, if the skin is damaged or diseased, as is the case when
sunburnt.
In contrast to the skin, the lungs are constantly exchanging substances with their
environment. In order for this exchange to happen, the barrier between the alveoli
and capillaries is very thin. Additionally, the lungs’ surface area measures around
140 square meters and accordingly offers a huge area for the resorption of
nanoparticles. Studies revealed that nanoparticles were able to cross into the
bloodstream of laboratory animals via the lungs [68]. Moreover, animal testing
proved that some nanoparticles can cause inflammatory reactions inside the bronchi
and alveoli [68]. As described above, these risks are higher in companies in which
employees are handling inhalable nanoparticles.
The adsorption through other barriers of the body, such as the blood-brain barrier
or the gastro-intestinal tract, is possible and in the case of new drugs it is oftentimes
a desired effect. Seen from a security standpoint, it is reassuring that it is difficult
for researchers to cross those barriers, because of nature having its own efficient
ways of protecting itself.
Considering todays’ knowledge, healthy skin seems to be a safe protection
against the penetration of nanoparticles, although especially the adsorption through
inhalation may pose a risk. The question remains: if nanoparticles manage to get
inside the body, what effect do they have? In this context, the oxidative stress
hypothesis, assuming that nanoparticles create free radicals in cells [68], has been
frequently discussed. Studies (in vitro as well as in vivo) revealed that special nano
Fullerenes, carbon nanotubes, quantum dots and exhaust particles [69] have the
ability to cause such stress. However, it is of importance to distinguish between the
262 R. Nonninger et al.

various substances nanoparticles can be synthesized with, because a general toxic-

ity cannot be assumed [70]. Substances toxic in their bulk form are going to be toxic
if they are nanoscaled as well.
(b) Social Benefits
By the year 2050, the world’s population is expected to reach eight to ten billion.
Every human has the right to sufficient supplies of basic amenities including
clean water, energy and food. New markets will be created; less developed
countries will catch up. As mentioned in the introduction, mankind will have to
face a number of challenges in order to satisfy the needs of so many people. The
advances made in information and communication technologies will require an
enormous amount of rare metals and energy. Climate change has to be delayed, or
better yet stopped, by reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and ozone.
Already today, the maximally possible limits for either have been exceeded,
causing irreversible changes to our environment. Other problems, such as work-
ing infrastructures and health systems as well as maintaining hygienic conditions,
have to be faced.
All of these challenges have to be tackled considering planet Earth’s ecosystem.
Today’s society is characterized by an inefficient economic system with respect to
production, distribution, and utilization of resources, making it necessary to
develop sustainable processes. The world is an interlaced system of nature, human-
ity and technology. It is impossible to create sustainability without a global set of
data and an information structure collecting real-time data on indicators of sustain-
ability such as air and water quality and the health of indicating living species. The
only way to increase the efficiency in megacities with regard to transportation
systems, energy and water supply as well as consumption, is the convergence
between intelligent software, sensors and mobile computers.
This is where new technologies, e.g. nanotechnology, come into play. In the
Economic Dimension section, it was explained how the development of nanotech-
nological products in the fields of climate and energy, health and nutrition, mobil-
ity, IT-communication and security may help solve those problems.
Nanotechnological developments with the ability of solving our energy-related
problems include highly efficient solar cells, energy storages, lithium-ion batteries
and the conversion of solar energy into hydrogen. Ceramic filters have the ability to
supply clean drinking water and filter wastewater. Higher capacities in agricultural
food productions with efficient water recovery and the reduction of the carbon
dioxide footprint could be an answer to covering the demand for food and protect
the environment at the same time.
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 263

(c) Legal Framework

In 2004, the VCI in cooperation with BASF published a code of conduct regarding
the safe handling of nanomaterials at work [71]. Since it became apparent that
nanoparticles do not bear more risks than the ones only known for fine dusts, the
existing product-specific regulations were expanded and modified, in order to
include the special nano-specific requirements. Thus, the existing regulations for
consumer protection remain valid.
As discussed in the section on health risks, the protection of all people encoun-
tering products containing or releasing nanoparticles has to be ensured. It should be
taken into consideration that products indicating health concerns should not be
introduced onto the market without proper labelling, assuming the current state of
knowledge. In general, the precautionary principle should be applied, since evalu-
ations regarding new technologies and products are subject to change.
At the beginning of 2010, the new European Cosmetic Regulation came into
effect (Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009). As one of the first EU-regulations, it
contains extensive nano-specific regulations, including a safety evaluation and
compulsory registration as well as a nano-specific labelling obligation. Accord-
ingly, ingredients in compliance with the nanodimension have to be labelled as
containing “nano” materials. In 2011, a second nano-specific food labelling regu-
lation was decided upon and is in effect since December 2014 (Regulation (EC) No.
1169/2011). Technically synthesized nanomaterials in food products have to be
listed as part of the ingredients and labelled with the bracketed word “nano”.
The Regulation on Biocide Products (EU 528/2012) was decided upon in 2012.
It contains nano-specific regulations for the risk assessment and labelling obligation
of products containing biocides. Furthermore, the precautionary principle’s goal is
the incorporation of consumers and industries into the risk management, in order
for consumers to responsibly make purchase decisions and for the industry to
guarantee the innovative development of products [72].
(d) Global Justice
The development of one or several countries should not take place at the expense of
human beings in other regions. Therefore, the aspect of global justice has an
important role within the concept of sustainable development. It has to be
guaranteed that new technologies are being applied for the benefit of everyone
and not only for those who can afford it. Pharmaceutical research, for instance,
should not purely depend on economic viewpoints and should also be developed for
rare diseases occurring primarily in poor countries. Furthermore, clinical trials must
not be carried out mainly in those countries offering the cheapest conditions and
only insufficiently informing their patients.
It is important to ensure that the growing utilization of nanotechnology and
nanomaterials leads to innovations and products benefitting everyone. In this
264 R. Nonninger et al.

context, the restrictive use of patents may further increase the dependence of
developing countries on industrialized countries and has to be avoided [73].
(3) Ecological Dimension
(a) Resources and Climate
Nanoparticles have been part of our nature for as long as the Earth has existed. On
the one hand, they can enter the ambient air as ultrafine dusts of natural or artificial
combustion sources (e.g. volcanic ash, cigarette smoke, exhaust gases). On the
other hand, they can unintendedly be formed in production processes (e.g. welding
fumes) [74]. Normally, the impact of nanoparticles on the environment is discussed
with regard to synthesized nanoparticles used for the refining of products. The
effects of nanotechnology on the environmental dimension are hereby rather
complex: the special chemical and physical properties of the artificially synthesized
nanoparticles potentially result in risks for the environment.
In contrast, nanotechnological proceedings and applications substantially con-
tribute to the protection of the environment and climate, since resources, energy, as
well as water can be saved and greenhouse gases as well as problematic waste can
be reduced. Recent research concerning potential risks of nanoparticles reveals that,
so far, there are no obvious indications for significant hazards to the environment by
artificially synthesized nanoparticles. The lack of evidence, however, does not
sufficiently prove the harmlessness of nanoparticles, since severe knowledge gaps
still exist in spite of intensive research activities in this field. In this context, the
environmental analysis causes major issues [75] due to the lack of appropriate
methods detecting nanoparticle concentrations within complex environmental
media such as water, soil, sediments and organisms. This also explains missing
data concerning the retention and preservation of nanoparticles in the environment,
even though this data is crucial for a definite risk assessment [75]. Another problem
concerning the risk assessment are investigations performed under controlled
laboratory conditions using unrealistically high dosages on model organism or
cell cultures. For instance, a study revealed that the growth of crustaceans was
hindered by titanium dioxide nanoparticles; however, the concentrations have to be
fairly high (0.24 mg∙L1) [75]. Additionally, some details of the mechanisms of
intake, distribution, metabolization and excretion of nanoparticles are still
unexplained [75].
However, the risks and hazards for the environment go hand in hand with
potentials for environmental relief provided by nanotechnological advancements.
Nanomaterials, for instance, with their special chemical and physical properties
have the potential to save resources by enhancing the resistance and thus the
durability of other materials (e.g. corrosion prevention). Moreover, nanomaterials
can promote a more efficient use of energy by reducing the weight or optimizing
certain functions, for example, components needed in automobiles and aircrafts,
insulation materials or self-cleaning coatings. With respect to environmental and
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 265

power engineering, nanotechnological applications range from the utilization in

photovoltaic systems to nanoporous membranes and filter materials for water
purification [75]. Furthermore, it is possible to substitute toxic substances in
products with nanoparticles; e.g. harmful heavy metals in anti-corrosive coatings
can be substituted by silver nanoparticles.
Whether distinct nanotechnological developments actually imply ecological
benefits can only be evaluated by analyzing and assessing a technology’s life
cycle, starting with the resource extraction from the environment (e.g. ores or raw
oils), followed by further processing and production, up to the final disposal
(e.g. waste and carbon dioxide) [75]. Up until now, only few nanotechnological
applications constitute an ecological advantage compared to conventional products.
Accordingly, the technical synthesis of carbon nanomaterials (Fullerenes and
nanotubes), for example, requires a lot of energy. On the other hand, new ceramic
filter systems based on ceramic nanoparticles provide the only economically rea-
sonable solution for the filtration of ground water in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
States. Conventional plastic filter materials are unstable when exposed to the
aggressive fouling conditions existing at water temperatures up to 80  C.
(b) “Green Nano”
At a political level, the focus has already been put on a sustainable nanotechnolog-
ical development. For this reason, in 2006 the German Federal Government
established the “NanoKommission”, as a nanotechnological dialogue platform for
different stakeholders and experts [76]. An orientation towards the guiding princi-
ple for a sustainable development intends to minimize the risks and potential
negative consequences of nanotechnological developments and to sustainably
utilize the chances given by innovations. In order to reach the goal of a sustainable
nanotechnological development, a team affiliated with the NanoKommission devel-
oped the “Green Nano” principles in 2010 [77]. These principles are a political
attempt to create an environment facilitating and promoting such a development.
Apart from the minimization and prevention of negative effects (“Design for
Safety”) the principles’ goals include the realization of positive effects on mankind
and the environment (“Benign by Design”) [78]. The principles should be realized
by the industry under their own responsibility and occur complementary to regula-
tive measures [79].

9.5 Suggestions for the Implementation of Nano-Teaching-

Concepts in Curricula for Schools

One of the main goals of science education is enabling students to actively

participate in social communication and opinion-forming processes [80, 81]. For
this reason, students should generally obtain competencies to (1) appropriately
assess scientific issues, (2) understand the role and importance of natural sciences
for and in society, and (3) apply findings gained from science classes in out-of-
266 R. Nonninger et al.

school contexts [82]. From our perspective, these requirements for scientific liter-
acy, which are also described in the German education standards, legitimize the
implementation of “nano” in curricula for schools. Addressing possible risks and
opportunities of nanotechnology in science class provides students with a good
chance for the achievement of a reflected process of opinion formation. This
especially includes fostering a critical reflection of nanotechnology appearing in
different media, since the attention of consumers can be specifically drawn by
commercials or promises from the manufacturers by only applying the term
“nano” [83].
The ability to communicate critically and properly is an essential element of an
ESD and is also an integral component of the German science curricula in the
competence areas “communication” and “decision making”. In order to provide an
optimal support in social discourses according to the shaping competencies, cur-
ricula should also consider implementing cutting edge technologies such as nano-
technology [84, 85]. In this context, one possibility to foster decision-making skills
within an ESD is the realization of students’ “future conferences” with respect to
the application of nanomaterials in everyday life products (see below). Using these
kinds of examples, all process-oriented competencies, such as “decision making”
and “acquirement of knowledge”, can be deepened by applying teaching and
learning methods that involve experiments and models to investigate the properties
of nanoscaled materials [82]. For the improvement of communication competen-
cies, nano topics provide a variety of opportunities to discuss scientific issues and
phenomena. Furthermore, they open possibilities to apply own factual knowledge
and hold opinions in controversial discussions by applying technical language. In
addition to the promotion of such content and process-oriented competencies,
schools should ensure sustainable learning and furthermore focus on scientific
and engineering professional fields.
Based on industrial nanotechnological processes, students can face global prob-
lems, gain insights into professional fields, nanotechnological study programs and
become aware of future generations’ challenges as well as options for action
[83]. Furthermore, less specific scientific professions will also be affected by
nano innovations in the future; for example, painters and varnishers have to be
trained in handling nano paints and coatings [83]. To summarize, implementing
nano topics, phenomena and experiments into school education opens a variety of
possibilities, especially for students in the secondary level, to learn in an inter-
disciplinary manner, to foster the competencies demanded by German education
standards and to gain insight into technical and academic professional fields. This
underlines that students’ scientific literacy can benefit in multiple ways from
nanotechnology. The following Tables 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 show nanotechnological
topics particularly suited to link competencies of ESD with the education standards
of the chemistry curriculum [86].
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 267

Table 9.6 Example for the nanotechnological topic “Investigation of Titanium Dioxide
Nanoparticles in Sunscreen” with potential nano contents, the competencies with respect to an
ESD and the relation to the curricula
Topic 1: Investigation of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in sunscreen [11]
Nano topics and contents ESD competencies [47] Curricular connectivities
• Function of nanoparticles Students . . . Students . . .
as mineral UV filters T.2.3 are able to mention (own) Content Knowledge: F 4.3
• Isolation and indirect future needs and potential pre- describe the possibilities of
detection of titanium diox- cautionary measures as well as influencing chemical reactions
ide and zinc oxide to describe the necessity of pre- using catalysts
nanoparticles caution— abstracting from their Assessment: B 3 use subject
• Application of scientific own life situation specific, cross-linked knowl-
characterization methods T.2.4 are able to identify present edge and abilities to practically
(SEM, EDX, P-XRD) lifestyle preferences and to develop relevant connections
• Photocatalytic properties analyze and assess these with B 4 develop recent tasks
of titanium dioxide regard to future needs related to the living environ-
nanoparticles T.3.7 describe and assess dif- ment and answer those by
• Construction of a ferences between renewable applying factual chemical
dye-sensitized solar cell and fossil resources and their knowledge
(Grätzel cell) applications (e.g. renewable Communication: K 9 and
• Assessment of raw materials, fossil fuels) K 10 plan, structure, reflect and
nanoparticles’ application E.1.2 are aware of and discuss present their work within teams
in sunscreen criteria for the production and and express their opinion
purchase of products from an regarding chemical issues and
ecological, economic and social self-critically reflect doubts
point of view Knowledge Acquisition:
E.1.3 identify and assess back- E 1 and E 2 identify and
grounds, shapes and effects of develop tasks, that can be
their personal lifestyle and that answered by applying chemi-
of others as well as other socie- cal knowledge and investiga-
ties on the life and job situation tions, particularly by using
of other humans and the bio- chemical experiments and
sphere planning investigations
E.4.3 describe possibilities to accordingly for the verification
develop an appropriate empathy of assumptions and hypotheses
towards nature and assess dif- E 3 perform qualitative and
ferent approaches for own pos- quantitative experiments as
sible actions well as other investigations and
document them
E 8 demonstrate exemplarily
relations between social devel-
opments and chemical research
268 R. Nonninger et al.

Table 9.7 Example for the nanotechnological topic “Can Silver Nanoparticles Superclean and
Sanitize Laundry?” with potential nano contents, the competencies with respect to an ESD and the
relation to the curricula
Topic 2: Can silver nanoparticles superclean and sanitize laundry? [10]
Nano topics and contents ESD competencies [47] Curricular connectivities
• Synthesis of silver Students . . . Students . . .
nanoparticles T.1.2 demonstrate various Content Knowledge: F 3.3
• Antimicrobial properties of point of views and forms of identify the transfer of parti-
silver nanoparticles knowledge (e.g. scientific, tra- cles in selected donator-
• Investigation and assess- ditional, common) by adopting acceptor-reactions and char-
ment of nanomaterials’ utili- other perspectives concerning acterize this type of reaction
zation in diverse everyday both global and local (non) F 3.4 formulate reaction
products sustainable developments schemes / equations by
• Application of scientific T.1.3 assess different needs for applying knowledge of atom’s
characterization methods intervention and action pat- retention and formation of
(SEM, TEM) terns based on adopting differ- compounds with constant
• Further experiments with ent perspectives ratios of atomic numbers
different nanomaterials T.2.1 are aware of methods of F 3.7 describe possibilities to
(ferrofluids, silver fractals, futurology (scenario technolo- control chemical reactions by
self-cleaning surfaces, . . .) gies, simulation games, future variation of reaction condi-
workshops)—adapted to their tions
everyday reality—to analyze Assessment: B 2 identify
problems of a non-sustainable tasks strongly related to other
development and to anticipate subjects and demonstrate
potential sustainable develop- these relations
ments B 5 discuss and assess socially
T.2.2 assess and use the results relevant statements from dif-
of futurology for designing sus- ferent points of view
tainable and fair developments B 6 relate chemical issues to
with respect to ecological sys- problems, develop strategies
tems, social organizations, eco- for solutions and use them
nomical developments and Communication:
political action K 1 research on a chemical
G.1.3 are able to identify forms issue using different sources
of coordination and cooperation K 2 select thematically relevant
in different complex and and significant information
connected everyday life situa- K 9 & K 10 plan, structure,
tions, to describe their valuable reflect and present their work
functions and to apply it on own within teams and take a position
situations with regard to chemical issues
G.3.4 are able to manage dis- and self-critically reflect doubts
agreements and conflicts Knowledge Acquisition:
concerning issues of a (non) E 1 and E 2 identify and develop
sustainable development in a tasks, that can be answered
constructive way using chemical knowledge and
G.4.3 describe personal and investigations with particularly
common motivations for partic- regard to chemical experiments
ipation in democratic decision- and plan investigations accord-
making processes and for sus- ingly for the verification of
tainable behavior assumptions and hypotheses
E.1.2 are aware of and discuss E 4 follow the safety and envi-
criteria for the production and ronmental aspects while
purchase of products from an experimenting
ecological, economic and social
point of view
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 269

Table 9.8 Example for the nanotechnological topic “Nanoporous Materials as Modern Func-
tional Materials” with potential nano contents, the competencies with respect to an ESD and the
relation to the curricula
Topic 3: Nanoporous materials as modern functional materials [12]
Nano topics and contents ESD competencies [47] Curricular connectivities
• Synthesis of nanoporous Students . . . Students . . .
silica materials T.2.1 are aware of methods of Content Knowledge: F 1.2
• Soft- and hard-matter- futurology (scenario technolo- describe exemplarily the
templating as synthesis gies, simulation games, future sub-microscopic construction
approaches workshops)—adapted to their of selected substances
• Gas storage in porous everyday reality—to analyze F 2.3 deduce potential appli-
materials (MOF) problems of a non-sustainable cations and associated advan-
• Modern adsorption and development and to anticipate tages and disadvantages based
filter materials potential sustainable develop- on the substances’ properties
• Catalytic properties of ments F 3.7 describe possibilities to
nanomaterials in compari- T.3.4 exemplarily present con- control chemical reactions by
son to the respective bulk cepts for sustainability in the varying the reaction conditions
materials following areas: technology, Assessment: B 1 present areas
• Gas sensing: detection of economy, trade, mobility, land of application and vocational
oxidizing and reducing use, house and home, con- fields where chemical knowl-
gases by nano-modified sumption and leisure edge is important
surfaces T.3.10 analyze and assess B 3 use subject specific and
interdependencies of ecologi- cross-linked knowledge and
cal, economic and social abilities to practically develop
developments relevant connections
T.4.3 are able to analyze and B 6 relate chemical issues to
assess the risks and dangers of problems, develop strategies
non-sustainable acting for solutions and use them
Communication:
K 4 describe, illustrate or
explain chemical issues apply-
ing correct terminology and/or
by using models and represen-
tations
K 7 and K 8 document and
present the progress and results
of their work appropriately
regarding the situation and
targeted group and argue con-
sequently and correctly
Knowledge Acquisition:
E 3 perform qualitative and
simple quantitative experi-
ments, as well as other inves-
tigations and protocol them
E 6 recognize trends, structures
and correlations in collected or
researched data, explain those
and draw appropriate conclu-
sions
E 7 use appropriate models
(e.g. atom models, periodic
table of the elements) to deal
with chemical tasks
270 R. Nonninger et al.

9.6 Conclusion

In order to preserve adequate living conditions for future generations, no alterna-

tives to aligning our actions with the concept of sustainable development exist.
Nanotechnology has the ability to suggest tangible solutions in order to face the
challenges arising in the twenty-first century. At the same time, nanotechnology, as
a platform technology, facilitates interdisciplinary and sustainable thinking,
required by future generations to solve problems in national and global contexts.
In order to disseminate information on nanotechnological contents and innovations
to a broad public, a great variety of educational initiatives, funded privately or by
the state, has been established within the last 15 years. Despite first impulses,
however, results of different analyses and studies reveal that these initiatives do
not provide a nationwide impartation as required. Furthermore, it was found that
within formal education settings, nanotechnological contents have only been
weakly implemented into the curricula of the 16 federal states.
The concept of an ESD has the potential to act as a catalyst for a systematical and
sustainable implementation into formal education settings. For 20 years it has been
regarded by politics as an internationally recognized goal through which mankind
should be enabled to develop the consciousness and competencies to actively and
sustainably shape the world. Efforts for the realization of these goals have been
intensified during the UN-Decade Education for a Sustainable Development
(2005–2014), although an implementation into schools has only been partially
achieved, similar to the implementation of nanotechnological contents. In this
context, few references to an implementation of an ESD can be found within the
national education standards and the majority of teachers are only vaguely familiar
with this concept. In the future, the realization of an ESD within the science classes
is increasingly focusing on more socially relevant topics. This provides the oppor-
tunity to enhance the relevance of chemistry classes and thus the students’ interest
and motivation in regard to the subject. Therefore, the implementation of an ESD
into schools should be promoted, while a special emphasize should be put on
chemistry class, among others, by developing concepts and teaching materials
with an explicit connection to ESD. Further efforts should be made regarding
teacher training programs for chemistry teachers and the integration of the ESD
concepts into curricula for schools.

Acknowledgements We thank B. Kullmann and Dr. H.-J. Klockner (VCI, Frankfurt) for their
support in analyzing German curricula with respect to nano contents.
Timm Wilke and Janina Dege would like to thank the Foundation of German Business for
financial support.
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 271

References

1. J. Baumert et al. (eds.), PISA 2000. Basiskompetenzen von Sch€ ulerinnen und Sch€ ulern im
internationalen Vergleich (VS Verlag f€ ur Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 2001)
2. J. Baumert et al., Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht im internationalen
Vergleich: Deskriptive Befunde (Leske + Budrich, Opladen, 1997)
3. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland, Bildungsstandards im Fach Mathematik f€ ur die Allgemeine Hochschulreife.
(Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 18.10.2012) (Link, K€ oln, 2014)
4. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland, Bildungsstandards im Fach Deutsch f€ ur die Allgemeine Hochschulreife.
(Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 18.10.2012) (Link, K€ oln, 2014)
5. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland, Bildungsstandards f€ ur die fortgef€
uhrte Fremdsprache (Englisch/Franz€ osisch)
f€
ur die Allgemeine Hochschulreife. (Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 18.10.2012)
(Link, K€oln, 2014)
6. Statista, Anzahl der Studierenden an Hochschulen in Deutschland (2015), http://de.statista.com/
statistik/daten/studie/221/umfrage/anzahl-der-studenten-an-deutschen-hochschulen/. Accessed
30 Jan 2016
7. Statista, Anzahl der Hochschulen in Deutschland (2015), http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/
studie/247238/umfrage/hochschulen-in-deutschland-nach-hochschulart/. Accessed 30 Jan
2016
8. OECD, Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy. A framework for PISA 2006
(OECD, Paris, 2006)
9. S. Schwarzer, T. Wilke, R. Abdelaziz, M. Elbahri, Chem. konkret (2015)
10. J. Menthe, H. Heller, J. Nano Educ. 7, 73 (2015)
11. J. Dege et al., J. Nano Educ. 8 (2016) (to be published)
12. T. Wilke et al., J. Nano Educ. 6, 117 (2014)
13. R. Bennewitz, N. Strobach, J. Nano Educ. 6, 30 (2014)
14. T. Wilke, K. Wolf, A. Steinkuhle, T. Waitz, Praxis Nat. Chem. 64, 28 (2015)
15. Bundesministerium f€ ur Bildung und Forschung, nano.DE-Report 2013. Status Quo der
Nanotechnologie in Deutschland (2013), https://www.bmbf.de/pub/nano.DE-Report_2013_
bf.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
16. Bundesministerium f€ ur Bildung und Forschung, Ausgaben des Bundes f€ ur Wissenschaft,
Forschung und Entwicklung nach F€ orderbereichen und F€orderschwerpunkten. Tabelle 1.1.5
BuFI 5. Datenlizenz Deutschland – Namensnennung – Version 2.0, 2015
17. Bundesministerium f€ ur Bildung und Forschung, Aktionsplan Nanotechnologie 2015.
Hightech-Strategie - Ideen z€ unden!, 2011
18. Bundesministerium f€ ur Bildung und Forschung, nanoTruck. Background Information (2011),
http://www.nanoTruck.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Pressemitteilungen/
Hintergrundinformationen/nanoTruck_portrait.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
19. Initiative junge Forscherinnen und Forscher e.V., Nanotechnologie (2015), http://www.initia
tive-junge-forscher.de/mint-angebote/schulbesuche/nanotechnologie.html. Accessed 30 Jan
2016
20. Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V., Chem. Rep. 6, 8 (2014)
21. Advanced Materials Science rano GmbH, NanoSchoolBox, http://www.NanoSchoolBox.de/
en/nutzungsbedingungen/NanoSchoolBox.html. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
22. Fonds der Chemischen Industrie, Unterrichtsmaterial Nanotechnologie, 2015
23. VDI Technologiezentrum GmbH, Nanoreisen - Abenteuer hinterm Komma (2007), http://
nanoreisen.de/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
24. Bundesministerium f€ ur Bildung und Forschung, nano.DE-Report 2011. Hightech-Strategie -
Ideen z€ unden! (2011), http://www.bmbf.de/pub/nanoDE-Report_2011.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan
2016
272 R. Nonninger et al.

25. VDI Technologiezentrum GmbH, TechPortal - Nanotechnologie - Bildungslandschaft

Nanostudieng€ ange: http://www.techportal.de/de/1171/2/training,public,training_public_
nanost/2/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
26. VDI - Technologiezentrum, Nano-Bildungslandschaften (2008), http://www.nano-
bildungslandschaften.de/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
27. K. Deppert, R. Kullberg, L. Samuelson, in Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education,
ed. by A.E. Sweeney, S. Seal (American Scientific, Stevenson Ranch, 2008), p. 482
28. E. Cebulla, N. Malanowski, A. Zweck, Innovationsbegleitung Nanotechnologie.
Hochschulangebote im Bereich Nanotechnologie (2006), http://www.techportal.de/docs/train
ing/hochschulangebote.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
29. I. Baraton, R. Monk, R. Tomellini, in Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education, ed. by
A.E. Sweeney, S. Seal (American Scientific, Stevenson Ranch, 2008), p. 459
30. Ministerium f€ur Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-W€ urttemberg, ed., Bildungsplan 2016.
Gemeinschaftskunde; Allgemein bildende Schulen; Gymnasium (G8) (Stuttgart, 2014)
31. Berliner Landesinstitut f€ur Schule und Medien, ed., Rahmenlehrplan f€ ur die Sekundarstufe I -
Deutsch. Jahrgangsstufe 7–10; Hauptschule, Realschule, Gesamtschule, Gymnasium
(Oktoberdr, Berlin, 2006)
32. Senator f€ur Bildung und Wissenschaft, Naturwissenschaften Biologie – Chemie – Physik.
Bildungsplan f€ur das Gymnasium, Jahrgangsstufe 5–10, 2006
33. Senator f€ur Bildung und Wissenschaft, Naturwissenschaften Biologie – Chemie – Physik.
Bildungsplan f€ur die Sekundarschule, Jahrgangsstufe 5–10, 2006
34. Senatorin f€ur Bildung und Wissenschaft, Naturwissenschaften Biologie – Chemie – Physik.
Bildungsplan f€ur die Oberschule, 2010
35. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, ed., Bildungsplan Stadtteilschule Chemie, Jahrgangsstufen
7–11 (Beh€orde f€ur Schule und Berufsbildung, Hamburg, 2014)
36. Ministerium f€ur Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, ed.,
Kernlehrplan f€ ur die Realschule in Nordrhein-Westfalen – Chemie (Ritterbach, Frechen, 2011)
37. Ministerium f€ur Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Kernlehrplan f€ ur
die Gesamtschule – Sekundarstufe I in Nordrhein-Westfalen – Naturwissenschaften, Biologie,
Chemie, Physik (Ritterbach, Frechen, 2011)
38. Ministerium f€ur Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Kernlehrplan f€ ur
die Sekundarstufe II Gymnasium/Gesamtschule in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Chemie (2014),
http://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/lehrplaene/upload/klp_SII/ch/KLP_GOSt_Chemie.pdf
39. Ministerium f€ur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Weiterbildung und Kultur, ed., Lehrpl€ ur die
ane f€
Naturwissenschaftlichen F€ acher f€ur die weiterf€uhrenden Schulen in Rheinland-Pfalz.
Klassenstufen 7 bis 9/10 (Ministerium f€ ur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Weiterbildung und Kultur,
Mainz, 2014)
40. Kultusministerium des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, ed., Fachlehrplan Sekundarschule Chemie
(Kultusministerium des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, Magdeburg, 2012)
41. Th€uringer Ministerium f€ ur Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur, Lehrplan f€ ur den Erwerb der
allgemeinen Hochschulreife - Chemie (Th€ uringer Ministerium f€
ur Bildung, Wissenschaft und
Kultur, Erfurt, 2012)
42. T. Wilke, T. Waitz, in New Perspectives in Science Education. Conference Proceedings,
edited by Pixel (University Press, 2012), p. 105
43. A.-L. Kähk€onen, A. Laherto, A. Lindell, J. Nano Educ. 3, 1 (2011)
44. A.V. Kelly, The Curriculum. Theory and Practice (Paul Chapman/Sage, London/Thousand
Oaks, 2004)
45. R.D. Anderson, J.V. Helms, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38, 3 (2001)
46. Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission, Bildung f€ ur nachhaltige Entwicklung Weltdekade der
Vereinten Nationen 2005–2014. Bildung f€ ur nachhaltige Entwicklung (2015), http://www.
bne-portal.de/was-ist-bne/grundlagen/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
9 Nanoscience Education in School Chemistry: Perspectives for Curricular. . . 273

47. G. de Haan, in Kompetenzen der Bildung f€ ur nachhaltige Entwicklung. Operationalisierung,

Messung, Rahmenbedingungen, Befunde, ed. by I. Bormann, G. de Haan (VS, Verl. f€ ur
Sozialwiss., Wiesbaden, 2008), p. 23
48. G. de Haan et al., Nachhaltigkeit und Gerechtigkeit. Grundlagen und schulpraktische
Konsequenzen (Springer, Berlin, 2008), vol. 33
49. M. Barth, Gestaltungskompetenz durch Neue Medien? Die Rolle des Lernens mit Neuen
Medien in der Bildung f€ ur eine nachhaltige Entwicklung (BMV- Berliner Wissenschaftsverl.,
Berlin, 2007), vol. 4
50. G. de Haan, Zeitschrift f€ ur internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik 25,
13 (2002)
51. Programm Transfer-21, Bildung f€ ur nachhaltige Entwicklung. Hintergr€
unde, Legitimation und
(neue) Kompetenzen (2008)
52. W. Rieß, Bildung f€ ur nachhaltige Entwicklung. Theoretische Analysen und empirische Studien
(Waxmann, M€unster [u.a.], 2010), vol. 542
53. S. Hamann, Dissertation, Pädagogsiche Hochschule Ludwigsburg, 2004
54. KMK/DUK, Empfehlung der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland (KMK) und der Deutschen UNESCO-Kommission (DUK)
vom 15.06.2007 zur „Bildung f€ ur nachhaltige Entwicklung in der Schule“, 2007
55. Programm Transfer-21, Schulprogramm Bildung f€ ur nachhaltige Entwicklung. Grundlagen,
Bausteine, Beispiele, 2007
56. Programm Transfer-21, „Qualitätsentwicklung BNE-Schulen“. Qualitätsfelder, Leitsätze,
Kriterien, 2007
57. R. Marks, I. Eilks, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 4, 131 (2009)
58. Programm Transfer-21, Orientierungshilfe Bildung f€ ur nachhaltige Entwicklung in der
Sekundarstufe I. Begr€ udung, Kompetenzen, Lernangebote, 2007
59. U. Sp€orhase-Eichmann, ed., Biologie: Methodik. Handbuch f€ ur die Sekundarstufe I und II
(Cornelsen Scriptor, Berlin, 2010)
60. S. Frech, H.W. Kuhn, P. Massing (eds.), Methodentraining f€ ur den Politikunterricht.
Mikromethoden, Makromethoden (Wochenschau-Verl, Schwalbach/Ts., 2014)
61. M. Burmeister, I. Eilks, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13, 93 (2012)
62. I. Eilks, C. H€oßle, D. H€ ottecke, J. Menthe, in Der Klimawandel vor Gericht. Materialien f€ ur
den Fach- und Projektunterricht, ed. by I. Eilks et al. (Aulis-Verl, K€ oln, 2011), p. 7
63. M. Burmeister, F. Rauch, I. Eilks, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13, 59 (2012)
64. Bundesministerium f€ ur Bildung und Forschung, nano.DE-Report 2013. Status quo der
Nanotechnologie in Deutschland, 2013
65. A. Krapp, M. Prenzel, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 27 (2011)
66. A. Barner (ed.), Perspektivenpapier der Forschungsunion. Wohlstand durch Forschung - Vor
welchen Aufgaben steht Deutschland? (IRB Mediendienstleistungen Fraunhofer-
Informationszentrum Raum und Bau, Stuttgart, 2013)
67. Verband der chemischen Industrie, Chemiewirtschaft in Zahlen (2013)
68. M. Simkó, in Nano Risiko Governance. Der gesellschaftliche Umgang mit Nanotechnologien,
ed. by A. Gazsó, J. Haslinger (Springer, Wien, 2014), p. 3
69. J. Ferin et al., J. Aerosol Sci. 21, 381 (1990)
70. G. Gantef€or, Alles Nano oder was? Nanotechnologie f€ ur Neugierige (2013)
71. Verein Chemischer Industrie and BASF, Verhaltenskodex Nanotechnologie, 2004
72. I. Eisenberger, S. Greßler, M. Nentwich, in Nano Risiko Governance. Der gesellschaftliche
Umgang mit Nanotechnologien, ed. by A. Gazsó, J. Haslinger (Springer, Wien, 2014), p. 151
73. Bund f€ur Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Gentechnik: Bauern geraten in Abh€ angigkeit.
Das Patentrecht macht Landwirte von Saatgutunternehmen abh€ angig (2016), http://www.bund.
net/themen_und_projekte/gentechnik/risiken/wirtschaft/baeuerliche_abhaengigkeit/. Accessed
30 Jan 2016
274 R. Nonninger et al.

