Keith S. Taber
(Possibly) the first in an occasional series to test the imagination of science teachers and other science communicators.
Those who explain science (such as teachers, scientists themselves, journalists) often seek to 'make the unfamiliar familiar' by suggesting that the novel scientific concept is in some ways like something else – something it is assumed will already be familiar with the audience.
Can you match the science and the comparison?
In the table below I have selected ten examples of comparisons for science concepts (from those reported on this website) – but I have separated the scientific ideas from the comparisons (and then presented both lists alphabetically).
The challenge is to see if you can identify which comparison was used in discussing which science concept:
| target science concept | comparison used |
| antiaromaticity | blockage of emergency fast lane |
| atomic energy levels | dark alter-ego |
| blood-brain barrier | fingerprints |
| black hole | four-seater car or four-man boat |
| covalent and ionic bonds | gloves or socks |
| Ebola | Great Wall of China |
| haemoglobin | kinds of human relationships |
| molecules | merry-go-rounds |
| proton pumps | missing Mars bar |
| water voles | waste disposal unit |
Of course, it is very unfair of me to present these comparisons stripped of any context – but that is what makes it a challenge.
[All of these examples are featured somewhere on the site, so if you give up (or wish to cheat) you could use the 'Search the website' box.]
A fun activity – with a serious point
I hope some readers may find this a fun activity for a tea break in the prep. room or as a way to relax for those now finally on Summer break. However, I think such comparison invite closer attention.
Devices such as analogies and similes are invaluable in getting across abstract unfamiliar ideas. However, choosing them is itself a challenge as the comparison has to be familiar to the learner/listener/reader or it cannot be helpful (in which case it may be demotivating as it adds an additional burden to what the person does not know!) Moreover, the learner/listener/reader needs to appreciate which aspect of the comparison is being highlighted as relevant. (In an analogy this should be mapped out – but in metaphors and similes it is left implicit).
There is also a danger that these devices – so useful for introducing scientific ideas – outstay their welcome (so to speak). An author of a popular science book may only be concerned with the reader having the (subjective) impression of understanding, feeling 'oh yes, that makes sense'; but the science teacher aims for objective understanding (that would be creditable on examination), and intends the analogy or simile to be a temporary 'scaffold' toward understanding which will not be needed once the scientific concept has been learnt and consolidated. Yet, sometimes, learners do not move beyond the comparison – seeing its meaning as literally accurate (much as learners may not appreciate that many scientific models are not intended to be realistic and complete accounts).
Science communicators – scientists, teachers, science writers and the like – are also often knowledgeable about a wide range of topics and cultural references – but these may not always be shared by some of their target learners/listeners/readers. (This may be particularly true when a source is being used in another part of the world to where it was created, or perhaps when a scientist's work is read many decades after being composed.)
These are also highly intelligent people who may have strong powers of imagination – so sometimes they may form creative connections which others may find obscure and idiosyncratic!
I wonder how you got on?
