Course Memo
(The route by which UVA professors traditionally declare class philosophy and ground rules)
For most undergraduate science and engineering classes the content is pretty well defined, changing only incrementally over time. Nanoscience is the glaring exception to this rule. Why? Well, for one, a dirty little secret is that nanotechnology is still more vision than reality. We can guess at what might be possible. Or, after a huge investment of time and resources, we can produce a few test structures or prototypes. But we generally cannot assemble these into systems of the complexity we require. Or, even if we could, the cost would be absolutely prohibitive. So as researchers we are still casting about, exploring (and disagreeing on) a huge range of possible alternatives. More often than not, this exploration makes a complete hash of traditional discipline boundaries in science and engineering. For instance, I was trained as a physicist, have worked mostly in materials science, and am now an electrical engineering professor. But what I have been studying in recent years? Organic chemistry and genetics. Why? Because the microelectronic tools I've traditionally used fail at the nanoscale and I am hoping to borrow some tricks from mother nature.
This ever changing confusion means that a class on nanoscience and nanotechnology cannot be taught in the traditional mode where I disperse information that you are expected to passively absorb (and, hopefully, replay for the final exam). Instead, as with no other class I have ever taught (or taken), this class must involve active two way participation. Participation where we will all function as both teacher and learner, constantly seeking out and sorting out new information.
The labs reflect this goal. They do not center on carefully engineered teaching equipment with proscribed step-by-step instructions. Instead, we have taken equipment or procedures right out of the research labs. And on this equipment, after a little training, you will be largely on your own, with a lot of latitude in planning your own experiments. Indeed a large number of the class's current labs were suggested and/or co-developed by earlier class students (so if you don't find what you want, speak up!).
Other parts of the class will also emphasize participation and personal contributions. For instance, your major weekly assignment will be to scour the web for new nanoscience announcements. But I then want you to figure out the underlying science (seldom well described in such articles) or to at least identify what the missing information and unanswered questions are. You will report your findings in informal one page weekly reports. Further, I will tap a few of you each week to give short presentations on these to the class. By the end of the class I will also expect you to begin to focus your investigations onto a single topic of particular personal interest. A report of your investigations and observations on that topic will be the subject of your final exam. (Note that this exam/report will also be informal with emphasis on ideas and content rather than formatting, writing style, spelling . . .)
Based on the above I declare the following plan for grading the class. But if you have (or develop) a personal passion to investigate a nanoscience/technology topic and believe my plan would inhibit your work, talk to me - I am willing to negotiate.
| Activity |
Fraction of Class Grade |
| Weekly personal nanoscience/technology news analyses |
20% |
| Other homework, assignments and pop quizzes |
10% |
| Lab and class attendance |
20% |
| Lab and class participation & personal contributions |
10% |
| Final Exam / Research Report |
40% |
John C. Bean
August 2009