74. Bundesinstitut f€ur Risikobewertung, Gesundheitliche Bewertung von Nanomaterialien

(2016), http://www.bfr.bund.de/de/gesundheitliche_bewertung_von_nanomaterialien-30413.
html. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
75. S. Greßler, M. Nentwich, in Nano Risiko Governance. Der gesellschaftliche Umgang mit
Nanotechnologien, ed. by A. Gazsó, J. Haslinger (Springer, Wien, 2014), p. 29
76. Bundesministerium f€ ur Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit, Der NanoDialog
der Bundesregierung (2015), http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/gesundheit-chemikalien/
nanotechnologie/nanodialog/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
77. AG Green Nano der deutschen Nanokommision, Aspekte einer nachhaltigen Gestaltung von
Nanotechnologien 13 Designprinzipien (2010)
78. Bundesministerium f€ ur Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit, Bericht FachDialog
3. Nachhaltige Nanotechnologie (2012)
79. D. Fuch, in Nano Risiko Governance. Der gesellschaftliche Umgang mit Nanotechnologien,
ed. by A. Gazsó, J. Haslinger (Springer, Wien, 2014), p. 81
80. Kultusministerkonferenz, L€ andergemeinsame inhaltliche Anforderungen f€ ur die
Fachwissenschaften und Fachdidaktiken in der Lehrerbildung (2010), http://www.KMK.org/
fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2008/2008_10_16-Fachprofile-Lehrerbildung.pdf.
Accessed 30 Jan 2016
81. F. Rutherford, A. Ahlgren, Science for all Americans. AAAS Project 2061 (1991), http://www.
project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
82. K. Achtermann, Kerncurriculum f€ ur das Gymnasium - gymnasiale Oberstufe, die Gesamtschule
- gymnasiale Oberstufe, das Fachgymnasium, das Abendgymnasium, das Kolleg. Chemie
(Hannover, 2009)
83. P. Woldt, M. Busch, P. Wlotzka, Klein, kleiner, nano. Materialien f€
ur Projekte im Unterricht
(Aulis Verl., Hallbergmoos, 2012)
84. G. Latzel, Praxis der Naturwissenschaften Chemie 4, 12 (2002)
85. S. Daly, L.A. Bryan, J. Nano Educ. 76 (2010)
86. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland, Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie f€ ur den Mittleren Schulabschluss.
(Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.12.2004) (Luchterhand, Neuwied, 2004)
 Part III
Informal, College and Graduate School
NSE Curricula
Chapter 10
Nanoscale Informal Science Education
in the U.S.—NISE Net

Larry Bell

Abstract The Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net)

established with a National Science Foundation award in 2005 created a network
of hundreds of informal educators and university research scientists with increased
capacity to engage the public in learning about nanotechnology, a wide range of
materials to use for that purpose, and new knowledge about engaging the public in
learning about emerging technologies. This chapter explores how the challenges
were met and thoughts for the future.

10.1 Early Nanoscale Informal Science Education: Before

NISE Net

Since the first class of Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECs) was
funded in the United States in 2001, outreach activities of these centers explored the
potential for nanoscale informal science education (ISE). As the nanoscale research
community grew more NSECs were funded and a group of Materials Research
Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs) focused on nanotechnology, the
experiments in nanoscale ISE grew [1].
Informal science education, broadly construed, refers to all the ways in which
people learn outside of the formal educational environment. This can include
learning from the media—newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and the Inter-
net; from visits to science museums, children’s museums, zoos and aquaria and
through public tours of research facilities; and from a wide variety of programs and
activities in the community for both adults and children. In 2009 the National
Research Council issued a report—Learning Science in Informal Environments:
People, Places, and Pursuits—that summarizes decades of research about informal
learning [2].

L. Bell (*)
Museum of Science, 1 Science Park, Boston, MA 02114, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 277

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_10
278 L. Bell

Many of the early NSECs and MRSEC’s on their own, or in partnership with
organizations specializing in informal science education, launched activities in
support of the broader impacts of their centers that included educational outreach
and public engagement. Some collaborated to seek additional funding for educa-
tional outreach beyond their research budgets. The Nanobiotechnology Center at
Cornell University partnered with the Sciencenter in Ithaca, New York, to produce
two 3000 sq. ft. exhibitions: It’s a Nano World aimed at children of ages 5–8, and
Too Small to See designed for children aged 8–13 and adults. Students at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison Materials Research Science and Engineering
Center produced and tested two prototype exhibits with the Discovery World
Museum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. University of California-Berkeley’s Windows
on Research project created an exhibit called Nanozone at the Lawrence Hall of
Science to translate the leading edge of nanotechnology research for the science
center audience. Purdue University, site of the NSF funded Network for Computa-
tional Nanotechnology, developed a small traveling exhibit that included a working
LEGO® model of a scanning probe microscope.
Two NSF-funded NSECs—Science of Nanoscale Systems and Their Device
Applications at Harvard and MIT and the Center for High-Rate Nanomanufacturing
at Northeastern University and University of MA-Lowell partnered with the
Museum of Science in Boston to create a wide range of program activities in the
Museum’s Current Science and Technology Center. The Franklin Institute and
Penn State’s Materials Research Science and Engineering Center produced the
Materials Matter museum show and six Zoom into Life hands-on demonstrations.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s NSEC produced a digital dome show it called
Riding Snowflakes under the umbrella of the Molecularium Project. Other NSECs,
MRSECs, and the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network also developed
a range of materials and activities aimed at adding some nanoscale content to k-12
classrooms.
In addition to these research center outreach activities, the National Science
Foundation (NSF) also funded a variety of mass media projects about, or including,
nanotechnology in their subject matter. These included radio projects by Public
Radio International and Earth and Sky, Inc.; and television projects by the Educa-
tional Broadcasting Corporation, MacNeil Lehrer Productions, ScienCentral Incor-
porated, Oregon Public Broadcasting, Twin Cities Public Television, and the
WGBH Educational Foundation.
There were also nanoscale informal education projects underway worldwide.
Small Science, Big Deal was a full-sized multi-gallery nanotechnology exhibition
created by Science Museum of London aimed at families with children and visiting
adults. NanoAventura (NanoAdventure) was a traveling interactive exhibition
about nanoscience and nanotechnology designed for children and teenagers orga-
nized by the new Science Museum of the State University of Campinas
(UNICAMP) in the city of Campinas, state of S~ao Paulo, Brazil. The National
Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation (Miraikan) in Tokyo included nano-
technology as one of four major exhibition areas under the umbrella of Innovation
and the Future and included a laboratory where teams of researchers carried out the
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 279

latest research and development on nanoscale science and technology and

interacted with museum visitors.
Despite this handful of museum exhibits and programs about nanotechnology
worldwide, before 2004 there were very few opportunities for public audiences to
learn about nanotechnology in science museums. However, in 2004, the National
Science Foundation launched a major initiative to support work that pushed beyond
research in physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering at the nanoscale into
societal aspects of nanotechnology. This included the Nanoscale Center for Learn-
ing and Teaching at Northwestern University to focus on K-12 formal education
related to nano [3], centers at Arizona State University [4] and UC Santa Barbara
[5] to focus on social and political science research related to nanotechnology, and
the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network [6] to focus on raising aware-
ness about nanoscale science, engineering, and technology among the public.

10.2 NSF’s Vision to Create a Nanoscale Informal Science

Education Network

In September 2004, the National Science Foundation held a workshop that included
representatives of the nanoscale research community and the science museum
community, and explored goals for public engagement, potential audiences and
impacts, desired deliverables, the kinds of institutions that would be needed to
create and implement them, the kind of infrastructure that would be needed to
support the work, and the challenges and barriers that might be encountered [7]. In
January 2005, the NSF issued a solicitation for proposals to create educational
materials, develop a network of organizations, and disseminate new knowledge in
support of nanoscale informal science education. Letters of intent were due in early
February and full proposals in April. The solicitation described the field of nano-
scale science and engineering and created a comprehensive picture of the desired
outcomes. At the core of the Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NISE) pro-
gram would be the establishment of ‘a national infrastructure that links science
museums and other informal science education organizations with nanoscale sci-
ence and engineering research organizations [8].’
The NISE solicitation argued that nanoscale science, engineer, and technology
show promise of tremendous impact, and will affect people’s daily lives, raise
issues of societal importance, and require workers interested in pursuing careers in
this field. ‘As a result, there is a growing need to increase awareness and under-
standing by citizens of all ages of these emerging research areas, along with their
implications.’ It concluded that informal learning can play a critical role in
addressing this need.
The goals for the project laid out in the NSF solicitation were to:
280 L. Bell

1. Create a sustainable service-oriented infrastructure that supports long-term

efforts to educate the public about nanoscale science, engineering, and technol-
ogy, as well as builds capacity in the field and within participating institutions.
2. Strategically plan, develop, implement, and disseminate educational deliver-
ables of all kinds that foster greater engagement with and understanding of
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology in a comprehensive way by the
general public, as well as K-12 school groups.
3. Stimulate educational research and evaluation that add to the nanoscale infor-
mal science education knowledge base, inform continuous improvement of both
products and processes, and guide the development of future deliverables [8].
The majority of this chapter will focus on the work and outcomes associated with
these goals.
The solicitation went on to lay out target audiences, deliverables, and locations
for reaching both public and professional audiences, and asked for proposals that
demonstrated the following characteristics:
• Strategic Impact: Seek to advance the theory or practice of informal science
education through approaches, strategies, findings, or models having lasting
impact on the institutions or systems that promote informal learning.
• Innovation: Extend the frontiers of informal science education and ‘push the
envelope’ through creative new ways.
• Collaboration: Leverage the respective competencies of partners having com-
plementary resources and expertise to achieve outcomes that otherwise would
not be possible [8].
In this way the solicitation laid out a vision for nanoscale informal science
education in the U.S. for the decade from 2005 to 2015. It further specified that
the lead organization must be a science museum or similar organization experi-
enced in developing and implementing major national informal education projects,
collaborating with both ISE and research organizations, and capable of handling the
management and financial responsibilities of the project. Those responsibilities
were substantial as the award was approximately $4 million per year for 5 years,
with the potential of renewal for a second 5 years, for a total of $40 million over a
10 year period. The scope of the proposed project was unlike any prior challenge
the National Science Foundation had provided to the science museum field. While
the specifics of this challenge may not have been at the top of the agendas for
leading science museums across the U.S. before January 2005, the NSF solicitation
described an opportunity that could not be ignored.
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 281

10.3 Goal 1: The Network Itself: A Service-Oriented

Infrastructure Aimed at Building Capacity

The Network started in 2005 with three organizations—the Museum of Science, the
Science Museum of Minnesota, and the Exploratorium. Each brought different
strengths and interests to the Network.
The Museum of Science (MOS) had launched a Current Science and Technology
Center in 2001 that focused on research and development going on today, rather
than on the classical science concepts and phenomena explored in most science
museum exhibits [9]. As Director of that Center, Carol Lynn Alpert had forged a
relationship with two prospective nanoscale research centers, one centered at
Harvard University and one centered at Northeastern University. MOS already
had experience in developing programs and media about nanoscale science and
engineering and in collaborating with university research centers that were part of
the National Nanotechnology Initiative. MOS had also launched the Science
Museum Exhibit Collaborative in 1983, which had successfully evolved over
22 years, adapting to meet changing conditions and needs. Larry Bell, at that time
the Museum’s Head of Exhibits, had been a key architect of that collaboration,
which included the Science Museum of Minnesota [10]. The Museum of Science
had also begun in 2003 to experiment with dialogue programs that engaged the
public in deliberations about the societal implications of new technological devel-
opments or science related public policy [11]—topics noted in the NSF solicitation
to be particularly relevant to nanoscale science, engineering, and technology.
The Science Museum of Minnesota (SMM) had built a national reputation
within the science museum community through its traveling exhibitions, which
included natural history displays, hands-on interactive components, and content
that bridged biology, ecology, and culture [12]. SMM also led the field in the
development and use of live theater as a way to connect science to people’s personal
lives and to societal issues more broadly. SMM’s exhibit development staff was
strong in a wide variety of subject matter and pedagogical approaches to informal
science learning. ‘Experiment Benches’ developed by SMM and funded by the
National Science Foundation’s Informal Science Education program in the early
‘90s focused on physics and technology and allowed visitors to create their own
experiments and to become involved in the experimental process [13]. SMM tapped
their exhibit development strengths to provide development, design, and fabrication
services to other science museums across the U.S. Paul Martin, then the Director of
the Exhibit Division, had many connections in addition to Science Museum Exhibit
Collaborative colleagues throughout the science museum community.
The Exploratorium has had perhaps the most influence of any science museum
anywhere on the development of the science museum field throughout the world. A
series of Exploratorium ‘Cookbooks’ developed in its early years made
Exploratorium exhibits among the most replicated of any science center exhibits
appearing in science museums world-wide [14]. Having a strong program of
research on learning employed Exploratorium exhibits in professional development
282 L. Bell

activities for both formal and informal educators. ‘The Exploratorium Network for
Exhibit-Based Teaching (ExNET) is a hybrid exhibit and teaching program that
shares the fruits of 40 years of research by the Exploratorium and affiliated partners
with a diverse group of science-rich institutions around the United States and the
world [15].’ The mission of the Center for Informal Learning in Schools (CILS) is
to research, collaboratively design, and advocate for inquiry-based learning by
designing and studying experiences that focus on play, investigation, creativity,
iteration, questioning, and meaning making; and creating resources to share with
the field [16]. Rob Semper, then the Exploratorium’s Executive Associate Director
was well known throughout the science museum field and the Exploratorium’s
Director of Exhibits, Tom Rockwell, had worked before joining the Exploratorium
on the design of It’s a Nano World with the Ithaca Science Center and Cornell
University.
These lead organizations recruited ten subawardee organizations including a mix
of science museums, university research groups, and two professional associations.
Later referred to as Tier 1, this group had defined roles within a work group
structure set up to develop educational deliverables aimed at both public and
professional audiences, to facilitate the growth and operation of the network itself,
and to develop and share knowledge with the broader field through research,
evaluation, and professional development activities. The members of the Tier
1 group changed over the 10-year span of NSF funding. In addition to the Museum
of Science, the Science Museum of Minnesota, and the Exploratorium; this group
included:
• Sciencenter (Ithaca, NY).
• Museum of Life and Science (Durham, NC).
• Oregon Museum of Science and Industry.
• New York Hall of Science.
• Fort Worth Museum of Science and History.
• University of Wisconsin-Madison.
• Purdue University.
• Main Street Science at Cornell University.
• Association of Science-Technology Centers.
• Materials Research Society.
• Lawrence Hall of Science.
• Children’s Museum of Houston.
• Franklin Institute.
• SRI International.
• Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University.
• University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Two organizations focused on evaluation were also among the initial NISE Net
subawardees:
• Inverness Research Associates.
• Multimedia Research.
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 283

Fig. 10.1 NISE network regions and hubs (image courtesy of NISE Net.)

Depending upon the specific areas of involvement for each of these organiza-
tions, they developed the capacity to create nano educational experiences and to
support the Network infrastructure. Many were at the heart of the creative and
management work of the project and gained knowledge and skills that are broadly
useful in a diverse array of projects in the future.
NISE Net leaders had set a target for nano educational activities at 100 sites
across the U.S. and began recruiting Network partners. Members of some of the
Tier 1 organizations were asked to contact other museums in their regions of the
country to discuss the NISE Net with them and to explore their interest in getting
involved without yet fully understanding what their roles would be. The initial
group of Tier 1 institutions that made these calls eventually evolved into a regional
hub structure for the Network with staff at seven museum sites across the
U.S. serving as hosts, contacts, and connectors for all NISE Net partners (Fig. 10.1).
Regional hubs were located at the Sciencenter in Ithaca, The Franklin Institute in
Philadelphia, the Museum of Life and Science in Durham, the Science Museum of
Minnesota in Saint Paul, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in Portland,
the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkley, California, and at first the Fort Worth
Museum of Science and History but eventually the Children’s Museum of Houston.
Set up initially to help recruit Network partners in order to reach the goal of nano
educational activities in 100 locations, the regional hub leaders played a number of
key roles in the operation of the Network.
In 2007, planning began for NanoDays, a nation-wide festival of nano informal
education. Organizations could apply for kits of materials and learning activities to
use with the public, and training resources to use with staff and volunteer facilita-
tors, in return for using them and reporting back on their use. NISE Net distributed
100 physical kits in January 2008 and put a virtual kit online that could be
downloaded by anyone. By 2013, and in the 2 years following, NISE Net
284 L. Bell

distributed 250 kits each year. Kits were awarded on the basis of an application
process. Applicants had to convince NanoDays leaders that they would make good
use of the kit during a 1-week window in the spring to support the concept of a
nation-wide festival for learning about nanoscale science, engineering, and tech-
nology. Being a NanoDays kit recipient became the operational definition of what it
meant to be a NISE Net partner institution.
At the beginning, NISE Net leaders referred to the second Tier of the Network as
the ‘100 partners.’ But after exceeding that number in the third year of the project,
this group got defined variously as Tier 2, deep partners, or nano-infused partners.
Initially the goal was to develop the capacity within Tier 2 to present nano
educational activities successfully within their institutions. (Tier 1 was charged
with gaining capacity to develop such activities.) As NISE Net leaders thought
about sustainability strategies, the goal for Tier 2 grew to include doing more than
NanoDays once a year, using NanoDays, kit materials for other kinds of educational
activities throughout the year, and embedding them into ongoing programs that
would continue after NISE Net funding is complete. NISE Net leadership made a
decision to focus resources and professional development opportunities on this
group. Tier 2 partners in good standing, who had lived up to promises in their
applications for NanoDays kits, and had taken a step beyond the minimum require-
ments, were given priority in opportunities for further involvement. Regional hub
leaders were very effective in helping the Network leaders understand the perfor-
mance and capacities of Network partners.
Organizations that were not clearly committed at the level required for the Tier
2 level, were considered Tier 3 partners. NISE Net defined its role with respect to
these organizations as primarily introducing the feasibility of nano informal science
education to these organizations. They might, for instance, include organizations
that will use a NanoDays, kit for NanoDays events but perhaps not for anything
else. Or, they might download materials from the NISE Net website to use for their
own purposes, perhaps in a college level course or for a summer camp program.
Even a group at a university for instance, that does a lot of nano educational
outreach in schools, but doesn’t interact with science museums or the NISE Net
in multiple ways may be considered a Tier 3 partner.
National and regional meetings and workshops; conference exhibits, sessions,
workshops, and informal gatherings; online conversations; and the seven regional
hubs served as portals for Tier 2 and Tier 3 partners into the Network. By 2015,
there were 599 active organizations in the Network—352 of them museums and
other types of informal science education groups, 203 of them university groups,
and 44 other kinds of organizations (Fig. 10.2).
Individuals involved with NISE Net more strongly identify with a broader
community that includes both scientists and museum professionals than they did
before they were involved (Fig. 10.3). A Wilcoxon signed rank test was conducted
to compare the sense of community felt by professionals before getting involved
with NISE Net and after. There was a significant difference in ratings ‘before
getting involved with NISE Net’ (Mdn ¼ 4) and ‘now that you are involved with
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 285

Fig. 10.2 NISE Net partner organizations in 2015 (image courtesy of NISE Net.)

Fig. 10.3 NISE Net annual partner survey respondents more strongly identify with a community
of scientists and museums professionals with interest in nanotechnology

NISE Net’ (Mdn ¼ 5); Z ¼ 11.349, p < 0.000. There were statistically significant
increases in respondents’ sense of community after having joined NISE Net [17].
Survey respondents also reported having a high level of confidence in explaining
a wide variety of concepts related to nanotechnology (not shown), and they attribute
their level of confidence to the NISE Net (Fig. 10.4). Professionals were asked the
question, ‘How much has NISE Net affected your confidence in explaining to
another adult. . .’ and given a list of eight nano concepts. Response options included
‘Not at all,’ ‘Very little,’ ‘A little,’ ‘Somewhat,’ ‘A lot,’ and ‘A great deal’.
The NISE Network Professional Impacts Summative Evaluation [17] found that
while all surveyed professionals felt confident about their understanding of nano
concepts, some groups are more likely to attribute this learning to NISE Net.
286 L. Bell

Fig. 10.4 NISE Net annual partner survey respondents attribute their confidence in explaining a
variety of concepts to their involvement with NISE Net

Table 10.1 Tier 1 and 2 respondents are significantly more likely to have responded on the higher
end of the scale in terms of their confidence being affected by NISE Net compared to Tier 3
Tier 1 (%) Tier 2 (%) Tier 3 (%)
Levels 5–6 83.3 85.1 68.8
‘A lot’ or ‘A great deal’
Levels 1–4 16.7 14.9 31.3
‘Not at all,’ ‘Very little,’ ‘A little,’ or Somewhat

Table 10.1 shows the results of a chi-square test of independence which was
calculated comparing the extent to which professionals attributed their confidence
in nano to NISE Net between the three tiers of involvement. Tier 1 and 2 respon-
dents are significantly more likely to have responded on the higher end of the scale
in terms of their confidence being affected by NISE Net compared to Tier 3 (χ 2
(2) ¼ 10.896, p ¼ 0.004), presumably reflective of their greater involvement in the
activities of the NISE Net. This result is encouraging because resources and
opportunities were focused intentionally on Tiers 1 and 2 for the express purpose
of having a more significant impact on those institutions.
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 287

10.4 Goal 2: Educational Deliverables of All Kinds: To

Engage the Public in Learning about Nano

The topic of nanotechnology was not an obvious fit for the kinds of hands-on
interactive experiences science museums specialize in that focus on learning
through direct perceptual experience. The nanoscale is beyond anyone’s perception
and is exceedingly hard even to conceive of. Many of its phenomena occur at the
boundary of classical and quantum effects. Furthermore most of the visitors to
science museums are families and school groups with children in the elementary
grades. A Nanotechnology Center for Learning and Teaching [3] at Northwestern
University had just been funded by the National Science Foundation a year earlier
to develop curriculum resources for pre-college classrooms, but it was focusing on
an older age level than the peak of science museum attendance, and it had only just
gotten started. As a result there was very little guidance for the NISE Net project to
follow in developing educational deliverables for its audiences.
NISE Net began its work with a wide array of experiments—with exhibits,
programs, media, forums, immersive experiences, visualization, and more. While
exhibit packages seemed to be the ultimate outcome of this work, surveys of science
museums early in the project showed little interest in devoting their often limited
exhibit space to the topic of nanotechnology. It did not seem to be of much interest
to public visitors who generally knew little or nothing about it, and it was not a topic
that school groups were seeking to support their work in meeting educational
standards.
After developing an initial set of exhibit components about nanotechnology,
NISE Net shifted its strategy toward program materials and professional develop-
ment. Budgets for educational materials in most museums are very small, so free
high quality educational materials was a widely felt need. Many front-line educa-
tors in museums are young and have little training explicitly in informal science
education except for what they get on their jobs, and few have opportunities to
connect with peers nationally or even regionally. Professional development of
front-line staff was also a widespread need in the museum community. So NISE
Net essentially bartered free educational materials and professional development in
exchange for programming on nanoscale, science, engineering, and technology.
Even with a proposition that focused on the needs of partner institutions, however,
there was a lack of clarity throughout the community about what, how, and why
they would do programs about nanotechnology. They felt no call for them from the
audiences they served.
The decision in 2007 to launch NanoDays had practical advantages for the
management of the work of NISE Net’s many work groups. Science museum
staff are accustomed to working in preparation for exhibit openings or special
programmatic events. So getting things ready among multiple work groups across
multiple organizations for a big special event was a culturally familiar and relevant
mode of operation and resulted in schedule coordination that was otherwise some-
what elusive. NISE Net used this same sensibility within the science museum
288 L. Bell

Fig. 10.5 Hands-on activities in the 2015 NanoDays kit (image courtesy of NISE Net.)

culture more broadly to enroll partners into the plan to host NanoDays events.
Science museums nationwide would be participating in a national festival to engage
the public in learning about an important developing research field with a federal
budget of a billion dollars but which few people knew anything about. NanoDays
planners originally budgeted for 30 kits to be distributed early in 2008 and pro-
moted the opportunity broadly throughout the field. They got lots of enthusiastic
responses and by the time the applications started rolling in, they raised the number
to 100.
Still there was little control of how the kits would be used. NISE net adopted the
strategy of allowing NanoDays host sites to do whatever they wanted to do, but to
make the materials distributed in the kits so good that museum educators would
certainly use them.
In addition to hands-on activities like those pictured in Fig. 10.5, NISE Net kits
included graphics and media, tools and guides for promoting and planning local
events, training materials, an educational DVD, a volunteer training DVD, a DVD
on a kind of do-it-yourself formative evaluation process called Team-Based Inquiry
(TBI), sign holders, and even green and purple plastic tablecloths for each activity.
Starting with 100 sites in 2008, the number of organizations applying for
NanoDays kits grew annually until NISE Net capped the number of physical kits
produced at 250. Each year kits included new activities and resources as well as
some updated ones from past years. Over the course of 8 years, NISE Net distrib-
uted 1650 physical kits to 439 different organizations. NISE Net also produced a
digital version of the kit with resources that could be downloaded including
instructions on how to get or produce the various physical components. The online
digital kits were, and still are, freely available to anyone that wanted them.
The NanoDays event and associated kits played a much more significant role in
the growth of nanoscale informal science education than would be expected from a
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 289

review of the hands-on activities distributed. The kits provided the opportunity for
educators at NISE Net Tier 1 organizations to tap their individual areas of expertise
in order to share best practices with the broader field on core informal educational
competencies, such as: serving under-represented audiences including girls,
Spanish-speaking audiences, and people with disabilities; forming research
center-informal science education partnerships; engaging visitors in discussions
of societal dimensions of science and technology; providing university science
students with professional development in science communication; or using eval-
uation techniques to improve exhibits and programs. Table 10.2 lists the contents of
the 2015 NanoDays kit.
NanoDays developers expected the kits to communicate to the larger community
how to bring nano content into informal educational activities, but a Network
Communication Study [18] reported that the quality of the kits also helped to
build rationale and ownership of the nano education mission throughout the Net-
work. Here are quotes from four interviewees:
I think the NanoDays kit communicates that nano is do-able and that it’s a shared initiative
and the fact that you’re doing the same thing that 200 other people around the country are
all doing is kind of empowering.
I think what we take out of it is that it’s important to put the nano information out there. It’s
packaged in a way to make it very easy so that any of our staff can take it out and use
it. There’s obviously been a lot of thought and preparation put into each one of those little
boxes. And we definitely appreciate that because really you just open it and go.
I think [the kit] shows great respect. I think the care in creating it—all the resources, all the
materials, all the activities—show a great deal of respect for us, as people in the field away
from the brainchild of the operation.
The approach has been with such respect, and such value of everyone’s participation, that it
[communicates that hosting NanoDays] truly is participation, I feel like they’ve conveyed a
sense that everybody brings value to the effort and to the discussion [18].

While the NanoDays kit was designed for use during a weeklong event in the
early spring, kit recipients reported that they used material from the kit for a wide
range of activities throughout the year. They actually reached many more people in
these other uses of the educational materials than they did during NanoDays
itself [19].
As the number of organizations wanting NanoDays kits grew, and organizations
started to see nano as an appropriate and important topic for their institution, the
NISE Net was able to return to the goal of distributing exhibits nationwide. While
exhibit development early in the project produced individual components focused
on phenomena and concepts related to nanoscale science, engineering, and tech-
nology, NISE Net exhibit developers began in 2010 to conceive of a mini-
exhibition that would occupy about 400 sq. ft. An exhibit of this size can fit in
museums of all sizes. At the same time the NISE Net was developing a content map
[20] that tied a range of ideas and concepts about nanoscale science, engineering,
and technology to four big ideas shown in Table 10.3.
290 L. Bell

Table 10.2 NanoDays 2015: what’s in the physical kit? NanoDays kits include much more than
hands-on activities for use with museum visitors
I. Hands-on activities (complete with instruc- • Tips for engaging girls activity specific cards
tions, graphics, and supplies for 100 visitors) • Engaging the Public in Nano (guide to key
• Exploring materials—graphene concepts) and NISE Network Learning
• Exploring materials—stained-glass windows Framework
• Exploring materials—thin films • Nano 101 for staff slideshow and notes
• Exploring nano and society—tell a nano story • Team-based inquiry guide
• Exploring products—kinetic sand • Nanotechnology and society guide
• Exploring products—nano fabric • NISE Net staff and volunteer training DVD
• Exploring products—nano food • Team-based inquiry training DVD
• Exploring properties—heat transfer V. Educational DVD
• Exploring tools—dress up like a nanoscientist • Nanotechnology: What’s the big deal?
• Exploring tools—transmission electron • How small is nano? video
microscopes • What happens in a nano lab? video
II. Graphics and media • What’s nano about....? video series: bubbles,
• Presidential decisions game (flash-based) chocolate, water, toilets
• Key concepts posters • Mr. O videos series
• Nano and society posters • Zoom into a Blue Morpho Butterfly video
• DIY Nano App & whatisnano.org posters and • Zoom into a Lotus Leaf video
give-a-way cards • Zoom into a computer chip video
• Nanooze print editions • Nano and Me video series: aluminum, gold,
• Nova making stuff activity guide, season two gravity, latex, pants, and silver
DVD, and brochure • Invisibility cloak video
• NISE net educational • Three angry scientists video
III. A set of guides and tools for planning and • Wonders and worries of nanotechnology
promoting your event video series: ask and research, who benefits,
• Welcome letter and list of kit contents and regulation
• NanoDays 2015 planning and marketing • Does every silver lining have a cloud? video
guide VI. Staff and volunteer training DVD
• Large promotional banners, sample Ads and • Training videos for NanoDays activities
posters, sample press release, and other mar- • Nanotechnology: What’s the big deal? (Intro
keting materials to Nano video)
• Strategies for engaging bilingual audiences • A museum presentation: How NOT to pre-
reference sheet sent
• A guide to building partnerships between • A museum presentation: How TO present
museums and University-based research cen- • Speed-Ucate: How to have an effective sci-
ters ence and society conversation
• Temporary tattoos • America’s next top presenter
• NISE network report to partners • NISE network impacts—partner testimonials
• Digital kit USB with electronic copies of all VII. Team-based inquiry training DVD
materials found in the entire kit • Why team-based inquiry?
IV. Training materials • Preparing for team-based inquiry
• NanoDays orientation slideshows and notes • Team-based inquiry: the questions phase
• Training video guides • Team-based inquiry: the investigate phase,
• Tips for engaging visitors Part 1
• Tips for visitor conversations • Team-based inquiry: the investigate phase,
• Tips for engaging girls reference sheet Part 2
• Team-based inquiry: the reflect phase
• Team-based inquiry: the improve phase
This is a listing of the contents of the 2015 NanoDays kit provided as an example of the kinds of
resources included in each kit
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 291

Table 10.3 Four big ideas in the NISE Net Content Map
1. Nano is small and different 2. Nano is studying and making tiny things
Nanometer-sized things are very small, and Scientists and engineers have formed the
often behave differently than larger things do interdisciplinary field of nanotechnology by
investigating properties and manipulating
matter at the nanoscale
3. Nano is new technologies 4. Nano is part of our society and our future
Nanoscience, nanotechnology, and Nanotechnologies—and their costs, utility,
nanoengineering lead to new knowledge and risks, and befits—are closely interconnected
innovations that weren’t possible before with society and with our values

Fig. 10.6 Nano mini-exhibition at Science Museum of Minnesota (image courtesy of NISE Net.)

These four big ideas formed the basis for an exhibition with four main messages
in which hands-on exhibits present the basics of nanoscale science and engineering,
introduce some real world applications, and explore societal and ethical implica-
tions of this technology. Developers originally planned to produce 50 copies but by
the end of 2015, a total of 93 Nano mini-exhibitions (Fig. 10.6) were in place across
the U.S. reaching about 9 million visitors each year [19].
292 L. Bell

Public Reach Estimations for the NISE Net [19] and Summative evaluation of
the Nano mini-exhibition completed in 2013 [21] report that:
• The estimated reach of the Nano mini-exhibition is sizeable and broad.
An estimated 9.5 million people will come into contact with the mini-exhibition
annually, assuming that all copies are on display for the entire year.
• Nano is successful in providing visitors with an engaging experience and in
promoting visitor learning of nano concepts.
Visitor data across all study sites demonstrates that the exhibition was successful
across all of the indicators defined by the Nano design team, including
sustained use, interest and enjoyment, social interaction, broad age range,
further exploration, and learning about nano content.
• Nano is successful within different types of institutions.
Examining the data by institution type reveals that Nano was successful in
engaging visitors and promoting learning of nano concepts both in science
center and children’s museum contexts.
• Network partners say Nano is catalyzing new and enhanced programming.
The vast majority of partners who responded reported implementing new or
expanded programming as a result of the mini-exhibition.
In addition to the physical resources distributed widely through NanoDays kits
and Nano mini-exhibitions, the NISE Net also has an online library [22] of over
580 resources nearly 500 of which were not distributed in any of the physical kits.
Approximately half these resources were developed in the NISE Net, while the
others are included as links to resources developed by other groups, such as
individual Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers, the National Nanotechnol-
ogy Infrastructure Network (NNIN), and other nanoscale science and engineering
projects in the U.S. and in other countries.
In July 2015, these online resources included 260 items identified as ‘programs
and activities’ designed for small and large groups in different settings. Educational
programs are a great way to introduce audiences to nanoscale science, engineering,
and technology. Presenters can choose a format and topic that is appropriate for
their audience. Facilitated experiences foster visitor conversation and interaction,
and allow educators to adjust the science content, pace, and delivery style to suit
their audience. NISE Net programs are fully documented, with complete lesson
plans or activity guides, presentation materials, and other training and delivery
tools. They are ready to use, and can also be easily adapted. The programs created
by the NISE Network were developed through a process of prototyping, audience
evaluation research, educator peer review, and partnerships with scientists.
Figure 10.7 shows three of the 260 activities in use.
The NISE Net online library at [22] also includes 38 exhibit resources including,
in many cases, all of the construction drawings, graphic files, media resources, and
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 293

Fig. 10.7 Three of the activities in the NISE Net online library (photos courtesy of NISE Net.)

