Research Article

Exploring pre-service primary teachers’ understanding of surface-to-volume ratio in nanoscience: Effects of an inquiry-based teaching intervention

Dimitris Alexiou 1 * , Giorgos Peikos 1 , Anna Spyrtou 1 , Konstantinos T. Kotsis 2
More Detail
1 Department of Primary Education, University of Western Macedonia, Kozani, GREECE2 Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, GREECE* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 7(2), July 2026, ep26011, https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/19033
Submitted: 17 March 2026, Published: 29 July 2026
OPEN ACCESS   91 Views   16 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Comprehending the surface-to-volume ratio (S/V) is essential for elucidating several nanoscale and macroscopic phenomena; nonetheless, studies repeatedly indicate that learners, especially pre-service teachers, find it challenging to associate geometric relationships with physical behavior. This study examines the conceptual evolution of twenty pre-service primary educators who engaged in a three-and-a-half-hour inquiry-based educational sequence centered on the fundamental principles of nanoscale science and engineering. A pre-post-post strategy was employed to assess textual explanations and classroom video data, aiming to define reasoning patterns and shifts in comprehension. Pre-test replies were primarily characterized by intuitive, phenomenological explanations that did not consider S/V, indicating a limited understanding of how particle size and surface exposure affect dissolution. Subsequent to the intervention, numerous participants articulated scientifically coherent reasons, directly associating fragmentation with enhanced surface area and accelerated disintegration, while misconceptions remained prevalent among many. Post-test results, received later than expected, revealed partial retention and consolidation, with a group of students either sustaining or enhancing their comprehension. Video analysis indicated that tactile manipulation, representational tasks, and guided inquiry fostered constructive cognitive conflict and peer negotiation, promoting conceptual reconstruction. The results highlight the necessity of explicitly teaching scaling relationships in teacher education programs and suggest that even short, well-organized inquiry-based interventions can support noticeable conceptual development in pre-service primary teachers’ reasoning about S/V relationships. The implications of incorporating nanoscale concepts into elementary science curricula and teacher training programs are examined.
Keywords: nanoscience education, surface-to-volume ratio, pre-service teachers, inquiry-based learning, conceptual understanding

CITATION (APA)

Alexiou, D., Peikos, G., Spyrtou, A., & Kotsis, K. T. (2026). Exploring pre-service primary teachers’ understanding of surface-to-volume ratio in nanoscience: Effects of an inquiry-based teaching intervention. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 7(2), ep26011. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/19033

