A NanoLeap Into New Science

1. A NanoLeap Into New Science John Ristvey Christine Morrow www.mcrel.org/nanoleap nanoleap@mcrel.org This work is supported by the National Science Foundation, Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education award # ESI-0426401.

2. NanoLeap Partnership • McREL, Education Research Laboratory • Stanford Nanofabrication Facility • Aspen Associates

3. NanoLeap Goals • To explore where nanoscale science, technology, engineering, and mathematics concepts can fit into high school physical science and chemistry classes in a manner that supports students in learning core science concepts. • To determine a viable approach for instructional materials development in the areas of nanoscale science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

4. NanoLeap Outcomes Outcome #1: Support inquiry-based teaching andlearning Outcome #2: Increase levels of interest and engagement in learning science Outcome #3: Increaseunderstanding of core science concepts Outcome #4: Increase understanding of nanoscale science, technology, engineering, and mathematics concepts, applications, and careers

5. Year1 Year 2 Understanding By Design Year 3 Year 4 +

6. Nanoscale Science Big Ideas Grades 7-12 • Size Dependant Properties • Size and Scale • Structure of Matter • Forces and Interactions • Self-Assembly • Tools and Instrumentation • Science and Technology Stevens, S.Y., Sutherland, L., Schank, P., & Krajcik, J. (2009, In Press). The Big Ideas of Nanoscale Science and Engineering. NSTA Press.

7. NanoLeap A-Team

8. NanoLeap Modules • Exploring the Mystery of the Gecko • Physical Science: • “What factors affect force measurements between interacting surfaces?” • Nanoscale Materials and their Properties • Chemistry: • “How and why do the chemical and physical properties of nanosamples differ from those of macrosamples of the same substance?"

9. NanoLeap Field Test A total of 1,380 students participated in the NanoLeap field test. Of these 766students participated in the physical science field test, 315 in the treatment group and 451 in the control group. Another 614 students participated in the chemistry field test; 299 in the treatment group and 325 in the control group.

10. NanoLeap Materials Teacher Guide Materials Kit Student Journal

11. NanoLeap Multimedia

12. NanoLeap Assessments • Teacher Survey (Outcome 1) • Student Survey (Outcome 2) • Classroom Observations/Teacher Interviews (Outcomes 1 and 2) • Student Pre- and Post Multiple Choice Tests (Outcomes 3 and 4) • Implementation Fidelity • Viability Interviews

13. NanoLeap Physical Science Assessment • 42 Items • Science Process • Adhesion • Surfaces • Measurement Size/Scale • Instrumentation • Applications

14. NanoLeap Chemistry Assessment • 40 Items • Size and Scale • Molecular Bonding • Properties and Reactions • Nanoparticles • Applications

15. NanoLeap Assessments • An item analysis to determine difficulty and discrimination • Physical Science Test • Pre/Post Reliability: 0.78/0.88 • Pre/ost Discrimination: 0.98/0.99 • Chemistry • Pre/Post Reliability: 0.55/0.83 • Pre/Post Discrimination: 0.96/0.98

16. Nano in High School Core Nano Transitional

17. Flow from Standard to Transitional Concept to Big Idea Standard: Physical Science, Motion and Forces Grades 9-12 “The electric force is a universal force that exists between any two charged objects. Opposite charges attract while like charges repel.” –excerpt National Science Education Standards, page 180 Transitional Concept “The attractive intermolecular forces between and within molecules cause the gecko to adhere to a vertical surface.” –derived from NanoLeap Physical Science Module Objective, Lesson 8 Big Idea in Nanoscience: Electrical Forces “All interactions can be described by multiple types of forces, but the relative impact of these forces changes with scale. On the nanoscale, a range of electrical forces with varying strength tends to dominate the interactions between objects.” – excerpt from Big Ideas of Nanoscience, page 28

18. NanoLeap Findings Outcome #1: Support inquiry-based teaching andlearning Finding #1: Small but significant differences between treatment and control groups • Physical Science: • alternative explanations • using evidence to support claims • Chemistry: • pose open-ended questions

19. NanoLeap Findings Outcome #2: Increase levels of interest and engagement in learning science Finding #2: Treatment and control students showed no increase in interest and engagement in learning science.

20. NanoLeap Findings Outcome #3: Increaseunderstanding of core science concepts Finding #3: Treatment Students scored significantly better than their peers in core science concepts. • Physical Science • Measurement and Size • Forces • Chemistry • Measurement and Size • Properties of Matter

21. NanoLeap Findings Outcome #4: Increase understanding of nanoscale science, technology, engineering, and mathematics concepts, applications, and careers Finding #4: Treatment students scored significantly better than their peers in nanoscale science concepts. • Physical Science • Size/Scale and Surface Characteristics • Instrumentation and Forces • Chemistry • Properties of Matter at the Nanoscale • Size/Scale and Bonding • Instrumentation, Manufacturing, Applications

22. NanoLeap: A Viable Approach • Identify Big Ideas/Essential Understandings • Alignment to STEM Standards • Identify Transitional Content and Processes and develop assessments and instruction that bridges the gap • Work collaboratively with master teachers

23. NanoLeap: A Viable Approach • Employ iterative content and pedagogical review along the way • Pilot testing with master teachers • Field testing treatment and control teachers (n ~ 100) representing broader population • Following pilot and field tests, make revisions using multiple data sources • Classroom Observations/Video • Student Work Samples • Assessment Results • Fidelity Checklist Results