Fig. 10.8 Treating Disease, Creating Nanomaterials, and At the Nanoscale are three exhibits in
the NISE Net online library (photos courtesy of NISE Net.)

instructions needed to replicate the exhibits. Figure 10.8 shows three of the
constructed exhibits.
The NISE Net online library includes approximately 190 media entries including
scientific images, videos, podcasts, interactive media and games, websites, print
media and posters, and promotional materials. Some of these resources are
designed for use with public audiences and others are professional development
tools. A collection of 61 scientific images includes permissions for use of the
images with information about how to credit the owner. NISE Net media products
include a ‘What is Nano?’ public website (Fig. 10.9) [23], a ‘Nanomedicine
Explorer’ website (Fig. 10.10) [24], and a ‘DIY Nano’ app for iPhones and iPads
(Fig. 10.11) among many other things.
The fourth category in the NISE Net online library is populated with profes-
sional development resources. In July 2014, there were 94 resources including a
wide variety of guides and recordings of 35 online brownbag workshops. While
some of these resources are specific to nanoscale science and engineering and to the
294 L. Bell

Fig. 10.9 whatisnano.org is a website for public audiences featuring links to videos, audio
material, podcasts, games, DIY activities, and NanoDays information for the public (image
courtesy of NISE Net.)

Fig. 10.10 nanomedicine-explorer.net is a virtual, interactive, bilingual, multimedia exhibit on

cancer nanomedicine (image courtesy of Museum of Science.)
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 295

Fig. 10.11 DIY Nano app (for iPhones) and DIY Nano HD (for iPads) allows families to
experience and learn about nanoscale science, engineering, and technology at home or on the
go! (image courtesy of NISE Net.)

practices of the NISE Net, many have the potential for much broader application.
Here is a sample of resources specifically identified as guides that can be
downloaded from the NISE Net website [22].
• NanoDays Planning Guide.
• Team-Based Inquiry Guide.
• Nanoscale Science Informal Learning Experiences: NISE Network Content
Map.
• Bringing Nano to the Public: A Collaboration Opportunity for Researchers and
Museums.
• A Guide to Building Partnerships Between Science Museums and University-
Based Research Centers.
• REU Science Communication Workshop Planning & Implementation Guide,
v.5.0.
• Sharing Science Workshop & Practicum Planning & Implementation Guide.
• Guidelines for the Design and Use of Scale Ladders.
• NISE Network Public Forums Manual.
296 L. Bell

• Science Cafe Guide.

• Nanotechnology and Society Guide.
• Diversity, Equity and Access Guidelines.
• Bilingual Design Guide.
• Translation Process Guide.
• Universal Design Guidelines: Exhibits.
• Universal Design Guidelines: Programs.
• NISE Network Program Evaluation Tools.
• NISE Net Guidelines for Collecting and Handling Data.
Since NISE Net online resources are freely available to anyone with an internet
connection, there are no data on how many professionals actually used any of these
resources with public audiences. NanoDays reports and evaluation of the Nano
mini-exhibition, however, provided data on the physical resources that were dis-
tributed. By 2016 NISE Net educational resources served over 30 million members
of the public, and as long as all of the exhibits remain on display and the program
resources are used as they were in 2015, then over 10 million visitors each year
interacted with NISE Net physical resources [19].

10.5 Goal 3: Educational Research and Evaluation: Adding

to the Knowledge Base

Evaluation had a multi-pronged meaning for NISE Net from the start. Network
leaders contracted with two outside evaluators: one to monitor the process of
developing the network and its professional impacts, and another to measure the
public impacts of the project. In addition, the use of formative evaluation in exhibit
and program development was deeply rooted in the cultures of the lead organiza-
tions, and they built it into all of the educational materials development work of the
NISE Net.
Early on, Inverness Research Associates, one of the NISE Net outside evalua-
tors, noted that this project presented several challenges at its launch [25]:
• The content and pedagogy of nano science education was only just emerging and
there was little knowledge of what content nano informal education should
include.
• There was little knowledge about what pedagogical approaches would work for
conveying nano to the public in informal settings and the field was only just
learning how to design resources that would effectively communicate nano
science to public audiences.
• At the informal science education institutional level, there was little expertise,
experience, interest, or incentive associated with broadly engaging the public in
learning about nano.
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 297

• At the informal science education field level, there was limited experience in
developing and working within a national supportive network of the scope called
for in this project.
NISE Net adopted the approach that the community would learn all of these
things by working together, using scientist and peer feedback on an ongoing basis
and formative evaluation processes that test deliverables with the target audiences.
A comprehensive evaluation plan for any project begins with front-end evalua-
tion. Early in a project, front-end evaluation helps .developers learn about the
intended audience’s familiarity with a topic, their interests and feelings, what
they already understand about it, and what their questions are. Examples of front-
end studies for NISE Net have included a study investigating public awareness,
interest, knowledge, and attitudes related to nanotechnology, and reviews of
existing informal educational projects about nanoscale science, engineering, and
technology.
A front-end literature search conducted by Multimedia Research [26] found that
in 2005 public audiences knew very little about nanotechnology and were not very
interested in it. Medical applications and the small scale seemed to be two aspects
of nano that generated some interest. Additionally, the public had mostly supportive
attitudes about nanotechnology even if they didn’t know much about it. The front-
end literature search also provided descriptions of 18 formal and informal educa-
tional programs and 11 exhibits related to nanotechnology that could help to inform
the work of the NISE Net [27].
Formative evaluation is an effective tool for use in exhibit and program devel-
opment to ensure that educational deliverables achieve their desired goals. The
overall approach is like an engineering design process (Fig. 10.12), in which the
developer first asks what the problem is that she or he wants to solve and sets goals
for solving it. Then he or she imagines exhibits or programs that might convey key
messages to visitors or meet other learning objectives. The developer then plans the
educational activity in more detail: what content will be included, how will visitors
interact with it, what physical components will be needed, what graphics or media,
and what will the labels say. The next step is to create a prototype, inexpensively

Fig. 10.12 ‘Engineering is

Elementary® Engineering
Design Process (Museum of
Science, Boston, used with
permission)’
298 L. Bell

enough so that it can be changed or even thrown out altogether, but complete
enough to make a valid test of the idea for the educational activity.
What is not explicitly identified in the diagram shown in Fig. 10.12 is the step in
formative evaluation between create and improve, in which the prototype educa-
tional activity is tested with an audience representative of the one it is designed for.
It doesn’t take a huge sample size to see fairly quickly if public participants get
what to do, can successfully use the mechanisms or parts of the activity, and seem to
grasp what it is about. So it is possible to see what problems the current prototype
has that need to be solved and to imagine a possible solution to it. And then the
cycle is repeated, making modifications and testing again, and making additional
improvements until the outcomes of the activity are satisfactory.
Formative evaluation was a key expectation for NISE Net exhibit and program
development and a multi-institutional team of evaluators from the Museum of
Science, the Science Museum of Minnesota, the Exploratorium, and the Oregon
Museum of Science and Industry led the charge to provide professional evaluation
support to the teams developing exhibits and programs. One impressive display of
this support materialized at exhibit design workshops held early in the project at
which multiple Tier 1 partner organizations brought prototype exhibit components
to St. Paul. Exhibit prototypes were set up and first critiqued by informal education
peers and by science experts. Then as the developers went off to do other things, the
research and evaluation team opened the doors to the public, and observed and
interviewed them to see if the prototypes were successful at engaging public
audiences and meeting their educational goals. With a dozen or so activities to
test, the evaluators collected data until the museum closed, and then spent the night
analyzing it to present results to the developers in the morning. They provided
feedback overnight on what was working and what was not. Many of NISE Net’s
formative reports can be found on the NISE Net website [22].
Summative evaluation focuses on assessing the overall impact of a completed
project. It typically occurs at or near the end of a project and often includes
observing visitors as they engage with an exhibit or program activity and
interviewing or surveying them before and/or after the experience. Because the
NISE Net was funded by NSF in two separate awards, there were summative
evaluation reports associated with the first 5 years and additional reports associated
with the second five. For instance, a summary review of key evaluation findings
from over 200 separate evaluation reports from the first 5 years is available (Review
of NISE Network Evaluation Findings: Years 1–5 [28]). The scope of the NISE Net
project meant that there were also several smaller projects embedded within the
timeframe of the larger one. One can find summative evaluation reports written in
the middle of the 10-year timespan, such as the public impacts mini-exhibition Year
8 Summative Evaluation [21]. All of the past and current reports can be found on
the NISE Net website [22]. Final summative evaluation work for the overall project
was still underway when this chapter was written.
In addition to summative evaluation work carried out at the end of the project,
four research studies were also conducted. These include Museum-Scientist Part-
nership Development in the NISE Net, conducted by SRI International [29]; Nano
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 299

Fig. 10.13 Team-based inquire at a glance—the TBI cycle (image courtesy of NISE Net.)

Online: Tracking NISE Net’s Impact, conducted by the University of Wisconsin at

Madison [30]; Research on Organizational Change [31] and Research on Public
Learning and Decision-Making [32], conducted by a multi-institutional team led by
the Science Museum of Minnesota and the Museum of Science.
As the Network grew, the demand for formative evaluation increased, but the
evaluation team became increasingly focused on summative evaluation. NISE Net
needed a new approach to formative evaluation that could not only support the
dozen or so Tier 1 partners developing exhibits and programs but also hundreds of
partners throughout the Network. The result was an approach the team called Team-
Based Inquiry (TBI). Team-Based Inquiry is a practical approach to empowering
education professionals to get the data they need, when they need it, to improve
their products and practices and, ultimately, more effectively engage public and
professional audiences. The TBI process involves an ongoing cycle of inquiry:
question, investigate, reflect, and improve—a simplified version of the engineering
design cycle shown in Fig. 10.13 that works for both front-end and formative kinds
of evaluation. The focus is still on data-based decision-making and design [33].
Even before TBI resources were developed, the mere concept of it caused many
NISE Net partners that didn’t have access to an in-house evaluator, or the resources
to hire one, to say ‘that’s something I could really use.’ TBI online resources have
been supplemented with training videos [34] and professional development activ-
ities for two cohorts of participants, and conference workshops for the broader field.
300 L. Bell

10.6 Further Additions to the Knowledge Base

Several other strands of work have resulted in tools and guides that are mentioned
earlier in this chapter in connection with the online library of resources. A few of
them deserve further mention here because, while they emerged within the context
of nanoscale informal science education, they have much broader relevance for the
future and are a part of the knowledge base developed by the NISE Net.
One of these strands of work grew out of the stipulation in NSF’s original
solicitation for proposals that the Network build partnerships between informal
educational organizations and research centers. Encouraging such partnerships was
built into a wide range of NISE Net activities.
NanoDays was developed as a low-risk entry into nanoscale informal science
education and into a partnership activity with a museum or university. ‘Being part
of NanoDays is easy: all you need to do is host a day or a week of activities on the
theme of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology during NanoDays’ using
‘a variety of resources to help you, including NanoDays kits and other products on
the nisenet.org website [35].’ If a museum and a university partner for this event
and it doesn’t work out for everyone, it’s over and they don’t need to do it again. But
most found the partnership worthwhile and continued to pursue collaborative
activities.
NISE Net leaders introduced ‘mini-grants’ in year 6. These stipends of $3000 or
less were aimed at supporting initiatives by NISE Net partners to engage their local
audiences in learning about nanoscale science, engineering, and technology in a
way that brought ownership of the activity to partners throughout the Network.
Eligible projects needed to fit into at least one of three categories:
1. New efforts to integrate nano into existing programming,
2. New efforts to reach new or traditionally underserved audiences with nano
programming (including partnerships between museums and community orga-
nizations or diversity-serving organizations), or
3. New partnerships between museums and nano researchers.
A total of 198 mini-grants were awarded [36] to support a wide range of projects
at sites across the U.S.
Along with this general encouragement toward these partnerships, the NISE Net
implemented activities explicitly designed to encourage research center and infor-
mal science education partnerships. In 2006, Wendy Crone, Associate Professor in
the Department of Engineering Physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
wrote Bringing Nano to the Public: A Collaborative Opportunity for Researchers
and Museums. ‘This booklet invites scientists and engineers who work in nanoscale
science and engineering to collaborate with museums to present nanoscience and
technology to the general public. It is written by a researcher for other researchers,
and is designed as an introduction to what museums call the informal science
education field [37].’
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 301

In 2010, Carol Lynn Alpert, Director of Strategic Projects at the Museum of

Science in Boston, developed Small Steps; Big Impact: An online guide for museum
leaders developing educational outreach partnerships with university-based
research centers. ‘This guide is meant to help. . .move. . .science museum(s)
beyond event- or project-based collaborations with individual researchers—toward
more robust and sustained partnerships with university centers of research [38].’ In
2013 an updated and consolidated version of the 2010 online guide was published
both as a 50-page printed booklet and a downloadable PDF. A Guide to Building
Partnerships Between Science Museums and University-Based Research Centers
offers ‘step-by-step advice, helpful for both science museum and research center
planners, on planning, developing, funding, and maintaining education outreach
partnerships between research centers and museums [39].’
The Strategic Projects team at the Museum of Science also developed some tools
for sharing informal educational expertise with the research community in return
for the scientific expertise the researchers share with museums. The focus is on
communicating about research to audiences that don’t have the relevant technical
expertise. This is useful not only for communicating with public audiences, but also
for communication with other members of an interdisciplinary research team, since
different disciplines often have concepts and terminology unique to their field. A
Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) Science Communication Work-
shop Planning & Implementation Guide [40] and a Sharing Science Workshop &
Practicum Planning & Implementation Guide [41] provide university and museum
coordinators with tools for building learning about and practice with science
communication into university education for both graduate and undergraduate
students.
Another notable knowledge-building strand of work within the NISE Net was
enabled by a collaboration with the Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS) at
Arizona State University. It focused on preparing museum educators to engage the
public in conversations about the relationship between nanotechnology and society
including societal and ethical implications. From the beginning NISE Net
experimented with dialogue programs that were informed by presentations at the
AAAS Annual Meeting in 2002 by researchers at North Carolina State University
who were studying citizen consensus conferences organized by the Danish Board of
Technology. These experimental forum programs engaged visitors for from 2 to 3 h
and involved two or three expert speakers who spoke for 10 or 15 min each,
followed by small group discussions about specific questions related to nanotech-
nology policy. The overarching questions in three of the forum programs were:
Given the potential benefits as well as the unknown risks associated with
nanotechnology,
• Who should play the major role in shaping its future development and develop-
ing regulations concerning its use?
• Under what conditions should nanotechnology applications in medicine and
personal care products be made available to the public? Why?
302 L. Bell

• How should nanotechnology research fit into domestic energy policies in the
near future?
For some of these programs, facilitators at each table ensured that all of the
participants had the opportunity to express their views and helped each group
decide what it could agree upon. The groups shared their conclusions with the
room at the end of the small group discussions. Multimedia Research conducted a
summative evaluation of NISE Net’s Nanotechnology in Health Care public forum
in 2008 found that:
The Nanotechnology in Health Care forum model is successful in positively influencing
attendees’ definition of nanotechnology; their awareness, assessment, and understanding of
both the benefits and risks of nanotechnology; their awareness of viewpoints different from
their own; and their confidence in participating in public discourse about nanotechnology.
Additionally, the forum model shows an important multiplier effect during weeks after the
forum by inspiring significant proportions of attendees to discuss with others what nano-
technology is and the associated benefits and risks [42].

These types of forum programs, however, experience barriers to broad use

within the science museum community. Most visitors attend museums in family
groups and discussions of this sort are often not appropriate for younger children.
Furthermore, few visitors have the time available in their visit to add a couple of
hours for a special program if they did not come specifically for that activity.
Finally, the program format is unfamiliar and the cost may be large in terms of
staff time to prepare for the program in comparison to the number of participants.
In NISE Net’s second 5 years, CNS and NISE Net collaborated to develop
educational resources typical of the kinds of table top activities that are popular
at NanoDays but with a focus on societal implications and multi-directional
conversations.
This project is different from many other museum programs because it seeks to encourage
visitors not just to think about science and technology, but to participate in the conversa-
tion. To achieve this, it encourages conversations that can help museum guests think
through what their values are, better understand how other people think about values,
recognize the expertise they have, and increase their confidence to contribute to the broader
discussion about these technologies. At its core, this project aims to illustrate that while
new nanotechnologies will help shape our future, people everywhere have opportunities to
influence what that future looks like [43].

This approach is closely aligned with a description of ‘public engagement with

science’ as defined in the report Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engage-
ment with Science and Informal Science Education published by the Center for the
Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) in 2009.
. . .to address complex scientific questions and controversies in a way that fosters respon-
sible and appropriate scientific knowledge production and decision making, we must create
opportunities for an exchange of knowledge, ideas, and perspectives that involves the
participation of all aspects of society—publics, scientists, and decision makers. . ..(public
engagement with science-PES) experiences allow people with varied backgrounds and
scientific expertise to articulate and contribute their perspectives, ideas, knowledge, and
values in response to scientific questions or science-related controversies. PES thus is
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 303

Fig. 10.14 Exploring

size—powers of ten game
(image courtesy of NISE
Net.)

framed as a multi-directional dialogue among people that allows all the participants to
learn [44].

NISE Net and the CNS rolled out this project with workshops at four sites across
the U.S. in September and October 2012. The workshops were designed to equip
attendees with knowledge and an extensive set of resources to allow them to
conduct training at their own institutions to facilitate the adoption of activities to
support conversations about nano and society content. A key aspect of these
activities is that public participants can contribute their own perspectives on
questions that cannot be answered by science alone.
Two examples from NISE Net activities that take the form of card games
illustrate the difference between PES-oriented activities and those that are premised
on more traditional public understanding of science approaches. The Powers of Ten
Game (Fig. 10.14) uses a set of cards with images of objects of different sizes on
them and a positive or negative number indicative of the power of ten exponent that
represents the order of magnitude size of the object in the picture. To participate in
this activity, visitors have to place cards they are dealt in the correct order and they
have a significant hint in the numbers as to what that is.
In contrast, the You Decide game (Fig. 10.15) includes a set of green cards with
images and short descriptions for possible future applications of nanotechnology.
Visitors are asked ‘if you got to decide, which ones would you make sure people
had?’ and to place the technology cards in order of importance in their opinion.
After they do that, they are encouraged to pick a yellow card and read about the
person shown on the card. Pretending they are the person on the card, they are asked
304 L. Bell

Fig. 10.15 Exploring nano and society—you decide (image courtesy of NISE Net.)

if they would sort the technology cards any differently from the way they did the
first time. All of the answers in this activity are valid because it’s about the visitors’
perspectives.
An extensive collection of resources to implement nano and society activities
and to train informal educators in the approaches needed is available on the NISE
Net website with links to all of the activities, videos, improvisational activities, and
the Nanotechnology and Society Guide [45].
In addition to the education activities, guides, evaluation reports, and research
findings, another repository of the knowledge generated in the NISE Net project is
found in all of the individuals who have been involved in the project over the
10 years of its existence. Some of these were staff in subawardee institutions that
worked on developing educational activities or on building the network. Others
were recipients of NanoDays kits or mini-grants who expanded upon what NISE
Net provided to offer nano informal science education to new audiences and in new
ways. The NISE Net website provides a portal to resources that share what partners
have learned in this project. Partner highlights tell stories about the work of
individual partners across the Network [46]. Online Brown-Bag conversations
that were presented over several years using the Adobe Connect platform were
recorded and are also accessible online [47].
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 305

10.7 Future Directions for Nanoscale Informal Science

Education

The National Science Foundation supported a workshop on Nanoscale Science and

Engineering Education (NSEE)—the Next Steps in Arlington, Virginia, on
December 11–12, 2014, led by Dr. James Murday of the University of Southern
California and Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office from
2001 to 2003. The workshop brought together experts from a range of stakeholder
communities with interest in nanoscale science and engineering education includ-
ing several from and interested in nanoscale informal science education. Partici-
pants characterized the current state of nanoscale science and engineering
education and explored priorities for the future [48].
The most immediate idea for expanding the reach of nanoscale informal science
education, beyond its already impressive reach through science museums and
university outreach activities, focused on using current NISE Net partners to
bring nano education to community and youth-serving organizations. These kinds
of organizations often engage participants in multiple activities over several weeks
or even years, and they often reach otherwise underserved and under-represented
minorities. NISE Net was able to secure supplemental funding from the National
Science Foundation in 2015 to explore the potential of this idea and held a
workshop in Tempe, Arizona, in April 2015, that include representatives of the
Afterschool Alliance, the Arizona Library System, Boys and Girls Clubs, Girls
Incorporated, the National Girls Collaborative, and 4H. This pilot project includes
the development of a kit of materials to support museums and university outreach
program partnerships with community and youth-serving organizations at the local
level at 100 sites across the U.S. Evaluation of this pilot will help determine the
effectiveness of the approach and potential for future expansion.
A second idea for the future of nanoscale informal science education was to
move away from nano as a general purpose technology and refocus on specific
applications that address societal grand challenges. This was seen as a way of
building relevance and interest in nanoscale science and engineering. Front-end
research 10 years earlier suggested that various publics had interest in the medical
applications of nanoscale science and engineering and were curious about the small
scale of nano. Related to this idea of focusing on applications, is the convergence of
nanotechnology with biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive sci-
ence. Each impressive on its own, the combination of disciplines sometimes
referred to as NBIC (nano-bio-info-cogno) raise future prospects that can be both
hopeful and frightening.
Examples of payoffs may include improving work efficiency and learning, enhancing
individual sensory and cognitive capabilities, revolutionary changes in healthcare, improv-
ing both individual and group creativity, highly effective communication techniques
including brain-to-brain interaction, perfecting human-machine interfaces including
neuromorphic engineering, sustainable and ‘intelligent’ environments including neuro-
ergonomics, enhancing human capabilities for defense purposes, reaching sustainable
development using NBIC tools, and ameliorating the physical and cognitive decline that
is common to the aging mind [49].
306 L. Bell

The potential for meeting critical human and societal needs in the future can be
inspiring. Some of these future applications seem to come right out of science
fiction movies and novels, and may inspire concerns about the safety and ethics of
following various lines of technological development, as may be seen in the
abstract for a recently-funded NSF project.
The primary goal of this 4-year project by Arizona State University and their museum and
library collaborators around the country is to create, distribute and study a set of three
integrated activities that involve current and enduring science-in-society themes, building
on these themes as first presented in Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, which will be
celebrating in 2018 the 200th anniversary of its publication in 1818. . .. The emerging
technologies relate to current research in such domains as bioengineering, robotics and
artificial intelligence, genetics, neuro and cognitive sciences, and synthetic biology [50].

The NISE Net did indeed spin off a separate and smaller project about synthetic
biology, which was funded by NSF and used much of the NISE Net infrastructure
and many of the practices it developed to engage audiences in this new topic in a
way that focuses on science and society themes and multi-directional conversations
between publics and scientists [51]. But there is much more potential for supporting
continued growth of informal educational activities around converging technolo-
gies, emerging technologies, and the societal grand challenges they may be able to
address.
A third idea for the future of nanoscale informal science education is to tap the
resources and network developed by the NISE Net to support nano education in
formal settings, perhaps by adding informal components to classroom lessons or
using informal education partners as sites for teacher professional development.
This option was envisioned as a pilot—a process by which innovative and effective
educational initiatives developed and tested with funding from the National Science
Foundation would be sustained and grown within the Department of Education
overseen by the Office of STEM Education. The NISE Net Professional Impacts
Summative Evaluation found that 73 % of 227 respondents who said they used
NISE Net materials outside of NanoDays, said that they used them for K-12 school
outreach activities [17]. So, just as NISE Net is exploring ways to support nano
education in community and youth-serving organizations through partnerships at
the local level, it could do the same with enrichment activities for schools and
already is doing that to some extent. What it would take to have a significant impact
nationwide, given the scope of the challenge, would require partnerships with
organizations that have expertise in implementing new programs in the K-12 formal
educational field.
The forth idea discussed at the NSEE Workshop was using the NISE Net to
aggregate broader impacts outcomes across multiple organizations. The National
Science Foundation requires for all research grants assessment of proposals with
respect to two overarching criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts. NSF’s
Grant Proposal Guide describes broader impacts in this way:
NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to the
achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to:
full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 307

and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public
engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society;
development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships
between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic
competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and
education [52].

Perhaps the most relevant line in this description for informal educational
institutions is ‘increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with
science and technology.’ NSF has in recent years suggested that the broader impacts
plans for research proposal be as rigorously scrutinized as their intellectual merit. In
most cases, however, the size of the budget for the broader impacts portion of a
project is very small compared to the budget for the rest of the work. NSF has
encouraged universities to develop mechanisms for aggregating broader impact
budgets across multiple projects in order to establish a budget for broader impacts
work that is large enough to so something capable of producing a significant impact,
rather than doing lots of small things with little impact. Members of the NSEE
Workshop imagined that an organization like NISE Net that connects many uni-
versity research centers and many informal educational organizations could carry
out significant broader impacts work if it could aggregate broader impacts funding
from many research projects across many universities. This is essentially how NISE
Net was funded for 10 years, with the aggregation done before the research grants
were awarded, as several different research directorates contributed to a pool of
money to support nanoscale science and engineering education. It was unclear to
the workshop, how such funds could be aggregated after they were awarded to
dozens or even hundreds of organizations.
One additional idea for the future of nanoscale informal science education,
which was not discussed in the NSEE Workshop stems from the impact that the
work of the informal science education institutions had on the universities. A
Review of NISE Net Evaluation Findings: Years 1–5 noted benefits that university
participants identified early in the project.
According to university-affiliated individuals, a benefit of their participation in NISE Net
was not only that they got a chance to provide informal education nano learning experi-
ences, but also that they got a chance to learn. For many university-affiliated individuals,
NISE Net’s professional development opportunities for scientists and researchers were one
of the key reasons they became involved with the Network. Some university-affiliated
individuals even reported that being able to participate in NISE Net changed or expanded
their career focus. For other university-affiliated individuals, participation of any kind in
the Network improved their ability to communicate science research or to understand
informal science education pedagogy such as inquiry. Not only did university-affiliated
individuals feel that they learned through their participation in NISE Net, they also reported
that this was one of the aspects of their participation that they valued the most [28].

Over the 10-year period of NISE Net funding, materials and techniques of all
kinds got improved and refined. The science communication professional develop-
ment activities developed by the Strategic Projects group at the Museum of Science
became part of the work of the Center for Integrated Quantum Materials (CIQM)
headquartered at Harvard University following completion of the work of
Harvard’s Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center. Following the first year of
308 L. Bell

CIQM’s work, its NSF site review committee had high praise and hopes for science
communication training.
They felt that the Museum’s programs would help to grow a cohort of scientists and
engineers who can energize the public, their future students, and even potential funders
in supporting their research. They found the students they met during the site review spoke
positively as much about the educational programs as they did about the scientific research.

It would be a great benefit to all scientific and engineering fields if university

students entering those fields had enthusiasm and facility for communicating with
the public about their research.

10.8 Conclusion

NSF created an opportunity in 2005 that brought members of the informal science
education community together with the nanoscale research community in a project
of enormous scope with widespread impact on both communities. The project
incorporated learning about current science into museum exhibits and programs,
it advanced the skills and practices of informal educators and university scientists
engaged in outreach, and it created lasting, valuable relationships among individ-
uals and organizations. The project also developed a large number of educational
activities and materials about nanoscale science, engineering, and technology and
got hundreds of organizations to use them. A total of 1750 kits of educational
materials were distributed across the U.S. and 93 Nano mini-exhibitions. These
materials will be an ongoing resource to museums and university outreach efforts
for years to come.
One of the most valuable resources created by the NSF-funded NISE Net project
is the network itself, and that network has been repurposed to serve topics beyond
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology. At the start of 2016, the Science
Museum of Minnesota won a major award from the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) to utilize the network for space and earth science
education. NISE Net will become the National Informal STEM Education Network
to allow for a broader scope of content while maintaining a network infrastructure.
This will provide opportunities for further use of the Network in the future.

References

1. National Science Foundation, K-12 & Informal Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education
(NSEE) in the U.S. (2005), http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf0654/index.jsp. Accessed 14 Jan
2016
2. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. Shouse, M. Feder (eds.), Learning Science in Informal Environ-
ments: People, Places, and Pursuits (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009)
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 309

3. M. Fellman, Northwestern Receives $15 Million NSF Grant for Nano Learning Center (2004),
Accessed 25 Apr 2016
4. Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU), (2014) Ari-
zona State University, https://cns.asu.edu. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
5. NSF Center for Nanotechnology in Society at UCSB, (2010) University of California, http://
www.cns.ucsb.edu. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
6. NISE Network Nanoscale Informal Science Education, (2016) http://nisenet.org. Accessed
14 Jan 2016
7. R. Chang, R. Semper, National Science Foundation, Opportunities and Challenges of Creating
an Infrastructure for Public Engagement in Nanoscale Science and Engineering (2004), https://
www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/reports/05543_nanoscience_museums.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan
2016
8. National Science Foundation, Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education Program Solic-
itation NSF 05-543 (2005), http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsf05543/nsf05543.htm. Accessed
14 Jan 2016
9. T. Davis, Engaging the public with science as it happens: the Current Science & Technology
Center at the Museum of Science, Boston. Sci. Commun. 26(1), 107–113 (2004)
10. L. Bell, in Creating Connections, ed. by D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo, B. Lewenstein (Altamira
Press, Walnut Creek, 2004), pp. 163–182
11. L. Bell, Engaging the public in technology policy. Sci. Commun. 29(3), 386–398 (2008)
12. Exhibit Portfolio, (2016) Science Museum of Minnesota, https://www.smm.org/
exhibitservices/portfolio. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
13. J.S. Newlin, in ASTC Dimensions. A Scientist for the Day: Exploration and Discovery in the
Museum (2001, Sep/Oct), http://www.astc.org/pubs/dimensions/2001/sept-oct/scientist_day.
htm. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
14. S. Duensing, in ASTC Dimensions. Exporting the Exploratorium: Creating a Culture of
Learning (1999, Nov/Dec), http://www.astc.org/pubs/dimensions/1999/nov-dec/exporting.
htm. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
15. Exploratorium Network for Exhibit-Based Teaching ExNET, (2006–2016) Exploratorium,
http://exs.exploratorium.edu/exnet/. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
16. About the Center for Informal Learning in Schools (CILS), (2016) Exploratorium, http://www.
exploratorium.edu/education/center-informal-learning-schools. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
17. J. Goss, R. Auster, M. Beyer, L.A. Mesiti, A.G. Nelson, S. Guberman, E.K. Kollmann, NISE
Network, NISE Network Professional Impacts Summative Evaluation (2015), [Not yet posted
but will be shortly. Will add at time of final review.]
18. C. Reich, J.M. Alexander, G. Svarovsky, J. Goss, L. Rosino, L.A. Mesiti, J. Lecomte-Hinley,
NISE Network, A Study of Communication in the Nanoscale Informal Science Education
Network—Year 6 (2012), http://www.nisenet.org/ncs. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
19. G.N. Svarovsky, J. Goss, E.K. Kollmann, NISE Network, Public Reach Estimates for the NISE
Network (2016), http://nisenet.org/catalog/public-reach-estimations-nise-network. Accessed
25 Jan 2016
20. Nanoscale Science Informal Learning Experiences: NISE Net Content Map, (2012) NISE
Network, http://www.nisenet.org/catalog/tools_guides/nanoscale_science_informal_learn
ing_experiences_nise_network_content_map. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
21. G. Svarovsky, J. Goss, G. Ostgaard, N. Reyes, C. Cahill, R. Auster, M. Bequette, NISE
Network, Summative Study of the Nano Mini-Exhibition (2013), http://www.nisenet.org/
catalog/evaluation/public_impacts_mini-exhibition_study_year_8_summative_evaluation.
Accessed 14 Jan 2016
22. NISE Network, (2016) www.nisenet.org. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
23. What is nano? (2013) NISE Network, www.whatisnano.org. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
24. Nanomedicine Explorer: A Virtual Exhibit, (2008–2013) http://www.nanomedicine-explorer.
net
310 L. Bell

25. M. St. John, J.V. Helms, P. Castori, J. Hirabayashi, L. Lopez, M. Phillips, Inverness Research,
Overview of the NISE Network Evaluation (2009), http://www.nisenet.org/sites/default/files/
catalog/eval/uploads/2009/06/444/overview_of_nise_network_evaluation_year_4_summa
tive_evaluation.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
26. B.N. Flagg, Multimedia Research, Nanotechnology and the Public: Part 1 of Front-End
Analysis in Support of Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (2005), http://www.
nisenet.org/catalog/evaluation/nanotechnology_public_year_1_front_end_evaluation.
Accessed 14 Jan 2016
27. B.N. Flagg, Multimedia Research, Compilation of Nanoscale Communication Projects: Part II
(A&B) of Front-End Analysis in Support of Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network
(2005), http://www.nisenet.org/catalog/evaluation/compilation_nanoscale_exhibit_projects_
year_1_front_end_evaluation. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
28. C. Reich, J. Goss, E.K. Kollmann, J. Morgan, A.G. Nelson, NISE Network, Review of NISE
Network Evaluation Findings: Years 1–5 (2011), http://www.nisenet.org/sites/default/files/
catalog/eval/uploads/2011/06/444/review_of_nise_net_evaluation_findings_years1-5_summa
tive_evaluation.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
29. P. Lundh, T. Stanford, L. Shear, SRI International, Partnerships in the Nanoscale Informal
Science Education Network (NISE Net): A Study of Partnerships Between University Scien-
tists and Museum Professionals (2015), http://nisenet.org/catalog/partnerships-nanoscale-infor
mal-science-education-network-nise-net-study-partnerships. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
30. D. Scheufele, L.Y. Su, NISE Network, Nano Online: Tracking NISE Net’s Digital Footprint
(2015), http://nisenet.org/catalog/nise-network-research-nano-online-tracking-nise-net’s-digi
tal-footprint. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
31. S.R. Guberman, M. Beyer, S. Iacovelli, NISE Network, Research on Organizational Change
in a National Informal Science Education Network (2015, manuscript in preparation http://
nisenet.org)
32. E.K. Kollmann, G. Svaorovsky, S. Iacovelli, M. Sandford, NISE Network, NISE Net Research
on How Visitors Find and Discuss Relevance in the Nano Exhibition (2015), http://nisenet.org/
catalog/nise-net-research-how-visitors-find-and-discuss-relevance-nano-exhibition. Accessed
14 Jan 2016
33. S. Pattison, S. Cohn, L. Kollmann, Team-Based Inquiry: A Practical Guide for Using Eval-
uation to Improve Informal Educational Experiences (Nanoscale Informal Science Education
Network, 2014), http://www.nisenet.org/sites/default/files/catalog/uploads/TBI_guide_V2_
Final_8-25-14_print.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
34. Team-Based Inquiry Training Videos, (2014) NISE Network, http://www.nisenet.org/catalog/
team-based-inquiry-training-videos. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
35. NanoDays Eligibility, (2015) NISE Network, http://www.nisenet.org/nanodays/eligibility.
Accessed 14 Jan 2016
36. NISE Network Mini-Grants, (2014) NISE Network, http://www.nisenet.org/mini-grants.
Accessed 14 Jan 2016
37. W.C. Crone, S.E. Koch (ed.), Bringing Nano to the Public: A Collaboration Opportunity for
Researchers and Museums (Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, 2006), http://www.
nisenet.org/sites/default/files/BringingNanoToThePublic_Guide_May10.pdf. Accessed
14 Jan 2016
38. C.L. Alpert, Small Steps; Big Impact—An Online Guide for Museum Leaders Developing
Educational Outreach Partnerships with University-Based Research Centers (Museum of
Science, Boston, 2010), http://risepartnerguide.org. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
39. C.L. Alpert, A Guide to Building Partnerships Between Science Museums and University-
Based Research Centers (Museum of Science, Boston, 2013), http://www.nisenetorg/sites/
default/files/catalog/uploads/11178/partnerguide-v2.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
40. C.L. Alpert, Research Experience for Undergraduates Science Communication Workshop, v.5
(Museum of Science, Boston, 2015), http://www.nisenet.org/catalog/tools_guides/reu_sci
ence_communication_workshop. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
10 Nanoscale Informal Science Education in the U.S.—NISE Net 311

41. C.L. Alpert, K. Thate, Sharing Science Workshop and Practicum for Early-Career
Researchers, v.3. (Museum of Science, Boston, 2015), http://www.nisenet.org/catalog/tools_
guides/sharing_science_workshop_practicum. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
42. B.N. Flagg, V. Knight-Williams, Multimedia Research, Summative Evaluation of NISE
Network’s Public Forum: Nanotechnology in Health Care (2008), http://www.nisenet.org/
sites/default/files/catalog/eval/uploads/2009/05/444/health_care_forum_2008_summative_
evaluation.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
43. J. Wetmore, I. Bennett, A. Jackson, B. Herring, A Practical Guide to Engaging Museum
Visitors in Conversation (Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Tempe, 2013), http://www.
nisenet.org/sites/default/files/catalog/uploads/12249/nanotechnology_and_society_guide_
14nov13.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
44. E.L. McCallie, L. Bell, T. Lohwater, J.H. Falk, J.L. Lehr, B. Lewenstein et al., Many Experts,
Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education (CAISE,
Washington, DC, 2009), http://www.informalscience.org/research/ic-000-000-001-938/
Many-Experts-Many-Audiences-Public-Engagement-with-Science. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
45. Nano and Society Training Materials, (2013) NISE Network, http://www.nisenet.org/catalog/
tools_guides/nano_society_training_materials. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
46. Partner Highlights, (2011–2016) NISE Network, http://www.nisenet.org/blog/partner-high
lights. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
47. Professional Development—Online Workshops, (2013–2016) NISE Network, http://www.
nisenet.org/search/product_category/professional-development-27/product_category/online-
workshops-31. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
48. J. Murday, NSEE, Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education (NSEE)—The Next Steps
(2014), http://nseeducation.org/2014/. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
49. M.C. Roco, W.S. Bainbridge, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance:
Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science (Springer,
Dordrecht, 2003), http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_report.pdf.
Accessed 14 Jan 2016
50. Increasing Learning and Efficacy About Emerging Technologies through Transmedia Engage-
ment by the Public in Science-in-Society Activities (2015) (National Science Foundation),
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID¼1516684. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
51. Activities and Conversations About Synthetic Biology, Building with Biology, (2016) http://
www.buildingwithbiology.org. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
52. Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (2015) (National Science Foundation),
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf15001/gpg_print.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan
2016
Chapter 11
Nanotechnology Education in Community
Colleges

Deb Newberry

Abstract Nanotechnology—understanding, measuring and creating at the molec-

ular and atomic level—is not only appropriate to upper level students and research
institutions but is also gaining popularity in technical and community colleges as
well high schools. From a demand standpoint, multiple studies have shown a
forecasted need for millions of nano knowledgeable employees—not only at a
PhD level but with hundreds of thousands employees needed at the technician
level (M. Roco, J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 427 (2011). Many community colleges are
stepping up to the challenge of filling this need.

