Getting in at the Ground Floor: Perspectives from the next generation of NSEE Researchers

1. Getting in at the Ground Floor:Perspectives from the next generationof NSEE Researchers Tom Moher, Moderator University of Illinois at Chicago

2. Panelists Kelly Hutchinson, Purdue University Cesar Delgado, University of Michigan Sarah Dugan, Northwestern University Emily Shipley, University of Illinois at Chicago National Center for Learning and Teaching in Nanoscale Science and Engineering

3. Secondary Students’ Interests inNanoscale Science and EngineeringConcepts and Phenomena Kelly Hutchinson Purdue University

4. Research Questions • What nanoscience phenomena and concepts interest secondary students? • What factors influence secondary students’ interests in a set of defined nanoscience concepts?

5. Participants Survey: Interview: • 40 students (N=11, 12, 17 respective to community) • Gender • Academic ability

6. Quantitative results Most Favorite Question Least Favorite Question

7. Percentage of Students by Category

8. Relevance to lives The ones that I was interested in most, the ones that I was very interested in I think, are the ones that would actually affect my life and affect the lives of others. Things that like I can apply to everyday life are worth talking about. While the other things are things that I already know or, umm, just mostly things that I already know or just seem like kind of small to me; they don’t matter so much. –RHS, low male

9. Novelty [Very interested in Waterproof] ‘cause that’s-I’ve actually never seen or heard about stuff that could do that and I just thought it was kind of cool. –RMS, low female

10. “Hands-on” nature [Very interested in Changing Color because] it was immediate and that you could see and you changed something. And that was interesting a lot more, than talking about the theoretical things like the atoms of uh, and what they’re composed of, and how much they weigh, etc. And just it seems to me like one of those things for using chemical reactions to produce different colors and produce different reactions. –RHS, low male

11. No relevance to “my” life [Not interested in Hopping Magnet because] I don’t really like the magnetic things, like I’m not really into magnets and experiments with them. –SMS, mid female

12. Already knew the answer [Not interested in Atoms because] I think it’s just because since I’ve sat in Chemistry class and we’ve talked about atoms and atoms and atoms, just after talking about them for so long, and then doing labs and discoveries with them, not to fond of them. –SHS, low female

13. Not very involved [Not interested in Changing Color because] it went from a red to a like a purple or a little darker and I don’t know it just didn’t seem like much happened. –RHS, mid-high male

14. Assertions • Students are more interested in nanoscale science and engineering topics when the activities and concepts are conceptualized and relate to students’ everyday life experiences. • Students are interested in nanoscale science and engineering topics when the topics are novel and can be experienced rather than abstract concepts.

16. Development of a Learning Progressionfor Size and Scale Cesar Delgado University of Michigan

17. Four facets of size & scale • Order by size: atom < molecule < virus < mitochondrion < cell < pinhead < ant…; smallest object student knows of. • Group objects of “similar” size, order groups: {atom, molecule} < {virus < {mitochondrion, cell} < {pinhead, ant} • Size relative to another object : Red blood cell is ~200 times smaller than the head of a pin. • Absolute size: Red blood cell is ~5 mm in diameter; smallest unit student knows of.

18. atom/molecule/mitochondrion/virus/cell pin/ant human mountain Earth Connected response #1007, 7th grade atom molecule mitochondrion virus cell pin ant human mountain Earth

19. atom/virus cell/pin molecule/human mitochondrion/ant mountain/Earth Disconnected response #1001, 7th grade atom virus cell molecule mitochondrion pin ant human mountain Earth

20. Level 5. O-G, O-R, O-A, A-R (conc. & procedural) Level 4. O-G, O-R, O-A, A-R (conceptual) Level 3. O-G, O-R, and O-A Legend = Ordering (O) = Grouping (G) = Size relative to pinhead (R) = Absolute size (A) Level 2. O-G and O-R Level 1. O-G or O-R Level 0. No connections. Progression of connections

21. Relative size by levels Mean relative size code

22. Accurate ~10X Overestimate>10X Underestimate>10X In. Phys. Earth 7th Underg. Chem Biology Physics Development of relative size Pattern of estimation for submacroscopic objects

24. Passing it forward:Engagingundergraduate engineers in the design of nanoscience educational materials Sarah Dugan Northwestern University

25. Engineering design and communication • Nano-EDC • One section of second-quarter EDC offered for past two years by Prof. Robert Chang of NCLT. • From the course description: Students will be learning fundamental nanoscience concepts and then developing educational activities to bring these concepts in an exciting but accurate way to middle school students.

