J.D. Adams, E. W. Ong, B. L. Ramakrishna (may add two more collaborators after review)
Submitted to: Euro CSCL-2001
Submitted on: November 6, 2000 – 10pm Pacific Standard Time USA
Contact: Jesse Adams, Stanford University (PhD candidate at Stanford working with
Larry Leifer and the Stanford Learning Laboratory – remotely at UNR)
Mailing address:
University of Nevada Reno
Mail Stop 312
Reno, NV 89557 jdadams@stanford.edu
, 775-720-9433
The scanning probe microscope (SPM), in its various forms, is one of the most important tools for imaging and manipulating matter at the nanoscale.
Due to the importance and future application of the Scanning Probe Microscope, our team has been working on transferring SPM technology into the undergraduate and graduate classroom i,ii This work includes the development of lecture material as well as the use of online SPMs in the laboratory, and in the classroom itself.
iii
Russell has also begun to integrate the SPM into the undergraduate curriculum iv
at NCSU, with positive results. In this paper we present our preliminary assessment of two online SPMs used in a new course at the University of
Nevada Reno. The online SPM enables collaboration between a remote expert and a local group of students as a sample is investigated on an SPM at the remote site.
v
The initial results show that there is still a big difference between the local and online SPM experience in the eyes of students; as the majority prefer the local experience. We present survey data that provide some definition to the perceived difference and recommend enhancements to the online experience.
In 1986, a new microscope was introduced as an outgrowth of earlier work on the Nobel
Prize winning scanning tunneling microscope (STM). While the STM demonstrated atomic resolution of conducting samples, the new atomic force microscope (AFM), or scanning probe microscope (SPM – broader term encompassing all probe microscopes based on this technology), initially got attention for extending near-atomic resolution imaging capability to non-conducting surfaces.
vi

The scanning probe microscope, in its various forms, is one of the most important tools for imaging and manipulating matter at the nanoscale. According to the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Implementation Plan vii , “These instruments, including scanning tunneling microscopes, atomic force microscopes, and near-field microscopes, provide the “eyes” and “fingers” required for nanostructure measurement and manipulation.” The SPM has been referred to as an essential characterization tool, has seen explosive research and commercial growth in the last decade, and has the ability to rival e-beam lithography in the semiconductor industry's race toward next generation gate patterning viii , ix , x
As such a critical component in the development of nanotechnology, SPM access for imaging and manipulation as well as knowledge about SPM application and operation will be an important pillar on which many future findings will rest.
.
The nature of SPM imaging and manipulation is such that a high degree of specialization is required for each application. Thus, while one user may be able to image the surface of a composite in air, this doesn’t mean that this user could quickly image a biological sample in a saline solution, use the probe for manipulation of polystyrene spheres on a surface, or perform SPM lithography on a sample. In the case that a university uses the same SPM for different research projects, it is time consuming and expensive for one graduate student to become proficient in all of these areas
In order to help share this specialized knowledge it would be beneficial to both share expertise and equipment among various universities and research establishments. Since it is not practical to move SPMs from one location to another or to constantly fly experts to and from different locations, there is a motivation to develop and implement online SPM for remote collaboration. One specific application is in the classroom, where students can learn the fundamentals of SPM imaging and manipulation, by collaborating with an expert at a remote site from the classroom.
As a first step towards implementing the online SPM both in the laboratory and in the classroom, an investigation was undertaken to compare student response to online SPM work and local SPM work.
While future applications and tests will vary, our initial investigation looked at the first three SPM orientation experiences that a group of 4 students had as part of an introductory SPM class. In these three experiences, the students were not doing laboratory research with an SPM, but simply being introduced to the SPM as a tool for imaging. Our motivation was to identify differences in order to develop improvements

