SpringerLink
Log in

Electrifying Engagement in Middle School Science Class: Improving Student Interest Through E-textiles

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most interventions with “maker” technologies take place outside of school or out of core area classrooms. However, intervening in schools holds potential for reaching much larger numbers of students and the opportunity to shift instructional dynamics in classrooms. This paper shares one such intervention where electronic textiles (sewable circuits) were introduced into eighth grade science classes with the intent of exploring possible gains in student learning and motivation, particularly for underrepresented minorities. Using a quasi-experimental design, four classes engaged in a traditional circuitry unit while the other four classes undertook a new e-textile unit. Overall, students in both groups demonstrated significant learning gains on standard test items without significant differences between conditions. Significant differences appeared between groups’ attitudes toward science after the units in ways that show increasing interest in science by students in the e-textile unit. In particular, they reported positive identity shifts pertaining to their perceptions of the beliefs of their friends, family, and teacher. Findings and prior research suggest that student-created e-textile designs provide opportunities for connections outside of the classroom with friends and family and may shift students’ perceptions of their teacher’s beliefs about them more positively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Eighth grade science at MHMS is taught by two teachers responsible for four sections each. One teacher has stronger content expertise in physical sciences and the other has stronger content expertise in life sciences. As a standard practice to maximize their collective impact, the teachers switch sections midway through the Spring term to cover units dedicated to their respective areas of strength. Thus, the same teacher taught all eight sections for the electricity unit. Two sections primarily assigned to each teacher were selected arbitrarily and assigned to the treatment condition, and the remaining two from each teacher were assigned to the control condition.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick F, BouJaoude S, Duschl R, Lederman NG, Mamlok-Naaman R, Hofstein A et al (2004) Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Sci Educ 88(3):397–419. doi:10.1002/sce.10118

  • Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B (2010) “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Sci Educ 94:617–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B (2012) Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: how families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. Am Educ Res J 49:881–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aschbacher PR, Li E, Roth EJ (2010) Is science me? High school students' identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. J Res Sci Teach 47(5):564–582

    Google Scholar 

  • Baser M (2006) Effects of conceptual change and traditional confirmatory simulations on pre-service teachers’ understanding of direct current circuits. J Sci Educ Technol 15(5–6):367–381. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9025-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu SJ, Barton AC (2007) Develo** a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. J Res Sci Teach 44(3):466–489. doi:10.1002/tea.20143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beggs JM, Bantham JH, Taylor S (2008) Distinguishing the factors influencing college students’ choice of major. Coll Stud J 42(2):381–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan B, Gutwill JP, Petrich M, Wilkinson K (2015) Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Sci Educ 99(1):98–120. doi:10.1002/sce.21151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein P (2008) Travels in Troy with Freire: technology as an agent for emancipation. In: Noguera P, Torres CA (eds) Social justice education for teachers: Paulo Freire and the possible dream. Sense, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp 205–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein P (2010) Connecting the science classroom and tangible interfaces: the bifocal modeling framework. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-Volume 2 (pp. 128–130). International Society of the Learning Sciences

  • Blikstein P (2013) Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: the democratization of invention. In: Walter-Herrmann J, Büching C (eds) FabLabs: of machines, makers and inventors. Transcript Publishers, Bielefeld, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013). The makers’ movement and FabLabs in education: experiences, technologies, and research. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 613–616). ACM, New York, USA. Doi 10.1145/2485760.2485884

  • Bowler L (2014) Creativity through “maker” experiences and design thinking in the education of librarians. Knowledge Quest 42(5):58–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Brahms L & Crowley K (2017) Learning to make in the museum: the role of maker educators. In K. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. Kafai (Eds). Makeology in K-12, higher, and informal education: the maker movement and the future of learning. Routledge

  • Buechley L (2010) Questioning invisibility. Computer 43(4):84–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buechley L, & Hill BM (2010) LilyPad in the wild: how hardware’s long tail is supporting new engineering and design communities. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 199–207). New York, USA

  • Buechley L, Peppler K, Eisenberg M, Kafai Y (eds) (2013) Textile messages: dispatches from the world of e-textiles and education, 2 ed ition edn. Peter Lang Publishing Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) Employment projections: 2012–2022 summary. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm

  • Calabrese Barton A, Kang H, Tan E, O’Neill TB, Bautista-Guerra J, Brecklin C (2013) Crafting a future in science: tracing middle school girls’ identity work over time and space. Am Educ Res J 50(1):37–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers SK, Andre T (1997) Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. J Res Sci Teach 34:107–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development (2000) Land of plenty: diversity as America’s competitive edge in science, engineering and technology. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/cawmset0409/cawmset_0409.pdf

  • Chang K-E, Liu S-H, Chen S-W (1998) A testing system for diagnosing misconceptions in DC electric circuits. Comput Educ 31(2):195–210. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(98)00030-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa VB (1995) When science is “another world”: relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science. Sci Educ 79:313–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabney KP, Tai RH, Almarode JT, Miller-Friedmann JL, Sonnert G, Sadler PM, Hazari Z (2012) Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 2(1):63–79. doi:10.1080/21548455.2011.629455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denson CD, Stallworth C, Hailey C, Householder DL (2015) Benefits of informal learning environments: a focused examination of STEM-based program environments. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 16(1):11–15

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt J, Osborne J, Archer L, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B (2013) Young children’s aspirations in science: the unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. Int J Sci Educ 35:1037–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon C & Martin L (2014) Make to relate: Narratives of, and as, community practice. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Volume 3, pp. 1951–1952). Boulder, CO

  • Dorph R & Cannady M(2014) Making the future: promising evidence of influence. Lawrence Hall of Science & Cognizant. Retrieved from http://www.cognizant.com/SiteDocuments/Cognizant-making-the-future.pdf

  • Dougherty D (2013) The maker mindset. In: Honey M, Kanter DE (eds) Design, make, play: growing the next generation of stem innovators. Routledge, New York, pp 7–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt PV, Beichner RJ (2004) Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. Am J Phys 72(1):98. doi:10.1119/1.1614813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fields DA, Searle KA, Kafai YB (2016) Deconstruction kits for learning: students’ collaborative debugging of electronic textile designs. In: FabLearn ’16, Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education, ACM, New York, p 82–85

  • Ford M (2008) Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Sci Educ 92(3):404–423. doi:10.1002/sce.2026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredette NH, Clement JJ (1981) Student misconceptions of an electric circuit: what do they mean? J Coll Sci Teach 10:280–285

    Google Scholar 

  • George R (2006) A cross-domain analysis of change in students’ attitudes toward science and attitudes about the utility of science. Int J Sci Educ 28(6):571–589. doi:10.1080/09500690500338755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson HL, Chase C (2002) Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Sci Educ 86(5):693–705. doi:10.1002/sce.10039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmartin SK, Li E, Aschbacher P (2006) The relationship between interest in physical science/engineering, science class experiences, and family contexts: variations by gender and race/ethnicity among secondary students. J Women Minorities Sci Eng 12(2–3):179–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez N, Moll LC, Amanti C (eds) (2005) Funds of knowledge: theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall C, Dickerson J, Battsis D, Kauffmann P, Bosse M (2011) Are we missing opportunities to encourage interest in STEM fields? J Technol Educ 23(1):32–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern R (1999) After-school programs for low-income children: promises and challenges. Future Child 9(3):81–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson ER, Sheridan KM (2014) The maker movement in education. Harv Educ Rev 84(4):495–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewicz JM, Rozek CS, Hulleman CS, Hyde JS (2012) Hel** parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science an experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychol Sci 0956797611435530

  • Hidi S (1990) Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Rev Educ Res 60:549–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi S, Harackiewicz JM (2000) Motivating the academically unmotivated: a critical issue for the 21st century. Rev Educ Res 70(2):151–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey M, Kanter DE (eds) (2013) Design, make, play: growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell J, Tofel-Grehl C, Fields DA, Ducamp GJ (2016) E-textiles to teach electricity: an experiential, aesthetic, handcrafted approach to science. In: Williams C (ed) Teacher pioneers: visions from the edge of the map. ETC. Press, Pittsburgh, pp 232–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Jack BM, Lin HS (2014) Igniting and sustaining interest among students who have grown cold toward science. Sci Educ 98(5):792–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai YB, Fields DA, Searle KA (2014a) Electronic textiles as disruptive designs in schools: supporting and challenging maker activities for learning. Harvard Educ Rev 84(4):532–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai YB, Lee E, Searle KA, Fields DA, Kaplan E, Lui D (2014b) A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school. ACM Trans Comput Educ 14(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai YB, Searle KA, Martinez C, Brayboy B (2014c) Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American indian youth and communities. In: Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, New York, p 241–246

