Abstract
The role of computer simulations on student learning and education in the fields of nanotechnology and microelectronics is studied in this work. Exercises based on selected nanoHUB simulations (offered by the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN), Purdue University) were assigned to over 25 undergraduate students from community colleges and universities. Each exercise was assigned every 1-2 weeks over 12 weeks of the Nanofabrication Manufacturing Technology program of 18 credits offered by the Center for Nanotechnology Education and Utilization at Pennsylvania State University. These exercises included setting technical parameters and inputs for concepts such as oxidation, nano-optics, photovoltaics, semiconductor doping, etc., and analyzing the simulation results/outputs. Feedback on the simulations and simulation-driven learning was regularly received from students and analyzed. This feedback is discussed in this article. Students appreciated additional learning through simulations that complemented lectures and hands-on laboratories. Simulations were most effective when students had a background in the technical topics covered in the simulation exercises. Students strongly preferred simulations that were convenient and simple to use and that allowed simulation parameters to be tuned easily. This work can help toward improving STEM education and receive insights into strategies that could enable effective student learning.
Keywords: STEM education, simulations, nanotechnology, microelectronics, community colleges, universities
© 2025 under the terms of the J ATE Open Access Publishing Agreement
Introduction
Nanotechnology, nanoscience, and microelectronics are among the fastest-growing areas and have received significant attention in a spectrum of organizations, including education, industries, national labs, and workforce development [1-6]. There has been an increasing effort to disseminate nanotechnology education across community colleges and universities, focusing on undergraduate and graduate students. The Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) Act supports collaborations between academia, industries, and government organizations and emerging needs for workforce and talent in the areas of semiconductors, microelectronics, packaging, and nanotechnology [7-10]. Skilled talent is necessary to meet the increasing need in semiconductor manufacturing and nanotechnology workforce. A need to infuse nanotechnology and microelectronics in curricula across colleges and pre-college schools through course developments, focused educational programs, and workforce development initiatives has been realized [11,12]. Teaching fundamental concepts of nanotechnology and semiconductor manufacturing to students enrolled in schools ranging from elementary schools to undergraduate and graduate schools will assist in developing this required workforce. Teaching nanotechnology usually consists of lectures, projects, and experimental labs, and newer pedagogical techniques are continuously being developed and identified [13-16]. Simulations go hand in hand with theory and experimental education as new technologies and educational materials are being developed [17]. Simulations are a more economical alternative to expensive equipment and labs typically required in nanotechnology and microelectronics education [18]. Additions of simulations to the traditional methods of instruction has resulted in mixed observations in the literature, with the simulations enriching the students’ experience in some cases while not effecting the experience at all in other cases [19].
In this work, the influence of adding simulations from the nanoHUB database on student-learning in nanotechnology courses is studied. Feedback from 25 students on how adding simulations to the curriculum impacted their educational experience is reported.
Methods
Six Penn State nanotechnology classes infused simulations from the nanoHUB platform as assignments or exercises as part of the 18-credit Summer Nanofabrication Manufacturing Technology (NMT) program of the Center for Nanotechnology Education and Utilization (CNEU), Penn State. The NMT program includes education on the following topics through lectures, hands-on labs, homework assignments, exams, and projects.
- Safety
- Cleanrooms
- Vacuum
- Materials in nanofabrication and microelectronics (Semiconductors, doping, metals, dielectrics, polymers, etc.)
- Materials growth and deposition (including oxidation, physical/chemical vapor deposition, solution-based synthesis, Czochralski’s method, atomic layer deposition, and so on)
- Lithography
- Etching
- Bottom-up synthesis
- Quantum dots and other nanostructures
- Nanobiotechnology
- Microfluidics
- Characterization (covering >10 characterization techniques)
Simulation tools from the nanoHUB database were selected based on their suitability within the course curricula and their difficulty levels. The infused simulation tools were selected to match the typical difficulty levels of exercises that community college and four-year college students typically take. These simulations were in addition to the lectures, hands-on labs, homework, online labs, and projects that students completed. Following is the list of the eight selected nanoHUB simulation tools distributed and assigned over the 12 weeks.
- Ohm’s law
- Effect of doping on semiconductors
- Carrier concentration
- Basic bulk silicon transport data
- PN junction
- Process lab – Oxidation
- Nanosphere optics lab
- Organic photovoltaics lab
Assignment handouts corresponding to each of these simulation tools were prepared. The handouts included basic science and engineering theory of the simulation topic, a demonstration of how to use the simulation tool and questions based on the simulation results. Feedback from students was obtained after each assignment on the nanoHUB simulation tool and the role of the tool in their learning process.