for the online SPM. (we believed that the online SPM would not be rated as high as the local SPM, and this was shown to be true)
A new course titled “ Microtechnology, MEMS and the AFM” was taught at the
University of Nevada Reno in the first term summer session of 2000 in collaboration with the Stanford Learning Laboratory. This course was offered to engineering seniors and juniors, and also cross-listed as a graduate section with added research work. In the middle portion of the first summer term, three class days were devoted to SPM imaging.
At this point all of the students had become familiar with the idea the SPM and its history, but had never used, or seen one used. (there was one exception to this – the student who staffed the SPM lab at UNR)
There were 24 students involved in the SPM course, and all of them were involved in the imaging investigation. 3 were graduate students. 2 were seniors in Electrical
Engineering. 4 were juniors in mechanical engineering, and the remaining 15 were seniors in mechanical engineering. Each student participated in the SPM investigation and completed pre and posttests and surveys as part of their participation grade. This effort counted as 15% of their total grade and they were given full credit simply by completing each activity, not by performing at a certain level or answering in a certain way.
The students were divided into 6 groups, sorted by their Myers-Briggs personality type and their GPA. The motivation here was to have a similar average GPA in each group and to have a similar number of extroverts and introverts in each group for an approximate team balance. Each team was then assigned to a unique sequence of 3 SPM experiences. Each experience required the group to get the xyz dimensions of one feature on the given sample for the day. The sequence was chosen such that the first SPM used would also be the last SPM used, but that each group would compare this first and last experience to a different SPM on the second day. We set this up to account for the biasing effect of the first experience, so that the students would have a chance to come back after taking two images and try the first one again in order to make a more complete comparison between two SPM experiences – similar to a wine tasting test. Table 1 shows the 3 day schedule for each team in two formats for clarity. The top of the table show the days as horizontal stripes with each group listed under the SPM that it used. The bottom of the table shows the days listed as columns with each group experience on a given row.

Stanford Online SPM INVSEE Online SPM
Group 1
Group 3
Group 2
Group 5
Group 2
Group 4
Group 1
Group 6
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 1
Group 3
Group SPM Use Order
Group 4
Group 5
Group 2
Group 5
(Day 1)
Stanford SPM
INVSEE SPM
Stanford SPM
Local AFM
INVSEE SPM
Local SPM
Group 4
Group 6
Group 3
Group 5
Group 4
Group 6
(Day 2)
INVSEE SPM
Stanford SPM
Local AFM
Stanford SPM
Local AFM
Samples Imaged
Grating
(Day 1)
.
CD ROM
(Day 2)
.
Yeast Cell
(Day 3)
.
(Day 3)
Stanford SPM
INVSEE SPM
Stanford SPM
Local AFM
INVSEE SPM
Group 6 Local AFM INVSEE SPM Local AFM
Table 1. SPM imaging sequence for each student group.
The top of the table shows the days as horizontal stripes with each group listed under the SPM that it used. The bottom of the table shows the days listed as columns with each group experience on a given row.
This is the same information presented two ways for clarity.
As Table 1 shows, the same sample was imaged on each SPM on a given day. On day 1 every group imaged a test grating, on day 2 every group imaged a portion of a CD ROM, and on day 3 each group imaged a yeast cell. The experiences however were different and are described here.

Local SPM
The components of the local SPM are shown in Figure 1. The SPM contains the hardware portion with a microscopic scanning probe for measuring features with atomic resolution. It also contains a small sample monitor with an optical view of the probe. Then there are two computer monitors, one that shows the control parameters and scan settings, and one that displays the image.
Figure 1. Components of a standard SPM including the scanning probe hardward, the sample monitor, the control monitor and the image monitor.
The local SPM experience brought the group into a small room where each component was visible on two tables. A snap shot of this room is seen in Figure
2. Here and expert could point out the different components and lead the students through the imaging process.

Figure 2 . Snapshot of the local SPM experience. The expert sitting in the left corner of this view is point at the SPM hardware. The sample monitor is in the background.
INVSEE online SPM
The INVSEE online SPM developed at ASU allowed the students to see two views of the SPM over the internet and communicate with the expert in a chat box. One page is called the operator page and is shown in Figure
3. The other page is called the observer page and is shown in Figure 4. It allows others remote visitors to view the imaging process and also provides a video camera feed into the SPM room.
Figure 3. INVSEE online SPM operator page. Students can zoom in and out on grid area, watch image collection on the top right and communicate with the expert in the chat box.

Figure 4. INVSEE online SPM observer page. Remote visitors can view the imaging process here, and the operator can see a video camera feed of the SPM and sample monitor that are being used to create the image.
Figure 5 shows a snapshot of one group using the INVSEE online SPM. In general one sutdetn would serve as an operator of the web page while the other three or four students watched, asked questions and made comments.
Figure 5. Snapshot of the INVSEE online SPM being used by one student group.
One student operates the page on the right, while the rest interact from the left of the picture by asking questions and making comments.
Stanford online SPM
The Stanford online SPM consisted of a NetMeeting connection between UNR and Stanford and provided the students at UNR with an audio and video feed into