  • Katehi L, Pearson G, Feder M (eds) (2009) Engineering in K-12 education: understanding the status and improving the prospects. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong X, Dabney KP, Tai RH (2014) The association between science summer camps and career interest in science and engineering. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 4(1):54–65. doi:10.1080/21548455.2012.760856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langdon D, McKittrick G, Beede D, Khan B, & Doms M (2011) STEM: good jobs now and for the future. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC: Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved from http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/stemfinaljuly14.pdf.

  • Liégeois L, Mullet E (2002) High school students’ understanding of resistance in simple series electric circuits. Int J Sci Educ 24(6):551–564. doi:10.1080/09500690110066520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu CC, Falk JH (2014) Serious fun: viewing hobbyist activities through a learning lens. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 4(4):343–355. doi:10.1080/21548455.2013.824130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovell E & Buechley L (2010) An e-sewing tutorial for DIY learning. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 230–233). Barcelona, Spain. ACM

  • Martin L (2015) The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-college Engineering Education Research 5(1). doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1099

  • Martin L & Dixon C (2013) Youth conceptions of making and the Maker Movement. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. New York, USA. Retrieved from https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/422054/DigiFab_IDC2013/Papers/IDC_2013_Martin_Dixon.pdf

  • Miller PH, Blessing JS, Schwartz S (2006) Gender differences in high-school students’ views about science. Int J Sci Educ 28(4):363–381. doi:10.1080/09500690500277664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moll LC, Amanti C, Neff D, Gonzalez N (1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Pract 31:132–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (2014) NAEP Questions Tool. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ITMRLSX/search.aspx?subject=science

  • National Institute on Out-of-School Time (2001) Fact sheet on school-age children's out-of-school time [online]. National Institute on Out-of-School Time, Wellesley, MA Retrieved from: http://www.niost.org/fact_sheet_01.pdf .

  • NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board (2010) Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: identifying and develo** our nation’s human capital. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf

  • National Science Board (2016) Science and engineering indicators 2016. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2013) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF 13–304. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/

  • Navarro RL, Flores LY, Worthington RL (2007) Mexican American middle school students' goal intentions in mathematics and science: a test of social cognitive career theory. J Couns Psychol 54(3):320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris A (2014) Make-her-spaces as hybrid places: designing and resisting self constructions in urban classrooms. Equity & Excellence in Education 47(1):63–77. doi:10.1080/10665684.2014.866879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne R (1981) Children’s ideas about electric current. N Z Sci Teach 29:12–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne R (1983) Modifying children’s ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technology Education 1:73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne J, Black P, Smith M, Meadows J (1991) Primary SPACE project research report: electricity. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool

    Google Scholar 

  • Peppler K, Glosson D (2013) Stitching circuits: learning about circuitry through e-textile materials. J Sci Educ Technol 22(5):751–763. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9428-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins D & Grotzer T (2005) Dimensions of causal understanding: the role of complex causal models in students' understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 117–165

  • Pesman H, Eryilmaz A (2010) Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. Journal of Educational Research 103(3):208–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrich M, Wilkinson K, Bevan B (2013) It looks like fun, but are they learning? In: Honey M, Kanter D (eds) Design, make, play: growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Routledge, New York, pp 50–70

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010) Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Report to the President. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf

  • Qi J (2014) Circuit stickers. http://www.circuitstickers.com

  • Roque R, Rusk N, Beck L, MIT Media Lab, & Chen X (2014) Family creative learning: engaging parents and children as learning partners in creative technology workshops. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Volume 3, pp.1623–1624)