REFERENCES

  1. Adadan, E., Akaygun, S., & Sanyal, A. (2017). Size-dependent properties of matter: Is the size of a pill important? Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 54(3-4), 86-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2017.1395790
  2. Andreou, Y., & Kotsis, K. T. (2005). The estimation of length, surface area, and volume by blind and sighted children. International Congress Series, 1282, 780-784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2005.05.027
  3. Blonder, R., & Sakhnini, S. (2012). Teaching two basic nanotechnology concepts in secondary school by using a variety of teaching methods. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(4), 500-516. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP20026K
  4. Cohen, A., Ben Moreh, A., & Chayoth, R. (1999). Hands-on method for teaching the concept of the ratio between surface area and volume. The American Biology Teacher, 61(9), 691-695. https://doi.org/10.2307/4450805
  5. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
  6. Dolonen, J. A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2012). Analyzing students’ interaction with a 3D geometry learning tool and their teacher. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(3-4), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.08.002
  7. Dulta, K., Virk, A. K., Chauhan, P., Bohara, P., & Chauhan, P. K. (2022). Nanotechnology and applications. In D. E. Holmes, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Advances in biomedical information (pp. 129-141). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823978-0.00002-2
  8. Enochs, L. G., & Gabel, D. L. (1984). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of volume. School Science and Mathematics, 84(8), 670-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1984.tb09582.x
  9. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
  10. Manou, L., Spyrtou, A., Hatzikraniotis, E., & Kariotoglou, P. (2022). What does “nanoscience-nanotechnology” mean to primary school teachers? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(6), 1269-1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10199-6
  11. Manou, L., Spyrtou, A., Hatzikraniotis, E., & Kariotoglou, P. (2018). Content transformation for experimental teaching nanoscale science and engineering to primary teachers. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1076, Article 012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1076/1/012006
  12. Martínez-Borreguero, G., Naranjo-Correa, F. L., Cañada Cañada, F., González Gómez, D., & Sánchez Martín, J. (2018). The influence of teaching methodologies in the assimilation of density concept in primary teacher trainees. Heliyon, 4(11), Article e00963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00963
  13. McNew-Birren, J., & van den Kieboom, L. A. (2017). Exploring the development of core teaching practices in the context of inquiry-based science instruction: An interpretive case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 74-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.001
  14. Metaxas, I., Michailidi, E., Stavrou, D., & Pavlidis, I. (2021). Educational reconstruction of size-depended-properties in nanotechnology for teaching in tertiary education. Chemistry Teacher International, 3(4), 413-422. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2021-0011
  15. Metaxas, I., Michailidi, E., Stavrou, D., & Pavlidis, I. V. (2025). Undergraduate students’ arising ideas during the implementation of a teaching-learning sequence on size-dependent properties in the nanoscale. Research in Science & Technological Education, 44(1), 2024-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2025.2462909
  16. Nasrollahzadeh, M., Sajadi, S. M., Sajjadi, M., Issaabadi, Z., & Atarod, M. (2019). An introduction to nanotechnology. In Interface science and technology (vol. 28, pp. 1-27). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813586-0.00001-8
  17. Peikos, G., Spyrtou, A., Pnevmatikos, D., & Papadopoulou, P. (2022). A teaching learning sequence on nanoscience and nanotechnology content at primary school level: Evaluation of students’ learning. International Journal of Science Education, 44(12), 1932-1957. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2105976
  18. Pnevmatikos, D., Peikos, G., Christodoulou, P., & Papadopoulou, P. (2024). Nanoscience-nanotechnology education for all: Promoting nano-literacy across educational levels. Scientific Research Publishing, Inc.
  19. Romesburg, H. C. (2011). Pedagogical positives of the surface-to-volume ratio. The American Biology Teacher, 73(5), 260-264. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2011.73.5.3
  20. Sakhnini, S., & Blonder, R. (2015). Essential concepts of nanoscale science and technology for high school students based on a Delphi study by the expert community. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1699-1738. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1035687
  21. Schmid, J. M., Veith, J. M., Truong, M. H., Straulino, M., Winkler, B., Hennig, F., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2023). Nanoscience and technology in secondary education: A systematic literature review. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(12), Article em2361. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13834
  22. Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
  23. Spyrtou, A., Manou, L., & Peikos, G. (2021). Educational significance of nanoscience-nanotechnology: Primary school teachers’ and students’ voices after a training program. Education Sciences, 11(11), Article 724. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110724
  24. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of “more A--more B.” International Journal of Science Education, 18(6), 653-667. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180602
  25. Stevens, S. Y., Sutherland, L. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). The big ideas of nanoscale science and engineering: A guidebook for secondary science teachers. NSTA Press.
  26. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  27. Stylos, G., Kamtsios, S., & Kotsis, K. T. (2022). Assessment of Greek pre-service primary teachers’ efficacy beliefs in physics teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(1), 44-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.2023959
  28. Stylos, G., Siarka, O., & Kotsis, K. T. (2023). Assessing Greek pre-service primary teachers’ scientific literacy. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271-282. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12637
  29. Swarat, S., Light, G., Park, E. J., & Drane, D. (2011). A typology of undergraduate students’ conceptions of size and scale: Identifying and characterizing conceptual variation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 512-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20403
  30. Taylor, A., & Jones, M. G. (2009). Proportional reasoning ability and concepts of scale: Surface area to volume relationships in science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1231-1247. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802017545
  31. Treagust, D. F. (2006). Diagnostic assessment in science as a means to improving teaching, learning and retention. In Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education.
  32. Tsoumanis, K., Stylos, G., & Kotsis, K. T. (2023). A comparative study between Greek pre-service teachers and primary school students’ scientific literacy levels. Science Education International, 34(2), 121-131. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v34.i2.6
  33. Ünlü, P., Hacıeminoğlu, E., & Yıldız, N. G. (2023). A “light bulb moment”: Lab experiments enhancing novelty and critical thinking designed by future teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 50, Article 101413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101413
  34. Zhuo, Y., Han, J., Xia, H., Liu, Q., Li, L., Chen, Y., Tang, Z., & Fan, H. (2024). Enhancing drug solubility, bioavailability, and targeted delivery through nanotechnology. Molecules, 29(20), Article 4854. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29204854