11.1 In the Beginning

In 2002, several creative and innovative administrators were exposed to nanotech-

nology at a National Career Path Network conference. Looking at the industries in
the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul Minnesota, these administrators—at
Dakota County Technical College (DCTC) in Rosemount Minnesota, decided to
ask local industry directly if there was a need for a nano savvy workforce. At a half
day symposium held in February 2003, the answer was a resounding “yes” from
companies such as 3 M, Honeywell, Synovis, Hysitron, General Mills, Medtronic,
Seagate and many smaller, start-up companies. A short time later members of
DCTC faculty and administration met with Penn State leaders who were offering
a one semester nanotechnology immersion program to community college students
from the 22 colleges in Pennsylvania. After that visit, DCTC held multiple industry
focus groups to determine the skills, knowledge and competencies desired by
companies in the twin cities area. The results of these focus groups is shown in
Fig. 11.1.

D. Newberry (*)
Dakota County Technical College, Rosemount Campus 1300 145th Street East, Rosemount,
MN 55068, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 313

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_11
314 D. Newberry

Fig. 11.1 Requirements from industry for nano savvy employees

11.2 Industry Input

First, industry needed employees of all levels, not just PhDs, who knew how to
operate the family of nanoscience tools such as Atomic Force Microscopes
(AFMs), Scanning Electron Microscopes (SEMs), Raman spectrometers and
Tunneling Electron Microscopes (TEMs). The focus group representatives also
wanted employees who understood the strengths and weaknesses of the instruments
as well as basic operational nuances. An educational response to this type of
requirement often will take the form of a series of month-long intensive equipment
training courses ending with the award of an equipment operation certificate.
However, industry, at least those in Minneapolis and St. Paul, wanted employees
that not only knew how to operate the tools of nanoscience, the employers wanted
employees that understand the concepts behind the equipment operation and mea-
surement and also understand the fundamental concepts of the nanoscale world.
These concepts include sense of scale, atomic and molecular structure, surface area
and chemical reactivity, and material properties at the nanoscale. Gaining this
understanding also requires aspects of physics, chemistry, biology and materials
science. These requirements significantly influenced the AAS degree program that
was taking shape at DCTC. The challenge of creating the program at DCTC was
also compounded by the fact that within the local area there exist strong market
segments in electronics, materials science and biotechnology.
The resulting AAS degree Nanoscience Technician program which started the
first cohort of students in the fall of 2004 was the first four semester
multidisciplinary program of its kind in the US. The course content of the four
semesters is shown in Fig. 11.2, with the fourth semester occurring at the University
of Minnesota.
11 Nanotechnology Education in Community Colleges 315

Fig. 11.2 Matrix of DCTC nano program courses by semester

Finally, as shown on the left hand side of Fig. 11.1, companies need employees
that can communicate (oral and written), analyze data, work in a team environment,
understand critical thinking and knowledge transfer and have attributes such as
innovation, creativity, lifelong learning and so on. Teaching these skills does not
happen in just one or two classes but these skills and attributes are integrated into all
of the courses across the program.
For example, during the first semester groups of students create a new product
that uses nanotechnology. They define the technology, product, purpose, consider
manufacturing approaches and societal impact. Then, as their knowledge of
nanoscience increases, global and societal aspects are discussed as well as various
manufacturing approaches, the products “created” during that first semester are
constantly reevaluated for technical and non-technical aspects and feasibility. In
many cases, the original product design is modified to address required changes.
This multi semester effort encourages creativity, team work, critical thinking and
process design consideration.
Since 2004, multiple colleges around the US (and the world) have started
nanoscience education programs based either on the multiple semester model
pioneered by DCTC or the “capstone/1 semester” approach fostered by Penn State.

11.3 Expansion in the Midwest

During 2005 and 2006, Dakota County Technical College was approached by
several Midwest colleges that were interested in starting either nanoscience courses
or 2-year degree programs. A loose affiliation of DCTC (Rosemount, MN), Chip-
pewa Valley Technical College (Eau Claire, WI), North Dakota State College of
316 D. Newberry

Science (Wahpeton, ND), Lansing Community College (Lansing, MI) and Harper
Community College (Palatine, IL) was formed to promote nanotechnology educa-
tion and share content. Even though each college had its own approach and
philosophy, a strong partnership was formed.
Many lessons were learned as a result of this affiliation. First, it became obvious
that one size does not fit all with regard to program content. Lansing Community
College, being predominately a transfer college for students as preparation for
university attendance, decided to integrate some of the concepts of nanoscience
into the traditional science courses as well as a survey course. Harper Community
College partnered with another Chicago area community college to ease the faculty
teaching load. Chippewa Valley Technical College modified the curriculum to
better align with the local industry, which includes many food industry related
companies. Each course or program needs to be tailored to the philosophy and
operational mindset of each college and the course content, which drive the
competencies of the graduating students, must be in synch with the needs and
requirements of the local industry. Technical and community colleges tend to be
more agile and often can respond to the requirements more easily that 4 year
institutions, but it is necessary to be prepared for modifications.
Another challenge, which was faced during the early years, and continues to be a
challenge, is student recruitment. Many high school students with an interest in
science or nanotechnology are already on a path to attend a university and may not
have much interest in a 2-year degree. Even though the content and breadth of the
“nanoscience” experience in these 2-year programs is often stronger than what is
covered within a single major at a university, there is still a hesitation regarding an
AAS degree. Among students who may not be on a university path the phrase
“nanoscience” may concern them. Often potential students, although admitting that
they like science and math, are apologetic that they didn’t take advanced math or
science courses. In the AAS nanotechnology programs to date, it is the students’
dedication and work ethic that defines program success much more than previous
educational preparation.

11.4 Becoming a Center and Expanding Horizons

In 2008, Dakota County Technical College became the lead institution for an NSF
funded center, Nano-Link: Center for Nanotechnology Education. Initially, Nano-
Link provided the structure for the relationship of the colleges mentioned previ-
ously. Over time Nano-Link has expanded outreach and influence in several areas.
A major area of expansion over the years has been in the area of student
outreach. Often, for programs in many different areas, the approach toward student
outreach is to offer multi day camps or workshops. During these outreach events,
students experience the subject material in depth and usually in a hands-on manner.
This was the approach that DCTC and the Nano-Link affiliates took for many years.
However, the number of students reached was small and in many cases the students
11 Nanotechnology Education in Community Colleges 317

were those with a strong interest in science and nanoscience prior to the event.
Again, we were not reaching the student population who could be good candidates
for a technical degree.
In 2009, Nano-Link personnel decided to try and reach the educators rather than
directly interacting with the students. The educators have much more contact with
students and often can influence student interests and career paths. Nano-Link
started to have exhibits at educator conferences, both local and national to gage
the level of interest of educators in nanotechnology. Although some educators were
not aware of nanoscience, many were indeed interested in bringing it into their
classroom. Nano-Link began to create educational content with the intent that
educators could use this content in traditional science classes. The content created
included a substantial amount of background material for the educators, a set of
slides to be used in class and 2 and 3 day workshops for the educators was offered in
Minneapolis. The content was designed to take 1 to 2 weeks of in class time.
Although the educators were enthusiastic about the material and rated the work-
shops fairly high the implementation rate into classrooms was less than 10 %.
In order to assess the situation, Nano-Link surveyed 250 high school and college
educators with the intent of determining what they need or want to integrate
nanoscience content into their classrooms. The results were profoundly different
from what we were providing. Educators wanted, fun, hands-on activities that could
be done in 1 class period. They wanted enough background material that they could
use to explain the nanoscale concepts and a set of slides would be helpful
(Newberry, [2]).
Based on the results of this survey, Nano-Link significantly modified the
approach for educators. Complete, topic specific educational modules were created.
The content of the modules is shown in Fig. 11.3. The modules are intended to be a
one stop shop for the educators. Over 26 different modules have been created with
varying degrees of complexity. Various modules are appropriate for the traditional
science courses, and they are used in career tech programs as well as math, English
and even speech pathology classes. The focus age group is grades 7–14 but the
modules have been used in kindergarten and Master Degree programs.
This modified effort, based on the survey results, is called the Nano Infusion
Program. Under this program, educators can register on the Nano-Link website and
request a module. Nano-Link sends them the materials for the module (funded by
the National Science Foundation grant) and the educator can download the module
documents shown in Fig. 11.3 from the website. Since implementing the Nano
Infusion approach over 450 educators reaching over 65,000 students have used
Nano-Link modules. Educators are asked to fill out a survey after each module use.
On a scale of 1 to 5 the average educator rating is 4.8. For a subset of the high school
students a five question survey is given to assess their understanding of the basic
module concept and also to determine the impact of the module on their interest is a
science career and nanotechnology. Of 831 high school students surveyed to date,
73 % agree or strongly agree that the use of the content had increased their interest
in learning more about nanotechnology and 72 % agreed or strongly agreed they
had an increased interest in learning more about science-related careers.
318 D. Newberry

Fig. 11.3 Background and

educational content
included in Nano-Link Module Table of Contents
modules • Topic specific – brief introduction
• Prerequisites
• Correlation to nanoscience concepts
• Correlation to NGSS and/or Common Core
• Correlation to traditional science concepts
• Background information on the topic
• Lecture Power Points – Nano Concepts
• Activity description/process
• Activity Flow Chart
• Explanatory video of the activity
• Related models, simulations, animations
• Related journal articles and worksheets

Another change that was a result of the survey was the approach to the educator
workshops. The workshops were shortened from 2 to 3 days to 6 to 8 h. Also,
educators are not required to travel to Minnesota instead the workshops are held at
the educators’ location and Nano-Link personnel travel. Based on these changes,
the implementation rate for educators attending the workshops is over 80 %.
Nano-Link has evolved to include high schools (2), community colleges (10) and
universities (2) and several other community colleges as affiliates. Each of these
schools has nanotechnology programs or courses at varying degrees of maturity.

11.5 Different Approaches

Community colleges can be very agile in responding to local industry requirements

and, of course, there are many different paths that can be taken when responding to
an immediate need. Often, the initial approach is to offer a survey course. This type
of course has several advantages. First, since survey courses are open to students
from multiple programs, the class population is usually high which eases financial
considerations plus it exposes students with many interests to the emerging tech-
nology. Another approach is to offer a certificate program which will usually have a
specific industry or local company as the customer for the graduates. Various
approaches that colleges have available are shown in Fig. 11.4.
11 Nanotechnology Education in Community Colleges 319

Fig. 11.4 Options available to colleges for integration of new content

11.6 Reaching Underrepresented Minorities

The diverse student population that is fostered in community colleges has also
supported the dissemination of nanotechnology content to underrepresented stu-
dents. The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) website states
“the majority of Black and Hispanic undergraduate students in this country study at
these colleges.” (AACC [3]). Nano-Link also has specific educator outreach with
Puerto Rico, reaching a significant number of Hispanic students.
Recently, Nano-Link personnel have traveled to Standing Rock Reservation in
North Dakota to provide an educator workshop and spend a few days working with
students. An activity is now underway to create culturally relevant educational
content. For example, an abalone shell is used to hold sage incense that is burned as
part of the Lakota ceremonies. Students, who are responsible for cleaning up after
the ceremonies, have noticed and mentioned the change in the abalone shell. It is
much flakier and weaker after holding the hot sage. This is the result of changes that
occur at the nanoscale as well as the microscale. It is intended that by creating
educational content that relates to familiar observations, the ability to capture
student interest in science and nanotechnology will be increased. Other modules
will focus on dyeing porcupine quills, ceremonial rocks and plants used as dyes.
320 D. Newberry

11.7 Success Factors

Over the years as Nano-Link has guided and mentored multiple schools in the
evaluation and validation of nanoscience content it has becomes that the successful
implementation of nanoscience content is dependent on five factors. These factors
are administrative support, faculty awareness, knowledge and interest, local indus-
try support, facilities, and student recruitment and retention.
One of the most critical factors of success is the support of local industry and
meeting the needs of that local industry. Although there are common concepts of
nanoscience that apply across multiple disciplines—there are unique aspects that
apply to specific market segments such as electronics, biotech, photonics and
material science etc. One thing that has become clear it that one size does not fit
all. Each program must address the skills, knowledge and abilities required by the
local industry base in order to create appropriate course content, competencies and
outcomes that match those needs. This implies that to a certain degree nanoscience
programs or courses, independent of level, must adapt to a specific area or market
segment. Note that at the university and graduate level nano concepts and specific
equipment use and associated nuances are integrated into the program of study,
such as chemical engineering, electrical engineering or physics. At technical or
community colleges, multi-disciplinary nanoscience programs can be very effec-
tive at meeting industry needs.
Another factor that will define the success of an emerging technology program is
the support of administration. If the college administration is not aware of the
opportunity and supportive of the investment, most likely the program will fail.
Many emerging technology programs, especially those as new as nanotechnology,
require a substantial period of time to get students interested and invested and the
program. This requires that the administration be patient with the growth of the
program or courses.
Faculty involvement is critical especially in multidisciplinary programs such as
nanotechnology. Understanding the concepts at the nanoscale requires aspects of
physics, chemistry, biology and material science. Helping students truly understand
the nanoscale concepts requires emphasis and correlation in multiple classes. Nano-
Link has found that the best implementation and student understanding of nano-
scale concepts occurs when the material is covered, discussed, or correlated with
topics covered in traditional classes.
Finally, it is important to take a strong student recruitment approach. In many
cases the fact that a program includes the word “science” can scare students away.
A college is a perfect place for students to get acclimated to the non-high school
environment, learn how to study, as well as consider aspects of the various career
paths before them.
Unless a program has all aspects—industry support, administration backing,
faculty involvement, student recruitment approaches and a facility to support
whatever lab and experimental work may be required by the local industry—a
program has a much lower probability of success.
11 Nanotechnology Education in Community Colleges 321

Fig. 11.5 Community and Athens Technical College, Athens, GA - AAS program
technical colleges with Austin Community College, Austin, TX - AAS program
nanoscience content Chippewa Valley Technical College, Eau Claire, WI
Dakota County Technical College, Rosemount, MN
Foothill College, Los Altos, CA - AAS and Certificate programs
Forsyth Technical Community College, Winston-Salem, NC -AAS program
Ivy Tech Community College, South Bend, IN
Lehigh Carbon Community College, Schnecksville, PA - AAS program
Normandale Community College, Bloomington, MN
North Seattle Community College, Seattle, WA
North West Vista College, San Antonio, TX -- AAS program
Richland College, Dallas, TX - AAS program
Schenectady County Community College, Schenectady, NY - AAA program
Tulsa Community College, Northeast Campus, Tulsa, OK - AAS program

11.8 Conclusion

The adaptability and flexibility of most technical and community colleges allows
programs to be quickly implemented and modified, adjusting to changing student
demographics and industry needs. Figure 11.5 shows a list of community and
technical colleges that currently have nanoscience programs or certificate
programs [4].

References

1. M. Roco, J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 427 (2011)

2. D. Newberry, M. Barger in Proceedings of the 2013 American Society of Engineering Educa-
tors Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, 2013
3. Students at Community Colleges, American Association of Community Colleges. www.aacc.
nche.edu. Accessed Jan 23, 2016
4. Associate Degree and Certificate Programs, http://www.nano.gov/education-training-workforce
Chapter 12
Education and Outreach of the National
Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network
(NNIN) 2004–2015: History
and Accomplishments of Undergraduate
Programs

Nancy Healy and Lynn Rathbun

Abstract The National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) was an

NSF-funded facilities program (2004–2015) which had a large and diverse educa-
tion and outreach (E&O) program. NNIN’s E&O mission was to address the
explosive growth of nanotechnology and its expanding need for a skilled workforce
and informed public by offering education and training to individuals (school-aged
students to adults). Using a two-pronged approach of national and local programs,
NNIN defined, developed, and implemented a variety of innovative activities. This
chapter focuses on three of its numerous programs: Research Experience for
Undergraduates; international Research Experience for Undergraduates, and inter-
national Research Experience for Graduate Students. The chapter provides details
on program implementation as well as assessment results.

12.1 Introduction

The National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) was an NSF-funded

program supporting nanoscience researchers by providing state-of-the-art facilities
and process support. The NNIN was a partnership of 14 U.S. universities which
provided researcher support in nanoscale science and engineering (Fig. 12.1). The

N. Healy (*)
Georgia Institute of Technology Institute for Electronics and Nanotechnology, 791 Atlantic
Dr. NW, Atlanta, GA 30332-0269, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Rathbun
Cornell University, Cornell Nanoscale Science and Technology Facility, 250 Duffield Hall,
Ithaca, NY 14853-2700, USA

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 323

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_12
324 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

Fig. 12.1 Distribution of NNIN sites

NNIN began in 2004 and completed its funding at the end of 2015. It began as a
12 site network and in 2009 expanded to 14 sites with the removal of one site and
the addition of three new ones. Although primarily a research facilities network,
NNIN was tasked with and successfully developed a comprehensive nanotechno-
logy education program with a national scope. During its nearly 12 year history, the
NNIN Education and Outreach (E&O) became an E&O program which can serve as
a model for a successful distributed education program.
NNIN’s E&O mission was to address the explosive growth of nanotechnology
and its expanding need for a skilled workforce and informed public by offering
education and training to individuals (school-aged students to adults). We provided
resources, programs, and materials to enhance an individual’s knowledge of nano-
technology and its application to real-world issues. We believe that a strong US
economy requires a STEM-literate workforce ready to meet the technological
challenges of a nano-enabled economy as well as an informed citizenry that
supports continued and safe growth of nanotechnologies. The chapter will provide
an overview of the development and growth of our networked education programs
as well as our accomplishments related to our programs focused on undergraduates.
To attain each of the NNIN’s education objectives, a variety of innovative
activities were defined, developed, and implemented over the course of NSF
funding. NNIN’s growth can be seen in the number of individuals directly reached
beginning with less than 50 in 2005 and reaching more than 60,000 in 2014
(Fig. 12.2). The number of events grew dramatically after the implementation of
the Education Events Manager (EEM) in 2005 and remained fairly stable over the
years. We interpret these numbers to reflect the capacity of individual sites. Spikes
in 2012 and 2014 are for the years NNIN participated in the USA Science and
Engineering Festival.
12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 325

Number of NNIN E&O events Number of parcipants -

350 NNIN E&O
300
70000
250 60000
200 50000
150 40000
30000
100
20000
50 10000
0 0

Fig. 12.2 Annual number of events and participants reached (direct contact) for NNIN E&O
(does not include website or Nanooze, NNIN’s science magazine for children)

12.2 Development of NNIN Education Programs

When the NNIN began in 2004, it was with a nearly blank template. Five of the
NNIN sites had been part of the National Nanofabrication Users Network (NNUN;
1994–2004) which had only one networked education program: Research Experi-
ence for Undergraduates. The proposal indicated that a network-based education
program would be developed which would include a web-based science magazine
for children (Nanooze), modular teaching packages, programs for undergraduates
and teachers, specialized programs to recruit underrepresented populations, online
education and information tools, and an open textbook. From this proposed list, the
sites worked together to develop a multifaceted nano-education program to attain
each of NNIN’s education objectives. This included network-wide programs to
address needs at the national scale or that benefited from national scale and more
specific efforts at individual sites responding to local needs or local interest.
Figure 12.3 shows how NNIN configured its programs to support local and national
needs with both site specific and network-wide activities.
The primary challenges of any large-scale activity center on coordination and
communication. The network coordination of NNIN E&O activities occurred from
the Georgia Institute of Technology site with additional support from NNIN’s
management office at Cornell University. In addition, each NNIN site designated
an education coordinator who was responsible for activities at the site and for
coordination with the network offices; most of these were technical staff with part
time education responsibilities although several of the larger sites had full time
education coordinators. The NNIN site education coordinators established a com-
munications network which effectively allowed the sites to refine work plans,
establish short and long-range plans, and ensure continuous communication and
collaboration among the sites.
The education site coordinators met once a year at one of the NNIN sites for a
minimum of 2 days. These meetings helped build comradery and a shared vison and
focus and were used to share local programs, define national programs, share best
326 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

Site Specific Activities Network-wide Activities

Local Scope Local Activities – Site Network Activities - Local

Specific Scope
Facility tours User support & training
Community days/open house Diversity
Seminars/public lectures K-12 education - school
School programs programs
K-12 and post-secondary Summer & after school camps
National Scope Site Activities - National Network Activities -
Scope National Scope
Workshops National conferences &
Technical & teacher meetings
training Research Experience for
K-12 lessons & Nanooze Undergrads
Hands-on demos & Research Experience for
experiments Teachers
Undergraduate education NNIN education portal
Lab Experience for Faculty User support
Diversity

Fig. 12.3 Local and national NNIN education activities and programs

practices and experiences, and evaluate efforts. After several years of operation, the
NNIN E&O program reached a point where sharing of ideas, approaches, and
materials became a regular practice among the sites and often occurred outside
the scheduled meetings via emails, phone calls, and face-to-face at national
conferences.
An initial challenge was keeping accurate records of our activities and resources.
Because of the wide variety of activities across the 12–14 sites, it was important to
collect information on the types of activities, the duration, and number and types of
individuals served. In 2005, we launched the EEM, a web-based interactive data-
base for tracking activities and participants at all the sites. All sites were required to
regularly update the system by posting their events and activities. Tracking and
monitoring of events and report generation could be done by Georgia Tech and
Cornell. With a multi-site program, this system provided an excellent way to
monitor activity across the entire network. For those programs facing the dilemma
of how to manage a multi-site program activity, such a system would prove critical
to efficient operation and reporting. In our case, EEM was a custom written
application, but with current web tools similar functionality could be implemented
with minimal effort.
Another challenge involved defining exactly what to count as an NNIN activity.
At most NNIN sites, there were multiple nanotechnology centers and programs. We
decided from the beginning that we wanted to count activities organized by or made
possible by NNIN; we specifically did not want to count activities that would have
happened without NNIN or activities “belonging to” other centers or programs.
Specifically excluded, for example, were regular local departmental seminars and
12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 327

colloquia and any activities supporting local university instruction. For programs
“shared” with other centers, a significant contribution of NNIN site staff or
resources was required. All “equipment training” type activities were also excluded
from the NNIN E&O scope as they were deemed more research activities. We were
thus quite conservative in counting the scope of NNIN activities so that we could
get a clear picture of the direct impact of NNIN and so that sites could be accurately
compared. The EEM system allowed us to collect adequate information on each
event and also allowed that these determinations could be made by NNIN
management.
With these inter-site relationships, NNIN was able to develop a varied portfolio
of programs that used the synergy from local and national programs to develop and
maintain high quality education outreach that met the needs of diverse groups. Over
the last 11 plus years, NNIN grew some programs, deleted some programs, and
adjusted programs to changing needs. The remainder of this chapter will only
provide a history of program development, achievements, and lessons learned for
our programs which were focused on undergraduate students and not our other
programs.

12.3 NNIN Research Experience for Undergraduates

The NNIN developed, operated, and managed a highly successful Research Experi-
ence for Undergraduates (REU) Program in nanotechnology since 1997 (begun
under NNUN). Results of our REU program on student professional gains, skills,
and research are similar to ones reported in the literature (Seymour et al. [1];
Kinkead [2]; Beninson et al. [3]). This was NNIN’s largest education program in
terms of financial support and one of its most successful. While REU programs are
common amongst research centers, no one that we know of had attempted a
coordinated program distributed at up to 14 sites and none of them have had the
cumulative impact of the 19 years of NNUN/NNIN REU.
This 10-week summer research program was a coordinated network activity
which had ~70–90 students participating each summer across 14 NNIN sites. By the
end of NNIN in 2015, more than 1300 undergraduates had participated. In most
cases, at least five students participated at each site to provide a critical mass of
peers to work and interact with. Participants worked with faculty advisors and
graduate student mentors to conduct an independent research project. Our program
drew participants from a diverse national applicant pool and we encouraged
participation by women and minorities, and by students from non-research
(non-Ph.D. granting) institutions. We have been committed to providing research
opportunities to students who have the most to gain from the NNIN REU experi-
ence with approximately two thirds of participants having no prior summer research
experience. The technical diversity of our laboratories allowed us to offer a
program covering the broad range of nanotechnology fields, from biology and
chemistry to electrical and mechanical engineering.
328 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

Based on years of experience, we offered a well-supervised independent

research project for the 10 week summer period. While individual sites were
responsible for daily project supervision, there was strong network coordination
to assure a uniform program with high expectations. This is a critical factor when
offering a program at several different institutions. Students were provided expec-
tations that they were to abide by. Faculty supervisors and mentors also received a
set of written expectations to ensure uniformity across the network. We will
describe our program in detail as it provides an example of a proven strategy for
conducting a large distributed REU activity.

12.3.1 Funding

REU students were paid a stipend and provided travel and housing support. Only a
small amount of funding was available to cover user fees and laboratory costs.
During the first 5 years of NNIN we had separate funding from the NSF REU
program for a portion of the program (24 students). Ultimately the large size of the
NNIN effort made it impractical to rely upon funding from the NSF REU program.
For the last 7 years of the program, essentially all funding for the NNIN REU
program came from the central NNIN education budget out of the NSF cooperative
agreement. At the end of the program, $9000 per student was allocated to each site
as Participant Support Costs (no indirect costs) to support this program. This was
generally adequate at most sites to cover the cost; a few sites however have
extraordinarily high housing costs which required supplement from local funds.
No funds were provided by NNIN to cover the local staff costs at the site.
Additional costs for application processing and convocation were funded by the
NNIN management site.

12.3.2 Projects

The most important key to a successful REU experience is an appropriately

challenging project. First it must be within the student’s area of interest and at an
appropriate level. Ten weeks is a very short time period to accomplish an indepen-
dent project with quality results. The quality of the research projects was very high
and often resulted in presentations at national conferences and publication in
refereed journals.
Each NNIN REU site coordinator solicited appropriate faculty projects in early
January. They looked for well-defined projects with a reasonable scope, e.g. one
that offered a good research project that could be completed within the 10 weeks.
The project was also examined to ensure that all the necessary equipment and
materials were available. Of particular importance is that the project does not rely
on a single instrument as instruments can have down time which can negatively
12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 329

impact a research timeline. The faculty must be available during most of the
summer and have either a willing, preferably eager, graduate student or post doc
to serve as a mentor.

12.3.3 Student Recruitment and Application

NNIN used a variety of methods for advertising and recruitment including our
website, other web sites, flyers sent to science and engineering departments, and
conferences (Fig. 12.4). These data have been fairly consistent over the years and
indicate that recruitment efforts should be multifaceted but that flyers and confer-
ences have little impact on student recruitment. We ran a separate program called
The Showcase for Students which included a one-day hands-on workshop at
minority professional organizations annual meetings (SHPE, NSBE). While we
reached hundreds of underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduates through
these events we had little success in terms of applications. Less than one percent
applied to the REU program even though follow-up contact was made to partici-
pants. Greater success for recruiting URMs occurred through faculty recruitment at
minority serving institutions (MSI) and recommendations from participants who
were from MSIs.
Our program featured a central online application process for the entire network
program. Applicants submitted an essay, transcript information, technical areas of
interest, and email addresses of references. Our custom application system
requested (electronic) letters of reference from faculty via a custom generated
upload link. Once all documents were entered, the final application packet was
generated automatically as a single PDF file. There were numerous issues related to
handling of transcripts including redacting confidential information, expense to
students, and scanning paper files and attaching these files to the application. In

Fig. 12.4 How applicants Recruitment Methods

discovered the NNIN REU

NSF website faculty/students

general web department/career services

past NNIN REU program flyer

other
330 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

the end, we eliminated both the processing of actual official transcripts and the
uploading of unofficial transcripts in favor of having students simply type in the
relevant technical courses, grades, and GPA. Only accepted students were required
to submit an official transcript for verification. Overall, this process eliminated
much of the paper handling at the central office and allowed us to handle up to 1000
completed applications in a short period of time. Applicant files were compiled and
sent to all NNIN sites for consideration.
To reduce the number of applications for each site, applicants were requested to
choose only their top five sites; faculty, however, could choose any student from the
full applicant list. For this program, students selected desired sites, not a faculty
member or a specific project. The specific projects available were not even known
at the time of application. While this differs from most REU programs, it worked
well for a multi-disciplinary program across 14 universities.
Each student’s application was thus reviewed by multiple faculty members at
each site, each of whom could select the candidates that he/she deemed most fit. To
streamline the assignment process we asked that each faculty member develop a
rank ordered list of eight acceptable candidates. This process was uncoordinated
between sites and between faculty; each project leader chose the best candidates for
his/her project according to his/her own criteria. Some outstanding students were
chosen as potential candidates on multiple lists; some were not chosen at all. From
these candidate lists, the NNIN office proceeded to make offers to students in
sequence, generally in the order specified by the faculty. All offers were processed
through the NNIN central office at Cornell and to give everyone a fair chance only
applications through the NNIN system were considered. Students at the top of each
list were offered one specific project at a specific site which they could accept or
decline. If they declined, the preselected list was used to expediently move on to the
next candidate. It was NNIN policy to not accept students for a project at their home
institution if it was an NNIN site, e.g., a Cornell student could not be accepted for a
project at Cornell but could be accepted for a project at Georgia Tech. Once offered
a position, a student was given a week to accept or decline.
Traditionally, more than 50 % of the slots were filled on the first offer, but for
some projects it was necessary to go deep into the priority list as students took other
positions within NNIN or elsewhere. This process must be completed in about
3 weeks as students are rapidly making other commitments during March and April.
Having a preselected list of alternates is critical to efficient and timely processing.
Once the students accepted the offer and submitted an official transcript for
verification, responsibility for them was passed to the hosting site.

12.3.4 Applicant and Participant Demographics

Our program drew participants from a broad national applicant pool allowing us the
opportunity to conduct a demographically diverse program; participation by
women and minorities, and by students from non-research (non-Ph.D granting)
12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 331

institutions was encouraged. The streamlined user access and training mechanisms
in place at NNIN facilities allowed even inexperienced undergraduates to have a
successful initial research experience in 10 weeks. The technical diversity of our
laboratories allowed us to offer a program covering the broad range of nanotech-
nology fields, from biology and chemistry to electrical and mechanical engineering;
there were projects in our program for most science and engineering students.
Our program was a popular choice among students with 799 applications
received in 2015, 527 in 2014, and 989 in 2013. Due to funding issues, the 2014
program was conducted on short notice with only 11 sites participating and
significantly fewer applicants. The geographical and technical breadth of the
NNIN program assisted in our diversity efforts. The hard materials areas of
nanotechnology (electrical engineering, etc.) tended to draw heavily from male
dominated large engineering programs, whereas “soft” nanotechnology areas
(chemistry, biomedical engineering) drew more broadly from smaller
non-research colleges and female applicants. Figure 12.5 shows the demographic
make-up of applicants, participants, and their type of home institution for
2013–2015. The table shows that we were successful in getting both applications
and participants from the targeted groups and that women and minorities partici-
pated at a higher rate compared to the percentage of applicants from these two
groups.