  • Schiefele U, Krapp A, Winteler A (1992) Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: a meta-analysis of research. In: Renninger KA, Hidi S, Krapp A (eds) The role of interest in learning and development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ, England, pp 183–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle KA, Kafai YB (2015a) Boys’ needlework: understanding gendered and Indigenous perspectives on computing and crafting with electronic textiles. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, ACM, New York, p 31–39

  • Searle KA, Kafai YB (2015b) Culturally responsive making with American Indian girls: Bridging the identity gap in crafting and computing with electronic textiles. In: Proceedings of Gender and Information Technology 2015. ACM, New York, p 9–16

  • Searle KA, Fields DA, Lui D, Kafai YB (2014) Diversifying high school students' views about computing with electronic textiles. In: Proceedings of International Computing Education Research, ACM, New York, p 75–82

  • Searle KA, Fields DA, Kafai YB (2016) Crafting high-low tech identities with electronic textiles: complicating relationships between gender and technology. In: Peppler K, Halverson E, Kafai YB (eds) Makeology: makers as learners, vol 2. Routledge, New York, pp 72–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Sencar S, Eryilmaz A (2004) Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’ misconceptions concerning electric circuits. J Res Sci Teach 41:603–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan K, Halverson ER, Litts B, Brahms L, Jacobs-Priebe L, Owens T (2014) Learning in the making: a comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harv Educ Rev 84(4):505–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjaastad J (2012) Sources of Inspiration: the role of significant persons in young people's choice of science in higher education. Int J Sci Educ 34(10):1615–1636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleeter CE, Grant CA (1991) Map** terrains of power: student cultural knowledge versus classroom knowledge. In: Sleeter C (ed) Empowerment through multicultural education. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneider C (2012) Core ideas of engineering and technology. Science Teacher 79(1):32–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Spradley JP (1979) The ethnographic interview. Waveland Press, Inc., Long Grove, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes PD (2008) Creativity from constraints: what can we learn from Motherwell? from Modrian? from Klee? J Creat Behavr 42(4):223–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subotnik RF, Tai RH, Rickoff R, Almarode J (2009) Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: what do we know now and what will we know in 5 years? Roeper Review 32(1):7–16. doi:10.1080/02783190903386553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tai RH, Liu CQ, Maltese AV, Fan X (2006) Planning early for careers in. Science 312(5777):1143–1144. doi:10.1126/science.1128690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan LM, Laswad F (2009) Understanding students’ choice of academic majors: a longitudinal analysis. Acc Educ 18(3):233–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan E, Calabrese Barton A, Kang H, O'Neill T (2013) Desiring a career in STEM‐related fields: how middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities‐in‐practice in science. J Res Sci Teach 50(10):1143–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang M, Fouad NA, Smith PL (1999) Asian Americans' career choices: a path model to examine factors influencing their career choices. J Vocat Behav 54(1):142–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center (2011) TIMSS 2011 assessment. Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias S (1994) Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Rev Educ Res 64(1):37–54. doi:10.3102/00346543064001037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tofel-Grehl C, Fields DA (2015) Sewing up science: a craft based approach for teaching electricity and circuits. Sci Teach 82(8):45–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner SL, Steward JC, Lapan RT (2004) Family factors associated with sixth‐grade adolescents' math and science career interests. Career Dev Q 53(1):41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vossoughi S & Bevan B (2014) Making and tinkering: a review of the literature. Commissioned paper by the committee on successful out-of-school STEM learning. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/CurrentProjects/DBASSE_086842

  • Weibert A, Marshall A, Aal K, Schubert K, & Rode J (2014) Sewing interest in e-textiles: analyzing making from a gendered perspective. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive System (pp. 5–24). Vancouver, Canada. ACM, New York, NY

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Colby Tofel-Grehl, Deborah Fields, Kristin Searle, Cathy Maahs-Fladung, David Feldon, Grace Gu & Chongning Sun

Authors
  1. Colby Tofel-Grehl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deborah Fields
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristin Searle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cathy Maahs-Fladung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Feldon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Grace Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chongning Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colby Tofel-Grehl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tofel-Grehl, C., Fields, D., Searle, K. et al. Electrifying Engagement in Middle School Science Class: Improving Student Interest Through E-textiles. J Sci Educ Technol 26, 406–417 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9688-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9688-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation