Developing student-made artifacts on nanotechnology issues in a context of interacting formal and informal learning settings

EMILY MICHAILIDI

Abstract

This paper examines student-curated artifacts that were developed in the context of a teaching module on nanotechnology applications that combined formal and informal learning experiences. Deriving from the fact that the negotiation of modern scientific objects constitutes a suitable field for the harmonious connection between formal and informal education, the present study aims to delve into students' understanding of nanotechnology concepts, as reflected in student-curated artifacts. Fifteen teachers and 298 students took part in the study developing a total of 19 artifacts on nanotechnology issues and their societal implications. The results show that such a partnership can help students acquire, depending on their level and cognitive background, basic knowledge on key nanotechnology concepts and to communicate it using multiple activities of graded cognitive demands.

Keywords

Student artifacts, nanotechnology, science communication, combination of formal-informal education

Full Text:

PDF

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assisting: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of education objectives. New York: Longman.

Boaventura, D., Faria, C., Chagas, I., & Galvão, C. (2013). Promoting science outdoor activities for elementary school children: Contributions from a research laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 35(5), 796-814.

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter P., Powell J. C., Westbrook A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. Colorado Springs: BSCS.

D'Acquisto, L. (2006). Learning on display: Student-created Museums that build understanding. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181-197.

Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2013). The museum experience revisited. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Fallik, O., Rosenfeld, S., & Eylon, B. S. (2013). School and out-of-school science: A model for bridging the gap. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 69-91.

Ghattas, N. I., & Carver, J. S. (2012). Integrating nanotechnology into school education: A review of the literature. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(3), 271-284.

Hammerich, P. (2000). Confronting students’ conceptions of the nature of science with cooperative controversy. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 127-136). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hawkey, R. (2001). Innovation, inspiration, interpretation: Museums, science and learning. Ways of Knowing Journal, 1(1), 23-31.

Kampschulte, L., & Parchmann, I. (2015). The student-curated exhibition – a new approach to getting in touch with science, Lumat, 3(4), 462-482.

Martin, A. J., Durksen, T. L., Williamson, D., Kiss, J., & Ginns, P. (2016). The role of a museum‐based science education program in promoting content knowledge and science motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1364-1384.

Mayring P. (2015). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. Ιn A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping & N. Presmeg (Εds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 365-380), Dordrecht: Springer.

Monteiro, B. A. P., Martins, I., de Souza Janerine, A., & de Carvalho, F. C. (2016). The issue of the arrangement of new environments for science education through collaborative actions between schools, museums and science centres in the Brazilian context of teacher training. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(2), 419-437.

Neresini, F., Dimopoulos, K., Kallfass, M., & Peters, H. P. (2009). Exploring a black box: Cross-national study of visit effects on visitors to large physics research centers in Europe. Science Communication, 30(4), 506-533.

Shein, P. P., & Tsai, C.-Y. (2015). Impact of a scientist–teacher collaborative model on students, teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2147-2169.

Simonneaux, L. (2014). From promoting the techno-sciences to activism. A variety of objectives involved in the teaching of SSIs. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 99-111). Dordrecht: Springer.

Sleeper, M., & Sterling, R. (2004). The inclass science exhibition. Science Scope, 27(6), 49-52.

Stavrou, D., Michailidi, E., & Sgouros, G. (2018). Development and dissemination of a teaching learning sequence on Nanoscience and

Nanotechnology in a context of Communities of Learners. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19, 1065-1080.

Stevens, S., Sutherland, L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). The ‘big ideas’ of nanoscale science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Stocklmayer, S. M., Rennie, L. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1-44.

Wu, H. K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Exploring middle school students' use of inscriptions in project - based science classrooms. Science Education, 90(5), 852-873.

Yun, A., Shi, C., & Jun, B. G. (2020). Dealing with Socio-Scientific issues in Science Exhibition: A literature review. Research in Science Education. (In press).


DOI: https://doi.org/10.26220/mje.3831

View Counter: Abstract | 0 | times, and PDF | 0 | times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Mediterranean Journal of Education | ISSN: 2732-6489 |  Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education - University of Patras.

Pasithee | Library & Information Center | University of Patras