the SPM laboratory at Stanford. The laboratory at Stanford was very similar to the local SPM setup described earlier, differing only in the model of the SPM.
The interaction of the students was as depicted in the INVSEE snapshot ( Figure
5.) The only difference is that the only control the students had was the ability to download the final image, for the rest of the time they watched and talked with the expert at Stanford.
The following data were collected from the SPM imaging investigation:
1) Video record of each experience
2) 2 baseline tests before SPM experience section of the course
3) 50 question online survey after each experience xi
4) Knowledge test after each experience (last one on final)
The following assumptions were made:
1) Each student had enough motivation to think about and complete each survey and test. This task was given as 15% of their grade – simply asking for participation and it seemed to be a good incentive.
2) Each student felt at least some liberty to provide honest answers. It was explained that the online survey tool made it difficult for the professor to find out who answered in what way.
The following problems with data collection were observed:
1) N was low for all groups – 5 or less.
2) Several groups had one member miss a survey or two.
3) One group had a student fill out a survey for an experience they didn’t participate in.
Overall, this investigation allowed some trends and supporting comments to be observed which are serving to direct future testing and future online SPM interface design.
However, the data did not provide statistically sound evidence for any statement other than the largely observed statement that the students preferred the local SPM experience to the online SPM experience, and that order of experience did not affect this result.
Figure 6 shows the survey result to the question, “Which microscope was the most effective for gathering data – the local SPM or the remote SPM?” A rating of 3 on the 5point scale would mean that both are the same, and a rating of 5 would mean that the local SPM is 50% better. As the Figure shows, each group rated the local SPM as more effective beyond one standard deviation.

5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1 2
3 4
5 6
Average stdev
Figure 6.
Result of the survey question, “Which microscope was the most effective for gathering data – the local SPM or the remote SPM?” A rating of 3 on the 5-point scale would mean that both are the same, and a rating of 5 would mean that the local SPM is
50% better. As the Figure shows, each group rated the local SPM as more effective beyond one standard deviation. Notice that the two groups that only used remote microscopes are not shown on this plot.
The two groups that did not use the local SPM are not shown in Figure 6 since they could not make the comparison to a local SPM. These two groups both preferred the INVSEE
SPM to the Stanford online SPM. Student comments and video review indicate that the graphical user interface and control aspect made the INVSEE SPM more realistic and interesting. The Stanford online SPM, while introducing video and audio, took away the large control screen and left the students watching a small video image where details were hard to discern. An interesting point to note is that students complained about the chat box being the only communication on the INVSEE SPM, but still preferred it to the
Stanford online SPM which had audio and video. The control aspect of the INVSEE and the large detail display screen seem to have been more important than audio visual communication. Also, the students who used both the local SPM and the Stanfodr online
SPM complained that they did not get to control the SPM. INVSEE, was the only SPM where students actually got to perform a zoom in operation and “control” the SPM, in the two other cases, they only watched and asked questions. This complaint affected the

online-only users final preference, in that they preferred the microscope they could control. However, it did not hold up against the local experience. Even though the students didn’t use the microscope, they still felt that it was more effective. The presence of the expert and the presence of the machine seemed to be important. Another aspect that was important with the local SPM was gestural communication, which was evident in video records and in comments such as these:
“Online was ok, but being able to point and ask questions was a great help. The second time around helped because I was more knowledgeable about the AFM.”
-Group 4 Member
“The one day at the local AFM was twice as helpful as the online experience.
The expert was easier to talk to and the ability to explain things to each other.
Being able to see each other makes it easier, and it was much easier for the group to interact with the expert.”
-Group 3 Member
“The INVSEE could be almost (say 80%) as effective as the local AFM if the connection was faster. But there is something about having the expert in front of you that helps, a lot of communication is done by other means than just words. I would not feel comfortable going into this field with just INVSEE experience, actually seeing the machine, and hopefully operating it one day (putting samples in, changing tips, selecting tips and modes, etc.) is worth the cost.”
Group 5 Member
These comments may indicate that group members who used both an online and a local
SPM felt that there was something gained by being with the expert and the machine; something gained by co-presence, an ingredient of common ground described by Olsen.
xii
They also may suggest the importance of gestural communication, which has been described by Tang.
xiii This trend showed up again in a survey question that indicated that the online-only SPM users did not appreciate the help of the expert as much as the local group. Figure 7 shows the result of the survey question, “Having an expert with you is the most important part of taking an SPM image for the FIRST time.” Every group that used the local SPM, independent of order, agreed with the highest scale metric (5 = very much) that this statement was true. However the two groups that used only online SPMs had one doubter in each group.

Having an expert with you is the most important part of taking an
SPM image for the FIRST time.
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Average stdev
1 2 3
Group
4 5 6
Figure 7.
Result from the survey question, “Having an expert with you is the most important part of taking an SPM image for the FIRST time.” Every group that used the local SPM, independent of order, agreed with the highest scale metric (5 = very much) that this statement was true. However the two groups that used only online SPMs had one doubter in each group.
An interesting aspect of this result is that both of the online experts were as qualified or more qualified to train students on SPM use, however they were perceived to be less important because of the distance and the user interface.
Finally, while students preferred the local SPM, the result of a knowledge test and the grades of the students may suggest that the online SPM, while not preferred, may still be effective.
Figure 8 shows the average score of each group for the three SPM knowledge tests that were given after each experiment. The test was composed mostly of SPM knowledge not mentioned in class, so the students had to find the knowledge by asking the expert or learning from the experience. Notice that group 4, which was one of two groups to use the local microscope twice, did the best. Group 6 also used the microscope but did not perform as expected, and group 2, which only used the online SPMs ended up with the second highest average. While students had input from each other and from class material, and this plot cannot be taken with pure statistical value, it does raise the possibility that while students prefer the local SPM, the online SPM may be a suitable substitute.

50
45
40
35
65
60
55
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
30
1 2 3
Test Number
Figure 8 Average score of each group for the three SPM knowledge tests that were given after each experiment. (The last test was given as part of the class final)

Since students preferred the local SPM, pointing out the importance of face-to-face communication, and actually seeing the machine, this is the place to develop the online
SPM. While actually creating the presence of a machine and an expert may be impossible, several changes can be implemented in the online SPM that may improve its presence and the presence of the expert.
1) Better and more video (multiple angles), showing the room, the SPM and the expert
2) Ability to point to components and features in the room and the screen for both student and expert.
3) Clear audio channel for two way communication
The value of each of these can be measured with further empirical testing.
While students prefer the local SPM experience, there is great value in online collaboration of SPM experts with other SPM experts for research as well as with novices for training, both in the laboratory and the classroom. The results presented here indicate that the co-presence as well as the improved audio and visual communication of the local
SPM may be the reason why it is preferred to the online SPM. It may be possible that this preference is not directly proportional to effectiveness, but it is still important to address. In order to address these issues, further work can be done with the online SPM interface to enhance audio/visual communication and allow for gestural communication.
This may increase the perceived effectiveness of the online SPM in further classroom and laboratory implementation. i J.D. Adams,et. al, “Taking the Atomic Force Microscope to the graduate and undergraduate classroom,” paper in process. ii W.S.Glaunsinger, B.L. Ramakrishna, A.A. Garcia and V.B. Pizziconi, “Undergraduate
Scanning Probe Microscopy Laboratory Program,” Selected Papers from the 7th National
Conference on College Teaching and Learning, 91-99 (1996) iii E.W. Ong, A. Razdan, A.A.Garcia, V.B. Pizziconi, B.L. Ramakrishna and W.S. Glaunsinger,
“Interactive Nano-Visualization of Materials over the Internet,” Journal of Chemical
Education, Vol 77, pp 1114-1115 (2000) iv R.J. Kline, A.D. Batchelor, J.F. Richards and P.E. Russell, “Scanned Probe Microscopy for
Combined Research and Curriculum,” http://spm.aif.ncsu.edu/papers/crcd.htm

v B. L. Ramakrishna, Eddie W. Ong, Vincent B. Pizziconi, “Interactive Nano-Visualization for
Science and Engineering Education,” Journal of Materials Education, vol. 21 no (1/2) 1999 vi G. Binnig, C.F. Quate, C. Gerber, “Atomic force microscope,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 930-933
(1986). vii National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its Implementation Plan http://www.nano.gov/nni2.pdf
, July 2000 viii P. Burggraaf, “Pursuing Advanced Metrology Solutions,” Semiconductor International, 62-64
(April, 1994). ix K. Wilder, B. Singh, D.F. Kyser, and C.F. Quate, “Electron beam and scanning probe lithography: A comparison,” J.Vac. Sci. Technol. B, 16, 6 (1998) x Y.E. Strausser, M. Schroth, J.J. Sweeney, “Characterisation of the LPCVD grown rugged polysilicon surface using atomic force microscopy,” Future Fab International, I, 4, 307-
311(1997). xi http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/salgains/instructor/default.asp xii G. Olson,S. Olson, “Distance Matters,” Human Computer Interaction, in press. xiii J.C. Tang, “Findings from observational studies of collaborative work,” Int. J Man-Machine
Studies (1991) 34, 143-160