Determining the efficacy of a nanotechnology media product in enhancing children’s engagement with nanotechnology
Source abstract
Abstract
Public engagement in nanotechnology media products can lead to a greater interest in understanding of nanotechnology. A study was undertaken to determine middle school student engagement in Nanooze, a magazine featuring nanotechnology research that has been developed for a young adult audience. Teachers at 116 Detroit middle schools distributed two issues of the magazine to their students, and surveys were collected from 870 students after reading the magazines. Results suggest that the majority of students liked reading the magazine and learned something about nanotechnology. Engagement in nanotechnology led to understanding of nanotechnology. The Nanooze magazine was an effective medium for engaging middle school students in learning about nanotechnology.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanotechnology research and applications · Science Education and Perceptions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (20)
Show source-provided references
1. Bainbridge W (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561–57010.1023/A:1022805516652 ↗
2. Batt CA, Waldron AM et al (2008) Numbers, scale and symbols: the public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10(7):1141–114810.1007/s11051-007-9344-1 ↗
3. Brossard D, Lewenstein B et al (2005) Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of a citizen science project. Int J Sci Educ 27(9):1099–112110.1080/09500690500069483 ↗
4. Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–40510.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
5. Dowling A (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm
6. Feynman RP (1998) The meaning of it all: thoughts of a citizen scientist. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
7. Irwin A (1995) Citizen science: a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. Routledge, London, New York
8. Kjolberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and ethical interactions with nano: mapping the early literature. NanoEthics 1:89–10410.1007/s11569-007-0011-x ↗
9. Miller JD (2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: what we know and what we need to know. Public Underst Sci 13(3):273–29210.1177/0963662504044908 ↗
10. Morrissey SR (2004) Harnessing nanotechnology. Chem Eng News 82(16):30–3310.1021/cen-v082n016.p030 ↗
11. Parr D (2005) Will nanotechnology make the world a better place? Trends Biotechnol 23(8):395–39810.1016/j.tibtech.2005.06.001 ↗
12. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
13. Schneider M (2001) The Takagi Fund for citizen science. http://www.wise-paris.org/english/reports/011008TakagiFundSpeech3.pdf
14. Schulz WG (2004) Nanotechnology under the scope. Chem Eng News 82(10):23–2410.1021/cen-v082n010.p026 ↗
15. Service RF (2004) Nanotech forum aims to head off replay of past blunders. Science 306(5698):95510.1126/science.306.5698.955a ↗
16. Treise D, Weigold MF (2002) Advancing science communication: a survey of science communicators. Sci Commun 23(3):310–32210.1177/107554700202300306 ↗
17. Valenti JM, Tavana G (2005) Report: continuing science education for environmental journalists and science writers: in situ with the experts. Sci Commun 27(2):300–31010.1177/1075547005282474 ↗
18. Von Hippel F (1991) Citizen scientist, Masters of modern physics. American Institute of Physics, New York, NY
19. Waldron AM, Spencer D et al (2006a) The current state of pubic understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 8:569–57510.1007/s11051-006-9112-7 ↗
20. Waldron AM, Spencer D et al (2006b) The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 8(5):569–57510.1007/s11051-006-9112-7 ↗