 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 13, Issue 1, Article 15 (Jun., 2012) |
Children’s Learning Effect in Nanotechnology
Although Nanotechnology knowledge is not formally applied into elementary school curriculum, students are also unfamiliar to this field. This study found students were more interested in learning. Data showed in Table 4, demonstrated both groups in NSQ pretest and posttest scores (t=4.557, 8.842; p=.000**) displayed significant progress after teaching (Table 4).
Table 4. Analysis Two Groups in NSQ Pretest and Posttest Scores
Group
step
Posttest (N=110)
Posttest (N=110)
t value
p value
M
SD
M
SD
Comparison
Total
12.16
3.190
15.13
4.078
4.557
.000**
step 1
6.18
1.877
7.89
2.485
4.336
.000**
step 2
5.98
1.995
7.24
2.099
3.515
.000**
Treatment
Total
11.87
4.164
18.53
2.624
8.842
.000**
step 1
6.31
2.456
8.47
2.133
5.863
.000**
step 2
5.56
2.150
10.06
1.068
10.887
.000**
*p<.05 **p<.01
From this t-test result showed two groups had learning effect after teaching. In order to understand the learning effects of two different teaching methods, we used ANOVA compared the performance of two posttest in 2 teaching steps (Table 5).
Table 5. ANOVA Analysis Two Groups in 2 Steps NSQ Posttest Scores
Test
Group
n
Mean
SD
SS
SW
F
p value
Posttest
Comparison
55
15.13
4.078
317.900
1269.818
27.038
.000**
Treatment
55
18.53
2.624
step 1
Comparison
55
7.89
2.485
38.409
359.055
6.164
.059
Treatment
55
8.17
2.133
step 2
Comparison
55
7.24
2.099
135.309
299.564
48.782
.000**
Treatment
55
10.36
1.068
*p<.05 **p<.01
ANOVA result showed two groups had significant difference after experiment (F=27.038, p=.000). The first teaching step revealed no significant differences between the comparison group and treatment group (F=7.164, p=.059), but in second teaching step, the score was significant different after nanotechnology teaching (F=48.782, p=.000). In order to understand the learning effects of two different teaching methods, we compared the concept performance of two groups between “the first step teaching” and “the second step teaching” (Table 6).
Table 6. Learning Concepts of Two Groups’ NSQ Posttest Scores
NSQ & Content
Comparison
Treatment
t value
p value
M
SD
M
SD
Teaching content
(Step 1)
Nanometer definitions
2.15
.756
2.28
.655
-1.887
.062
Surface effect
1.91
.888
2.12
.942
-1.875
.063
Size effect
1.16
.877
1.35
.712
-1.671
.098
Photonic crystals
2.67
1.415
2.72
1.027
-1.465
.146
Teaching content
(Step 2)
Lotus effect
3.11
1.012
3.85
.440
-4.276
.000**
Nanoparticles
Carbon-Nanocapsule
2.58
1.083
3.73
.604
-5.653
.000**
Nanotubes
1.55
.741
2.48
.641
-4.818
.000**
*p<.05 **p<.01
From table 6, in the first step teaching, the data displayed no differences in learning concepts (Nanometer definitions, Surface effect, Size effect and Photonic crystals) between the treatment group and comparison group. The results indicated that the same teacher applied the same teaching methods to the 2 different groups and the outcomes were the same, it meant the comparison group had no differences.
From the second step teaching, it displayed significant differences in learning concepts (Lotus effect, Nanoparticles, Carbon Nanocapsule and Nanotubes) between the treatment group and comparison group. This meant the teacher applied different teaching methods to the treatment group, and it had a significant learning effect (t=-4.276, -5.653, -4.818, p=.000). In another word, applied experiential-teaching method was more effective than expositive-teaching method.
Analysis Student Nanotechnology Concept in Different Teaching Methods
We analyzed 2 groups of student concept in "the second step teaching" about Lotus effect, Nanoparticles, Carbon-Nanocapsule and Nanotubes (Figure 1).
Figure1. Comparison of Two Groups in Nanotechnology Concept Learning
Figure 1 showed, the 2 groups had correct answer in lotus effect of 65%+ in NSQ pretest. All students had already learned the appearance of the lotus in the 4th grade science curriculum. The expositive-teaching method in posttest comparison group, the students had correct answer from 66.82% to 77.73%, improved 10.91% in lotus effect. The experiential-teaching method in posttest treatment group, the students had correct answer from 65.00% to 93.64%, improved 28.64% in lotus effect. After teaching, these data displayed treatment group was 15.91% higher than comparison group within the posttests.
Regarding on the concepts of Nanoparticles and Carbon-Nanocapsule: in the pretest, comparison group about 51.91% students had prior knowledge. On the other hand, the pretest treatment group 41.82% had the prior knowledge. After experiment, the comparison group and treatment group improved 13.64% and 46.36% respectively, the improvement percentage in treatment group was higher than comparison group by 23.63%; this meant by using “experiential-teaching” could intrigue students’ interest, students had clearer concepts and further facilitated learning. The students’ concepts of Nanoparticle and Carbon-Nanocapsule for the “experiential-teaching” (treatment group) were more effective than “expositive-teaching” (comparison group).
The concept of Nanotubes was less concrete than Lotus effects, Nanoparticles and Carbon-Nanocapsule： However, the expositive-teaching (comparison group) only improved 6.82% between pretest and posttest (from 31.82% to 38.64%); in contrast the experiential-teaching (treatment group) improved 17.73% between pretest and posttest (from 36.82% to 54.55%). This explains students had physical experience and can understood abstract concepts better by experiential-teaching methods.
From these results, treatment group had lower scores than comparison group in three nanotechnology concepts before the second teaching step, but the treatment group improved scores after the second teaching step, so it was more efficient. Therefore, applying experiential-teaching in nanotechnology concepts’ learning was an appropriate teaching method.
In experiential-teaching, we used different hand-on experience in classroom and it had different effects. Students learned concept of lotus effect by operated and compared the water drop in different conditions between "water slides" or "water rolls" on different surfaces. Through operated actual objects by themselves, students attained complete concepts and then constructed knowledge, so they had significant learning effect. In learning of Nanoparticles and Carbon-Nanocapsule, teacher took out a buckminsterfullerene (C60), explained the simulated Carbon-Nanocapsule (C60) model to students, students clearly understood the relations between Nanoparticles and Carbon-Nanocapsule through made up a buckminsterfullerene (C60) model, but they were difficult to imagine the magnification world of Carbon-Nanocapsule (C60) and had vague concepts. In teaching concept of Nanotubes, teacher applied basic Carbon Nanocapsule (C60) model, asked students to make up C20, C80 and C120, further illustrated the characteristics and development of Nanotubes, but students still felt it is abstract and were unable to imagine the pattern of Nanotubes, so they had misconceptions.