# of applicants Applicant Pool # Participants Appl. Success Rate Participation (%)

‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15
Overall 989 527 799 91 58 75 9% 11% 9%
Gender*
Women 372 181 300 38% 34% 38% 40 27 38 11% 15% 13% 44% 47% 51%
Men 617 346 499 62% 66% 62% 51 31 37 8% 9% 7% 56% 53% 49%

Race/Ethnicity
Minorities** 175 91 135 18% 17% 17% 29 15 15 17% 16% 11% 32% 26% 20%
Non- 814 436 664 72% 73% 73% 62 43 60 8% 10% 9% 68% 74% 80%
Minorities**

Inst. Type+
Ph.D. Level 648 353 566 66% 67% 71% 61 39 56 9% 11% 10% 67% 67% 75%
Master’s Level 159 79 117 16% 15% 15% 14 7 11 9% 9% 9% 16% 12% 15%
Bacc. Level 138 79 83 14% 15% 10% 13 11 6 9% 14% 7% 14% 19% 8%
Assoc. Level 44 16 33 4% 3% 4% 3 1 2 7% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2%

Fig. 12.5 2013–2015 NNIN REU program demographics. *Not all report gender; **Race/Eth-
nicity is only for students who reported this information. +Carnegie Ratings: The Carnegie
Foundation ratings of high education institutions are used as the measure of institutional size
diversity. Some Ph.D. institutions may not offer advanced degrees in the sciences and engineering
332 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

12.3.5 Coordination

There were considerable challenges to conducting a large distributed program.

While the program was managed at the network level, most implementation
occurred at the individual site. Coordination, clear expectations, and clear communi-
cations were critical to the process. Funding for the participants was allocated by the
NNIN office and distributed to each of the sites based on the number of students.
This allowed the NNIN office to exercise considerable leverage and control over
local execution.
The allocation of tasks between network office and site is described in Fig. 12.6
below. In addition, several site coordinators participated in the Nanoscale Informal
Science Education Network’s (NISE Net, [see chapter by Larry Bell]) REU Science
Communication Workshop which is designed to enhance the science communi-
cation skills of undergraduate students participating in research programs. This
information was shared at coordinator meetings and the link to access the training
materials was also sent to all sites. This helped standardize the coaching staff
provided to students when preparing talks for the annual convocation (discussed
below).

Program Coordination
Task Who is responsible Time frame
Solicitation of projects from faculty Site Coordinator January
Solicitation of applications from students network REU Coordinator November-February
Application processing network REU Coordinator February
Student selection ( list of 8 per project) Site Coordinator and Site Faculty March
Offers to students Network REU Coordinator March-April
Logistical arrangements (travel , housing) Site Coordinator April-May
Final pre-summer project review Site Coordinator May
Scheduling of training Site Coordinator May
Hosting project Site Faculty June-July
Weekly supervision and problem solving Site Coordinator June-July
Convocation Convocation host site staff with August
assistance from NNIN
management.
Student report preparation Students August-September
Report publishing. Network REU Coordinator October

Fig. 12.6 Program coordination

12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 333

12.3.6 NNIN REU Convocation

A key feature of our program was the end of summer NNIN Network REU
Convocation. NNIN REU was a networked program, and to reinforce that connec-
tion, we brought all the students together to a common NNIN site for a three and
one-half day research symposium. Here they presented their results to their peers, in
both oral and poster format, and networked with their peers in a professional
atmosphere. As many as 70 different institutions were represented in each year’s
participants. These students were all at formative stages of their careers and
benefited immensely from this opportunity to showcase their results and to see
and critique what their peers had done. They also benefited from a broad exposure
to the full scope of nanotechnology research. Oral presentations were live-streamed
and archived on the NNIN website allowing family, friends, NSF funding sponsors,
and faculty/mentors from NNIN sites to view (NNIN web1 [4]). In addition, the
convocation included plenary sessions on topics such as Nanotechnology Education
and Careers, Graduate School, NSF Graduate Fellowships, Intellectual Property,
and Social and Ethical Issues. For most students, this was their first technical
conference experience. This “mini” conference allowed students to develop pre-
sentation skills, learn about the breadth of nanotechnology research from their
peers, and make professional contacts. We have become amazed how the interns
use social media to maintain contact with interns they met at the convocation.
NNIN established LinkedIn groups for each year to facilitate contact with each
other and with NNIN management.
There is obviously some expense to the convocation but it is manageable and in
our estimation provides a very valuable addition to the program. To keep costs
reasonable it must be conducted on campus utilizing campus housing. For our large
program, costs were ~ $300–$400 per person (food, housing, events). Generally the
students went directly home (not back to their NNIN site) after the convocation
(i.e. a 3 stop trip) so the incremental airfare (paid out of a site’s REU funding
allotment) was minimal.
From a posting on the REU website and our program expectations, the students
were well aware from the beginning that the convocation was a required part of the
program. Also prior to the convocation, each site worked with the students to
prepare their talks and posters and answer any questions about the event. Student
evaluations and written comments on our post-surveys indicate it was, in fact, a
major attraction to our program. Students positively commented on the professional
nature of the convocation, the networking with fellow students from across the
NNIN sites, and the range of nanotechnology research topics presented.
Their final obligation to NNIN was to write a two page research report that was
published online and in hard copy as the NNIN REU Accomplishments. These can
be viewed at: http://nnin.org/reu/nnin-reu-program-past-years (NNIN web 2 [5]).
334 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

12.3.7 Formative/Summative Evaluation

Each year we surveyed our interns as part of our program evaluation. Our post
survey results provide a summative assessment of the program but also a formative
one as we used the end of year results to improve the next year’s program. We
consistently received very high ratings for our program including the quality of
research, support by faculty and graduate student mentors, and technical training
and support (among others). Figure 12.7 highlights the survey results for the
technical components of our 2012–2014 programs. Comparison of 2014 results to
previous years indicates consistency of the scores. Analysis of past results shows
that the scores vary by approximately
0.40 which clearly demonstrates that the
sites adhered to program expectations and offered a high quality program from year
to year.
Similarly, a survey instrument was distributed to each project leader (faculty)
and mentor (grad student/post-doc) assessing the student’s performance and the
program in general. Each year, faculty and mentors rated the program logistics very

NNIN REU Post-Survey results – Technical program 2012-2014

Question ’12 ‘13 ‘14 Question ’12 ‘13 ‘14
Did the program offer you a 4.2 4.3 4.2 How well did the program 4.4 4.5 4.3
substantial independent research provide you with an
project with a strong intellectual understanding of the graduate
focus? research life?
Were you able to execute the 4.4 4.3 4.4 Did the program assist you in 4.2 4.4 4.3
research project using the making future educational &
available equipment and career choices?
facilities?
Did you consider your project a 4.2 4.1 4.2 Did the program assist you in 4.0 4.4 4.2
"good" project- interesting, right developing presentation and
scale, right complexity, etc. writing skills?
Were you reasonably able to 3.9 3.9 4.0 Were you included in group 4.4 4.4 4.3
complete the project? meetings and seminars?
Were you satisfied with how 3.9 3.9 3.8 How well did the program assist 4.4 4.3 4.4
much you were able to complete, you in learning to use advanced
given the time constraints? equipment and processes in
nanotechnology?
Did you receive significant 4.1 4.1 3.8 How well did the program assist 4.0 4.1 4.3
scientific interaction with the you in understanding the scientific
faculty member/senior staff in basis of nanotechnology
charge of your project? equipment & processes?
How likely is it that when you 4.5 4.6 4.7 Did you think that your 4.3 4.5 4.5
return to your home campus that experience with the program was
you will share your experiences positive? Would you do it again?
with fellow students and faculty?
Did the program provide you with 4.1 4.2 4.3 How do you rate the overall 4.5 4.4 4.6
experience that allowed you to quality of the program?
see the breadth of nanotechnology
applications?

Fig. 12.7 NNIN REU post-survey results—Technical program 2012–2014

12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 335

highly. In addition, these evaluations were used for program improvement and for
assessment of students for the NNIN internationl REU program discussed later.

12.3.8 Longitudinal Impact Assessment

The NNIN REU has been a long-term investment in human resource development.
Since its inception, the NNIN/NNUN REU program has had over 1300 participants
during 19 summers. Surveys taken at the end of the program reveal little about the
actual impact on career paths. Anecdotal information indicated that many partici-
pants planned to attend graduate school because of their NNIN REU experience but
we did not have data to determine if this was an actual impact of the program. This
large, long running program thus provides a unique platform to document the
impact of REU on the actual education and career paths taken by participants.
In 2006, we began a longitudinal study to determine the educational and career
paths of interns who participated in the early (pre-2003) years of the program; since
then, that window has been gradually expanded to include all participants between
1997 and 2010, encompassing all past participants who are more than 5 years out of
the program. This is an ongoing, labor-intensive study which has significance for
not only the NNIN REU program but to other undergraduate research-experience
programs, as well.
We chose this time period because participants will have graduated from their
home institutions and will have entered or completed additional education and/or
entered into the workforce. Of the 815 participants from 1997 to 2010, 615 or 75 %,
have completed the online survey. Figure 12.8 illustrates the education paths of
respondents with 52 % working on or completing a doctorate and 25 % working on
or completing a master’s degree. These percentages have not changed significantly
as the sampled population expanded from N ¼ 100 to N ¼ 615, giving confidence
that the results are indicative of the full participant pool.
We have compared our results to national data for STEM majors as seen in
Fig. 12.9 (NSF [6]; NCES [7]). To do this analysis, we assumed that the average
time from a baccalaureate degree to a masters is at least 2 years and 6 years for the

Longitudinal Study of education and career paths of NNIN REUs

NNIN REU Longitudinal Study NNIN REU Longitudinal Study NNIN REU Longitudinal Study
N=615 Women Minorities
Academic Path 1997-2010 Academic Path 1997-2010 Academic Path 1997-2010
Baccalaureate 16% Baccalaureate 18% Baccalaureate 19%
Master’s 25% Master’s 26% Master’s 31%
Doctorate 52% Doctorate 48% Doctorate 42%
M.D./J.D./M.B.A. 7% M.D./J.D./M.B.A. 8% M.D./J.D./M.B.A. 8%

Fig. 12.8 Longitudinal study of education and career paths of NNIN REUs
336 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

Baccalaureate to ~21-22%
Master’s

Baccalaureate to Ph.D. ~7.5 – 8%

Fig. 12.9 Comparative data from science and engineering indicators 2014 (2000–2009)

Fig. 12.10 Influence of REU program

doctorate. NNIN REU participants attain master’s degrees at about the same rate as
the comparative group but doctoral degrees at a much higher rate (52%) than the
average STEM graduate (~8%). These results have also been broken out to show
the results for women and underrepresented minorities. Women comprise 42% of
the respondents while underrepresented minorities comprise 20%. As can be seen
from the results in Fig. 12.8 there is little deviation of the data between the entire
group and females. Women earn 4% less of the doctorates but still at a higher rate
than the national rate of 23 % of doctorates in all STEM fields, excluding social
sciences. For underrepresented minorities, a greater percentage have earned mas-
ter’s degrees (31 %) and fewer doctorates (42 %) in comparison to the full number
of respondents. This is at a much higher rate than reported nationally for minority
STEM Ph.D.s which is at 13 %.
We asked participants if the NNIN REU program influenced them in their
education and career choices. The results shown in Fig. 12.10 demonstrate that
the experience had an important influence on future education and career paths.
Figure 12.11 shows career paths of the participants surveyed. Ninety-four
percent of the respondents have remained in science and engineering with
12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 337

Career paths in science and engineering

Does your current position involve science or Yes - 94% No - 6%
engineering?
Does your current position involve Yes - 49% No - 51%
nanotechnology (broadly defined)?

Fig. 12.11 Career paths in science and engineering

approximately 50 % reporting their current position involves nanotechnology

(broadly defined). While we continue to look for more respondents, we do not
expect the general conclusions to vary significantly with additional data.
Locating past participants is something of a challenge especially spanning back
19 years. Since 2009 we have gathered sufficient information from current partici-
pants through our end of program survey to facilitate future contact. In addition, we
informed interns to use the “REU Check In” link on the NNIN website to update
their information and status—which they do update for us on a regular basis. We
have used a variety of methods to locate past participants including the following:
Google, LinkedIn (most useful), Facebook (least useful), free public records
searches on Intellius, PeopleFinders, etc. (helpful with possible locations, married
names, etc.), text messages (with on file cell numbers), and parent’s mail/email
(on file with application). This is a time consuming task and we recommend that
anyone planning on undertaking longitudinal tracking of program participants
develop a method at the beginning to maintain periodic contact either through a
check-in on a LinkedIn page or their own website. We have found that asking for a
“permanent” email address such as Gmail is very helpful and we stressed the
importance to students to develop such permanent accounts as part of their profes-
sional presence.

12.3.9 Key Lessons and Observations

From the number of years we have conducted a large-scale REU program we can
offer some guidelines on what works for multi-site programs. Clearly defined
expectations on how each site must operate in terms of students, faculty, and
mentors is a critical component. Timing is critical during the application and
selection process as it is important to make most of your awards during March as
some students have accepted other offers by April 1. Because of this, having a
“back up” candidate list is important. Offering a wide variety of research topics
enhances the quality and diversity of the applicant pool. A single electronic
application is a time saver and allows you to easily distribute applications to each
site. Projects should be well defined, achievable within the time period and
supported by a willing mentor. Poorly designed research projects that are not
supported by a laboratory will lead to unhappy REUs and in turn poor ratings of
338 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

your programs. We believe having some type of end-of-program event is important

so students can present their data, sometimes for the first time, in front of a scientific
audience. There are many variations on this from local presentations to a special
university publication. It is important to do something so that the participants feel
that their research effort has been important and contributed to their research group.
The variation in academic year calendars presents significant challenges to
conducting a summer program simultaneously at multiple sites. Some university
semesters end as early as the first week in May, others on the quarter system may
not finish until the 2nd week in June. Likewise, fall classes start as early as
mid-August and as late as mid-September. Accommodating late starting individual
students is relatively straight forward, although they have less to report at the REU
convocation. The availability of student housing is a bigger factor, however.
Housing at some schools is not available for summer programs until mid-June. In
this case, expensive alternative housing must be provided if the program is to run in
parallel at all sites. Likewise, student housing for the convocation may be limited in
mid-August for some sites. In the end, it is a balancing act to find 10 weeks of clear
time to conduct a distributed program.
It is important to use a variety of recruitment tools and activities to obtain a
diverse applicant pool. Our results indicate that nearly one half of the applicants
found us through the web. However, faculty and student recommendations are also
very important and should be included in your efforts.

12.4 NNIN international Research Experience

for Undergraduates

12.4.1 Introduction and Goals

The book The World is Flat (Friedman [8]), drew attention to the “flattening of the
world” in the twenty-first century and how this “flattening” will greatly impact
countries, societies, governments, and companies. The publications Engineer of
2020 (NAE [9]) and Educating the Engineer of 2020 (NAE [10]) highlighted the
importance of training globally competent engineers. The challenges are not only to
train engineers who can work collaboratively with engineers around the world but
also engineers who can solve the grand challenges facing the world today. These
global linkages present new challenges as well as opportunities for educating
engineering students. A recent study indicated that students’ exposure to global
perspectives should include how to “work effectively with people who define
problems differently (Downey et al. [11].” The U.S. economy is based on innova-
tion and new technologies, both of which have felt the effects of globalization. A
recent report indicates that the U.S. must commit to embracing the global economy
and train its workforce to be competitive in the global marketplace (NAE [12]).
12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 339

To address these issues, in 2008 NNIN established the international REU

program (iREU) to further the global competency of exceptional individuals with
an emphasis on nanotechnology. Each summer, the NNIN REU program described
above provided the introductory research experience for approximately 80 students.
The training and experience these students received was excellent and they are
highly sought by employers, graduate schools, and other internship programs.
While our REU participants almost all perform well, from observations over the
summer and PI/mentor surveys it is clear that 15–25 % have exceptional potential
and commitment to research. These students are destined to be future research
leaders; and with the right experience, we believe they can become research leaders
in nanotechnology. With this talented pool of students, we decided to use this pool
as a feeder to a selective international research program.
NNIN established this program because we believe that globally aware scientists
and engineers should be a priority in the twenty-first century. There were two
primary but complementary goals to this program:(1) to provide an early career
advanced nanotechnology research experience for highly promising undergraduate
students, and (2) to demonstrate some of the differences in engineering cultures
while at the same time demonstrating that the students are fully capable of under-
taking research in that environment. In this program, students were offered a “2nd
summer” REU-like experience in the laboratories of one of our international
partners in Europe or Japan. This program was only open to our prior year REU
students—we were effectively using our REU program as a “filter” to select only
the very best students for this enhanced research experience. A total of 109 students
have experienced research in a global setting through this program over its 8 years.
Note, this program was open to graduating seniors with approximately half of the
participants graduated just prior to the start of the iREU program.

12.4.2 Program Details

NNIN International Partner Institutions

• National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS) in Tsukuba, Japan
2008–2010, 2012–2015
• Microelectronics Center Provence, at EMSE, Gardanne, France
2011–2015
• Forshungsentrum J€ulich, (a Helmholz Institute), J€ulich, Germany,
2008–2013
• IMEC, Leuven, Belgium, 2010–2011
• TU Delft, The Netherlands 2011–2012
340 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

We were fortunate to have worked with five different outstanding international

partners (shown above) for this program. These institutions agreed to accept the
students selected by NNIN and provided them with appropriate nanotechnology
projects and technical mentorship. Student stipends, travel, food allowance, and
housing were paid by NNIN, but no funds flowed to the host partner for laboratory
access or project supervision.
Each fall, NNIN management selected the international partners for the year and
solicited projects from them. From years of experience, the partners had a good idea
of the appropriate size and scope suitable for projects. The potential projects had to
cover the entire range of nanotechnology as our students had broad interests. To
allow flexibility and optimal project matching to student interests we obtained at
least 50 % more potential projects than expected positions.
Applications were solicited from the students in the fall through a closed website
only available to participants in the prior summer’s NNIN REU pool. The appli-
cation consisted of three essays: career/education plans, reflection on their REU
experience, and why they should be selected for the iREU. Applicants chose and
rank ordered the potential projects that were of interest to them and they thought
they were well suited for. On average, we received 40–45 applications for the
12–15 slots available each year.
Applications were reviewed by NNIN management. While the student’s appli-
cation was important, more emphasis was placed on NNIN’s experience with the
students during their prior summer program—direct observations by NNIN staff,
convocation presentations, and faculty and mentor evaluations of performance,
maturity, and aptitude. These personal observations were key to selecting students
who would best represent the program and who would benefit most from the
experience. Students were selected and assigned to projects in early to
mid-January.
When possible, students traveled as a group to the foreign destination. In most
cases they were accompanied by an NNIN staff member to guide them, get them
settled, and act as a liaison to assure the student was well matched to the project. For
the larger groups to Japan, for example, the group met at the US departure city to
discuss the host research facility, program expectations, cultural issues, and to
address any questions. We also established Wikis where past participants posted
helpful information regarding life in the host country, travel tips, and research
experiences. Several students created blogs and we referred each year’s participants
to these online resources. While at the host site, they were required to send weekly
electronic updates to us on research progress. This allowed us to make any
necessary adjustments if warranted.
Participants spent approximately 11 weeks at the international laboratories
working on advanced nanotechnology research projects, typically more advanced
than REU level projects. We secured housing in advance for each of the inter-
national sites. This varied from “on-campus” housing to apartments within the host
city. This program was slightly more expensive than the REU (~$12,000 per
participant) but all the laboratory and project supervision costs were borne by our
international partners. We completed 8 summers of this program and our
12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 341

international partners have been well pleased with the arrangement and have been
eager to maintain and even expand the partnership. Funding for this program came
from NNIN funds and a separate award from NSF’s International Research Experi-
ence for Students Program (IRES).
At the end of the foreign experience, the students presented their results at the
host site. They then returned to the US and attended the NNIN REU Convocation.
This was an opportunity for NNIN management to meet with them for a debriefing
and for them to share their experiences with the gathered NNIN REU participants.
They presented their research results in poster format and their summer experiences
as a group oral presentation to all attendees. The iREU research was reported in the
NNIN REU Research Accomplishments (NNIN web 2 [5]).

12.4.3 Demographics

All participants for this program were drawn from the prior year’s NNIN REU
participants. Figure 12.12 summarizes the demographics of participants as well as
the results of longitudinal tracking since they participated. We note the significant
number of women participants and students from smaller non-research schools.
Seventy-four of the 109 participants will be enrolled in (or completed) a Ph.D.
program by fall 2015; 14 will still be undergraduates. Of those in graduate school,
30 have been awarded NSF Graduate Research Fellowships and 10 have been
Honorable Mentions. These extraordinarily high award percentages are a testament
to the quality of the participants and the effect of our program on their education
and careers. We hope that this longitudinal tracking will continue under the new
National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI)—the follow-on net-
work to NNIN.

Demographics and Education Status of iREU Participants

Gender/
Minorities Source Institutions Current Educational Status NSF GRFP
Workin MBA/
research small Termina terminal g on Law/ NSF NSF
Year total male female URM univ. school still UG l BS MS Ph.D. MD Fellow HM
2008 8 6 2 2 7 1 0 0 1 6 1 4 1
2009 10 5 5 1 9 1 0 3 1 5 1 2 0
2010 18 9 9 1 13 5 0 3 0 15 0 7 4
2011 16 9 7 0 11 5 0 2 0 13 1 4 2
2012 17 8 9 0 9 9 0 4 0 13 0 7 2
2013 16 11 5 0 10 6 0 2 2 12 0 3 1
2014 11 4 7 2 8 3 2 0 0 9 0 3 0
2015 13 3 10 3 7 6 12 0 0 1 0 0 0
total 109 55 54 9 74 36 14 14 4 74 3 30 10

Fig. 12.12 Demographics and education status of iREU participants

342 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

12.4.4 Formative/Summative Assessment

Post survey results indicate that the program provided an excellent research expe-
rience in nanoscale science and engineering as well as an important exposure to
international research (Fig. 12.13). This summary table excludes 2011 data as we
did not have a program in Japan due to the earthquake and tsunami.
This program provided an excellent career growth opportunity for the partici-
pants. iREU interns have indicated that their prior NNIN REU experience allowed
them to meet the challenges of a more advanced project, work in a different
research environment, and live and work with colleagues from another culture.
Consistent with the goals of the program, the participants indicated that they would
pursue other international programs in their future education and career paths,
something that would likely not have happened otherwise. We plan to continue
our monitoring of these students under NNCI (Cornell and Georgia Tech are NNCI
sites) in terms of education and careers, including international placements.

12.4.5 Cultural Intelligence (CQ)

The main goal of this program, to develop “global scientists”, is not easily mea-
sured by traditional tracking and satisfaction surveys. We have mostly anecdotal
data from the students on the extent to which the experience expanded their
intercultural competency. While they have been universally supportive of their
experience, it is still qualitative. There is, however, an entire genre of academic
research, training, and evaluation in this area (Earley et al. [13]; Livermore [14];
Ang et al. [15]; Van Dyne et al. [16]; Ang et al. [17]), among other sources. It goes

Post-Survey Results (Likert scale 1-5) 2007-

2015
Program provided an independent nano research project w/ strong intellectual focus 4.19
Program provided quality technical support and meaningful interactions 4.56
Program increased your ability to work independently 4.19
You were able to improve technology skills in a specialized nano area 4.42
You learned to use advanced equipment & processes & understand their scientific basis 4.47
Provided a strong educational experience including the breadth of nano applications 4.44
You participated in technical interactions through group meetings and seminars 3.95
Program provided info on possible nano careers including international aspects 4.18
Helped you learn to operate & communicate in an international research environment 4.82
You were able to develop relationships with international researchers & colleagues 4.82
You developed an understanding of international research approaches and the global nature 4.82
of research
You consider your participation a positive influence on your future education & career 4.88
choice
You developed a global perspective regarding research & society 4.88
The program helped you share your experience with NNIN REUs at convocation 4.46
You shared your international experience with others at your home institution 4.56

Fig. 12.13 Post-survey results (Likert scale 1–5)

12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 343

by a variety of names—cultural literacy, intercultural competence, cultural intelli-

gence, global competence, each meaning something slightly different in the aca-
demic sense, but from our perspective, equivalent—basically the ability to
understand and team with individuals from different backgrounds, yet work
together towards a common goal. Much of the training and assessment available
is from the perspective of management training in multinational corporations
although it is also used in the context of study abroad programs. Our program
bears some similarity to both of those. We, however, are specifically interested in
the relationship of culture to the practice of science and engineering.
To assess the efficacy of the iREU program we have chosen an assessment
instrument from the Cultural Intelligence Center which has been used in both study
abroad and corporate contexts (CIC [18]). We used the CQ Self-Assessment: Basic
Plus online instrument, in a pre- and post-experience configuration. The CQ
instrument measures 4 basic aspects of Cultural Intelligence:(1) Drive, (2) Knowl-
edge (3) Strategy, and (4) Action, as well as 12 sub-dimensions of these primary
vectors. This is an academically validated online instrument that can be
implemented and interpreted without extensive social sciences training of the
principal investigator.
CQ Drive is the individual’s interest, zeal, enthusiasm and confidence to adapt
to multicultural situations. It includes three sub dimensions: 1. Intrinsic interest or
the enjoyment of cultural experiences; 2. Extrinsic interest—benefits gained from
the experiences; and 3. Self-efficacy—confidence in experiences. CQ Knowledge
measures the individual’s understanding about the similarities and differences of
cultures. Its three sub dimensions include: 1. Business—knowledge about eco-
nomic and legal systems; 2. Values and norms—the understanding of beliefs;
3. Socio-linguistic: language rules and non-verbal behaviors, i.e. communication
styles. CQ Strategy includes the awareness and ability to plan for cultural inter-
actions. Its three sub dimensions include: 1. Planning—thinking before a cultural
encounter; 2. Awareness—knowing your cultural knowledge; 3. Checking—under-
standing assumptions and adjusting these from cultural experiences. CQ Action is
the ability to adapt in cultural settings. It includes three sub dimensions: 1. Speech
acts—altering communication to fit the cultural interaction; 2. Verbal—adapting
speaking behaviors such as tone, pitch, etc.; 3. Nonverbal—adapting gestures,
facial expressions, etc.
Cultural Intelligence, as measured by CQ, has a strong theoretical foundation in
the literature on multiple intelligences. It focuses exclusively on individual capa-
bilities. CQ is not geared to learning about a specific culture but rather developing
sensitivity to other cultures in general.
The CQ instrument is administered twice, once before each summer program
(T1) and once immediately after (T2). From the pre-program assessment, each
participant receives a personal feedback report on their CQ and personalized
guidelines for thinking about how to enhance their CQ during the research experi-
ence. In August, after completion of the experience, students complete the post-
program assessment. From this we can examine the effect of the program on
individual participants as well as the effectiveness of the program in general. The
344 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

NNIN iREU Japan 2014-2015: Comparison of T1 and T2 CQ Scores

Average Scores % change World Norms Change Relative to

World Norms
T1 T2

Drive 85 90 +6% 75 High High

Knowledge 61 74 +21% 54 Moderate High

Strategy 74 86 +16% 67 Moderate High

Action 63 88 +40% 65 Moderate High

Fig. 12.14 NNIN iREU Japan 2014–2015: Comparison of T1 and T2 CQ Scores

individual reports, particularly the T1 personal reports, are a valuable tool for
individual students to reflect upon their aptitudes and build an effective action plan.
We implemented this CQ T1/T2 assessment protocol for our programs in Japan
(2014–2015) and France (2015). Combined, this is a cohort of 22 participants over
two summers, all of whom completed the pre and post assessments. Average T1/T2
scores for the 2014–2015 programs are shown in Fig. 12.14.
At T1, Knowledge, Strategy, and Action scores were at the World Norm, within
statistical error, while the Drive average scores were 10 points above the world
average, a statistically significant deviation. The high Drive scores would be
expected from a self selected group interested in international research. At T2, all
scores showed significant gains into the upper 25 % of world scores. The average
CQ scores increased from T1 to T2 by 6–40 % for all of the capabilities. The largest
increases were in CQ-Knowledge (+38 %; Understanding of how cultures are
similar and different) and CQ-Action (+40 %; The ability to adapt when relating
and working interculturally). This assessment provides concrete evidence that the
participants have developed strong intercultural capabilities which should benefit
them for the rest of their lives.
These data are for 2 years and 22 participants and we know reliability of such
assessments increases significantly with sample size. With continued use of this
assessment we will generate unique data on the effectiveness of the program, and by
extension, similar international research programs.
Equally as important as the group results, however, CQ is a formative tool for
use by both the team leader and the students. The T1 evaluation, for example,
revealed significant differences between individuals within the group. These assess-
ments provide a guide for both the team leader and the individual participants to
tailor their iREU experience to maximize the group and individual impact. We have
only scratched the surface in the use of this instrument to both evaluate and improve
a future iREU program.
12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 345

12.4.6 Key Lessons and Observations

Logistically, a program such as iREU could be challenging to organize. We have,

however, successfully organized and executed programs in five different countries,
including programs simultaneously in four countries during 2011. Each country
was different in the details, but overall we can point out a few key requirements.
• Superior students: A research experience in an international laboratory
requires both maturity and technical capabilities. Our method of using our
REU program as a filter assured that we had a reliable method of choosing
suitable candidates that would serve the program well. Our international partners
have been well pleased with all 109 of the participants, and were eager to
continue or expand the program.
• Excellent partners: International partners provide both the technical project
and most local logistics. Their role is irreplaceable. We have been fortunate to
have excellent partners in all five countries we have worked with and have
enjoyed excellent support from all levels of management at the host sites.
• Communication and attention: Logistical details are key to success and must
be constantly monitored and assessed. In the end, you are directing a program of
young participants up to 6000 miles away from your office. Communication
between all partners is critically important.
• Flexibility: We have been fortunate that no medical or legal incidents have
occurred during the program. It is important to have the students properly
insured—check with your international office at your institution. Also, know
insurance regulations in the host country. For example, in Germany the students
were required to have bike insurance in case of an accident. In 2011 we had
planned for a “normal program” with ten students in Japan, three in Germany
and two at IMEC in Belgium. The great Japan earthquake and tsunami in March
2011 altered those plans. Students had already been selected and assigned to
projects in Japan but Fukashima is only 260 km from Tsukuba. Under the
circumstances it was deemed imprudent to send students to Japan. Because of
our network of international contacts, we were able to place additional students
into the existing programs in Germany and Belgium and to establish new pro-
grams in the Netherlands and France.
Scientists and engineers, regardless of whether they are in industry or academia,
must be able to operate effectively in a multicultural environment. While science
itself is universal, the methods by which scientists communicate, collaborate, and
make joint decisions and set priorities are not. We have determined that a successful
program requires good students, good projects, enthusiastic and effective partners,
and proper remote supervision. We have offered this program in a variety of
laboratory settings and countries but have found that no matter the placement it
requires strong organizational support from both partners to make the program
successful. Creating such opportunities for both academic and cultural exchange of
ideas will play an important role in the development of future STEM leaders.
346 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

In the end, this program is also a lesson in “global competency” for the
organizers as well. We have had to learn how to communicate clearly with our
partners, how to assess their desires and true needs, how to clearly express our
needs to them, and, in general, how to most effectively cooperate without misun-
derstanding. And most of this has been done by email, which even more masks the
important non-verbal aspects of communication. In summary, iREU has been an
extremently successful and rewarding program, for the participants, the hosts, and
the organizers.

12.5 International Research Experience for Graduate

Students (iREG)

12.5.1 Program Overview

While this program is not an undergraduate program, it is closely related to the REU
and iREU programs and has an impact on both, thus it is included in this chapter.
As an integral part of our relationship with NIMS Japan for hosting our iREU
program, NNIN hosted a number of graduate students from the Nanotechnology
Platform, the Japanese equivalent of NNIN, which is managed by NIMS. The
Nanotechnology Platform consists of open access laboratories at 25 universities
and government institutions. The participants in this program, which we call iREG,
had completed their first or second year of graduate education and therefore came to
the NNIN site with a more advanced skill set than our REU students. For this
program, NNIN solicited sites to offer projects suitable for graduate students who
would spend 10 weeks at the site. The list of projects were forwarded to NIMS
which then distributed the projects to prospective participants; NIMS then selected
a limited number of students’ to send to NNIN. NNIN matched students with host
faculty and it was then the site’s responsibility to assist with visa and housing
arrangements. Japan fully funded the students travel, housing, meals, and stipend.
NNIN provided laboratory access, technical supervision, and training for use of the
facilities.
Each of these iREG students was at an NNIN site for ~10 weeks during which
time they were treated much like our REU students. In particular, they were
integrated both socially and technically with the REU students, which added greatly
to their experience and to the experience of the REU students. Unlike undergrad-
uate REU students, these graduate students came with a significant prior skill set
and more focused scientific interests. During this time, they integrated into the
appropriate research group, were trained in equipment and techniques, and contri-
buted to both their own research project and the overall goals of the research group.
Often they presented at the NNIN REU Convocation. While language issues
occurred with the participants, they all spoke English but by the end of the
12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 347

10 week period most had made substantial progress in their language skills—
enough to be comfortable to present their research at the convocation.
Since 2008, 34 students were hosted at eight NNIN sites. NIMS and the
Nanotechnology Platform have been highly pleased with the program and the
interactions developed with this exchange. The goal of this program was much
the same as the iREU, that is, to increase awareness of the global nature of research.
In this, it has been very successful. These students interacted strongly with our
resident REU students, which resulted in considerable synergy between the REU,
iREU, and iREG programs. We do know anecdotally that it has been a positive
experience for the Japanese students with one stating “It has been the most
rewarding experience of my life.” and another stating “I have developed a great
respect for America.” One of the participants returned later to the host NNIN site to
continue his research after the program ended and co-authored six papers for
refereed journals. Because this was not an NNIN program but rather a Japanese
program, we do not have assessment data on the impact of the participants. We have
had discussions with our Japanese partners and hope that they will begin a longi-
tudinal study of the participants.

12.5.2 Lessons and Observations

This program was a wonderful addition to our spectrum of summer programs. The
number of students who could participate in iREU and have a direct international
research experience was limited. With iREG, the entire group of REU students was
exposed to these international students either at convocation or at the NNIN site. By
integrating them well into all REU activities, the entire group of REU students
benefited. Language was generally not a difficulty and definitely improved over the
summer.
Participants in this program must have visas which can be time consuming to
obtain. In general, the US has increased the requirements for visas thereby making
the process longer and requires more information on the part of the host and the
entering student. Some institutions do not allow foreign graduate student visitors
without them paying tuition so it would behoove a program to determine this in
advance. Others take an inordinate amount of time (>3 months) to process a visa. In
general it takes 6–8 weeks to attain a visa which puts a significant need to start the
paperwork early. We insisted that we have students matched with projects no later
than April 1 and preferably earlier in order to have a June 1 start date.
348 N. Healy and L. Rathbun

12.6 Conclusions

NNIN had a more than decade long history in providing education and outreach
to a wide variety of audiences. This chapter has attempted to provide a succinct
history of how the programs were developed, implemented, and tracked. For any
multi-site program it is critical to have a strong communication structure and the
ability to know what education activities are occurring. We have found our Edu-
cation Events Manager a wonderful tool that eases the burden of compiling
individual site reports.
The chapter has focused only on the undergraduate education programs. These
programs have and will play an important role in developing the nanotechnology
workforce needed by the US. We have been fortunate to have such a unique
database of over 1300 individuals who have completed our REU. Our longitudinal
study of these participants is providing insight into education and career paths that
we only had anecdotal evidence for. Our iREU is also helping to produce future
science and engineering leaders who have a global perspective which will play an
ever increasing role as the global economy continues to grow.

