An Assessment of US Nano-Education Directions

1. An Assessment of US Nano-Education Directions Stephen J. Fonash Penn State University May 28, 2010

2. Issues • Avoid haphazard approach to curriculum development. • Design, development, testing, and use of a coherent curriculum • Curriculum giving an understanding of core science ideas that underpin nano-scale science and engineering. • Curriculum that exploits the “Wow-factor” • Nanoscale education incorporation into Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education • Exploiting the “wow factor” to attract students into science/engineering careers. • Significant disparity in standards among states and school districts. • University faculty working with K-12 teachers and their students.; e.g., NSF programs (GK-12, IGERT) • More exposure of teachers and pre-service teachers to nano • Horizontal integration/ Vertical integration • National education strategy for introducing nano-scale concepts into the various state learning standards Direction in the U.S. K-12 Education

3. Issues • economic pressures • student enrollment pressures • faculty, staff, and facilities resources • geographic isolation • Exposure to state of the art fabrication • Exposure to state of the art characterization tools • Courses covering the leading edges of nanotechnology • World-class technician • workforce • Partnering with Research Universities • Resource (facilities, staff) sharing • Web Access to courses and equipment • Immersion semester in Nanotechnology • www.nano4me.org Direction in the U.S. Technician (2-year degree) Education

4. Issues • Nano educated science/engineering workforce • Nano-aware public • Societal impact of Nano understood • Economic impact of nano understood • Entrepreneurial opportunities of nano • understood • Science and engineering workforce • Nano-savvy education • world-class entrepreneurs • Nanotechnology-related science and engineering courses • Minors (concentrations) in nano • Centers focused on the nano-scale • Some development of nano-oriented departments and colleges • Nano education driven by accreditation and competition for funding and resources • Societal issues and entrepreneurial components in courses • www.nano4me.org Direction in the U.S. Undergraduate (BS degree) Education

5. Issues • State of the art fabrication and characterization facilities • Facilities/capabilities accessible without the need for extensive travel time. • Web-controlled, remote access instrumentation for providing laboratory experiences for K-12, two-year degree, and non-research four year degree students. • economic pressures • facilities resources • geographic isolation • Equipment needed to make/measure/manipulate will grow in complexity and cost. • Continued resource (facilities) sharing among institutions • International and industrial partnerships need to be fostered as a means of sharing costs Direction in the U.S. Graduate (MS & PhD degree) Education

6. Issue • Well-informed, nano-literate citizens. • Raising public awareness and understanding • Educating the public for any future events such as an accident • Better use of new ways of learning; e.g., Wikipedia is becoming the de facto encyclopedia of the 21st century. Direction in the U.S. Informal (General Public) Education

7. Summary Partnerships Networking Importance of Technician Education Web Access to Equipment Efforts to further incorporate nano into K-12 educational standards