nach oben

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Erschienen in:

01.08.2013

Validation and Exploration of Instruments for Assessing Public Knowledge of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology

verfasst von: Shu-Fen Lin, Huann-shyang Lin, Yi-ying Wu

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Ausgabe 4/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to develop instruments that assess public knowledge of nanotechnology (PKNT), public attitudes toward nanotechnology (PANT) and conduct a pilot study for exploring the relationship between PKNT and PANT. The PKNT test was composed of six scales involving major nanotechnology concepts, including size and scale, structure of matter, size-dependent properties, forces and interactions, tools and instrumentation, as well as science, technology, and society. After item analysis, 26 multiple-choice questions were selected for the PKNT test with a KR-20 reliability of 0.91. Twenty items were developed in the PANT questionnaire which can be classified as scales of trust in government and industry, trust in scientists, and perception of benefit and risk. Cronbach alpha for the PANT questionnaire was 0.70. In a pilot study, 209 citizens, varying in age, were selected to respond to the instruments. Results indicated that about 70 % of respondents did not understand most of the six major concepts involving nanotechnology. The public tended to distrust government and industry and their levels of trust showed no relationship to their levels of knowledge about nanotechnology. However, people perceived that nanotechnology provided high benefits and high risks. Their perceptions of the benefits and risks were positively related with their knowledge level of nanotechnology. People’s trust showed a negative relationship to their risk perception. Implications for using these instruments in research are discussed in this paper.

Vorheriger Artikel Traversing the Divide Between High School Science Students and Sophisticated Nature of Science Understandings: A Multi-pronged Approach

Nächster Artikel Grading Multiple Choice Exams with Low-Cost and Portable Computer-Vision Techniques

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Agresti A, Finlay B (1997) Statistical methods for the social sciences, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

Bell P, Lewenstein B, Shouse A, Feder M (2009) Learning science in informal environments-people, places, and pursuits. The National Academic Press, Washington, DC

Brossard D, Shanahan J (2006) Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Sci Commun 28(1):47–63CrossRef

Castellini OM, Walejko GK, Holladay CE, Theim TJ, Zenner GM, Crone WC (2007) Nanotechnology and the public: effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. J Nanoparticle Res 9(2):183–189CrossRef

Chase CI (1978) Measurement for educational evaluation, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading

Cheng TJ, Lin YP, Chou KT (2009) The risk perceptions about nanotechnology in Taiwan Taipei. Environmental Protection Administration, Taiwan

Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanoparticle Res 6(4):395–405CrossRef

Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 1:153–155CrossRef

Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1983) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley

Dowling A, Clift R, Grobert N, Hutton D, Oliver R, O’Neill O et al (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London

Dyehouse MA, Diefes-Dux HA, Bennett DE, Imbrie PK (2008) Development of an instrument to measure undergraduates’ nanotechnology awareness, exposure, motivation, and knowledge. J Sci Educ Technol 17(5):500–510CrossRef

Foreman CT (1990) Food safety and quality for the consumer: policies and communication. In: Macdonald JF (ed) Animal biotechnology: opportunities and challenges. National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Ithaca, pp 121–126

Frailich M, Kesner M, Hofstein A (2009) Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. J Res Sci Teach 46(3):289–310CrossRef

Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1998) Understanding public attitudes to technology. J Risk Res 1(3):221–235CrossRef

Fujita Y, Yokoyama H, Abe S (2006) Perception of nanotechnology among general public in Japan—of the NRI nanotechnology and society survey project. Asia Pacific Nanotech Weekly 4:1–2

Gardner G, Jones G, Taylor A, Forrester J, Robertson L (2010) Students’ risk perceptions of nanotechnology applications: implications for science education. Int J Sci Educ 32(14):1951–1969CrossRef

Ghosh S, McGuckin JT, Kumbhakar SC (1994) Technical efficiency, risk attitude, and adoption of new technology: the case of the US dairy industry. Technol Forecast Soc Change 46(3):269–278CrossRef

Gilbert JK (ed) (1993) Models and modelling in science education. Association for Science Education, Hatfield

Gronlund NE (1985) Measurement and evaluation in teaching. Macmillan, New York

Harrison AG, Treagust DF (2000) Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: a case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Sci Educ 84(3):352–381CrossRef

John OP, Benot-Martinez V (2000) Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In: Keis HT, Judd CM (eds) Handbook of research methods in social psychology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 339–369

Jones MG, Andre T, Superfine R, Taylor R (2003) Learning at the nanoscale: the impact of students’ use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses, scale, and microscopy. J Res Sci Teach 40:303–322CrossRef

Jones MG, Minogue J, Tretter T, Negishi A, Taylor R (2006) Haptic augmentation of science instruction: does touch matter ? Sci Educ 90:111–123CrossRef

Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen GL (2007) Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: an experimental investigation (March 7, 2007). GWU legal studies research paper no. 261; Yale Law School, public law working paper no. 155; GWU Law School public law research paper no. 261; 2nd Annual conference on empirical legal studies paper. Available from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=968652

Krimsky S, Plough A (1988) Environmental hazards: communicating risks as a social process. Auburn House, Boston

Kurath M, Gisler P (2009) Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Pub Understand Sci 18:559–573CrossRef

Laugksch RC (2000) Scientific literacy: a conceptual overview. Sci Educ 84:71–94CrossRef

Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:1–28CrossRef

Lewinski N, Colvin V, Drezek R (2008) Cytotoxicity of nanoparticles. Small 4(1):26–49CrossRef

Lin HS, Cheng HJ, Lawrenz F (2000) The assessment of students and teachers’ understanding of gas laws. J Chem Educ 77(2):235–238CrossRef

Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127:267–286CrossRef

Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington, DC

Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Pub Understand Sci 15:221–241CrossRef

Miller JD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Pub Understand Sci 7:203–223CrossRef

National Nanotechnology Initiative (2010) What is nanotechnology. Available from: http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html Retrieved 20 October 2010

Nature (2004) Going public. Nature 431(7011):883CrossRef

Noll VH, Scannell DP, Craig RC (1979) Introduction to educational measurement, 4th edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

Oliva JM (2003) The structural coherence of students’ conceptions in mechanics and conceptual change. Int J Sci Educ 25(5):539–561CrossRef

Pacheco-Torgal F, Jalali S (2011) Nanotechnology: advantages and drawbacks in the field of construction and building materials. Constr Buil Mater 25(2):582–590CrossRef

Parkin IP, Palgrave RG (2005) Self-cleaning coatings. J Mater Chem 15:1689–1695CrossRef

Pecora TA, Owen MC, Marai CNJ, Setiad DH, Chass GA (2003) Bridging the gap between pure science and the general public: comparison of the informational exchange for these extremities in scientific awareness. J Mol Str Theochem 666:699–706CrossRef

Priest SH (2001) Misplaced faith—Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Sci Commun 23:97–110

Priest SH (2008) North American audiences for news of emerging technologies: Canadian and US responses to bio- and nanotechnologies. J Risk Res 11(7):877–889CrossRef

Priest SH (2012) Nanotechnology and the public- risk perception and risk communication. CRC Press, Boca Raton

Priest SH, Bonfadelli H, Rusanen M (2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as functions of trust in actors. Risk Anal 23(4):751–766CrossRef

Reise SP, Waller NG, Comrey AL (2000) Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychol Assess 12(3):287–297CrossRef

Roco MC (2003) Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 5:181–189CrossRef

Rodriguez L, Peterson JW (1999) Risks from an “unknown” technology: how iowans perceive agricultural sludge. J Environ Educ 30(3):37–42CrossRef

RS, RAE (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, London

Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanoparticle Res 7(6):659–667CrossRef

Shi J, Votruba AR, Farokhzad OC, Langer R (2010) Nanotechnology in drug delivery and tissue engineering: from discovery to applications. Nano Lett 10(9):3223–3230CrossRef

Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal 20(3):353–362CrossRef

Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–69CrossRef

Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1979) Rating the risks. Environment 21(3):14–20CrossRef

Stevens SY, Sutherland LM, Krajcik JS (2009) The big ideas of nanoscale science & technology. NSTA Press, Arlington

Sturgis P, Cooper H, Fife-Schaw C (2005) Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. N Genet Soc 24(1):31–56CrossRef

Waldron AM, Spencer D, Batt CA (2006) The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 8(5):569–575CrossRef

Wildavsky A, Dake K (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 119(4):41–60

Titel: Validation and Exploration of Instruments for Assessing Public Knowledge of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology
verfasst von: Shu-Fen Lin
Huann-shyang Lin
Yi-ying Wu
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2013
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology / Ausgabe 4/2013
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9413-9

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2013

Traversing the Divide Between High School Science Students and Sophisticated Nature of Science Understandings: A Multi-pronged Approach

Learning the Cell Structures with Three-Dimensional Models: Students’ Achievement by Methods, Type of School and Questions’ Cognitive Level

A Study of the Use of Ontologies for Building Computer-Aided Control Engineering Self-Learning Educational Software

Knowledge Integration While Interacting with an Online Troubleshooting Activity

An Empirical Examination of the Warfare Metaphor with Respect to Pre-Service Elementary Teachers

Technology Use in Science Instruction (TUSI): Aligning the Integration of Technology in Science Instruction in Ways Supportive of Science Education Reform

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten