Category: learning impediments

Energy cannot be made or destroyed (except in biology)

Keith S. Taber

Energy can be made, but only in biology: Amy had learnt that respiration was converting glucose and oxygen into energy – but had learnt in physics that energy cannot be made

Amy was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. Amy was a Y10 (14-15 year old) student who had separate lessons in biology, chemistry and physics. When I spoke to her (see here), she had told me that respiration was "converting glucose into energy and either carbon dioxide and lactic acid, or just carbon dioxide". When I spoke to her again, some weeks later, Amy repeated that respiration was "converting oxygen and glucose into energy and carbon dioxide…it produces energy" ; that trees "need to produce energy and when they photosynthesise they produce like energy"and that food is "broken down and converted into energy".

Later in the same interview I asked her about her physics lessons, where she had been told that "there's like different types of energy" and that it "cannot be made or destroyed, only converted". Amy did not seen to have recognised any conflict between how she understood the role of energy in biology, and what she was taught in physics.

However, on further questioning, she seemed able to recast her biology knowledge to fit what she had been taught in physics:

So in physics, they tell you (that) you cannot make or destroy energy.

Yeah.

And in biology, they tell you that you can make energy from oxygen and glucose?

(No response – Pause of c.2 seconds)

But only in biology, not in physics?

Oh, erm, I suppose the energy, erm well in respiration, erm the energy must be converted from stored energy in food.

So in an interview context, once the linkage was explicitly pointed out, Amy seemed to recognise that the principle learnt in physics should be applied in biology. However, she did not spontaneously make this link, without which the nature of respiration was misunderstood (in terms of energy being created from matter). This would appear to be an example of a fragmentation learning impediment, as although Amy had learnt about the conservation of energy she did not immediately how this related to what she had studied in biology, about respiration.

A salt grain is a particle (but with more particles inside it)

Keith S. Taber

Sandra was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. When I interviewed Sandra about her science lessons in Y7 she told me "I've done changing state, burning, and we're doing electricity at the moment". She talked about burning as being a chemical change, and when asked for another example told me dissolving was a chemical change, as when salt was dissolved it was not possible to turn it back to give salt grains of the same size. She talk me that is the water was boiled off from salt solution "you'd have the same [amount of salt], but there would just be more particles, but they'd be smaller".

As Sandra had referred to had referred to the salt 'particles' being smaller,(as as she had told me she had been studying 'changing state') I wondered if she had bee taught about the particle model of matter

So the salt's got particles. The salt comes as particles, does it?
Yeah.
Do other things come as particles?
Everything has particles in it.
Everything has particles?
Yeah.
But with salt, you can get larger particles, or smaller particles?
Well, most things. Like it will have like thousands and thousands of particles inside it.
So these are other types of particles, are they?
Mm.

So although Sandra had referred to the smaller salt grains as being "smaller particles", it seemed he was aware that 'particles' could also refer to something other than the visible grains. Everything had particles in. Although salt particles (grains?) could be different sizes, it (any salt grain?) would have a great number ("like thousands and thousands") of particles (not grains – quanticles perhaps) inside it. So it seemed Sandra was aware of the possible ambiguity here, that there were small 'particles' of some materials, but all materials (or, at least, "most things") were made up of a great many 'particles' that were very much smaller.

So if you look at the salt, you can see there's tiny little grains?
Yeah.
But that's not particles then?
Well it sort of is, but you've got more particles inside that.

"It sort of is" could be taken to mean that the grains are 'a kind of particle' in a sense, but clearly not the type of particles that were inside everything. She seemed to appreciate that these were two different types of particle. However, Sandra was not entirely clear about that:

So there's two types are of particles, are there?
I don't know.
Particles within particles?
Yeah.
Something like that, is it?
Yeah.
But everything's got particles has it, even if you can't see them?
Yeah.
So if you dissolved your salt in water, would the water have particles?
Ye:ah.
'cause I've seen water, and I've never seen any particles in the water.
The part¬, you can't actually see particles.
Why not?
Because they're too small.
Things can be too small to see?
Yeah.
Oh amazing. So what can you see when you look at water, then? 'cause you see something, don't you?
You can see – what the particles make up.
Ah, I see, but not the individual particles?
No.