Acknowledgements Funding for this work was provided by NSF awards EECS-0334765 and
OISE-1030533.

References

1. E. Seymour, A. Hunter, S.L. Laursen, T. Deantoni, Science Ed. 88(4) (2004)

2. J. Kinkead, in New Directions for Teaching and Learning, New Dir. for Tech. Learn. 93
(2003). Accessed at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com
3. L.A. Beninson, J. Koski, E. Villa, R. Faram, S.E. O’Connor, CUR Q. 32(1), 11 (2011)
4. NNIN Research Experience for Undergraduates program. Accessed at: http://nnin.org/
research-experience-undergraduates
5. NNIN REU Research Accomplishments. Accessed at: http://nnin.org/reu/nnin-reu-program-
past-years
6. National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators (2014). Accessed at: http://
www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/
7. National Center for Education Statistics. Accessed at: https://nces.ed.gov/
8. T.L. Friedman, The World is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century (Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, New York, 2007)
9. National Academy of Engineering, Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century
(National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2004)
10. National Academy of Engineering, Educating the Engineer of 2020 (National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 2005)
11. G.E. Downey, J.C., Lucena, B.M. Moskal, R. Parkhurst, T. Bigley, C. Hays, B.K. Jesiek,
L. Kelly, J. Miller, S. Ruff, J.L. Lehr, A. Nichols-Belo, J. Eng. Ed. 95(2) (2006)
12. National Academy of Engineering, Global Technology: Changes and Implications
(National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2011)
13. P.C. Earley, S. Ang, J.-S. Tan, CQ: Developing Cultural Intelligence at Work (Stanford Univer-
sity Press, California, 2006)
12 Education and Outreach of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure. . . 349

14. D. Livermore, Leading with Cultural Intelligence: The New Secret to Success (AMACOM,
New York, 2015)
15. S. Ang, K. Leung, M.L. Tan, Annu. Rev. 1, 489–519 (2014)
16. L. Van Dyne, S. Ang, K.-Y. Ng, T. Rockstuhl, M.L. Tan, C. Koh, Soc. Personal. Psychol.
Compass 6(4), 295–313 (2012)
17. S. Ang, L. Van Dyne (eds.), Handbook on Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement and
Applications (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 2008)
18. Cultural Intelligence Center. Accessed at: http://www.culturalq.com/
Chapter 13
From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss
Nanoscience Institute at the University
of Basel Offers Excellent Interdisciplinary
Education at All Levels

Christel M€
oller, Katrein Spieler, Michel Calame, and Ernst Meyer

Abstract The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of Basel offers an

extensive interdisciplinary and practice-oriented education in the nanosciences.
From its Bachelor’s program and Master’s courses through to the SNI PhD School,
Basel trains its students to become excellent young nanoscientists. This chapter
presents a history and overview of the program and its successes.

13.1 History of the Nanoscience Curriculum in Basel

In 2001, the University of Basel became the leading house of a long-term interdis-
ciplinary research effort, the National Center of Competence in Research (NCCR)
Nanoscale Science, which was the predecessor of the Swiss Nanoscience Institute
(SNI). The Swiss National Science Foundation funded the NCCR Nanoscale
Science in order to generate new ideas in life sciences, sustainability, information
and communication technology, and to create impact in these areas. These goals
were to be pursued by a network of research institutions in Switzerland, including
different departments of the University of Basel, the University of Applied Sciences
(FHNW), the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), the Swiss Center for Electronics and
Microtechnology (CSEM), the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
Zurich, the University of Zurich, the University of Neuch^atel, the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), and the IBM Research Laboratory
R€uschlikon. Scientists from these organizations have worked in close collaboration
and have built up strong ties with industrial partners in the region. With the

C. M€oller (*) • K. Spieler • M. Calame • E. Meyer

Swiss Nanoscience Institute, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 82, CH-4056 Basel,
Switzerland
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 351

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_13
352 C. M€
oller et al.

foundation of the NCCR Nanoscale Science, the concept of an interdisciplinary

education program for the nanosciences came into existence.

13.1.1 Interdisciplinarity from the Beginning

Professor Emeritus Andreas Engel, for more than 25 years structural biologist at the
University of Basel’s Biozentrum, developed this vision of interdisciplinary edu-
cation. He had observed numerous young people whose broad interests in the
natural sciences made it difficult for them to choose a subject after leaving school.
He believed that an interdisciplinary education could offer the ideal route into the
world of nanosciences, where the boundaries between different disciplines contin-
uously evolve. Without difficulty, Andreas Engel convinced the founding father of
the NCCR and SNI, Professor Hans-Joachim G€untherodt, that this was the case, as
well as other colleagues including Professors Ueli Aebi from the Biozentrum,
Wolfgang Meier from the Department of Chemistry, Christian Sch€onenberger,
Daniel Loss, Christoph Bruder, and Ernst Meyer from the Department of Physics.
They effectively joined forces and together followed the path put forward by
Andreas Engel. 2002 was the ideal time to begin a new project, as the University
of Basel was transitioning to the Bologna process (European Higher Education
Area). Additionally, the University of Basel planned to support the formation of a
center of nanoscience in Basel by choosing new professors who work in the field of
nanoscience.

13.1.2 Flexible Education

Once the faculty and the Vice Rector for research at the University of Basel had
given the green light, the newly founded Teaching Committee for Nanosciences
created the courses by selecting modules from the biology, chemistry and physics
programs that were relevant for understanding the processes and effects at the
nanoscale. The main goal was to provide a solid foundation in each of these
disciplines at Bachelor level so that students could later choose to specialize in
nanosciences for their Master’s program, or could switch to a Master’s in molecular
biology, chemistry or physics. New mathematics courses had to be designed for
nanoscience students, however, so that they could master the ambitious task of
studying the different disciplines within 3 years and understand and describe the
higher physical quantum phenomena.
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of. . . 353

13.1.3 Specific Courses

These special mathematics courses were a great success in the Faculty of Natural
Sciences and were later joined by other disciplines. The Teaching Committee
developed further classes specifically for the nano curriculum. They organized
site visits to companies and research organizations in Switzerland that engage
with nanoscientific or nanotechnological questions. The committee wanted students
to become familiar with nanotechnological applications and to come into contact
with industrial partners and potential employers from the very beginning of their
studies. In addition to these site visits, the committee developed the concept of
intensive, cutting-edge courses for the Bachelor’s in Nanoscience where students
should get involved in ongoing research projects. Once equipped with a sound
background in the natural sciences, students could choose from a large variety of
these so-called block courses and actively participate in research projects for 1–3
weeks in different institutions and across different disciplines, while intensively
training their scientific writing skills. The aim was to gain hands-on experience in
different scientific areas of nanoscience and take advantage of the wide-reaching
SNI network affiliated with the courses.
Additionally, the Teaching Committee developed specific lessons for soft skills.
In elective courses, students were to be confronted with ethical questions, they
would learn the basics in image analysis, explore the research tools in scientific
libraries, and handle the administration of literature with specific programs. They
would acquire the skills to use different media and perform general communica-
tions tasks.

13.1.4 Involvement in Research Teams

The consecutive Master’s program was planned simultaneously. Here as well, the
interdisciplinary approach continued and was promoted through involvement in
interdisciplinary research projects. Students on the Master’s program had to com-
plete two projects that last 2 months each and a Master’s thesis of about 6 months in
a research group that was part of the SNI network or abroad. To ensure a broad
interdisciplinary education, the students would have to choose two different disci-
plines for their project work.
In the winter semester of 2002, the first students of nanoscience enrolled in the
program, making the University of Basel the first university in Europe to offer a
Bachelor’s and Master’s in Nanoscience.
354 C. M€
oller et al.

13.2 Bachelor’s Program

13.2.1 Credit Points

For a Bachelor’s degree, each student must collect 180 ECTS (European Credit
Transfer and Accumulation System Points). Students receive points for visited
lectures and successfully completed courses, whereby each ECTS point is consid-
ered equivalent to 30 h of study. Thirty-five of the ECTS points required for a
Bachelor’s degree can be obtained by completing non-mandatory elective courses.
The regular Bachelor’s program lasts 3 years. The first year (basic studies)
provides foundational knowledge in the core disciplines of biology, chemistry,
physics, mathematics, and information technology (Table 13.1). As early as the
first semester, students become acquainted with research groups at the University of
Basel working on nanoscientific projects through the lecture series entitled “Nano
I”, in which selected groups present their research. The 14 themes of this series are
regularly updated to ensure that the most topical projects are presented. Winter
semester 2015 saw lectures on scaling, nanomagnetism, scanning probe micros-
copy, quantum computing, bottom-up and top-down nanoelectronics,
nanobiophysics, nanomedicine, photovoltaics, nanofabrication, nanobiomimetics,
self-assembly, catalysis, and nanotools for sensing.
In the second semester of the first year, students visit companies and research
institutions in Switzerland to learn about nanotechnological applications (“Nano
II”). The sites visited vary from year to year, depending on the current collabora-
tions and contacts. In the spring semester 2015, the excursions included Sensirion
(sensors), BASF (chemicals), EMPA (applied research), Nanosurf (scanning probe
microscopes), Glas Tr€osch (specific glasses), CSEM (micro- and nanoelectronics),
Roche (diagnostics, pharmaceuticals), and Rolic (liquid crystals, foils and coating
materials)—all of these are Swiss companies or research institutions that have a
strong affiliation with applied nanotechnology.

13.2.2 Spotlight on Mathematics and Physics at the Start

In the first two semesters, students spend the majority of their time studying
mathematics and physics (31 % mathematics, 27 % physics). Twenty-seven percent
of the courses are composed of lectures and practical classes in chemistry, 8 % in
biology, and 7 % in nanoscience (Fig. 13.1). This first year covers the basics in
natural sciences as a foundation for future studies.
In the advanced program—from the third semester onward—the focus shifts to
nanoscience, where 23 % of the courses are dedicated to this topic (Fig. 13.2).
Approximately 23 % of the courses are physics. Chemistry and biology make up for
12 % and 13 % of the courses respectively. Mathematics is reduced to 5 %. Students
can select around 25 % of their courses from a wide range of non-compulsory
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of. . . 355

Fig. 13.1 Courses and lectures in the different disciplines during the basic studies of the
Bachelor’s program at the University of Basel (1st-2nd semester)

Fig. 13.2 Courses and lectures in the different disciplines during the advanced studies of the
Bachelor’s program at the University of Basel (3rd–6th semester)

modules. This large proportion of electives is a key feature of the Bachelor’s degree
and allows the students to direct their university studies according to their interests
from an early stage.
In the second and third years of the Bachelor’s program, students deepen their
knowledge in molecular biology, physical chemistry, chemistry and physics
(Table 13.1). In the “Nano III” lecture series, which prepares students for their
participation in on-going research projects (block courses), they gain a more
 356

Table 13.1 Courses of the Bachelor’s program at the Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of Basel
Nanoscale Elective
Biology Chemistry Physics Mathematics/Informatics science courses
1st Basic botany, Zoology, Chemistry I Physics I Mathematical methods I Nano I
term Microbiology Practical course (Inorganic Tools for informatics (research
chemistry) topics)
2nd Cell biology Chemistry II Physics II Mathematical methods II Nano II Applied
term Basic practical course (Excursions) ethics
3rd Macromolecules Physical chemistry Physics III Mathematical methods III Information
term Gene expression Organic chemistry I competence
Biochemistry/
Metabolism
4th Molecular microbiology, Practical course (Organic Physics IV Mathematical methods IV Nano III
term Structural biology I chemistry and physical Advanced practical course
Biophys. chemistry chemistry)
Bioenergetic I
Neurobiology
Immunology
5th Developmental biology Analytical chemistry I Condensed matter Block Nanophysics
term Inorganic chemistry I courses Image
processing
Bioenergetics
6th Structural biology II Physical chemistry II Statistical mechanics Block
term Organic chemistry II courses
In the 5th and 6th term, In the 5th and 6th term, In the 5th and 6th term, In the 5th and 6th term,
students can choose from students can choose from students can choose from students can choose from
all courses in biology all courses in chemistry all courses in physics all courses in mathematics
C. M€

offered for advanced offered for advanced offered for advanced offered for advanced
studies studies studies studies
oller et al.
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of. . . 357

in-depth understanding of different microscopy methods, nanobiology, cryogenics,

self-assembly, computer simulation, electronic structure of matter, and regulation
methods. These topics correspond with the various block courses offered by over
30 research labs.

13.2.3 Practical Experience Gains Importance

In the third year of studies, theoretical knowledge is supplemented with practical

experience. Each student selects eight block courses (from a choice of over 30)
offered by the various laboratories of the Biozentrum, the Departments of Chem-
istry and Physics at the University of Basel, the University of Applied Sciences in
Northwestern Switzerland (FHNW), the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), the Adolphe
Merkle Institute, and the Department for Biosystems Science and Engineering at
the Federal Institute of Technology Zurich in Basel (ETH-D-BSSE). The courses
offer an insight into state-of-the-art research in multiple research areas. Students
can choose between different basic science projects, and also have the opportunity
to study applied topics via partner institutions such as the University of Applied
Sciences. The wide selection is regularly expanded according to the number and
interests of students, and includes interdisciplinary approaches, basic science pro-
jects, and applied research (Table 13.2). Each course lasts either 1 or 3 weeks.
Students earn a total of 24 ECTS for the eight courses.

13.2.4 Attractive from a Student’s Point of View

The program attracts students with a broad interest in natural sciences. They are
given a solid foundation in the traditional disciplines of molecular biology, physics
and chemistry. As early as at Bachelor level, they can explore and tailor the
program according to their individual interests. During their studies, many students
opt to shift their focus to the versatile and exciting discipline of physics. Alongside
the theoretical basis delivered through lectures, they are given wide-ranging prac-
tical experience in physics, chemistry, molecular biology and applied science
through the electives completed in the research labs of the SNI network. The unique
advantage of these block courses is not only the diversity of topics—with over
30 research labs involved—but also the opportunity to become familiar with
different research groups on a personal level. These connections are invaluable
and often lead to Master’s and PhD projects.
When nanoscience students are asked what they enjoyed most during their time
at university, they often refer to the block courses. One of the students was
interviewed for a YouTube video [1] on nanoscience at the Swiss Nanoscience
Institute in Basel and commented: “The most amazing part of the Bachelor’s
program for me was the block courses. Here, you are involved in lab work in one
358 C. M€
oller et al.

Table 13.2 Block courses for the Bachelor’s in Nanoscience at the Swiss Nanoscience Institute in
Basel in 2015
Block course Offered by
Algorithms for atomistic simulations University of Basel,
Physics
Measurement control and acquisition University of Basel,
Physics
Nanoelectronics: molecular junctions University of Basel,
Physics
Nanolithography University of Basel,
Physics
Nanolab: Physics and chemistry with single atoms and molecules University of Basel,
Physics
Nanomaterials and electron spectroscopy University of Basel,
Physics
Nanophysics: low-dimensional conductors University of Basel,
Physics
Photovoltaic University of Basel,
Physics
Quantum optics and ultracold atoms University of Basel,
Physics
Quantum coherence lab: Semiconductor device fabrication and University of Basel,
Quantum transport experiments Physics
Scanning probe microscopy University of Basel,
Physics
Altering protein and peptide properties by chemical modification University of Basel,
Chemistry
Atomistic simulations University of Basel,
Chemistry
Coordination chemistry University of Basel,
Chemistry
Engineering artificial metalloenzymes University of Basel,
Chemistry
Nanochemistry University of Basel,
Chemistry
Self-assembling polymers University of Basel,
Chemistry
Ultracold ions University of Basel,
Chemistry
New nanotools to study neurodegeneration University of Basel,
C-CINA
Structural determination of protein complexes University of Basel,
C-CINA
AFM in biology ETH-D-BSSE
Microscopy (TEM, REM) University of Basel,
Microscopy Center
Methods in Nanobiology University of Basel,
Biozentrum
(continued)
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of. . . 359

Table 13.2 (continued)

Block course Offered by
Surface modifications and nanosensors FHNW
Functional biocompatible materials for medical applications FHNW
Engineering functional nanoparticles FHNW
Nanojunction Lab: Surface physics Paul Scherrer Institute
(PSI)
X-ray microscopy PSI
Micro- and nanofabrication of surface topographies PSI
Neutron scattering in solid state physics PSI
μSR spectroscopy of magnetic and superconducting materials PSI
Harnessing the diverse function of proteins for (nano)materials Adolphe Merkle Institute
Mechanical testing of functional polymers Adolphe Merkle Institute

of the research labs; you work like a real researcher and you can make a contribu-
tion. We are allowed to work with complicated machines. Responsibilities are
transferred to us and it is trusted that we will succeed [1].”

13.3 Master’s Program

For students holding a Bachelor’s in Nanoscience, the Swiss Nanoscience Institute

at the University of Basel offers a consecutive Master’s program that usually lasts
three semesters. Students holding a Bachelor’s degree in physics, chemistry, or
biology have to fulfill certain criteria depending on their undergraduate curriculum.
They have to meet the requirements and attend lectures and courses from the
Bachelor’s in Nanoscience in order to fill in any gaps in knowledge. In Europe, a
Master’s degree is required to pursue a scientific career and to continue on to a PhD.
During the one and a half years of the Master’s program, students choose from a
variety of lectures and seminars. They complete two projects that last 2 months
each and write a Master’s thesis that normally takes about 6 months. For these three
written assessments, students work in at least two different disciplines and research
groups at different departments of the University of Basel or at partner institutions.
In the Master’s program, students select one major discipline: molecular biol-
ogy, chemistry, or physics. They must obtain at least 16 ECTS through lectures in
this major discipline, as well as complete their Master’s thesis in their major
(30 ECTS). To further ensure an interdisciplinary education, students also select
lectures from the other (non-major) disciplines, which make up 14 ECTS in total.
Together with the two projects (each 10 ECTS) and the Master’s exam (10 ECTS), a
total of 90 ECTS is needed to successfully complete the Master’s program.
360 C. M€
oller et al.

13.3.1 Focus on Molecular Biology

Nanoscience students focusing on molecular biology can attend a large variety of

lectures and courses offered by the Biozentrum in Basel (e.g. immunology, systems
biology, neurological diseases, cellular signaling, proteomics, and drug discovery).
Many students interested in biological subjects complete a project or write their
Master’s thesis in the field of molecular mechanics or transport systems. They study
molecules of nuclear pore complexes and help us gain a better understanding of the
selective transport systems into and out of the nucleus. Other students are involved
in projects relating to cancer diagnostics. Since the stiffness of cancer cells mea-
sured by atomic force microscopy can be used as a marker for the malignancy of
cancer cells, their research supports the development of new diagnostic methods.
Other students focus on structure determination of membrane protein systems, or
method development for microfluidic single cell handling and single cell visual
proteomics.

13.3.2 Focus on Chemistry

The Department of Chemistry offers Master’s courses on topics including macro-

und supramolecular chemistry, synthesis and physical properties of nanoscale
systems or quantum mechanical aspects of computational chemistry. Experimental
projects in nanochemistry concentrate on the generation and examination of self-
organized structures such as artificial membranes. These can be used to build
artificial nanocontainers that could be applied to transport by releasing pharmaceu-
tically active substances at desired sites in the human body. Other topics include
surface chemistry, the observation of reactions on single molecules, and projects
linked to sustainable solar cells. Some projects look at molecular electronics.
Instead of preparing solid-state devices by continuously reducing their size,
researchers combine micro- and nano-fabrication techniques with chemical bond-
ing and self-assembly in order to build molecular devices where the electronically
active units are partially or fully organic.

13.3.3 Focus on Physics

Students who select nanophysics as their major discipline can choose from a large
variety of courses and lectures offered by the Department of Physics. Electronic
structure and atomistic simulation, advanced quantum mechanics, superconductiv-
ity, magnetism, and surface science are just a few examples of the wide range of
topics covered. Practical work in the Department of Physics often deals with the
production, manipulation and examination of nanostructures fabricated by state-of-
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of. . . 361

the-art lithography methods. The department works closely with groups in the
Department of Chemistry when it comes to molecular electronics projects. Students
may choose to get involved in solid-state physics based quantum computing and
quantum coherence. New materials like III-V quantum dot systems, carbon
nanotubes, diamond or graphene are studied in various projects investigating their
different physical properties—such as their mechanical, optical, electronic or
magnetic characteristics, for example. It is often the interdisciplinary nature of
the projects that is most fascinating. Biological systems are studied using
nanomechanical methods, where the local properties of elasticity or adhesion are
probed with high lateral resolution. Students study self-assembled quantum dots
using state-of-the-art high-resolution optical spectroscopy or force microscopes
with ultra sensitive force detection in the range of attonewtons. The spin dynamics
of nitrogen vacancy-centers of diamond nanoparticles at the end of micromachined
cantilevers are used to develop a scanning probe microscope to measure local
magnetic fields.

13.3.4 Excellence in Master’s Research

Since 2013, the SNI has honored the best Master’s thesis with an award. In 2013,
Heidi Potts won the award for her thesis on ultrathin silicon solar cells [2]. She
examined how recombination issues during the fabrication process can be
prevented by passivation. She combined a very thin silicon oxide layer with a
slightly thicker silicon nitride layer and designed a chamber in which this produc-
tion process can be controlled. In 2014, Sara Freund received the prize for the best
Master’s thesis in nanoscience for her work with a newly developed non-contact
atomic force microscope (AFM) [3]. She optimized the sample preparation methods
and examined surfaces of benzylammonium crystals.

13.4 Statistics

During the last 7 years, an average of 35 students per year enrolled in the Bachelor’s
program. In 2015, over a third of these were female students; in previous years, the
number of female students ranged between 20–40 %, with an average of 30 %.
Between 2007 and 2010, the average percentage of students to complete the
Bachelor’s degree was 52 % (Fig. 13.3). During the first years of their studies,
students learn how demanding the nanoscience curriculum is and therefore a
considerable percentage leaves the program. Over the course of the Bachelor’s
program, students are given more and more freedom to focus on their specific
interests while studying three disciplines in parallel.
The nano curriculum in Basel attracts smart and methodical young people. An
analysis of a selection of courses in which nanoscience students are taught
362 C. M€
oller et al.

Fig. 13.3 Students who successfully completed the Bachelor’s program and began the Master’s
program

Fig. 13.4 Students who successfully completed the Master’s in Nanoscience

alongside physics, chemistry and biology students showed that nanoscience stu-
dents are as good as their peers from the other programs and partially receive even
better grades than the biology, chemistry or physics students.
Once students have completed their Bachelor’s degree, they can focus in greater
depth on their individual areas of interest, resulting in a significantly lower dropout
rate for the Master’s program. In the last years, it ranged between 0 and 24 %
(Fig. 13.4). Those who gained a Bachelor’s degree but chose not to continue opted
for a Master’s in physics, chemistry or biology.
Most of the students studying toward the Bachelor’s in Nanoscience at the
University of Basel come from Switzerland (79 %). On average, 14 % originate
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of. . . 363

Table 13.3 Partnering Country Research institution

universities and research
US Caltec
institutions where
nanoscience students from the Columbia University
University of Basel have G. Washington University
written project or Master’s Harvard University
theses MIT
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Princeton University
UC Berkeley
Canada McGill University
University of Toronto
Australia University of Melbourne
Argentina Universidad Nacional de Quilmes
Denmark University of Copenhagen
Israel Weizmann Institute
Ireland Trinity College Dublin
France IRDEP
Paris Observatory
Netherlands Technical University of Delft
Spain University Autònoma de Barcelona
Sweden Lund University
UK Centre for Nanotechnology London

from Germany and only 1 % come from other European countries. In the last
5 years, 10 ERASMUS (European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility
of University Students) students from Finland and Spain have spent a semester at
the University of Basel on the nanoscience program.
Up to and including 2015, ERASMUS agreements were signed with the Uni-
versity of Chalmers (Sweden), the Lund University (Sweden), the University
Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain), the University and CeNTech of M€unster (Ger-
many), the Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the Aarhus
University (Denmark), the University of Twente, MESA+ (Netherlands), the Tech-
nical University of Delft (Netherlands), the Trinity College (Ireland), the University
of Iyväskylän (Finland), the IRDEP (France), the Weizmann Institute (Israel), and
the University of Melbourne (Australia).
Students from Basel are encouraged to gain experience at universities and
research institutions abroad and provided with support to do so. Over the last
6 years, 29 students took advantage of SNI travel grants and completed projects
or Master’s theses at 20 different universities and research institutions around the
world (Table 13.3).
364 C. M€
oller et al.

13.5 Career Paths of Nanoscience Students

Since the alumni organization was founded in 2015, the SNI does not have any
statistics about the careers of former nanoscience students. Most students who
received a Master’s degree continued at a research institution and began working
on their PhDs. Some continued in the SNI PhD School that was founded in 2012,
some joined other PhD programs at the University of Basel, the ETH in Zurich, the
EPF in Lausanne, or at other universities in Switzerland or abroad. After complet-
ing their PhDs, nanoscience students have chosen diverse career paths. Some have
stayed in research; others have joined industry or founded their own companies.
Students are generally positive about their nanoscience education in Basel. For
example, Markus Mangolf, PhD and founder of IRsweep, a startup company for
optical sensing technology, commented: “As a nanoscience student, I enjoyed a
broad basic education in natural sciences with a specialization during the Master’s
program. Now as founder of IRsweep, the scope of my basic studies helps me to
understand the biological and chemical processes of my future customers in
industry. Thanks to the specialization, I am able to develop high-end sensors to
monitor these processes.” [4].

13.6 Active Network Among Students

The positive responses to the nanoscience program relate to the scope of the courses
as well as to the excellent personal contacts with professors from the different
departments. There is a friendly atmosphere since the number of students in the
nanoscience courses never exceeds 50. During the intensive block courses as part of
the advanced studies in the Bachelor’s program, there is an average of 4 students
per lab. There are several courses with a student-teacher ratio of 1:1.
From their first day in Basel onward, students help and advise one another.
Students have founded a club that aims to support first semester students at the
beginning of their study program, and to enhance team spirit and solidarity. The
club organizes lunchtime academic support, invites renowned scientists to lecture at
the SNI, rallies the students for other educational events, and invites them to movie
evenings and raclette dinners. One of the students commented during an interview:
“Nanostudents are a small group. We all know each other. We know it’s difficult, so
we work together and not against one another.” [1].
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of. . . 365

13.7 PhD School at the Swiss Nanoscience Institute

After 10 years of successful education at Bachelor’s and Master’s level, the SNI at
the University of Basel founded the SNI PhD School in 2012 to further promote the
education of young researchers in nanoscale sciences. Under the leadership of SNI
Director, Professor Christian Sch€onenberger, the SNI issued the first call for PhD
projects to members of the SNI network in 2012. In 2013, the first 15 PhD students
began their studies on a diverse range of topics (see Table 13.4). In the second year
of the program, 10 new students joined the school, and in 2015, eight young
researchers began their PhDs. There are currently 33 students enrolled in the
program. In the future, six or seven new projects will be financed by the SNI per
year, with the goal of maintaining an average of 28 active PhD students at the SNI
PhD School.

13.7.1 Process for New Projects

Members of the SNI network can submit project proposals to the SNI PhD School
once a year before the summer break. In addition to the academic departments of
the University of Basel, the network also includes the University Hospital in Basel,
the University of Applied Sciences in Northwestern Switzerland (FHNW), the Paul
Scherrer Institute (PSI), the Department for Biosystems Science and Engineering at
the Federal Institute of Technology Zurich in Basel (ETH-D-BSSE), and the Centre
Suisse d’Electronique et de Microtechnique (CSEM) in Muttenz. All PhD projects
have one principal investigator (PI) and one Co-PI, where either the PI or the Co-PI
is a professor at the University of Basel and a member of the Faculty of Natural
Sciences.
Proposals are reviewed by an interdisciplinary panel of experts that is selected
according to the research topics proposed. The panel includes experimental and
theoretical scientists with expertise ranging from physics and materials science to
chemistry, biology and medicine. The SNI launches a worldwide search for candi-
dates to work on the projects that received the most votes from the selection
committee. The hiring decision is taken by the PIs. In 2014, the committee received
19 project proposals. Eight projects were approved, and 437 applications from all
over the world were received for these eight PhD positions.

13.7.2 Interdisciplinarity of the PhD School

For over half of the current projects (18 out of 32), the PIs and Co-PIs have their
background in different classical disciplines such as physics, chemistry and biol-
ogy, and they work in different departments of the University of Basel or at partner
366 C. M€
oller et al.

Table 13.4 PhD theses at the SNI PhD School in 2015

Affiliation of PI and Nationality of
PhD projects Co-PI PhD students
Microfluidics to study nano-crystallization of C-CINA University of Switzerland
proteins. Basel
C-CINA University of
Basel
Nanofluidic devices for biomolecules (Electrostatic PSI Germany
nanotrapping) University of Basel,
Chemistry
On surface covalent assembly of coordination poly- University of Basel, Belgium
mers with integrated read and write functions Chemistry
PSI
Site-specific magnetic studies and control of large PSI Poland
self-assembled spin systems PSI
Watching the nanomachinery of the nuclear pore University of Basel, Japan
complex at work by high speed-AFM Biozentrum
University of Basel,
Physics
Nanomechanical oscillators for diamond spin- University of Basel, Germany
optomechanics Physics
University of Basel,
Physics
Design of a polymer membrane-based molecular University of Basel, Germany
“hoover” Chemistry
ETH-D-BSSE
Ultra-sensitive force detection and molecular University of Basel, Switzerland
manipulation Physics
University of Basel,
Physics
Design of polymer nanoreactors with triggered University of Basel, Slovenia
activity Chemistry
University of Basel,
Pharmaceutical Science
Bottom-up nanowires as ultra-sensitive force University of Basel, Italy
transducers Physics
University of Basel,
Physics
Ultraclean suspended graphene University of Basel, Switzerland
Physics
University of Basel,
Physics
Nano-photonics with diamond University of Basel, Germany
Physics
University of Basel,
Physics
Artificial metalloenzymes for molecular University of Basel, Germany
nanofactories Chemistry
ETH-D-BSSE
(continued)
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of. . . 367

Table 13.4 (continued)

Affiliation of PI and Nationality of
PhD projects Co-PI PhD students
An ion-atom hybrid trap on a chip: synthesis and University of Basel, Great Britain
control of nanosystems on the single-molecule level Chemistry
University of Basel,
Physics
Nanostructure quantum transport at microkelvin University of Basel, Italy
temperatures Physics
University of Basel,
Physics
Energy dissipation over structural and electronic University of Basel, Turkey
phase transitions Physics
University of Basel,
Physics
Probing the initial steps of bacterial biofilm forma- University of Basel, Switzerland
tion: dynamic and molecular principles of surface- Chemistry
based cell motility and mechanosensation University of Basel,
Biozentrum
Assembly and investigation of electrochemically University of Basel, Switzerland
triggered molecular muscles Chemistry
University of Basel,
Physics
Folding mechanisms of beta-barrel outer membrane University of Basel, Mexico
proteins and their catalysis by natural holdases and Biozentrum
foldases ETH-D-BSSE
Towards X-FEL based dynamic studies on 2D and PSI Poland
3D nanocrystals of membrane proteins on solid University of Basel,
supports C-CINA
Slow-release nano-pills for mosquitoes for University Hospital Portugal
interrupting malaria transmission University Hospital
Optoelectronic nanojunctions University of Basel, Germany
Physics
University of Basel,
Chemistry
Supramolecular charge and spin architectures pro- FHNW Iran
duced by chemical clipping PSI
Cooling and control of a nanomechanical membrane University of Basel, Germany
with cold atoms Physics
University of Basel,
Physics
Targeted single cell proteomics using magnetic University of Basel, Switzerland
nanoparticles to study prion-like spreading of amy- C-CINA
loid nanoparticles University of Basel,
C-CINA
Lightweight structures based on hierarchical FHNW Poland
composites University of Basel,
Physics
(continued)
368 C. M€
oller et al.

Table 13.4 (continued)

Affiliation of PI and Nationality of
PhD projects Co-PI PhD students
Tailor-made proteins and peptides for quantum University of Basel, Switzerland
interference experiments Chemistry
University of Basel,
Chemistry
Selective transport of functionalized nanocarriers University of Basel, Germany
into biomimetic and natural pore complexes Chemistry
University of Basel,
Biozentrum
Surface-functionalization of diamond nano- FHNW Switzerland
magnetometers for applications in nano- and life University of Basel,
sciences Physics
Charge transfer versus charge transport in molecular University Hospital, Germany
systems Basel
University of Basel,
Physics
Coupling a single ion to a nanomechanical oscillator University of Basel, Greece
Chemistry
University of Basel,
Physics
Clean zigzag and armchair graphene nanoribbons University of Basel, Switzerland
Physics
University of Basel,
Physics

institutions of the SNI network. This clearly illustrates the interdisciplinary nature
of the PhD topics (Table 13.4).
As a result, students are regularly exposed to different research fields through
discussing their research with their supervisors. They also have numerous oppor-
tunities for interdisciplinary exchange with their peers and other researchers from
the SNI network. Every year, the SNI holds an annual meeting at which PhD
students are encouraged to give talks or present posters. PhD candidates are also
invited to the annual winter school “Nanoscience in the Snow”, which takes place at
different locations in the Swiss Alps (Table 13.5). Both events are ideal for
presenting scientific results to an interdisciplinary audience of experts from a
diverse range of fields, from structural biology and synthetic chemistry to quantum
physics.