Results and Discussion
Throughout the 12 weeks of the CNEU-NMT program, students completed multiple surveys. They were given points for completing the surveys, but not for what they wrote in them. Twenty-five students provided feedback on the nanoHUB simulation tools-based exercises.
Students appreciated the value of the simulations in addition to experiments and theory in the learning. They appreciated the different number of cases that could be simulated, which would typically take an unrealistically long time to be tested by experiments. The students enjoyed changing and understanding how different parameters affected the results and outputs. Simulations aided the students in learning technical topics better, and they would prefer to use the simulation tools in the future, as appropriate. Topics were selected for the simulations that matched with the students’ interests and with the flow of the courses. Students preferred simulation tools that were convenient to use and fast enough to give results quickly. Students provided feedback on improving the graphical user interface and making the nanoHUB simulation tools easier and more convenient to use. Students also suggested preparing video tutorials on using the simulation tools and providing brief instructions on using the simulation tools in the lectures. Table 1 shows feedback from 25 students on a series of questions gauging the interests of students in the nanoHUB simulation tools and the usefulness of the tools in the learning process.
Students’ favorite and least favorite nanoHUB simulation activities were identified through systematic feedback surveys, Figure 1. Students selected Ohm’s law, oxidation, and carrier concentration as their top three favorite simulation tools on average. Students had prior background on Ohm’s law and using the corresponding tool was straightforward. Oxidation was covered in depth in the lectures and hands-on labs by the instructor and teaching assistants; the corresponding nanoHUB simulation tool strengthened students’ understanding of oxidation. Students found the nanoHUB simultation tools most valuable when the simulation exercises were assigned at times when the topics were covered in lectures and hands-on labs. Students also enjoyed the tools the most when they had a prior background in the technical topic being simulated. PN junction, nanosphere optics, and organic photovoltaics were students’ least favorite nanoHUB simulation activities.
Table 1. Student feedback on nanoHUB simulations incorporated in nanotechnology courses
| Survey questions asked / Options provided for responses | Strongly agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly disagree | |
| 1 | It was valuable to learn about simulations in the Nanofabrication Manufacturing Technology (NMT) Certificate Program | 28% | 48% | 20% | 4% | 0% |
| 2 | When learning a technical topic in the future, I would like to learn the simulations (if it is a possibility) along with experiments and theories | 32% | 40% | 12% | 4% | 12% |
| 3 | I understand the role and value of simulations in the nanotechnology field better because of the simulations done in the NMT program | 12% | 56% | 12% | 8% | 12% |
| 4 | Topics for the simulations were appropriately selected and were within my areas of learning interest | 12% | 28% | 32% | 20% | 8% |
| 5 | The nanoHUB simulation tools were easy and friendly to use | 4% | 20% | 28% | 20% | 28% |
| 6 | The nanoHUB exercises procedures were convenient to follow | 4% | 8% | 48% | 12% | 28% |
| 7 | The nanoHUB simulations exercises helped me to understand the technical topics better | 8% | 20% | 16% | 16% | 40% |
Additionally, intensive feedback on each of the nanoHUB simulation tools used in the courses was obtained. Figures 2-7 show first-hand feedback obtained from students directly on selected nanoHUB simulation tools.
Conclusion
This study has aided in understanding the impact of the addition of simulation tools in the nanotechnology education process. Simulations could add value to learning by providing alternative ways of teaching technical topics. It adds a way of working and learning for students who may not enjoy theory and experimental labs but would enjoy working on computers through simulations. Simulations also help students to emulate various experimental conditions. In order to infuse simulations in nanotechnology education effectively, it is essential for the tools to be very convenient to use and have an engaging graphical user interface. It is also important to provide very clear instructions to students on using the simulation tools through various modes, including handouts, video demos, and training from instructors and teaching assistants.
Acknowledgments. This work was conducted as part of the nanoHUB Champions Award by the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN) under the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant EEC-1227110. The EEC-1227110 grant was awarded by the NSF to NCN to continue developing and operating the cyber nanoHUB platform for a duration of 2012-2017, which was renewed for 2018-2024. We are grateful to Teaching Assistants Kenton Nicholas, Stephen Voyton, Xinyu Wang, and Yifang Ding (Wesley) from the Center for Nanotechnology Education and Utilization (CNEU), Pennsylvania State University, for assisting with preparing assignment handouts for the simulation tools. We would like to acknowledge Travis Merrick and Lynn Zentner from NCN, Purdue, who guided and managed the project. We are thankful to Sue Barger from the CNEU, and Amy Joo and Erin Reutebuch from NCN, for administrative help in this work.