Sandra's understanding here seems quite strong – the particles that are inside everything (quanticles) were too small to be seen, and we could only see "what the particles make up". That is, she, to some extent at least, appreciated the emergence of new properties when very large numbers of particles that were individually too small to see were collected together.

Despite this, Sandra's learning was clearly not helped by the associations of the word 'particle'. Sandra may have been taught about submicroscopic particles outside of direct experience, but she already thought of small visible objects like salt grains as 'particles'. This seems to be quite common – science borrows a familiar term, particle, and uses it to label something unfamiliar.

We can see this as extending the usual everyday range of meaning of 'particle' to also include much smaller examples that cannot be perceived, or perhaps as a scientific metaphor – that quanticles are called particles because they are in some ways like the grains and specks that we usually think of as being very small particles. Either way, the choice of a term with an existing meaning to label something that is in some ways quite similar (small bits of matter) but in other ways very different ('particles' without definite sizes/volumes or actual edges/surfaces) can confuse students. It can act as an associative learning impediment if students transfer the properties of familiar particles to the submicroscopic entities of 'particle' theory.

A chemical bond would have to be made of atoms

Keith S. Taber

Amy was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. When I had talked to Amy when she was in Y10 she had referred to things being bonded: "where one thing is joined on to another thing, and it can be chemically bonded" and how "in a compound, where two or more elements are joined together, that's an example of chemical bonding".

The following year, in Y11, when she was studying fats she talked about "how they're made up and like with all the double bonds and single bonds" where a double bond was "where there are kind of like two bonds between erm carbon atoms instead of like one" and a bond was "how two atoms are joined together". Later in Y11, Amy told be that she did not know how to explain chemical bonding, but "in lessons like we've always been shown these kind of – things – where you kind of, you've got the atom, and then you've got the little, grey stick things which are meant to be the bonds, and you can just – fit them together."

Source: Image by WikimediaImages from Pixabay

As Amy had told me "everything is made up of atoms", I provocatively asked her if the chemical bond was made of atoms. Amy had "absolutely no idea" but she "suppose(d) it would have to be, wouldn't it".

Not only is this an alternative conception, but to a chemist, or science teacher, the idea that chemical bonds are themselves made up of atoms seems incongruous and offers a potential for infinite regress (are those atoms in the bonds, themselves bonded? If so, are those bonds also made of atoms?)

This alternative conception could be considered a kind of associative learning impediment – that is where a learner makes an unintended link and so applies an idea outside of its range of application. All material is considered to be made of atoms – or at least quanticles comprising one of more nuclei bound to electrons (i.e., ions, molecules). Even this is not an absolute: the material formed immediately after the big bang was not of this form, and nor is the matter in a neutron star, but the material we usually engage with is considered to be made of atom-like units (i.e., ions, molecules).

But to suggest that Amy has made an inappropriate association seems a little unfair. Had Amy thought "all matter was made of atoms" and then suggested that chemical bonding was made of atoms this would be inappropriate as chemical bonding is not material but a process – electrical interactions between quanticles. Yet it is hard to see how one can over-extend the range of 'everything', as in "everything is made up of atoms".

There is an inherent problem with the motto everything is made up of atoms. It is probably something that teachers commonly say, and think is entirely clear – that it is obvious what its scope is – but from the perspective of a student there is not the wealth of background knowledge to appreciate the implied limits on 'everything'.

Learners will readily pick up teaching mottos such as "everything is made of atoms" and take them quite literally: if everything is made of atoms then bonds must be made of atoms. So although she was wrong, I think Amy was just applying something she had learnt.

She'd never thought about whether ionic bonding is the same thing as chemical bonding

Keith S. Taber

Amy was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. When I talked to her near the start of her GCSE 'triple science' course in Y10 she told me that ionic bonding was "atoms which have either lost or gained electrons so they are either positively or negatively charged" and that chemical bonding was "like in a compound, where two or more elements are joined together", but she seemed unsure how the two concepts were related.

I followed up on Amy's use of the term 'compound' to explore how she understood the term:

How would you define a compound?

Erm …Something which has erm two or more elements chemically bonded.

… So you give me an example of that, compound?

Erm, sodium oxide.

Sodium oxide, okay, so there are two or more elements chemically bonded in sodium oxide are there?

Uh hm

And what would those two or more elements be?

Sodium and oxygen.

