Follow Reference
Bainbridge
W. S.
(2002). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology.Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4(6), 561–570. 10.1023/A:1022805516652
Follow Reference
Batt
C.
Waldron
A. M.
Broadwater
N.
(2008). Numbers, scale and symbols: The public understanding of nanotechnology.Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(7), 1141–1148. 10.1007/s11051-007-9344-1
Follow Reference
Besley
J.
(2010). Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology.Emerging Health Threats Journal, 3(8). doi:10.3134/ehtj.10.00822460398
Follow Reference
Cobb
M. D.
Macoubrie
J.
(2004). Public Perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust.Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 395–405. 10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4
Follow Reference
Dede
C.
(2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning.Science, 323(5910), 66–69. 10.1126/science.116731119119219
Follow Reference
Dede
C.
Salzman
M.
Loftin
R. B.
Ash
K.
(2000). The design of immersive virtual learning environments: fostering deep understandings of complex scientific knowledge. In JacobsonM.KozmaR. B. (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 361–414). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Follow Reference
Derry, S. (Ed.). (2007). Guidelines for video research in education: Recommendations from an expert panel . Chicago, IL: Data Research and Development Center (DRDC).
Follow Reference
Dyehouse
M.
Diefes-Dux
H.
Bennett
D.
Imbrie
P. K.
(2008). Development of an instrument to measure undergraduates’ nanotechnology awareness, exposure, motivation, and knowledge.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 500–510. 10.1007/s10956-008-9117-3
Follow Reference
Funke
F.
Reips
U.
(2012). Why semantic differentials in web-based research should be made from visual analogue scales and not from 5-point scales.Field Methods, 24(3), 310–327. 10.1177/1525822X12444061
Follow Reference
Gardner
G.
Jones
G.
Taylor
A.
Forrester
J.
Robertson
L.
(2010). Students' risk perceptions of nanotechnology applications: Implications for science education.International Journal of Science Education, 32(14), 1951–1969. 10.1080/09500690903331035
Follow Reference
Gilbert
J. K.
Lin
H.
(2013). How might adults learn about new science and technology? The case of nanoscience and nanotechnology. International Journal of Science Education . Part B, 3(3), 267–292.
Follow Reference
Harrison
A. G.
Treagust
D. F.
(2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry.Science Education, 84(3), 352–381. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<352::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-J
Follow Reference
Hauptman
H.
Cohen
A.
(2011). The synergetic effect of learning styles on the interaction between virtual environments and the enhancement of spatial thinking.Computers & Education, 57(3), 2106–2117. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.008
Follow Reference
Hendrix
C.
Barfield
W.
(1996). The sense of presence within auditory virtual environments.Presence (Cambridge, Mass.), 5(3), 290–301.
Follow Reference
Hingant
B.
Albe
V.
(2010). Nanosciences and nanotechnologies learning and teaching in secondary education: A review of literature.Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 121–152. 10.1080/03057267.2010.504543
Follow Reference
Höst, G.E., Schönborn, K.J., & Lundin Palmerius, K.E. (2013). A case-based study of students’ visuohaptic experiences of electric fields around molecules: Shaping the development of virtual nanoscience learning environments. Educational Research International, vol. 2013, Article ID 194363 , 11 pages, doi:.10.1155/2013/194363
Follow Reference
Jones
M. G.
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.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 303–322. 10.1002/tea.10078
Follow Reference
Laherto
A.
(2010). An analysis of the educational significance of nanoscience and nanotechnology in scientific and technological literacy.Science Education International, 21(3), 160–175.
Follow Reference
Laherto
A.
(2012). Nanoscience education for scientific literacy: Opportunities and challenges in secondary school and in out-of-school settings. Helsinki: Helsinki University Print.
Follow Reference
Lecuyer
A.
Coquillart
S.
Kheddar
A.
Richard
P.
Coiffet
P.
(2000). Pseudo-haptic feedback: Can isometric input devices simulate force feedback?New Brunswick, NJ: IEEE. Virtual Reality (Waltham Cross), 2000, 83–90.
Follow Reference
Lee
C.
Scheufele
D.
Lewenstein
B.
(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. 10.1177/1075547005281474
Follow Reference
Lin
S. F.
Lin
H. S.
Wu
Y. Y.
(2013). Validation and exploration of instruments for assessing public knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 548–559. 10.1007/s10956-012-9413-9
Follow Reference
Lundin Palmerius
K. E.
Höst
G. E.
Schönborn
K. J.
(2012). An interactive and multi-sensory learning environment for nano education. In MagnussonC.SzymczakD.BrewsterS. (Eds.), Haptic and audio interaction design (pp. 81–90). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-32796-4_9
Follow Reference
Merchant
Z.
