See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248606901

Science teachers and teacher candidates’ basic knowledge, opinions and risk
perceptions about nanotechnology

Article  in  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · December 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.392

CITATIONS READS

18 100

2 authors, including:

Nurettin Sahin
Mugla Üniversitesi
85 PUBLICATIONS   666 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Taxonomy of rare earth metals dependent methanotrophs View project

Lanthanide-dependent methylotrophic bacteria View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nurettin Sahin on 19 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 2667–2670

WCES-2010

Science teachers and teacher candidates’ basic knowledge, opinions

and risk perceptions about nanotechnology
Emel Eklia, Nurettin ùahina *
a
E÷itim Fakültesi, Mu÷la Üniversitesi, Mu÷la, 48000, Turkey

Received October 22, 2009; revised December 31, 2009; accepted January 12, 2010

Abstract

Teachers’ perceptions and knowledge concerning nanotechnologies can influence their approach to science-technology teaching
and their teaching behaviors. The purpose of the present study is to gain insight into the Science and Technology teachers (n=24)
and teacher candidates’ (n=147) basic knowledge and opinions about and risk perception of nanotechnology. In the present study,
nanotechnology questionnaire consisting of 9 items was used. In the analysis of the data, descriptive and interpretive statistical
methods were used. In general, it was concluded from the results that they have “moderate” information about nanotechnology
that learned mostly from the things heard around and their knowledge base was found to be inadequate. While the participants
have positive attitudes towards the nanotechnology, they have some concerns about whether the necessary measures will be taken
to minimize the potential risks of nanotechnology-related applications. In light of the findings of the present study, some
suggestions were made to develop positive attitudes towards nanotechnology and for teaching nanotechnology related issues in
National Science and Technology curriculum.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords: Nanotechnology; scientific literacy; teacher education; risk.

1. Introduction

Nanotechnology is perceived as one of the key emerging interdisciplinary areas of the 21st century and could be
defined as the design and fabrication of materials, devices and systems with control at nanometer dimensions.
Advanced applications of nanotechnology in various fields will make contributions to the well-being, economy and
security of societies (Sahin & Ekli, 2009). To take the advantages of nanotechnology, there is a need to educate
people with required expertise and transfer the knowledge base to the future generations.
In the educational process, the people who plan the teaching and learning activities and provide guidance for
students are teachers. In the classroom environment, teachers not only convey their knowledge but also reflect their
opinions and attitudes. Teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and understandings concerning the emerging
technologies can influence their approach to science teaching and even their teaching behaviors (Fouad, 2001). In
the emerging fields of technology such as nanotechnology, it seems to be necessary to determine teachers’ basic
knowledge and opinions about these fields to impart the required behaviors to students.

* Nurettin Sahin. Tel.: 02522111826

E-mail address: nsahin@mu.edu.tr

1877-0428 © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.392
2668 Emel Ekli and Nurettin Şahin / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 2667–2670

The present study aims to investigate the Science and Technology teachers and teacher candidates’ basic
knowledge, opinions and risk perceptions about nanotechnology and make some suggestions to develop positive
attitudes towards nanotechnology.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

There were 171 (n=88, 51.5% female; n=83, 48.5% male) participants, who were Science and Technology teachers
(n=24) working in the primary schools in Mugla in 2007-2008 school year and senior student teachers (n=147) from
the department of science education of Mugla University.

2.2. Procedure

The data were collected by means of a questionnaire consisting of 9 items designed in the form of correct or false to
solicit the participants’ basic knowledge, opinions about and risk perception of nanotechnology.

2.3. Data analysis

In the analysis of the data, descriptive and interpretive statistical methods were used. Among the statistical methods,
frequencies (f), Cross-tabs, t-test, Chi-Square, percentages (%) and arithmetic means ( X ) were employed. By
examining the arithmetic means, frequencies and percentages calculated for each item, conclusions were reached
about the teachers and teacher candidates’ basic knowledge, and opinions about nanotechnology.