Disclosures The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
[1] A. Mandrikas, E. Michailidi, and D. Stavrou, “Teaching nanotechnology in primary education,” Res. Sci. Tech. Educ., vol. 38, no 4, pp. 377-395, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1631783.
[2] J. A. Jackman, D. Cho, J. Lee, J. M. Chen, F. Besenbacher, D. Bonnell, M. Hersam, P. Weiss, and N. Cho, “Nanotechnology education for the global world: Training the leaders of tomorrow,” ACS Nano, pp. 5595-5599, 2016, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.6b03872.
[3] R. Giasolli, D. Tao, and S. Neuen, “Nanotechnology outreach at Mall of America: Fostering STEAM interest,” J. ATE, vol. 3, no 1, pp. 42-46, 2024, doi: https://zenodo.org/record/10945936.
[4] J. Kuhn and D. John, “Building a micro/nanotechnology cleanroom training,” J. ATE, vol. 3, no 1, 2024, doi: https://zenodo.org/records/10881533.
[5] O. Bonnaud, “Evolution of the content and the approach of microelectronics training to regain skills and competences,” IEEE 38th Symp. Microelec. Tech. Dev., pp. 1-4, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/SBMicro64348.2024.10673875.
[6] O. Bonnaud, “Why microelectronic education becomes a global priority?,” IEEE 32nd Ann. Conf. Europ. Assoc. Educ. Elec. Info. Engg., pp. 1-5, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.23919/EAEEIE55804.2023.10181526.
[7] H.R.4346 – CHIPS and Science Act, 117th Congress (2021-2022).
[8] Y. Luo and A. V. Assche, “The rise of techno-geopolitical uncertainty: Implications of the United States CHIPS and Science ACT,” J. Internat. Busin. Stud., vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1423-1440, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00620-3.
[9] A. D. Rizi, A. Roy, R. Noor, H. Kang, N. Varshney, K. Jacob, S. Rivera-Jimenez, N. Edwards, V. J. Sorger, H. Dalir, and N. Asadizanjani, “From Talent Shortage to Workforce Excellence in the CHIPS Act Era: Harnessing Industry 4.0 Paradigms for a Sustainable Future in Domestic Chip Production,” arXiv preprint, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.00215.
[10] J. Kawar, “The CHIPS and Science Act: The United States’ Race for Semiconductor Sovereignty,” MS Major Research Papers-21 (Western University), 2023, doi: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/politicalscience_maresearchpapers/21/.
[11] M. G. Jones, R. Blonder, G. E. Gardner, V. Albe, M. Falvo, and J. Chevrier, “Nanotechnology and nanoscale science: Educational challenges,” Internat. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 35, no 9, pp. 1490-1512, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.771828.
[12] R. P. Tan, C. Rouabhi, C. Capello, J. Schauber, J. Grisolia, A. Claverie, S. Lachaize, C. Vieu, P. Simon, P. L. Taberna, and F. Geurin, “Practical works on nanotechnology: middle school to undergraduate students,” IEEE Nano. Mag., vol. 14, no 4, pp. 21-28, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/MNANO.2020.2994822.
[13] T. Yildirim and S. Kahraman, “Development and validation of a module for nanoscience and nanotechnology education: a case of pre-service chemistry teachers,” Internat. J. Sci. Educ., pp. 1-35, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2365460.
[14] J. Bauer, “Teaching Nanotechnology through Research Proposals,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 98, no. 7, pp. 2347-2355, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01251.
[15] P. Dorouka and M. Kalogiannakis, “Teaching nanotechnology concepts in early-primary education: an experimental study using digital games,” Internat. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 43, no. 13, pp. 1311-1338, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2286299.
[16] O. Cavdar, B. Yildirim, E. Kaya, and A. Akkus, “Exploring the Nanoworld: Middle School Students Use TRIZ-STEM in Nanotechnology Education,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 1049-1061, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c01031.
[17] S. C. Glotzer, P. Nordlander, L. E. Fernandez, “Theory, simulation, and computation in nanoscience and nanotechnology,” ACS Nano, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 6505-6506, 2017, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.7b05028.
[18] A. Johnson, “Institutions for simulations: the case of computational nanotechnology,” Sci. Tech. Stud., vol. 19, no 1, pp. 35-51, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55201.
[19] N. Rutten, W. R. van Joolingen, and J. T. van der Veen, “The learning effects of computer simulations in science education,” Comp. Educ., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 136-153, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017.