Okay. Erm, so when we say sodium oxide is chemically bonded, what we are saying there is?

[pause, c 2s]

Erm – a sodium atom has been bonded with a oxygen atom to form erm a new substance.

So Amy's example of a compound was sodium oxide, which would normally be considered essentially an ionic compound, that is a compound with ionic bonding. So this gave me an opportunity to test out whether Amy saw the bonding in sodium chloride and sodium oxide as similar.


Okay, so that was chemical bonding,

Mm.

and that occurs with compounds?

Yeah.

And what did you say about ionic bonding?

Erm, it's the outer electrons they are transferred from one element to another.

Now what does that occur in? You gave me one example, didn't you?

Uh huh

Sodium chloride?

Yeah
…

Erm. Would sodium chloride be er an element?

[pause, c.2s]

Sodium chloride, no.

No?

It would be a compound.

You think that would be a compound?

Yeah.

And a compound is two or more elements joined together by chemical bonding?

Yeah.

So Amy had told me that sodium chloride, which had ionic bonding, was (like sodium oxide) a compound, and she had already told me that a compound comprised of "two or more elements chemically bonded", so it should be follow that sodium chloride (which had ionic bonding) had chemical bonding.

Do you think sodium chloride has chemical bonding?

Er – I think so

And it also has ionic bonding, or is that the same thing?

Erm,

[pause, c.2s]

I dunno, I've never thought about it that way, erm,

[pause c.3s]

I'm not sure, erm

[pause, c.2s]

I dunno, it might be.

Clearly, whatever Amy had been taught (and interviewing students reveals they often only recall partial and distorted versions of what was presented in class) she had learnt

  • (1) that ionic bonding was transfer of electrons (an alternative conception) as in the example of sodium transferring an electron to chlorine; and that
  • (2) a compounds was where two or more elements chemically bonded together, and an example was sodium oxide where the elements sodium and oxygen were chemical bonded.

Yet these two pieces of learning seemed to have been acquired as isolated ideas without any attempt to link them. Initially Amy seemed to feel ionic bonding and chemical bonding were quite separate concepts.

When taken through an argument that led to her telling me that sodium chloride, that she thought had ionic bonding, was a compound, which therefore had chemical bonding, there should have been a logical imperative to see that ionic bonding was chemical bonding (actually, a kind of chemical bonding – as the logic did not imply that chemical bonding was necessarily ionic bonding). Despite the implied syllogism:

  • sodium chloride has ionic bonding
  • sodium chloride is a compound
  • compounds have elements chemically bonded together
  • therefore ionic bonding …

Amy was unsure what to deduce, presumably because she had seen the two concepts of ionic bonding and chemical bonding as discrete notions and had had given no thought to a possible relationship between them. However explicit teaching had been on this point, it is very likely that the teacher had expected students to appreciate that ionic bonding was a type of chemical bonding – but Amy had not integrated these ideas into a connected conceptual structure (i.e., there was a learning bug that could be called a fragmentation learning impediment).

Ionic bonding – compared with chemical bonding

Keith S. Taber

Amy was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. The first time I talked to Amy, near the start of her GCSE 'triple science' course in Y10 she told me that "in normal chemistry (i.e., the chemistry part of 'double science', as opposed to the optional additional chemistry lesson as part of 'triple science' that Amy also attended) we're doing about ionic bonding" which she understood in terms of "atoms which have either lost or gained electrons so they are either positively or negatively charged" because "in ionic bonding it's the electrons that are transferred".

When asked other examples of ionic bonding apart from sodium and chlorine Amy told me "That's the one I did".

To a teacher it seems inherently obvious that ionic bonding is type of bonding – in much the way that a snare drum is a kind of drum or a conscientious student is a type of student. However, this may not always be obvious to students (even the conscientious ones).

When I asked Amy about bonding she referred to things being chemically bonded, and when I asked if ionic bonding was the same as chemical bonding, she was not sure how these concepts were related:

So what exactly is bonding?

Erm, where er one thing is joined on to another thing, and it can be chemically bonded or, yeah {laughs}

So we can talk about chemical bonding?

Mm.

Are there other types of bonding then?

Erm, there must be, if there's chemical bonding, I'm not sure, erm

[pause, c.5s]

But we talk about chemical bonding,

Mm.

and we talk about ionic bonding. So is ionic bonding the same thing as chemical bonding or is there a difference?