3. Results

The teachers and teacher candidates indicated their knowledge level as “some” (n=103, 60.2%, X =2.70) and they
usually get information from sources such as internet (n=30, 17.5%) and radio-TV (n=23, 13.4%). The participants
reporting other sources of information (n=55, 32.2%), cited their friends, schools, and conferences (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of resources Nanotechnology sensation

There is a significant difference between the teachers and teacher candidates in terms of their knowledge about
nanotechnology (Pearson chi-square=69.624, df=3, p<0.001, two tailed). Therefore, there is a difference though
significant between the teachers’ knowledge and teacher candidates’ knowledge about nanotechnology favoring the
teacher candidates. However, when their responses to the items related to solicit their basic knowledge were
examined, it was found that their knowledge level was found to be inadequate (n=153, 91.8%, p<0.001). The effects
 Emel Ekli and Nurettin Şahin / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 2667–2670 2669

of participants’ knowledge about nanotechnology on their risk perception towards nanotechnology were investigated
but no significant effect was found (Table 1).
Table 1. Nanotechnology risk perceptions associated with the level of knowledge
Nano Risk
Risks>Benefits Risks=Benefits Risks<Benefits Total
N 18 40 99 157
Nano Knowledge

A little
% 10.5 23.4 57.9 91.8
N 1 3 6 10
Some
% 0.6 1.8 3.5 5.8
N 1 2 1 4
A lot
% 0.6 1.2 0.6 2.3
N 20 45 106 171
Total
% 11.7 26.3 62.0 100.0

High majority of the participants (n=117, 68.4%, X =3.77) have positive opinions towards nanotechnology.
Significant correlations were found among trusts, risk perceptions, gender variables with opinions towards
nanotechnology of the participants (p<0.01). According to this, female participants have more positive attitudes
( X =3.96) than male ( X =3.57) participants and teacher candidates ( X =3.85) have more positive attitudes than the
teachers ( X =3.29) towards nanotechnology.

Table 2. Nanotechnology risk perceptions associated with the level of emotions

Nano Risk
Risks>Benefits Risks=Benefits Risks<Benefits Total
N 10 1 1 12
Bad
% 5.8 0.6 0.6 7
Emotions

Neither good N 6 24 12 42
nor bad % 3.5 14.1 7 24.6
N 4 20 93 117
Good
% 2.3 11.7 54.4 68.4
N 20 45 106 171
Total
% 11.6 26.4 62 100.0

Parallel to the positive attitudes towards nanotechnology, the participants reported that the benefits of
nanotechnology are more than their risks (n=106, 62%). The most important benefit of nanotechnology was reported
to be its use in the development of new methods for the diseases curing (n=77, 45%).
Risk perceptions and concerns about the nanotechnology applications were found be affecting (n=110, 64.3%)
the opinions towards nanotechnology (Table 2). The most important risk of nanotechnology is thought to be its
effect on military uses (n=96, 56.1%).

4. Discussion

The present study revealed that most information about nanotechnology is obtained from internet and radio-TV
shows. However, when the responses given to the items aiming to determine the basic knowledge about
nanotechnology are examined, it is seen that the knowledge level of the participants is inadequate. This indicates
that internet and television is conducive to the enhancement of the knowledge about nanotechnology but they are not
as effective as formal teaching. Some other studies looking at the nanotechnology-related attitudes and opinions of
the people concluded that high majority of the participants have not heard anything about nanotechnology (Braman
et al., 2007a; Macoubrie, 2006; Lee et al., 2005). Waldron et al., (2006) conducted a study among 1500 individuals
aged 6-74 to determine their awareness of nanotechnology and found that particularly secondary school students
have heard very few things about nanotechnology. But these studies concluded that there is a generally positive
attitude towards nanotechnology. Many studies (Braman et al., 2007b; Nerlich et al., 2007; Cobb & Macoubrie,
2004) reported that female participants have more positive attitudes towards nanotechnology. In the present study,
the teacher candidates were found to have higher knowledge and more positive attitudes towards nanotechnology
2670 Emel Ekli and Nurettin Şahin / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 2667–2670

than the science teachers. This shows that the primary school teachers are not much aware of the new technologies
and applications. In the studies aiming to determine people’s opinions about and attitudes towards nanotechnology,
it was found that the people focus more on the benefits rather than risks of nanotechnology (Sahin et al., 2009;
Besley et al., 2008) and they believe that nanotechnology has an important place in the field of science and
technology (Pidgeon & Rogers, 2007). It was found that particularly the teacher candidates have concerns about
whether the necessary measures will be taken to minimize the potential risks of nanotechnology. In a study, Sjöber
(2002) reported that the factor most influential on the attitudes towards nanotechnology is the risk perception. It was
found that the information gained about the risks of technology has negative impacts on security-risk relation. The
teacher candidates hear more about nanotechnology and its potential risks than experienced science teachers.
Therefore, teacher candidates have more concerns about the risks of nanotechnology. The most important risk of
nanotechnology is believed to be its contribution to the armament. Other studies revealed that most important risks
of nanotechnology are considered to be its applications in health (Besley et al., 2008; Burri & Bellucci, 2008;
Macoubrie, 2006) and its usage for military purposes (Cobb & Macoubrie, 2004).

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

In today’s world, it is widely recognized that the real power does not come from the physical power but from
intellectual power. To catch up with the nanotechnology era, first thing to be done should be to educate the future’s
teachers in this field. The people should be knowledgeable about the every aspect of nanotechnology (applications,
potential risks and benefits stemming from its applications, its importance etc.) because information gained about
the one dimension of nanotechnology may have negative impacts on the opinions and attitudes of people. Therefore,
teachers and teacher candidates should be informed about the different aspects of nanotechnology through in-service
training, seminars, model activities, and projects.
The conclusion that sources such as internet, TV-Radio help promote positive attitudes by increasing the hearings
about nanotechnology emphasizes the importance of visual sources in developing positive attitudes towards
nanotechnology. By making more use of visual sources, positive attitudes should be developed towards
nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology has been an actively used in science education since it is a multi-disciplinary branch of science.
The use of developing technologies “such as nanotechnology in science education is an effective tool for students”
learning enthusiastically.

References
Besley, J.C., Kramer, V.L., & Priest, S.H. (2008). Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle
Research, 10(4), 549-558.
Braman, D., Cohen, G., Gastil, J., Kahan, D.M., & Slovic, P. (2007a). Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental
investigation. Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, 22-62.
Braman, D., Cohen, G., Gastil, J., Kahan, D.M., & Slovic, P. (2007b). Nanotechnology risk perceptions: The influence of affect and values.
Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, 1-10.
Burri, R.V., & Bellucci, S. (2008). Public perception of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(3), 387-391.
Cobb, M.D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4),
395-405.
Fouad, A. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but… Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215-233.
Lee, C.J., Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies - Examining the interactive effects of
cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240-267.
Macoubrie, J. (2006). Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 15(2), 221-241.
Nerlich, B., Clarke, D.D., & Ulph, F. (2007). Risks and benefits of nanotechnology: How young adults perceive possible advances in
nanomedicine compared with conventional treatments. Health, Risk & Society, 9(2), 159-171.
Pidgeon, N., & Rogers, H.T. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or 'upstream engagement'?
Health Risk & Society, 9(2), 191-210.
Ekli, E. & Sahin, N. (2009). Science teaching with nanotechnology activities. 5th Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Conference (NanoTR5), June
08-12, 2009, s57, Anadolu University, Eskisehir.
Ekli, E., Deniz, S., & Sahin, N. (2009). Nanotechnology and science education: Can we prepare science teacher candidates better for the future?.
5th Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Conference (NanoTR5), June 08-12, 2009, s56, Anadolu University, Eskisehir.
Sjöber, L. (2002). Attitudes toward technology and risk: Going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sciences, 35(4), 379-400.
Waldron, A.M., Spencer, D., & Batt, C.A. (2006). The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle
Research, 8(5), 569-575.

View publication stats