13.7.3 Additional Training

As part of their program, the PhD students learn how to communicate their research
to diverse audiences in a specially designed two-day workshop on rhetoric and
presentation skills. In this course, approximately 10 students learn basic
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of. . . 369

Table 13.5 Talks during the “Nanoscience in the Snow” Meeting in February 2015
Title of the talk Speaker, affiliation
Optoelectronics on the nanometer scale Prof. Alex Holleitner, Walter Schottky Institute
and Physics Department, TU Munich
Nanostructure of human teeth in health and Prof. Bert Mueller, Biomaterials Science Cen-
disease ter, University of Basel
Probing the initial steps of bacterial biofilm Nora Sauter, PhD Student, Department of
formation: dynamic and molecular principles Chemistry and Biozentrum, University of Basel
of surface-based cell motility and mechano-
sensing
Towards ion-atom hybrid quantum systems on Ian Rouse, PhD Student, Departments of
a chip Chemistry and Physics, University of Basel
Mechanical mode coupling and nonlinearity Davide Cadeddu, PhD Student, Department of
in as-grown GaAs nanowires Physics, University of Basel
Electron optics in encapsulated graphene Clevin Handschin, PhD Student, Department of
Physics, University of Basel
Nanoscale heat dissipation and thermometry Dr. Bernd Gotsmann, IBM Z€ urich Research
Laboratory
Artificial metalloenzymes - challenges and Dr. Valentin Koehler, Department of Chemis-
opportunities try, University of Basel
Design of polymer nanoreactors with trig- Tomaz Einfalt, PhD Student, Departments of
gered activity Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Science, Uni-
versity of Basel
Slow-release nano-pills for mosquitoes for Daniel Gonçalves, PhD Student, University
interrupting malaria transmission Hospital Basel

presentation skills, vocal and breathing techniques, and how to reach out to an
audience. An actress and a radio presenter give participants individual advice about
how to present their various topics.
Courses on soft skills and topics not directly linked to specific research projects
play an important role at the SNI PhD School. In addition to the course on rhetoric,
the SNI offers a one-day event about intellectual property run by internal and
external experts in the field. Here, the students address questions relating to
patenting inventions and the proceedings of technology transfer. The SNI also ran
a workshop with an external coach using the Strength Finder developed by Gallup
in order to help students identify their own personal strength—and thereby improve
their confidence and team skills. For students who will complete their theses in
2016, a workshop is planned to provide advice on job-hunting and career planning.
In addition to these courses tailored to the SNI PhD School, the University of Basel
provides a variety of workshops on social and technical skills that are also open to
all SNI PhD students.
370 C. M€
oller et al.

13.7.4 Students Network

Although students from the SNI PhD School research different topics within
nanosciences and work in different departments at the University of Basel and
partner institutions, there is nevertheless a distinct group of SNI PhD School
students. Thanks to the regular events that often last several days, a friendly
community has been created. The enthusiasm of the PhD students was clear when
several of them organized the International Nanoscience Student Conference
(INASCON) 2015 in Basel. The organizing committee was made up of six PhD
students and two Bachelor’s and Master’s students. They drew up an excellent
program [5] and acquired sponsors, resulting in a professional event that received
excellent feedback from participants.

13.7.5 Statistics

By the end of 2015, 33 PhD students will have begun their doctoral studies at the
SNI PhD School. They originate from 13 different countries, mainly in Europe.
More than half of the students come from Switzerland or Germany (nine from
Switzerland, nine from Germany). Several of the PhD students received a Master’s
in Nanoscience from the University of Basel. Others hold a degree in physics,
materials engineering, biochemistry, biotechnology, chemistry or pharmaceutical
science from a different university in Switzerland, the rest of Europe, or from
outside of Europe. The first intake of students will finish their theses in 2016. Some
of them have already published their results as first authors in renowned journals.

13.7.6 Examples of Scientific Results

In September 2015, Tomaz Einfalt, a PhD student in the Departments of Chemistry

and Pharmaceutical Science at the University of Basel, published an article about
controllable protein gates in Nano Letters [6]. In the joint article written with
colleagues, Tomaz Einfalt describes how the permeability of protein gates in
artificial nano-vesicles can be controlled. The gate consists of a chemically mod-
ified membrane protein that responds to certain pH values. At a neutral pH, the
membrane is impermeable. Under acid conditions, the protein gate opens and
substances can enter or leave the nano-capsule (Fig. 13.5). As cancerous and
inflamed tissue often exhibits slightly acid pH values, these artificial
nanocontainers could be used in these types of tissues to transport active substances
to specific locations in the human body where a reaction is desired.
In July 2015, Arne Barfuss, a PhD student in the Department of Physics at the
University of Basel, published a paper on the use of resonators made from single-
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of. . . 371

Fig. 13.5 Artificial nano-vesicles with protein gates that open under acid conditions. Reprinted by
permission from American Chemical Society: Nano Letters [6], copyright 2015

crystalline diamonds for developing a novel device in which a quantum system is

integrated into a mechanical oscillating system in Nature Physics [7]. For the first
time, Arne Barfuss and his colleagues were able to show that this mechanical
system can be used to coherently manipulate an electron spin embedded in the
resonator—without external antennas or complex microelectronic structures
(Fig. 13.6). It is conceivable that this diamond resonator could be applied to
sensors—potentially in a highly sensitive way—since the oscillation of the resona-
tor can be recorded via the altered spin. These new findings also allow the spin to be
coherently rotated over a very long period of close to 100 ms, making the mea-
surement more precise. Nitrogen-vacancy centers could potentially also be used to
develop a quantum computer. In this case, the quick manipulation of its quantum
states demonstrated in this work would be a decisive advantage.

13.8 Outreach

Nanoscience and nanotechnology are relatively new fields of science. They are not
taught in Swiss schools and not many high school students know about nanoscience
or the existence of a nanoscience curriculum at the University of Basel. For this
reason, the Swiss Nanoscience Institute aims to educate the public—with a focus on
young people—about nanoscience and nanotechnology. The SNI actively seeks to
make the public aware of its research in order to communicate a realistic idea about
the possibilities and potential risks of nanoscience and nanotechnology.
The SNI participates in science fairs in Europe and further abroad
(e.g. TechDays and science fairs in Switzerland; Science Days in the Europa
Park, Germany; science festivals in Beijing [8] and Abu Dhabi). At these events,
SNI members and students share their fascination about natural sciences with young
372 C. M€
oller et al.

Fig. 13.6 The oscillating

resonator influences the
electron spin in the
nitrogen-vacancy centers
(red arrows). Their spin can
be efficiently read using
fluorescence microscopy.
Reprinted by permission
from Macmillan Publishers
Ltd: Nature Physics [7],
copyright 2015

children and teenagers. They perform different practical experiments and scientific
activities depending on the target group. A small exhibition illustrates where
nanotechnology is already present in daily life. During the Science Festival in
Beijing, for example, the SNI team invited children of different ages to construct
a nanocar. Over 3 days, approximately 500 of these little machines were built out of
the top part of a toothbrush and a vibrating motor. During other public events,
kaleidoscopes, spectrometers, solar sunflowers and ventilators were crafted.
In addition, the SNI invites high school teachers to special teacher events, and
regularly welcomes high school students to the SNI for lab tours. SNI nanoscience
students and PhD candidates are always involved in these visits [9]. As great
ambassadors for the nanosciences, they enthusiastically share their experiences
and scientific results with the school students. Students are also active during the
information day at the University of Basel. This “Info Day” takes place once a year
and attracts thousands of high school students from the region who are interested in
studying at the University of Basel. Most of the students who later enroll to study
nanoscience have attended one of the information days.
The SNI also aims to share scientific results with the public. The SNI commu-
nication team regularly issues press releases, maintains a website [10], publishes a
quarterly electronic newsletter [11], as well as brochures for different target groups
about nanoscience and specific SNI research topics [12], and produces a compre-
hensive annual report [8],. Scientists from the SNI are regularly invited to public
events to share their news and views about nanoscience and nanotechnology.
13 From Bachelor to PhD: The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of. . . 373

13.9 Conclusion

The Swiss Nanoscience Institute at the University of Basel in Switzerland has

successfully established a comprehensive program for the education in
nanosciences. The Bachelor’s and Master’s programs attract highly motivated
students and provide an excellent interdisciplinary education. During their studies,
students get a broad background in molecular biology, chemistry, physics and
mathematics and can later focus on their specific fields of interest. By establishing
the PhD school in 2012, the SNI has expanded the scope of nanoscience education.
Graduate students from all over the world are attracted by the various interdisci-
plinary PhD projects that the SNI was able to support during the last years. Through
regular interdisciplinary meetings and workshops, PhD students have numerous
opportunities for exchange with their peers and colleagues from the whole SNI
network, which contributes to an excellent atmosphere within the PhD school. It has
been shown that the SNI’s continuous engagement in communication and outreach
activities during the last years has substantially contributed to raise international
awareness of the nanoscience education and research at the University of Basel.

References

1. YouTube Swiss Nanoscience Institute Channel, Swiss Nanoscience Institute—Studies in

Nanoscale Science and the SNI PhD School, www.youtube.com/watch?v¼B_nkPd84ufU.
Accessed 14 Oct 2015
2. Swiss Nanoscience Institute Homepage SNI update—Newsletter of the Swiss Nanoscience
Institute April 2014, http://www.nanoscience.ch/nccr/media/sni_newsletter_intern/sninewsl
Intern_autofiles/2014-05-SNI_update.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2015
3. Swiss Nanoscience Institute Homepage SNI update—Newsletter of the Swiss Nanoscience
Institute July 2015, http://www.nanoscience.ch/nccr/media/sni_newsletter_intern/sninewsl
Intern_autofiles/2015-07-SNI_update_en.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2015
4. M. Mangold (private communication)
5. INASCON 2015 Homepage, http://inascon.eu. Accessed 22 Oct 2015
6. T. Einfalt, R. Goers, I.A. Dinu, A. Najer, M. Spulber, O. Onaca-Fischer, C.G. Palivan, Nano
Lett. 15(11), 7596 (2015)
7. A. Barfuss, J. Teissier, E. Neu, A. Nunnenkamp, P Maletinsky. Nat. Phys. 11, 820 (2015)
8. Swiss Nanoscience Institute Homepage Brochures, Annual Report of the Swiss Nanoscience
Institute, April 2014, http://www.nanoscience.ch/nccr/media/brochure/e_AR_2014.pdf. Accessed
25 Oct 2015
9. Swiss Nanoscience Institute Homepage SNI update—Newsletter of the Swiss Nanoscience Ins
titute, December 2015, http://www.nanoscience.ch/nccr/media/sni_newsletter_intern/sninews
lIntern_autofiles/2015-12-SNI_update_en.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2015
10. Swiss Nanoscience Institute Homepage, www.nanoscience.ch. Accessed 25 Oct 2015
11. Swiss Nanoscience Institute Homepage SNI update—Newsletter of the Swiss Nanoscience
Institute, http://www.nanoscience.ch/nccr/media/sni_newsletter_intern. Accessed 25 Oct 2015
12. C. M€oller, Swiss Nanoscience Institute, Was ist Nano, http://www.nanoscience.ch/nccr/media/
brochure/was_ist_nano_komplett_web.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2015
Chapter 14
Forging New Connections Between
Nanoscience and Society in the UCSB Center
for Nanotechnology in Society Science
and Engineering Fellows Program

Brandon Fastman, Miriam Metzger, and Barbara Herr Harthorn

Abstract As authorized by the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Nanoscale

Science and Engineering Centers (NSECs) are mandated to develop a skilled
workforce and support responsible development of nanotechnology, including
attention to ethical, legal and societal implications (ELSI). An NSEC, the National
Science Foundation Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of
California, Santa Barbara addresses both of these goals within the context of its
Science and Engineering Fellows Program. By placing doctoral students from
science and engineering disciplines in team-based social science projects focused
on ELSI, this program forges closer ties between laboratory scientists and social
perspectives. This chapter offers an overview of the program, describes how
Fellows were integrated into two specific research streams, and shares analysis of
interviews with Fellows. These interviews, conducted as part of an evaluation of the
program, provide evidence that the Science and Engineering Fellows Program has
fostered in its graduates the sort of reflexivity called for by advocates of responsible
innovation.

B. Fastman (*)
Center for Nanotechnology in Society, University of California, Santa Barbara 93106, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Metzger
Center for Nanotechnology in Society, University of California, Santa Barbara 93106, USA
Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara 93106, USA
B.H. Harthorn
Center for Nanotechnology in Society, University of California, Santa Barbara 93106, USA
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara 93106, USA

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 375

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2_14
376 B. Fastman et al.

14.1 Introduction

“When I was a freshman at Columbia, the big book we were all supposed to read was C. P.
Snow’s book on the two cultures. CNS was a bold effort to break that down. I’d like to think
that in some ways, we succeeded in doing that.” [1]
–Richard Appelbaum, CNS-UCSB co-PI and research group leader

Over the past 10 years, the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center: Center
for Nanotechnology and Society at UCSB (CNS-UCSB) has embedded doctoral
students from engineering and the physical and life sciences into the social science
enterprise in the context of upstream technological development. The centerpiece
of CNS-UCSB’s educational agenda, the Nanoscience and Engineering Graduate
Research Fellowship Program, places these students in team-based social science
projects under the mentorship of faculty PIs and in collaboration with an interdis-
ciplinary team, including graduate Fellows from the social sciences and humanities;
local, national and international collaborators; and postdoctoral researchers who
come from a variety of academic disciplines. This novel educational paradigm
attempts to build new connections between the laboratory, often referred to in the
literature of Science and Technology Studies (STS) as an isolated “black box” [2],
with broader societal forces.
Past approaches to forge closer ties between laboratory scientists and social
perspectives typically involve participant observation by sociologists and anthro-
pologists in laboratories in order to craft detailed ethnographies of the science
enterprise [3]. In fact, the ethnography of the science and technology (S&T)
laboratory has grown into a robust domain of scholarly endeavor [4]. At the same
time, universities are developing science and engineering curricula that address
research on ethical, legal and social implications of the STEM disciplines. By
contrast to these efforts, the CNS-UCSB approach is innovative precisely because
it does not attempt to enter the black box. Instead, our approach is designed to entice
scientists out of the black box of their own laboratory to participate in the analysis
of its wider societal contexts—to look at it from the outside. By drawing techno-
logical innovators-in-training into the social science enterprise, our goal has been to
go beyond previous education models to elevate the value of social science in the
scientific enterprise.
In this book chapter, we will present two case studies that demonstrate how
CNS-UCSB has fostered a greater appreciation among scientists- and engineers-in-
training for the societal aspects of nanotechnology research as well as the social,
geopolitical, and economic forces that influence the practice of scientific investi-
gation, and the methods of research in the social sciences. The two specific projects
that we will discuss are (1) Public Participation in Nanotechnology R&D: Upstream
Engagement and Deliberation Research and (2) Drivers of Nanotechnology Com-
mercialization in China: Suzhou Industrial Park. We chose these two projects,
conducted within two different research groups at CNS-UCSB, because they offer
rich contrasts in leadership style, methodology, and objective.
14 Forging New Connections Between Nanoscience and Society in the UCSB Center. . . 377

The first project began in 2006 to conduct comparative deliberations in the US

and the UK exploring how public perceptions of emerging nanotechnologies
differed both within and across two nations. Graduate Fellows in Materials, Chem-
istry and Environmental Science played key roles in co-designing and conducting
deliberations in 2007–2009 that focused on energy and medical applications of
nanotechnology. The second project studied Chinese national industrial policy
directed at accelerated development of nanotechnology. Fellows in chemistry and
electrical engineering accompanied the research team on expeditions to interview
scientists, government officials, and entrepreneurs in Shanghai and Suzhou Indus-
trial Park, known as “China’s Silicon Valley,” where nanotechnology firms are
provided Chinese government support for business plan development, legal and
incubation services, significant rent subsidies, as well as other perks.
In reporting on these two projects, this chapter draws on project reports, publi-
cations, discussions with group leaders, and interviews with Science and Engineer-
ing Fellows from an ongoing evaluation study of the Science and Engineering
Fellows Program over the lifespan of CNS-UCSB.
Before discussing each project, a theoretical framework for the CNS-UCSB
Science and Engineering Fellows Program is in order. We refer to this framework,
which was developed both before the program began and progressively during its
evolution, as a “culture of reflexivity,” following on a body of research that focuses
on shaping more societally-attentive technology assessment and innovation.
Although our program required rigorous recruitment and review of Fellows by
faculty committee, CNS-UCSB protocol did not assign the research group (faculty)
leaders with rigid guidelines for whom to recruit or how, specifically, they should
integrate their Fellows into their projects. That said, an explicit intention from the
start of this experiment was to foster greater self-awareness among the Fellows
about how their research is shaped by—and shapes—larger societal forces. This
awareness would come both from formally studying societal implications as well as
informally learning about the social scientific and humanistic research methods
applied to understanding emerging technologies.

14.2 Building a Culture of Reflexivity

In a recent article, York provides a critique of the way in which young engineers are
educated within their disciplines to think about nanotechnology. Based on her
observations during classroom lectures, she argues that undergraduate students in
a nanoengineering department learn that “smaller is better is the key to
nanotechnology’s central promise—that manipulating matter on the nanoscale
will enable novel applications in nearly every domain of contemporary life”
[5]. Lecture materials and assignments suggest that nanomaterials are both univer-
sal and particular. They are pitched as “universal,” occurring naturally and ubiqui-
tously. This is done, for instance, by reference to biomimetic properties, or by way
of conversion exercises that compare them to everyday objects. At the same time,
378 B. Fastman et al.

their unique physical, chemical, and optical properties are heralded for their
potential to solve human challenges in sectors such as energy and medicine.
York’s critique of this smaller-is-better message is that it “tends to align the
extraordinary with nano’s promises and the ordinary with nano’s presumed benign
nature.” Instead, she argues, scientists and engineers should be taught to reject, or at
least question, this uniformly optimistic view regarding technological development,
and to embrace a more reflexive engagement with the implications of nanotechnol-
ogy. In her view, this “would still allow for promissory visioning but would demand
that it be coupled with robust visioning of what lies outside such promises” [5].
In line with this critique, CNS-UCSB has also sought to diminish the extent to
which nanoscientists-in-training are learning their craft without reference to its
practice within a particular set of economic, social, or embodied contexts
[6, 7]. York’s interviews with students suggest that their own discussions about
ethical and societal implications of nanotechnologies tend to take place with peers
outside of a formal educational setting. Thus York advocates for the addition of
educational activities within the academy that would foster greater reflexivity
among engineering students.
Elsewhere, Rejeski et al. [8] call for “reflexive governance” that entails inserting
consideration of topics typically investigated by the social sciences within the
process of science and technology innovation. Their call was issued in a recent
volume on converging technologies, a term popularized by the founding chair of the
US National Science and Technology Council’s subcommittee on Nanoscale Sci-
ence, Engineering and Technology, Mihail Roco. In fact, several rubrics for
discussing disciplinary cross-pollination have emerged in the past decade. Along
with “convergence,” these include interdisciplinary “interactional expertise,” [9]
“trading zones” [10] “humanistic engineering” [11], “sociotechnical integration”
[12], “responsible development [13],” and “responsible innovation” [14].
Each of these rubrics is useful in addressing challenges of sustainability and
equity in a world characterized by globalization, neoliberalism, and technological
innovation [15]. In fact, they have all produced successful examples of interdisci-
plinary collaboration, notably at CNS-UCSB. They also all share concern with the
concept of reflexivity. In fact, reflexivity is one of the four pillars of responsible
innovation (along with anticipation, inclusion and responsiveness) as delineated by
Stilgoe, Owen and Macnaghten [14]. While the CNS-UCSB Education Program
relies on the production of tangible research activity (manifested by hundreds of
publications in a 10-year period), our primary educational goal within the Center
has been to foster a culture of reflexivity among our Fellows and other center
participants.
The authors of the framework for responsible innovation explain, “Reflexivity
asks scientists, in public, to blur the boundary between their role responsibilities
and wider, moral responsibilities. It therefore demands openness and leadership
within cultures of science and innovation” [14]. They also note the great number
of theorists who have seized on the term. Wynne for instance distinguishes
actor reflexivity from institutional reflexivity [16]. Schuurbiers distinguishes
first-order “reflective learning” from second-order: “In second-order learning,
14 Forging New Connections Between Nanoscience and Society in the UCSB Center. . . 379

value systems become the object of learning while in first-order learning these
are taken for granted” [17]. These distinctions separate the scientist as an
individual, rational actor from the scientist as a node in a larger system, whether
that be a value-system, an innovation-system, or a bureaucracy. While different
definitions of reflexivity include important distinctions, they all point to some-
thing different from critical self-reflection. As Rejeski et al. put it, “Reflexivity
involves situating yourself as an observer in the system, dissociating from this
system your own interests, and thinking about your position amidst the things
being considered” [8].
At CNS-UCSB, by reflexivity we also mean to suggest that scientists and
engineers develop more than just a facility for self-reflection. What we intend is
the production of scientists and engineers who can identify themselves as part of a
system of innovation and discovery within its larger social context. Following
Hayles “the reflexive move show[s] that an attribute previously considered to
have emerged from a set of preexisting conditions is in fact used to generate the
conditions” [18]. One example of a theorist who uncovers this process, according to
Hayles, is Bruno Latour. “In Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow
Scientists and Engineers through Society, scientific experiments are shown to
produce the nature whose existence they predicate as their condition of possibility”
[18].
This theoretical turn, writes Hayles, “has subversive effects because it confuses
and entangles the boundaries we impose on the world in order to make sense of that
world” [18]. While CNS-UCSB may not have been aiming for “subversion” in
precisely this way, its founders did intend to meddle with boundaries, specifically
those between disciplines. Providing a space for researchers from widely different
disciplines to collaborate and learn from one another nudged S&E Fellows to see
the contours of their own fields and to consider how and when those contours should
be modified. (The same can be said for their social science mentors and peers in the
program.)
As stated by Sarah, 1 a former S&E Fellow,
“I think as engineers, graduate level engineers, oftentimes we. . .think we’re the only smart
people in the world. Scientists are really smart and everyone else is maybe not as smart, and
one thing working at CNS taught me is that that is bullshit, basically. [Laughs] There are a
lot of really interesting, smart people who choose to do things other than science. I didn’t
know that before I did CNS, so it sort of sparked my interest in engaging with people who
have fields that are very different than mine, and knowing that there’s actually some
interesting work that can be done in the space in between.”

In order to encourage the move from reflection to reflexivity, scholars of the

innovation process have suggested various forms of intervention. These necessarily
call for people outside of the engineering and science disciplines to bring fresh
perspective to the “black box” of the laboratory. Such interventions are often
described as taking place at some point along the “stream” of research and inno-
vation work. Whereas downstream considerations take into account the impacts of
technologies, upstream engagement, a focus of CNS-UCSB research, is summed up
as “consideration of a technology, and any potential social and ethical issues, before
380 B. Fastman et al.

significant research and development decisions are made and become locked in”
[19]. An example of an upstream intervention would be public deliberations that
gauge societal perceptions of emerging technologies with an aim of influencing the
innovation system early in development. This allows members of the public to
influence technological development in a proactive, rather than reactive, way—
with safety-focused concerns accompanying rapid scaling up of production in
commercialization and consumer response.
Fisher’s work on midstream modulation (defined as “determining how to
implement R&D agendas” [12]) has led to what he and colleagues refer to as
“socio-technical integration” activities. These activities entail the involvement of
a humanist or social scientist in the natural science or engineering workspace.
Fisher argues that their presence in this workspace, by asking questions or
drawing attention to laboratory activities for example, can help shape the
decision-making process of scientists and engineers during technological devel-
opment. In accordance with this idea, Fisher’s research project, called “Socio-
technical Integration Research” at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at
Arizona State University, places doctoral students in the social sciences and
humanities into the laboratory. These doctoral students extend more traditional
ethnographies by engaging laboratory researchers in semi-structured interactions
that are “designed to enhance reflection upon [scientific] research decisions in
light of broader considerations” [20].
CNS-UCSB shares this same goal, but takes a different approach with its
education program by going outside the “stream” of R&D. Specifically, we have
attempted to produce students who are attentive to the larger context of their
research, as well as their future professional work as scientists and engineers.
Rather than influencing the direction of any one student’s specific research trajec-
tory, however, the CNS-UCSB S&E Graduate Fellowship program focuses its
energy on cultivating habits of mind and modes of interaction across disciplines
that inflect the work of the technological innovator, consciously or not.

14.3 Designing the Program

In the early to mid 2000s, as university campuses in the US were rolling out the first
departments of nanoengineering, the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at UC
Santa Barbara was implementing a program designed to address precisely the sort
of reflexivity that York argues is missing from many engineering undergraduate
curricula.
The cornerstone of the CNS Education program from inception in 2006 has been
its Graduate Research Fellowship program which has consistently received out-
standing reviews from the Center’s National Advisory Board and annual NSF and
extramural site reviewers for creating a unique, effective co-educational context of
joint social science and nanoscale science and engineering research and training.
The Graduate Research Fellows Program is a major component of CNS-UCSB’s
14 Forging New Connections Between Nanoscience and Society in the UCSB Center. . . 381

mission (a) to produce and encourage excellent and innovative scholarship

addressing the intersection of nanotechnologies with society and (b) contribute to
academic workforce development for future nanotechnology research.
Our graduate Fellows take lead roles in the Center’s research, education, and
outreach initiatives, and are trained within three interdisciplinary research groups
(IRGs) in a unique joint context of social science and nanoscale science and
engineering research and training. Fellows, who are in residence at UCSB, work
directly with their IRG faculty PI mentors. Outstanding students are selected for the
program through a campus-wide open recruitment and rigorous screening process
conducted by faculty review committees. Social Science and Humanities Fellows
are funded at a 20-h per week time commitment, comparable to that required of
campus teaching assistants. Science and Engineering Fellows are funded for a 10-h
per week commitment, allowing them to continue to participate fully in their
laboratory-based research obligations and other opportunities available through
their home departments. Both Social Science and Humanities Fellowships and
Science and Engineering Fellowships are awarded initially for 1-year terms, with
possibilities for renewal of up to two additional years, an option that virtually all
Fellows in the program have opted to take advantage of.
Since 2006, Science and Engineering Fellows from Materials, Chemistry, Elec-
trical Engineering, Environmental Science, and the Life Sciences have participated
in the program. Upon graduation from UCSB, our Fellows have gone on to
successful careers in academia, federal and state laboratories, and private industry.
Fellows in our program enrolled in a year-round Graduate Seminar and received
1–4 units of academic credit for each term of enrollment. The seminar which was
formalized as a for credit course in 2008, met weekly or biweekly. All Fellows and
researchers in CNS-UCSB participated both in attendance and in presenting their
research or leading discussion. The seminar provided vital opportunities to meet,
build community, and foster collaboration between and across participants on a
regular, ongoing basis.
Course content for the seminar was designed by a faculty Education Director
in consultation with an Education Coordinator with an advanced degree and the
CNS-UCSB Executive Committee, and included scholarly discussion of STS,
scientific, and key social science and humanities literatures, research projects,
and writing; recurrent discussion of research ethics and IRB issues, which are
essential in a multidisciplinary research environment with many different epis-
temologies and practices; and many other topics. Seminars also included regular
professional development opportunities for Fellows such as presentations on
publishing, public speaking, grant proposal writing, preparation of research post-
ers and presentations, and opportunities to present and discuss in- progress
research taking place within each CNS-UCSB IRG. The seminar included dis-
tinguished visiting speakers once or more per quarter and provided students
opportunities for both formal seminar learning contexts, as well as informal
conversation and debate with scholars at all stages of their careers on an array
of topics relevant to science-society interactions.
382 B. Fastman et al.

The majority of the students’ time in the program was spent conducting research
under the supervision of faculty IRG leaders, with additional mentoring by other
faculty researchers, postdoctoral scholars, and their peers. This chapter focuses on two
groups, one from an IRG headed by sociologist Richard Appelbaum that studies the
role of nanotechnology in globalization, and one headed by cultural anthropologist
and CNS Director Barbara Herr Harthorn that focuses on risk perception and social
response to emerging technologies. Appelbaum oversees a set of projects that include
comparative studies of state technology policies, creation and maintenance of a
database of nanotechnology firms, bibliometric and patent analyses, and investigation
of the role of foreign-born scientists in nanotechnology innovation. A large focus of
this IRG has been China’s innovation policy. In examining public and expert percep-
tions of and social responses to nanotechnologies and other emerging technologies
(e.g., energy technologies such as hydraulic fracturing), Harthorn’s group’s projects
include public deliberations, surveys and interviews of nano experts and
nanomaterials industry leaders, large-scale public perception surveys, studies of
media representations of nanotechnology, and the generation of a database to track
nongovernmental organization (NGO) engagement with nanotechnologies.
Positioning Fellows within the IRGs required a learning process on the part of
both graduate Fellows and faculty IRG leaders, and also took a certain maturation
of the research program to flourish. For example, in an interview with Education
Coordinator Brandon Fastman in 2015, IRG leader Appelbaum reported that
managing students from the sciences and engineering was an adjustment for him
at first, but that he learned how to effectively train and, ultimately, truly integrate
these students in the research process. This is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact
that his science and engineering Fellows have made meaningful contributions to
Appelbaum’s research group, including co-authoring publications and both design-
ing and conducting social science studies. Appelbaum also points to how these
students have enriched his own learning, remarking that having an advanced
graduate student familiar with the technical aspects of nanotechnology proved
extremely useful when conducting interviews in China. For example, by asking
technical questions beyond Appelbaum’s or other collaborators’ own expertises or
delving into areas that would otherwise have been omitted; or by offering insights
on whether interviewees’ research was on the cutting edge of science by interna-
tional or US standards, the science and engineering Fellows informed the social
science research in unique and important ways. In addition, Appelbaum felt that this
increased team rapport with the scientists and engineers they interviewed.
CNS-UCSB’s science and engineering Fellows have also played substantial
roles within Harthorn’s IRG. Harthorn’s Fellows have been closely involved in
all stages of the social science research process. For example, in 2007, Harthorn’s
team, which included Fellows from Chemistry and Electrical Engineering,
conducted public deliberation workshops in the US and UK along with their UK
collaborators at Cardiff University. The first workshop in each location focused on
energy applications of nanotechnologies, and the second on human health and
enhancement. Workshops ranged from 10 to 16 participants, and were designed
to be quasi-representative of participants’ local communities with regard to age,
14 Forging New Connections Between Nanoscience and Society in the UCSB Center. . . 383

education, race/ethnicity, and income, with gender balanced. These workshops

included open-ended discussion, small ‘World Café’ group discussions, and guided
dialogue with the whole group. The science and engineering Fellows prepared
presentations and served as technical experts during the discussions and workshops
in the US. They also helped with data analysis and interpretation, contributing
nuanced understanding of the technical aspects and gaining a far deeper under-
standing of the extent and rational bases for diverse publics’ reservations in the face
of unchecked innovation without room for public priorities and concerns. The team,
with a new set of Fellows, intensified this process in another round of US work-
shops in 2009 focused particularly on gender aspects of emergent technological risk
and benefit perceptions. More recently, Harthorn’s team, with assistance from a
Fellow in Biology and Environmental Science, has conducted further rounds of US
and UK public deliberations based on the nanotech work that have focused for
comparative purposes on upstream public views on new oil and gas extraction
technology of hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”).
In reflecting on her experiences with these cohorts of S&E Fellows through all
the projects the group has pursued, PI/IRG 3 leader Harthorn reports:
“This initially experimental program has far exceeded all expectations—it has deeply
enriched our experiences in the CNS at UCSB. Results have surpassed those goals of
expanding awareness of societal aspects of nanotech development for S&E grads. S&E
Fellows have certainly achieved that, but having S&E Fellows in my group has actively
contributed to the many iterations of our work on so many levels. They have generously
shared insights about their academic worlds, and how research and educational practices,
values, assumptions, and futures differ in those worlds. They’ve brought with them their
incredible work ethic, their knowledge of collaborative research processes, their different
timelines for studies and progress assessment. And they’ve been an ever-present voice,
calling into question whenever our assumptions and practices are unclear, inconsistent, or
off base. They’ve informed us directly and indirectly about disciplinary differences within
S&E, and this in turn has prevented us from engaging in the kind of reductive essentialisms
about Science and Scientists that inhibit mutual engagement and full collaboration.” This,
she asserts, has disrupted quite thoroughly the conventional power relations between S&E
and the social sciences and humanities on campus. And the research is better, more valid,
and more accessible to all as a result.

In both cases, by embedding scientists- and engineers-in-training into the social

science research process, Center leaders hoped that they would gain new perspec-
tives which they would take back to their primary research. But this was an open
ended process, without clear delimitation of which specific aspects of the social
science research process would prove most salient and useful to them. Through a
series of interviews conducted in 2015 with former CNS-UCSB science and
engineering Fellows, we have found that they were influenced in three primary
areas: (1) communication, (2) cognitive biases, and (3) epistemology. That is, as a
result of their experience in the social science enterprise in the CNS at UCSB,
science and engineering (S&E) Fellows reported feeling more comfortable writing
and speaking to audiences outside of their primary discipline, they became more
attuned to the social construction of their primary research contexts, and they
384 B. Fastman et al.

gained an appreciation for alternative research methods and the resulting data. The
next section of this chapter explicates these findings.

14.4 Communication: Translating Across Cultures

When deployed to label a research project, the term “interdisciplinary” may refer to
the researchers involved, the methodology employed, or the nature of the research
problem itself. In the case of CNS-UCSB projects, interdisciplinarity refers pri-
marily to the diverse background of the researchers. Although the IRG social
science projects did not absolutely require the involvement of S&E participants,
the inclusion of scholars from several disciplines influenced methodology, the
framing of research questions, and generally improved the quality of CNS research
projects.
Within interdisciplinary research, communication across the disciplines can be
a significant challenge (e.g., the establishment of “creoles” studied by Gallison
[10]). This challenge is even greater when researchers from disparate fields
attempt to collaborate. Unlike most interdisciplinary projects which involve
researchers from different, yet allied fields, for example building a particle
accelerator that requires communication between physicists and engineers,
CNS-UCSB brought together participants from academic disciplines that
spanned the campus, from the humanities, to physical, life, and social sciences.
In other words, social scientists and their science and engineering counterparts at
CNS-UCSB were working across vast epistemological and methodological gaps
that are notoriously difficult to bridge.
In the interviews with former CNS-UCSB S&E Fellows, they talked about
bridging this communication gap in terms of learning a language needed for
“translation.” That is, their experiences at CNS-UCSB led them to learn how to
talk about their own research in language that could be understood by any
nonspecialist audience. In reflecting on a talk he gave at a social science conference,
a Fellow from the Life Sciences studying nanotoxicology said, “talking to that
group of people improved the way I can speak to a non-hard-science group,” and
thus he saw a benefit of his experience at CNS-UCSB was “improving communi-
cation skills and allowing me to kind of translate my research to
non-nanotoxicologists.” He elaborated that these skills carried over to tasks such
as writing his dissertation and publishing.
A former Fellow from engineering similarly reported that her experience at
CNS-UCSB taught her how to communicate “a lot better” because she was required
to think about “how to distill technical concepts down to the most important things
and to communicate those first.” She added that “Scientists can be very verbose. We
can say lot of words and not say a lot of meaningful concepts, so I think paring that
down has served me very well.” She benefitted from CNS-UCSB, she said, by
“realizing that people with different skillsets are an asset as opposed to a hindrance.
14 Forging New Connections Between Nanoscience and Society in the UCSB Center. . . 385

So I actively like working with people outside of my discipline, and I think that was
definitely fostered at CNS.”
In working with these Fellows, the IRG leaders felt not only did the scientists
and engineers learn to communicate better, but the reciprocal was also true—in
other words, the S&E Fellows pressed the social scientists to talk about their work
in similar accessible terms, beyond jargon and highly-coded disciplinary talk.
Beyond improving communication within the interdisciplinary research
groups, the ability to translate one’s research to broader audiences has especial
value in the policy arena. Having access to scientists with competency in
explaining technical concepts to nonspecialists is crucial for policymakers.
A goal of CNS-UCSB from the outset of the program was that some of our
S&E Fellows would eventually play an active role in shaping policy. That hope
was realized when a former Fellow who received her Ph.D. in Electrical and
Computer Engineering became a postdoctoral Fellow at the National Academy of
Engineering where she investigated the potential for systems engineering to
improve healthcare delivery. Another former CNS-UCSB Fellow is actively
pursuing research positions that are policy oriented.2
A current S&E Fellow said, “The idea of being able to do work or being involved
in research that could influence policy is one of the reasons why I wanted to work
with CNS.” Another, who is pursuing a career in basic research, said he gained
much deeper insight into the relationship between government-level funding deci-
sions and research in university labs. He said,
Before I did this Fellowship, if you sat me down with somebody who is in science policy or,
say, a funding person from the NSF and then I was supposed to talk to them about big
picture of science and what I want to do and what my vision is for what the US should be
doing moving forward, I’m not going to say I’m an expert at that now, but I could hold my
own at least having a conversation with somebody that’s intelligent, whereas previously I
probably would have thought that I could do that and I would have been very naı̈ve and very
wrong.

Although several Fellows felt that their early careers should be focused on
establishing themselves as credible scientists, they noted a desire to eventually
play some part in the policymaking process. Said IRG leader Appelbaum, “One
payoff [of the Fellows program], which may be a long term payoff, is that scientists
need to talk to people outside of science in this day in age, especially in this
country.” He further noted that CNS’s Fellows program provided an important
pilot project in that area, fostering the sorts of skills that are necessary for scientists
and engineers to communicate effectively to nontechnical audiences.
Former CNS-UCSB Fellows who have gone on to careers in industry also noted
that CNS-derived communication skills have proven useful in the workplace. One
said, “[The] communication skillset that you develop having to take technical
science, digest it, and then communicate it in a context that’s understandable by a
general audience was a skill I got to refine a lot at CNS, so that I do think played a
role indirectly in finding myself in this kind of position.”
Although training better entrepreneurs was not an explicit goal of the
CNS-UCSB education program—and we firmly acknowledge that market success
386 B. Fastman et al.

does not always equate to responsible innovation—offering ethically- and

societally-minded workforce training was. This outcome was evident to Fellows
when reflecting about the ways in which their CNS-UCSB experience influenced
their career trajectory. Former students were able to articulate concrete skills they
had attained via their scholarly investigations at CNS-UCSB, and although com-
munication was the skill most frequently cited for its professional utility, Fellows
also noted that understanding the global value chain or gauging public opinion were
crucial to making good business decisions.
Greater attention to public attitudes concerning technology was especially found
amongst Fellows who worked in Harthorn’s IRG, which focused on public percep-
tions of risk regarding emerging technologies. By helping to prepare and actually
conducting public deliberations, S&E Fellows learned to communicate not only
with researchers from other disciplines but also with members of the public who
came from diverse backgrounds.
Indeed, communicating with various stakeholders—such as policymakers,
experts, and the wider public—may provide some business value, but there are
more consequential and ethically rewarding outcomes of these activities for
researchers. In conducting public deliberations on nanotechnology applications,
CNS-UCSB cultivated a better understanding of the public’s “diverse values, goals,
and views of risks and benefits” of emerging technologies [21]. S&E Fellows
offered their expertise in preparing informational presentations and posters to
educate workshop participants.
Participating in the public deliberations offered students an opportunity to hone
the manner in which they communicate with the public by gaining a better grasp of
public understanding (and misunderstanding) of science and public risk perceptions
of new technologies. An Ecology student and former Fellow in Harthorn’s IRG said
that participating in the deliberative research made her realize that not everyone
shared her views on technology and technology development. She said, “I kind of
[had] my ideas of what I think people think about new technology or just science in
general,” but through the public deliberation research, she came to see that “it was
not what I thought it would be at all in a lot of different ways. I was actually really
surprised by the super-pervasive distrust of corporations in general.”
Thus, in addition to giving students practice in translating technical information,
back-and-forth exchanges with deliberation participants also offered them a deeper
understanding of public perceptions of science-and-technology. They were able to
experience first-hand the sociocultural logics of attitudes that members of the public
hold towards the activities that take place in their laboratories or the sort of
workplace they may eventually inhabit and lead.
One deliberation participant, for instance, turned the tables when stating,
“Maybe we should talk about, ethically, who are they [academic scientists and
technology developers] to decide what is right for society?” [21]. Concerns like this
about scientific governance and trust remind S&E Fellows that bench scientists are
responsible to a larger public. In interviews, former Fellows shared varying opin-
ions on exactly how that responsibility should shape their day-to-day work. One
worried that too much emphasis on societal impacts may preclude funding for basic
14 Forging New Connections Between Nanoscience and Society in the UCSB Center. . . 387

research whose benefits and risks cannot be predicted. At the same time, that Fellow
also expressed worry that calls for proposals conflate societal and economic
impacts.
It is also notable that within the public deliberations research teams, the S&E
Fellows also helped guide group dialogues and helped keep the IRG abreast of
technical developments in parallel with the changing scholarship on societal aspects
of nanotechnology. Such contributions drew directly on the scientific background
of S&E Fellows. For example, one former Fellow said that, “. . .there were ques-
tions that came up along the way, whether it be design of a question or design of an
explanation before the recipient gets those questions. I think I was able to help with
some of that and better be able to spread the word than if somebody with my
background wasn’t available [in the research team].”
Regardless of the Fellows’ individual contributions to and conclusions about
their experience at CNS-UCSB, there is consistent evidence from our interviews
that these experiences have caused them to reflect on questions about who is
funding their work and why. Interacting with both members of the public and
scholars from other disciplines enabled S&E Fellows to engage in defamiliari-
zation. This anthropological concept entails placing oneself in an unfamiliar
setting in order to view one’s own typical setting from a new perspective. In
the words of Marcus and Fischer, defamiliarization is a “springboard for a
sustained inquiry” [22].

14.5 Examining Cognitive Biases

In describing the anthropologist who goes abroad to study unfamiliar cultures,

Marcus and Fisher state, “The self-reflection that is a common theme in these
experiments has raised questions about the ethnographer’s own cultural background
that, in repatriating his interests, require him to view members of his own society as
problematically as his foreign subject” [22]. By stepping outside of their laborato-
ries to collaborate on social science projects, S&E Fellows had the opportunity to
unmask some of their own cognitive biases regarding non-scientists. Such biases
are a crucial stumbling block for attaining the goal of “reflexive governance” in
science. According to Rejeski et al., “Reflexive governance approaches place the
consideration of technological futures and their impacts inside the organizations
that are funding and conducting the science, rather than outsourcing these consid-
erations to external experts and advisors” [8]. One of the key stumbling blocks the
authors of this article identify is cognitive biases. Building capacity for reflexive
governance, they argue, requires meaningful collaborations that result in humanists
and social scientists gaining a better grasp of scientific concepts, and scientists who
are better equipped to address social, ethical, and political concerns.
In building this capacity, Rejeski et al. suggest that a good place to start is at the
“microlevel,” meaning with individuals and small groups collaborating together
across traditional disciplinary divides. This is the approach taken by the
388 B. Fastman et al.

CNS-UCSB S&E Fellowship Program. Moreover, interviews with former S&E

Fellows reveal examples of them gaining insight about their own cognitive biases.
A former Fellow in engineering stated that one outcome of her Fellowship at
CNS-UCSB was greater awareness of her own “cognitive biases” (her own
unprompted words). When asked to provide an example, she said, “I live in Silicon
Valley, right, so it’s like your value system is based on innovation,” and the bias
there is, “new is better; old is bad.”
Her experience at CNS-UCSB led her to question this bias, and in acknowledg-
ing that newer is not necessarily better, this Fellow engages in a critique of
innovation that has been prominent in all three of the CNS-UCSB interdisciplinary
research groups. An example of such critique comes from CNS-UCSB co-PI and
IRG leader Patrick McCray, a historian of technology. In an op-ed for the Chronicle
of Higher Education, McCray questioned the newer-is-better narrative that emerges
from Silicon Valley and employs buzzwords like “innovation” and “disruption” by
writing: “Rarely do today’s most prominent tech intellectuals question the overall
value of innovation. Why would they? They are in the innovation business, part of a
corporate culture that boasts of its ability to thrive, not just survive, in a climate of
constant disruption” [23]. Although she did not work directly with McCray, the
former Fellow quoted above came to a similar conclusion on her own, and she
credited her capacity to do so to her interdisciplinary work (in Harthorn’s IRG) at
CNS-UCSB.
Another Fellow who also worked with IRG leader Harthorn, pointed out that
working with an anthropologist also helped her to see herself as part of a larger
cultural system rather than as an individual scientist. She said, “Barbara [Harthorn]
talks about the ‘not in my lab’ idea where researchers always think that their
collaborators’ labs are much less safe [than their own]. . .and it’s funny because I
feel that exact way too. . . .I’m literally one of those scientists.” Her sudden
recognition that she had unconsciously absorbed the cognitive biases of laboratory
scientists in her field not only allowed her to reflect on her own role as a scientist,
but also to think more broadly about the types of unquestioned (and potentially
harmful) assumptions that exist among laboratory scientists generally.
Harthorn based her “not in my lab” observation on a series of interviews she
conducted with nanoscientists, and the S&E Graduate Fellows Program provided a
space for her to informally pass on her findings to scientists-in-training [24]. Col-
laboration across disciplines at CNS-UCSB provided for several instances like this
where technologists were able to see themselves from the outside. Understanding
that one is part of a larger culture opens the door to critiques of that culture. S&E
Fellows did not formally perform the work of the ethnographer, but they did find
that “in studying the other, the ethnographer’s own home culture beg[an] to come
into question in new ways” [22].
In the interview for this project, the same former Fellow discussed another
instance that demonstrated this critical capacity that occurred when reflecting on
a book discussion with historian Eric Conway. Conway was invited to speak at
CNS-UCSB as part of the CNS-UCSB Graduate Seminar about his book, Collapse
of Western Civilization: A View form the Future, co-authored by Naomi Oreskes.
14 Forging New Connections Between Nanoscience and Society in the UCSB Center. . . 389

The book is a fictional report written from the perspective of the future that
examines humanity’s failure to adequately anticipate and address anthropogenic
climate change. One of the report’s findings takes up the scientific community’s
reticence to communicate the wider implications of their work: “Even scientists
who had a broad view of climate change often felt it would be inappropriate for
them to articulate it, because that would require them to speak beyond their
expertise, and seem to be taking credit for other people’s work” [25].
The CNS Fellows were required to read the book and then participate in the
discussion during Conway’s visit. In reflecting on the ideas in the book, the S&E
Fellow said, “I thought it was really interesting. For example, the idea that scientists
need. . .to show more emotion when they’re talking about their research in order to
get people engaged with them, or that scientists need to make. . .more significant
statements than we’re used to making.” For example, she said “we’re used to
qualifying everything,” which she felt might unintentionally serve to dilute or
distract the public from understanding scientific research results or their true
implications for society. In the end, she said she came away from the seminar
feeling that using emotion to communicate the results of her work and not being
afraid to make bold statements about the implications of her research “are both
really important things” that “I need to think about” as a scientist.
This is not to say that she felt her collaborators and experiences at CNS-UCSB
explicitly attempted to influence her scientific work. In other words, she never felt
“pushed” to think about her research as a scientist in certain ways, rather it was
through the Fellowship experience as a whole that she came to reflect on her role as
a scientist in a larger social context. That said, she was not exactly certain how her
career or behavior as a scientist might change as a result of her experience at
CNS-UCSB, but she became aware of enculturated habits that influence the rela-
tionships between science and society through her experience in the program.

14.6 Epistemology, or Creating Meaning from Data

Social science offers decidedly different methods for producing knowledge than do
the life and physical sciences. Interviews with former Fellows revealed that
CNS-UCSB science and engineering Fellows found studying human behavior to
be more challenging than they expected, both literally and epistemologically.
Foremost was a concern that one cannot as perfectly control for variables when
studying human phenomena, and therefore the results of social science leave much
more room for interpretation compared to research within their own disciplines.
In fact, the issue of interpretation came up again and again in the interviews. One
former Fellow who with IRG leader Harthorn said, “Sure, we interpret our data in
the physical sciences as well, but I think there are a lot more nuances to social
science research, deliberation research definitely, and survey research that we don’t
really come into contact with in the physical sciences.” Another Fellow who studied
Electrical Engineering, said there is “very little freedom for interpretation” in his
390 B. Fastman et al.

laboratory work, unless an experiment doesn’t work out. Even then, he said, there’s
still only “some” room for interpretation, whereas after conducting the public
deliberation research he felt that there is a lot more interpretation that can and
does take place in the social sciences.
This Fellow elaborated that preparing presentations for deliberations was a task
that rewarded “creativity,” suggesting that, whether true or false, the path towards
an experiment resulting in verifiable results or objectivity was less self-evident in a
deliberative setting as opposed to a laboratory. Perhaps this was merely due to a
lack of background in the social sciences. Fellows were impressed with knowledge
necessary to successful experimental design in social science, for instance formu-
lating surveys that yield productive results or posing interview questions that
eliminate bias.
S&E Fellows also felt that understanding social science data produced by their
projects—both qualitative and quantitative—posed challenges that they did not
face in the laboratory. “The burden of proof sometimes I feel like is actually harder
on social scientists than it is on engineers and physicists,” said Sarah, who also
enumerated on the importance of statistical analysis in describing and understand-
ing human behavior. In fact, Fellows from the life sciences were proud that their
knowledge of statistics and statistical software improved data analysis for the
projects at CNS-UCSB on which they worked.
Another S&E Fellow, “Paul,” who also worked with IRG leader Appelbaum to
understand China’s industrial policy on nanotechnology, expressed concern about
the challenges of interpreting qualitative data. “You need to put together a narra-
tive,” he said, adding that the extrapolation of data into narrative required continual
scrutiny in order to make sure that the narrative approached truth. What Paul might
not have realized is that he was raising pivotal questions of epistemology that have
always been central to scholars in the humanities and social sciences. And he was
able to articulate them by engaging in social research without studying sociological
theory a priori.
As John Dewey put it, successful lessons “give the pupils something to do, not
something to learn; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking; learning
naturally results” [26]. By participating in CNS-UCSB research, not only was Paul
encouraged to think about the interpretation of data itself, but he also engaged in a
form of metalearning by reflecting on his own—and others’—mental processes as
well as the contexts of that learning. In one version of metalearning, which he called
Learning II or deutero-learning, Gregory Bateson explains that “the stream of
action and experience is segmented or punctuated into contexts together with
changes in the use of context markers” [27]. Paul, for instance, not only considered
the meaning of interview and survey data, but he reflected on the very nature of
creating meaning. Such cognition, though applicable to scholarly pursuits, is
applicable to the navigation of everyday life both inside and outside of the
laboratory.
14 Forging New Connections Between Nanoscience and Society in the UCSB Center. . . 391

14.7 Discussion

Insofar as CNS-UCSB can be seen as an intervention, it is not one that presumes

scientists and engineers are negligent of societal and ethical considerations. In fact,
the desire to make a positive impact on the world is a typical motivation for students
to enter STEM fields of study. Paul, one of the former S&E Fellows quoted above,
recounted the thought process that led him to study engineering as follows: “Well, I
like making stuff and I want to make the world a better place. . .So I thought, okay,
engineering seems like a good thing to do because that’s how you get to do it. But it
was never like I just want to build things for building’s sake. I wanted to help
people, as cheesy as that sounds.”
CNS-UCSB expands the toolbox for young scientists and engineers-in-training
like Paul to pursue their goals, and offers them new ways to think about their work
and their role in the world as technologists. These tools include greater understand-
ing of wider societal forces that shape research and innovation. In her ethnography
of the nanoengineering program at UC San Diego, Emily York advocates for
“context” and “specificity” offered within the curricula to provide a “professional
vision that can see—or at least imagine—what might lie outside any particular
nanodream” [5]. What she means is that lessons—even those about mathematical
principles—should focus on specific applications or instances of nanotechnology in
order that students can think systematically about their implications. She offers the
example of using tobacco production to teach scale conversion (as opposed to
comparing disparate objects on the bulk and nano scales): “A whole range of
comparisons could be made that stay with tobacco to illustrate scale not all of
which need to be measurable in metric units: tobacco smoke, pesticides used on
tobacco plants, cancer cells in humans, the diameter of a cigarette filter, and the
length of a typical cigarette.” By focusing on a “specific” topic of inquiry in a
sustained fashion, professors can impress upon students that when they are learning
about mathematical or chemical properties, they are not merely learning about
abstract relationships. They are accruing knowledge that is interconnected with a
social world.
CNS-UCSB Fellows engaged in such activity by learning about specific appli-
cations of nanotechnologies (e.g. for solar energy, drug-delivery, water purification,
building materials) for purposes of conducting deliberations, surveys, and inter-
views. The research itself shed light on important contexts of new nanotechnologies
including public perception, industrial policy, globalization, worker safety, and
environmental health and safety.
At the same time, we believe the greatest outcomes of the CNS-UCSB S&E
Fellowship Program were not necessarily the tangible products of research, but the
cognitive capacities that former Fellows can apply to thinking about context of their
work, of nanotechnology, and on technological innovation in general as they
proceed along their professional careers. These capacities are a willingness and
ability to communicate with scholars from across the academic spectrum and
professionals from vastly different fields; an enhanced self-awareness about their
392 B. Fastman et al.

own cognitive biases and assumptions as laboratory scientists; and the meta-
learning involved in learning new methods of creating meaning and understanding
phenomena. By installing these building blocks of reflexivity, the CNS-UCSB S&E
Fellowship Program delivered an education that avoided didacticism, but that could
powerfully yet subtly impact young scientists’ and engineers’ future endeavors and
their openness to responsible technological research and innovation.

14.8 Notes

1. Fellows are identified by pseudonyms.

2. In an interview with Fastman, Appelbaum also noted that one of his former
Fellows, a sociologist, retracked her career orientation from health policy to
science and technology policy. Although this chapter focuses on outcomes for
CNS-UCSB’s S&E Fellows, the inclusion of these Fellows on interdisciplinary
research teams greatly influenced faculty and graduate students from the social
sciences and humanities.
Acknowledgements This material is based upon research supported by the National Science
Foundation under Cooperative Agreement Nos. SES 0531184 and SES 0938099. The Science &
Engineering Fellows Program at CNS-UCSB is supported by the same grants. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would
like to thank: all the participants in this project for their time and thoughtful reflection on their
experiences in the CNS; and Dr. Fiona Goodchild, who helped to establish the Fellows program
discussed in this chapter.

References

1. C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge University Press,
New York, 1962)
2. B. Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1987)
3. M. Johannson, in The Social Life of Nanotechnology, ed. by B. H. Harthorn, J.W. Mohr
(Routledge, New York, 2014), pp. 88–110
4. S. Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists (Harvard Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, 1988)
5. E. York, NanoEthics 9, 119 (2015)
6. J. Dillemuth, S. Frederick, R. Parker, G. Gereffi, R. Appelbaum, J. Nano Educ. 3, 36 (2011)
7. S.E.P. Meredith, M Murr. J. Mater. Educ. 31(251) (2009)
8. D. Rejeski, E. Pauwels, J. Koo, in Handbook of Science and Technology Convergence, ed. by
W. Bainbridge, M.C. Roco, W. Sims (Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 2016), p.
155
9. H.M. Collins, R. Evans, Rethinking Expertise (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007)
10. P. Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, 1997)
14 Forging New Connections Between Nanoscience and Society in the UCSB Center. . . 393

11. E. Fisher, R. Mahajan, in Trading Zones Interactional Expertize: Creating New Kinds of
Collaboration, ed. by M.E. Gorman (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2010), pp. 209–230
12. E. Fisher, R.L. Mahajan, C. Mitcham, Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 26, 490 (2006)
13. D.K.R. Robinson, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 76, 1222 (2009)
14. J. Stilgoe, R. Owen, P. Macnaghten, Res. Policy 42, 1571 (2013)
15. B. H. Harthorn, J.W. Mohr (eds.), The Social Life of Nanotechnology (Routledge, New York,
2014)
16. B. Wynne, Public Underst. Sci. 2, 321 (1993)
17. D. Schuurbiers, Sci. Eng. Ethics 17, 769 (2011)
18. K. Hayles, How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and
Informatics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999), pp. 8–9
19. T. Rogers-Hayden, N. Pidgeon, Public Underst. Sci. 16, 346 (2007)
20. Socio-Technical Integration. https://www.cns.asu.edu/research/stir
21. B.H. Harthorn, J. Rogers, C. Shearer, T. Martin, in Debating Science Deliberation Values
Common Good, ed. by D. Scott, B. Francis (Humanity Books, Amherst New York, 2012), pp.
230–235
22. G.E. Marcus, M.M.J. Fischer, Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in
the Human Sciences, 2nd edn. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999), pp. 137–140
23. W.P. McCray, The Technologists’ Siren Song. Chron. Rev. (2014)
24. B.H. Harthorn, K. Bryant, T. Satterfield, M. Kandlikar, in Annual Meeting Society for Social
Studies of Science 4S, 2007
25. N. Oreskes, E.M. Conway, The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future
(Columbia University Press, New York, 2014), p. 15
26. J. Dewey, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (The
Macmillan Company, New York, 1916), p. 154
27. G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind; Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry,
Evolution, and Epistemology (Chandler Pub., San Francisco, 1972), p. 298
Index

A Career paths, 335, 336, 342, 348

Academic prestige, 50 Certificate, 318
Action Plan Nanotechnology 2015, 241, 243 Certification, 233, 234
Adaptive learning, 177 Cognitive, 387, 388, 392
Adequacy, 40–42 abilities, 66
Assessment, 67, 334–337, 342–344, 347 biases, 383, 387–389
Atomic force microscopy (AFM), 174, 175, processes, 43
201, 202, 207, 212 Cognitive-epistemic, 40–46, 61, 62
Atomistic simulation, 173 Collaboration, 37, 38
Audio, 172 Collaborative skills, 67
Augmented reality, 200, 203 Collective identity, 50
Augmented virtual reality, 209 Commercialization, 376, 380
Communication, 289, 295, 301, 305, 307, 308,
351, 353, 372, 373, 383–387
B competencies, 266
Bachelor, 351–373 skills, 64
Barrier, 251–253 Community colleges, 318
Biases, 387, 388, 392 Competence-oriented, 239, 254
Bibliometric studies, 44, 45 Competences, 65
Big ideas, 121–123 Computational simulations, 175
Big Ideas of Nanoscale Science and Conceptual, 41
Engineering, 62 Conceptual understanding, 41
Bio-NEMS, 175 Content map, 289, 291, 295
Biosensing, 173, 185 Contributory expertise, 47
Block courses, 353, 355–358, 364 Converge, 102, 111
Bodily movements, 203 Convergence, 39, 69, 83–112
Bologna Agreement, 186 Convergent, 84, 91–94, 100–105
Broader impacts, 278, 306, 307 concepts, 218
Building common ground, 64 transdisciplinary, 109
Converging technologies, 378
Convocation, 328, 332, 333, 338, 340, 341,
C 346, 347
Carbon nanotubes (CNTs), 223, 224 Course, 74
Career, 51 Course content, 320

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 395

K. Winkelmann, B. Bhushan (eds.), Global Perspectives of Nanoscience and
Engineering Education, Science Policy Reports,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31833-2
396 Index

Creativity, 315 difficulties, 44

Credibility, 50–52 Epistemology, 42, 383, 389–390
Critical thinking, 315 Equipment, 54, 55
Crossdisciplinary, 35, 84, 100 Erasmus, 173
Cultural Intelligence (CQ), 343, 344 Essential concepts, 118, 120, 123–126
Curricula, 55 Ethical, 227, 231, 233
Curricular design, 118 Ethics, 227, 230, 231
Curricular reforms, 55 Ethnographer, 387, 388
Curriculum, 118, 121, 122, 316 Ethnography, 376
Evaluation, 333–335, 340, 342, 344
Everyday products, 268
D Experimentation, 45–46
Dakota County Technical College (DCTC), Expertise, 69, 73
313–316
Delphi study, 118, 120, 126
Demographic, 331, 341 F
Demographically, 330 Face-to-face (F2F), 171, 172, 177, 178, 187,
Desktop presentation, 181 190, 191
Disciplinary adequacy, 40, 41, 63, 73 Features, 61
Disciplinary borders, 37, 69 Feynman, Richard, 173
Disciplinary boundaries, 68 Field Effect Transistors (FETs), 175
Disciplines, 388 Formal education, 243–249
Diverse student population, 319 Formal education sector, 254–265
Diversity, 85, 327, 331, 337 Formative evaluation, 296–299
Duke University, 229 Forums, 295
Dynamic modeling tools, 205 Front-end evaluation, 297

E G
ECTS, 184, 192 Game-based learning, 204
Education, 117 General, 61, 62
Educational approaches, 61 German education system, 239–241
Educational content, 317 German federal curricula, 247–249
Educational ecosystem, 83–112 Global challenges, 254
Educational initiatives, 251 Globalization, 237, 378, 391
Educational nanotechnology initiatives, Global justice, 263–264
241–243 Good Nano, 225
Educational paths, 335 Graphene science, 176
Educational reforms, 77 Green Nano, 265
Education for a Sustainable Development
(ESD), 237–270
Education paths, 335, 342, 348 H
EduNano, 182, 183, 185, 192 Hand gestures, 203
Elementary school, 118, 124 Hands-on experiments, 125
Embodied cognition, 200 Hands-on learning, 217
Environment, 227 Haptic, 207
Environmental, 227, 232, 233 device, 201, 207, 208
implications, 226 feedback, 199, 212
Environmentalism, 231 force-feedback, 201
Epistemic, 41 interface, 207
culture, 48 perception, 212
Epistemological, 40 probe, 208
differences, 57 technology, 202
Index 397

Virtual Reality system, 207 K

HaptiChem framework, 208 Kinesthetic sensory experiences, 201
Head-coupled perspective, 204 KMK, 239, 240
Health implications, 226
Health risks, 261–262
Higher order thinking skills, 57 L
High school, 98, 99, 105, 118, 120, 122, 126, Labor market, 57
132, 134–140, 154, 157 Leadership, 53, 54
classrooms, 215 Learning management software (LMS), 177,
High-Tech Strategy, 259 178
HTML lessons, 187 Learning objectives, 65–67
Learning outcome, 66, 67, 186, 187
Legal framework, 263
I Life Cycle Managements, 260
Identity, 46, 49–50, 72, 73 Lifelong learning, 184
formation, 49 LinkedIn, 333, 337
Implementation of nanotechnology, 251–253 Longitudinal study, 335, 347, 348
Implementation rate, 318 Long-term evaluation, 68
INASCON, 370
Industrial, 141, 157
Industry, 86–93, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 108, M
131, 132, 141, 143, 146, 150, 152, 156, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), 174,
314, 318, 320 176, 177
Inner circle, 53 Master, 352, 353, 357, 359–365, 370, 373
Innovation, 377, 388, 391, 392 Materials Research Science and Engineering
Innovative teaching, 253–255 Centers (MRSECs), 277, 278
Inquiry approach, 125 Mental models, 41
Inquiry-based, 70, 218 Mentor, 327–329, 333, 334, 337, 339, 340
Instrument, 46 Mentorship, 340
Instrumentation, 46 Methodological, 46
Interaction, 184 Methodological skills, 64
Interactive visualization environments, 196 Methodology, 40, 45, 54
Interactive visual simulations, 210 Microelectromechanical system (MEMS),
Interactivity, 171 185
Interdisciplinarily-oriented, 243, 244, 246 Microscopy, 207
Interdisciplinary, 84, 100, 123, 266, 270, Mini-exhibition, 296
351–373 Misconceptions, 250, 251
features, 58 Models and simulations, 197
groups, 48 Modes of communication, 64, 74
knowledge, 256 Modules, 317
mindset, 76 Molecular electronics, 185
program, 72–73 Molecular modelling, 205
research process, 43 Molecular Workbench (MW), 205, 215, 216
thinking, 42–43 Monodisciplinary, 36, 40
understanding, 42 Moodle, 185
International partners, 339, 340 Multidimensional interrelations, 238
International sites, 340 Multidisciplinarity, 35, 44
Internet, 172, 173, 177, 192 Multidisciplinary, 35, 44, 84, 314, 320
Interpretation, 389, 390 Multimodal content, 199
Intradisciplinary, 84, 109 Multisensory, 199
Israel, 118 engagement, 217
Israel National Nanotechnology Initiative experiences, 213
(INNI), 182 rendering, 207
398 Index

N National Nanotechnology Infrastructure

Nano and society, 290, 303, 304 Network (NNIN) activity, 326
Nanobio, 175 Research Accomplishments, 333, 341
Nano-Biotechnology, 185 National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate
NanoBoX, 243 Research Fellowships, 333, 341
Nanocarbons, 248 Natural sciences, 352–354, 357, 365, 371
Nanocomposites, 176 Need analysis survey, 185
Nano curriculum, 353, 361 New technologies, 238
NanoDays, 283, 284, 287–290, 292, 294, 295,
300, 302, 304, 306
Nanoelectrical, 175 O
NanoElectroMechanical System (NEMS), Online, 185
175 library, 292, 293, 300
Nanoelectronics, 173, 183 Openness, 53
Nanoethics, 230 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
NanoFutur, 246 Development (OECD), 254, 255
Nano Infusion, 317 Outreach, 154, 277, 278, 284, 301, 305, 306,
Nano Infusion Program, 317 371–372
NanoKommission, 265
Nano-Link, 316–320
Nano-Link:Center for Nanotechnology P
Education, 316 Partial competencies, 254, 255
Nano-literacy, 63, 196 P-N-P-A model, 123
Nano-literate, 62 Podcasts, 178
NanoManipulator, 201, 202 Point-charge simulator, 208
Nanomaterials Application Center (NAC), 224, Policy, 377, 382, 385, 386, 390, 391
225 Positive feedback loop, 76
NanoMatFutur, 246 Post survey, 334, 342
Nano-medicine, 173 Pre-disciplinary, 70
Nanooze, 325 Primary, 133, 157
Nanoparticle, 102, 133, 141, 175, 224, 233, Primary school, 132, 135, 138
242, 247, 248, 261–265, 267, 268 Problem-based, 69, 70
Nano-photonics, 173, 185 Problem-oriented, 257–259
Nanoporous materials, 269 Problem solving, 75
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers Process-oriented competencies, 266
(NSECs), 277, 278 Project-based instructional approach, 125
NanoSchoolBox, 242, 251 Pseudohaptic perception, 214
Nanoscience, 351–354, 357–364, 370–373 Public deliberation, 382, 383, 386
Nanoscience in the Snow, 368, 369 Public engagement with science, 302, 307
Nanoscience tools, 314 Public Participation, 376
Nanoscientific, 353, 354 Public Reach Estimations for the NISE Net, 292
Nanosensors, 176
Nanoshuttle, 242, 243
NanoSim, 203, 209 R
Nanostudents, 364 Real-time virtual rendering, 219
Nanotechnological, 353, 354 Real-word, 56
Nanotechnology, 264, 296, 301, 354, 363, 371, Real-world problems, 55
372 Recommendations, 125
NanoTruck, 241–242, 251 Recruitment, 329, 338
Nanotubes, 204 Reductionism, 39
Nanozone, 278 Reflection, 73
National Institute for Materials Science Reflective ability, 73
(NIMS), 339, 346, 347 Reflexivity, 377–380, 392
Index 399

Regulations, 226 Sustainable, 91, 95–99, 101, 104, 108, 109, 231
Renewable and fossil resources, 267 development, 254, 257, 258, 263, 265, 270
Research Experience for Undergraduates Swiss Nanoscience Institute (SNI), 351–373
(REU), 325, 327
Resources and climate, 264–265
Respect, 53 T
Risk perception, 382, 386 Taiwan, 118
Roles, 74, 75 Tangible model, 203
Taniguchi, 173
T-approach, 244
S Teacher education, 77
Safety implications, 226 Teacher professional development, 77
Sam Houston State University, 225 Teacher training, 176, 252
Scale conception, 71 Teaching, 122, 125
Scanning probe microscopy (SPM), 173, 185, Team-based inquiry (TBI), 288, 290, 295, 299
186, 191 Team teaching, 69
Science fairs, 371 Teamwork, 38, 75
Science-related careers, 317 Technical architectures, 198–199
Scientific knowledge, 241 TEMPUS, 173, 190, 191
Scientific literacy, 55, 62, 241, 248, 249, 266 Tenure, 51–52
Secondary school, 133, 157 Terminology, 41
Shaping competence, 254, 255 Tertiary education, 57, 61, 62
Simulation, 175, 176, 178, 185, 197, 204–207, Texas State University, 224, 225, 227–229, 233
209–211, 215–218 3D-printed models, 209
Sites, 174 Titanium dioxide, 261, 267
Situated learning opportunities, 219 nanoparticles, 264, 267
Skills, 61 Toxicity, 223
Slideshow presentation, 172, 180, 187–190 Trading zone, 47, 63, 64
Social, 227 Training, 46–48
benefits, 262 Transdisciplinarity, 35
relevance, 71 Transdisciplinary, 84–86, 90, 92–94, 96,
skills, 74 100–103, 107, 109, 111
Socialization, 46–50 Transfer, 217
Social Network Site (SNS), 178 expertise, 47
Societal, 227, 376–378, 380, 383 Trust-building, 53
Society, 55, 296, 301
Socio-critical, 257–259
Socio-institutional, 46–55, 61, 62 U
Sociotechnical, 378 Undergraduate, 38
Soft skills, 38, 52–54, 62, 69, 70, 353, 369 University of Basel, 351–373
Standing Conference of the Ministers of University of Texas at Tyler (UT Tyler),
Education and Cultural Affairs, 239 227–229
Structure of matter, 71 Upstream Engagement and Deliberation
Student-centered, 75 Research, 376
Student recruitment, 316 Upstream public views, 383
Student research, 75 Upstream technological development, 376
Students and teachers perspectives, 241, 250–253
Sub-concepts, 124
Summative evaluation, 285, 292, 298, 299, V
302, 306 Video, 172, 179, 180, 187–189
Survey, 134, 143, 147–153, 157, 186, 317 podcast, 178, 187
Sustainability, 101, 108, 231, 243, 249, recording, 178
257–259, 262, 269 webinars, 175
400 Index

Video-audio, 187 virtual reality desktop environment,

Virtual and augmented reality, 202–203 208
Virtual learning environments, 214 Visuohaptically, 208
Virtual reality, 198, 199
Visas, 347
Visualization system, 206 W
Visual perception, 196 Web, 174
Visuohaptic, 202–203 Webinars, 172
desktop simulation, 208 Websites, 242–243
exploration, 202 Western Michigan University, 228
virtual and augmented reality desktop Workforce, 324, 335, 338, 348, 381, 386
environments, 213–214 Workshop, 317–319
virtual platform, 207 World-wide web, 171