Collaborative Classroom Tools for Nanotechnology Process Education

The cost of equipment acquisition, operation and maintenance often places severe limitations on an institution’s ability to introduce laboratory modules in nanotechnology courses. This is exacerbated by the larger class sizes and shorter class times at the undergraduate level (compared to graduate level). This is the main reason why nanotechnology is not taught at most undergraduate engineering curricula. The goal of this project was to develop innovative and costeffective methods to bring meaningful and sustainable nanotechnology laboratory experience to the undergraduate classroom. Two major tools were developed to overcome the challenges – a computer-based nanofabrication trainer, and a remote interactive video system to link the laboratory to the classroom in real time. These tools are being integrated into junior and senior level engineering courses, two community college courses and workshops for high school science teachers. Introduction Low enrollment and poor student performance in academic programs in engineering, science and mathematics support the somber conclusions recently published by The National Academies in Rising Above The Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5, an update to its seminal 2005 publication of similar title [1]. The report raises the specter of an impending talent gap which could severely jeopardize U.S. industrial competitiveness. This is highlighted by the comparison of the following trends in China and the U.S. In China, 37% of all undergraduate students major in engineering. Engineering enrollment grew from over 1.0 million in 1998 to over 7.0 million in 2007 [2]. The opposite trend is noted in the U.S. where only 7% of undergraduates are engineering majors and enrollment declined to 409,300 in 2005 [3]. Nevertheless, U.S. engineering degrees are still in demand worldwide due to the greater emphasis that is placed here on industrial relevance, modern laboratories, and hands on training. At the same time, nanomaterials, components, and devices are making a major impact on the lives of U.S. citizens, with over 1,300 consumer products or product lines containing some nanotechnology component [4]. The inventory of products has grown by over 500% in the last five years. Nearly 50% of these consumer products originate in the United States [5]. In spite of P ge 23295.2 this, the majority of Americans express low levels of knowledge about nanotechnology [6]. This is mainly due to the fact that nanotechnology is not yet widely recognized as an engineering discipline. Today’s nanotechnology engineers were educated in other related fields – such as electrical, chemical or mechanical engineering – and acquired their nanotechnology expertise through on-the-job training. That may have been adequate to sustain an industry at its infancy, but as nanotechnology migrates more and more from the laboratory to the marketplace, the task of creating a skilled work force requires a more focused effort rather than relying on on-the-job training [7]. Although the importance of nanotechnology is well accepted by educators, it has not penetrated the mainstream engineering education curricula. This is primarily due to its resource-intensive nature, which brings unique challenges to undergraduate classrooms. A lecture-based approach circumvents most of these challenges, but is much less valuable to students and their employers and also undermines the competitive edge of U.S. engineering degrees. Furthermore, laboratory experience is an essential component in any field of engineering education, not just in nanotechnology. Typically laboratory classes are most commonly accomplished by having multiple stations with students working in small groups. Herein lies the challenge. In nanotechnology this model is unworkable because almost any experiment will involve equipment that are typically too expensive, unsafe or require extensive training to operate. Unlike in a circuits lab, or a structural mechanics lab, a single operator error can result in significant downtime and expense. One approach that has been tried by many others is to supplement the lecture sessions with online tools and videos. However, pedagogical research has shown that passive approaches alone produce lower student engagement and learning outcomes. The challenge then is, how do we introduce meaningful laboratories into a nanotechnology curriculum that is not passive, and yet without requiring huge and continuing infrastructure investments? Another aspect to consider is sustainability. The laboratory modules need to be capable of running beyond their incubation grant period without requiring a continuous infusion of funds.