26. Previous Nano-EDC student project Nanoparticles and Absorption/Scattering of Visible Light: a middle school science module Introduction to States of Matter and Colloids Let’s Make A Colloid! Scattering with TiO2 Sunscreen Lab Measurement Lab

27. Visualizing surface area to volume ratio

28. Apples to Atoms Collects and links previous Nano-EDC activities in one location: Size and Scale Measurement (tools and instrumentation and size and scale) Tools and Instrumentation Surface Area to Volume Ratio (size dependent properties)

29. Current challenges • Challenge: Develop students’ design and communication skills and complete project in short (10 week) time frame. • Should complete at least one testing cycle during the term • Complete construct-centered design process difficult in allotted time • Plan: Students evaluate and redesign previous materials in light of NCLT research on learning progressions. • Present research on student conceptions of size and scale and SA/V, present previous activities • Students evaluate subset of previous activities • Following the CCD process, redesign/expand/replace activities

30. Current challenges • Challenge: Develop students’ nano-concepts • Research demonstrates that undergraduates do not have expert conceptions of size and scale (Denise Drane & Greg Light) • Additional research seems to be showing variations in conceptions of SA/V and its impact on material properties • Plan: Use activities, questions, and seminar-style discussion to move students toward expert conceptions • Collaborate with Eun Jung Park for curriculum interventions • Logarithmic versus linear scales – proportions versus differences, powers of 10, scale as a created tool • Difference between SA and SA/V, impact on chemical and physical properties, non-linear increase in SA/V with decreasing size, size dependent properties that don’t depend on SA/V • Evaluate with pre and post surveys

32. Instructional Sequencing Strategies for Teaching Self-Assembly to Young Learners Emily Shipley University of Illinois at Chicago

33. Instructional framing for young learners • Framing of instruction in the domain may hinder student learning. • Evoke misconceptions (Barnes, 1990) • Trigger prior negative experiences with scientific language (Dykstra, Boyle & Monarch, 1992) • Cognitively interfere with conceptual understandings (Schwartz & Martin, 2004) • Providing experiential frame of reference before direct instruction may improve understandings of domain concepts (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998)

34. Domain-framed vs. practice-framed • Domain-framed treatment: 1 session of traditional instruction, followed by 3 sessions of design activities. Domain language utilized. • Practice-framed treatment: 3 sessions of design activities, using morphological terms. Followed by 1 “bridging” lesson to link concepts to domain vocabulary and concepts.

35. Design practice environment Application adapted, in part, from Concord Consortium’s Molecular Workbench Self-Assembly Unit. Thanks to Charles Xie, Concord Consortium, for assistance in developing “domain-neutral” version of MWB for our research.

36. Subjects: 41 urban 7th grade students

37. Assessment • 8 Multiple-choice questions (Shipley, Moher, and Lopez, 2008) • 2 design tasks • Generative task: generated a solution to a task. • Predictive task: predicted how molecules would self-assemble.

38. Generative task: prompt

39. Generative task: results Design correctness (molecule selection and dipole attachment) Post-test treatment difference between groups (p<.01).

40. Predictive task: prompt

41. Predictive task: results Predictive correctness (conservation and arrangement of molecules) No post-test treatment difference between groups.

42. Conclusions • Urban middle schools demonstrated ability to design for and predict results of molecular self-assembly. • Design practice in a dynamic environment had a strong impact on design performance. • Treatment differences had significant effect on generative task, but not predictive task.

43. For more information… NCLT web site: http://www.nclt.us/ Cesar Delgado: delgadoz@umich.edu Sarah Dugan: sdugan@northwestern.edu Kelly Hutchinson: khutchin@purdue.edu Emily Shipley: eshipley@uic.edu Tom Moher: moher@uic.edu