Goetz
E. T.
Keeney-Kennicutt
W.
Kwok
O. M.
Cifuentes
L.
Davis
T. J.
(2012). The learner characteristics, features of desktop 3D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry instruction: A structural equation modeling analysis.Computers & Education, 59(2), 551–568. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.004
Follow Reference
Mikropoulos
T. A.
Natsis
A.
(2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009).Computers & Education, 56(3), 769–780. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.020
Follow Reference
Mytton
G.
Rumbold
P.
(2011). Enhancing the transition from a foundation degree to the third year of an undergraduate degree.Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(3), 251–261. 10.1080/14703297.2011.593702
Follow Reference
Powell
A. B.
Francisco
J. M.
Maher
C. A.
(2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data.The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 405–435. 10.1016/j.jmathb.2003.09.002
Follow Reference
Prieto
T.
Watson
R.
Dillon
J.
(1992). Pupils’ understanding of combustion.Research in Science Education, 22(1), 331–340. 10.1007/BF02356913
Follow Reference
Richard
E.
Tijou
A.
Richard
P.
Ferrier
J.-L.
(2006). Multi-modal virtual environments for education with haptic and olfactory feedback.Virtual Reality (Waltham Cross), 10(3/4), 207–225. 10.1007/s10055-006-0040-8
Follow Reference
Sandifer
C.
(2003). Technological novelty and open‐endedness: Two characteristics of interactive exhibits that contribute to the holding of visitor attention in a science museum.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 121–137. 10.1002/tea.10068
Follow Reference
Scaife
M.
Rogers
Y.
(1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(2), 185–213. 10.1006/ijhc.1996.0048
Follow Reference
Schank
P.
Krajcik
J.
Yunker
M.
(2007). Can nanoscience be a catalyst for education reform? In AllhoffF.LinP.MoorJ.WeckertJ. (Eds.), Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology (pp. 277–289). Hobeken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.
Follow Reference
Schönborn
K. J.
Anderson
T. R.
(2009). A model of factors determining students’ ability to interpret external representations in biochemistry.International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 193–232. 10.1080/09500690701670535
Follow Reference
Shabani
R.
Massi
L.
Zhai
L.
Seal
S.
Cho
H. J.
(2011). Classroom modules for nanotechnology undergraduate education: Development, implementation and evaluation.European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(2), 199–210. 10.1080/03043797.2011.573536
Follow Reference
Siegrist
M.
Keller
C.
Kastenholz
H.
Frey
S.
Weick
A.
(2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards.Risk Analysis, 27(1), 59–69. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x17362400
Follow Reference
Slater
M.
McCarthy
J.
Maringelli
F.
(1998). The influence of body movement on subjective presence in virtual environments.Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40(3), 469–477. 10.1518/0018720987795913689849105
Follow Reference
Slater
M.
Wilbur
S.
(1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments.Presence (Cambridge, Mass.), 6(6), 603–616.
Follow Reference
Stevens
S. Y.
Sutherland
L. M.
Krajcik
J. S.
(2009). The big ideas of nanoscale science and engineering: A guidebook for secondary teachers. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Follow Reference
Teo
B. K.
Sun
X. H.
(2006). From top-down to bottom-up to hybrid nanotechnologies: Road to nanodevices.Journal of Cluster Science, 17(4), 529–540. 10.1007/s10876-006-0086-5
Follow Reference
Tretter
T.
Jones
M. G.
Andre
T.
Negishi
A.
Minogue
J.
(2006). Conceptual boundaries and distances: Students’ and experts’ concepts of the scale of scientific phenomena.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 282–319. 10.1002/tea.20123
Follow Reference
Wang
J.
(1995). Integration of eye-gaze, voice and manual response in multimodal user interface. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1995, Intelligent Systems for the 21st Century (pp. 3938–3942). Vancouver, BC: IEEE.
Follow Reference
Wansom
S.
Mason
T. O.
Hersam
M. C.
Drane
D.
Light
G.
Cormia
R.
(2009). A rubric for post-secondary degree programs in nanoscience and nanotechnology.International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(3), 615–627.
Follow Reference
Wilson
M.
(2002). Six views of embodied cognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. 10.3758/BF0319632212613670