Erm, in, well in chemical bonding, erm like in a compound, where erm – two or more elements are joined together, that's an example of chemical bonding, but in – erm – ionic bonding it's the erm electrons that are transferred. [pause, c.2s] I think.

It seems Amy had been taught about chemical bonding and had learn about this as "a compound, where two or more elements are joined together", and she had been taught about ionic bonding and had learnt that this was where "the electrons are transferred".

Ionic bonding is not (and need not be associated with) electron transfer. It is not possible form talking to Amy to now exactly what her teacher told her – clearly she could have misunderstood or forgotten material form class. It is possible that it was made clear that ionic bonding was one type of chemical bonding, but Amy either missed that point or did not now recall it. It is also possible is was not made explicit but was assumed to be obvious (especially if ionic bonding had been presented as part of a sequence on chemical bonding. Sadly, what is obvious to teachers is not always obvious to learners, and indeed I've seen in my interviews that students are not always clear when one topic has finished and another has started. There is no sense here that I wish to criticise the teacher (who for all I know gave an exemplary presentation of the chemical bonding), but would simply suggest that when teaching one can never assume what should be obvious is obvious and that it is probably difficult to be too explicit about key ideas, or to reiterate them too often!

So at this point it seemed Amy only knew one example of ionic bonding, sodium chloride, and did not associate this with compounds which had chemical bonding. This could be considered a fragmentation learning impediment – a failure to make a link that was expected from the teaching. I went on to ask her for an example of a compound, and a she told me about sodium oxide I thought this was an opportunity to probe at the association between ionic boding and chemical bonding a little more.

Current only slows down at the resistor

Current only slows down at the resistor – by analogy with water flow 

Keith S. Taber

Students commonly think that resistance in a circuit has local effects, and in part that is because forming a mental model of what is going on in circuits is very difficult. Often models and analogies can be useful. However when an analogy is used in teaching there is also the potential for it to mislead.

Amy was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. Amy (when in Y10) told me she had been taught to use a water flow analogy for electric current. However, because her visualisation of what happens in water circuits was incorrect, she used the analogy to inform an alternative conception about circuits:

Do you have any kind of imagined sort of idea, any little mental models, about what (the flow of electricity round the circuit) might look like? Do you have a way of imagining that?

Erm, yeah, we've been taught the water tank and pipe running round it. … just imagine the water like flowing through a pipe, and obviously like, if the pipe becomes smaller a one point, erm, the water flow has to slow down, and that's meant to represent the resistance of something.

So, so if I had my water, er, tank and I had a series of pipes, they'd be water flowing through the pipes, and if I had a narrower pipe at one point, what happens then?

The water would have to slow down.

So would it slow down just as it goes through the narrow pipe, or would it slow down all the way round?

Erm – just through that part.

(Amy does not appreciate the implications of conservation of mass {that is, the continuity principle} here – at steady state there cannot be a greater mass flow at different points in the circuit).

…

And so how do you imagine that's got to do with resistance, how does that help you understand resistance?

…well resistance, it slows the current down, but then erm, once it passes a resistor or something it, the current is free to flow through the wire again

Analogies can be very useful teaching tools, but when using them it is important to check that the students already understand the features of the analogue that are meant to be helpful. It is also important to ensure that they understand which features are meant to be mapped onto the target system they are learning about, and which are not relevant.

Analogies are only useful when the learner has a good understand of the analogue. In this case, as Amy did not appreciate that the water flow throughout the system would be limited by the constriction, she could not use that as a useful analogy for why a resistor influences current flow at all points in a series circuit. This is an example of where a teaching model meant to support learning, which actually misleads the learner. That is, for Amy, with her flawed understanding of fluid flow, the teaching model acted as a pedagogic learning impediment – a type of grounded learning impediment.

Gases in bottles try to escape; liquids try to take the shape

Keith S. Taber

Bill was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. Bill, a year 7 (Y7) student, told me that:

"Gases, they try and fill whole room, they don't, like liquids, they stay at the bottom of the container, but gases go fill, do everywhere and fill, try and fill the whole thing." 

When asked "Why do they try and do that?" he replied that "Erm, I'm not sure." I suggested some things that Bill might 'try' to do, and asked "so when the gas tries to fill the room, is it the same sort of thing, do we mean the same sort of thing by the word 'try'?" Bill appreciated the difference, and recanted the use of 'try':

"No, I think I phrased that wrong, I meant that it fills the whole area, 'cause it can expand."

However, it soon became clear that Bill's use of the term came easily, despite accepting that it was misleading:

Okay. So it's not, the gas does not come in and say, 'hm, I think I'll fill the whole room', and try and do it?

No, it just does it.

It just does it?

It tries to get out of everywhere, so if you put it in the bottle, it would be trying to get out.

And later:

…are there particles in other things?:

liquids, yeah there is particles in everything, but liquids the particles move quite a lot because, well they have, oh we did this this [in the most recent] lesson, erm, they have energy to move, so they try and move away, but their particles are quite close together.

What about the gases?

The gases, their particles try to stay as far away from each other as possible.

Why is that? Don't they like each other?

No, it's because they are trying to spread out into the whole room.

And later:

…and you said that liquids contain particles? Did you say they move, what did you say about the particles in liquids?

Er, they're quite, they're further apart, than the ones in erm solids, so they erm, they try and take the shape, they move away, but the volume of the water doesn't change. It just moves.

What about the particles in the gas?

The gas, they're really, they're far apart and they try and expand.

Bill had only learnt about particles recently in science, but seemed to have already developed a habitual way of talking about them with anthropomorphism: as if they were conscious agents that strived to fill rooms, escape bottles, and take up the shape of containers.

To some extent this is surely a lack of familiarity with objects that can have inherent motion without having an external cause (like a projectile) or internal purposes (like animals) and/or having a suitable language for talking about the world of molecular level particles ('quanticles'). Such habits may be harmless, but it is a concern if such habitual ways of talking and thinking later come to stand for more scientific descriptions and explanations of natural processes (what has been called strong anthropomorphism).

Bill's lack of a suitable language for talking about particle actions could act as a learning impediment (a deficiency learning impediment), impeding desired learning.

The Sun would pull more on the Earth…

Bert's understanding of the reciprocal nature of forces 

Keith S. Taber

Bert was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. A key idea in school physics is that forces occur in pairs, when two bodies exert an equal magnitude force upon each other (as required by Newton's third law). However, this seems counter intuitive to pupils, who may expect that a larger (more massive, or greater charge etc.) object would exert a greater force on a smaller body than vice versa. In physics a distinction is made between the forces (always equal) and their effects (which depend upon the force applied, and the mass of the object being acted upon). This distinction is not always made by students.

When in Y11, Bert offered an example of one of the common alternative conceptions found among students – that the larger body will exert more force:

What about the Earth going round the Sun, that's an orbit as well is it?

Yeah.

…

So why does it go round?

Why does it go round?

Yeah.

Erm because erm, well one is the gravity of it pulling and the other is, I'm not so sure what the other force is.

That's gravity of what?

The Sun.

So the gravity of the Sun pulling on the Earth?

Yeah.

Do you think the Earth pulls on the Sun?

Yeah, I guess but not strongly enough to move the Sun. Because if there's an object with a small amount of mass then it's not going to give off as much pull as something ten times bigger as it. So the Earth would pull more on the Sun, I mean the Sun would pull more on the Earth.

Whereas the physics perspective is that a force is an interaction between bodies, Bert talks as though a force is something that emanates from one body to another ("give off … pull"), a way of talking quite common among students applying their intuitive understanding of force.

Many students conflate the force acting on a body, and its effect (the acceleration produced) – so here the Sun and Earth are subject to the same force, but the earth is much less massive so will accelerate much more subject to that force than the Sun would. (The Sun's acceleration would actually depend on the net force acting on it considering the various bodies in orbit around it.)

Common experience tells us that in interactions between contrasting bodies (e.g., consider a fly on a windshield) the larger object has more effect, which may seem naturally to mean it applies more force (how much force can the tiny fly impart? – surely the car must apply more force to the fly?) So there is an intuition here, which can act as a grounded learning impediment to learning the physics formalism.


There are particles in everything – but maybe not chlorophyll

Keith S. Taber

Bill was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. Bill (a Year 7 pupil) told me that "solids they stay same shape and their particles only move a tiny bit". He explained that the 'particles' were "the bits that make it what it is", although "you can't see them" as "they're very, very tiny". Later he commented that "they are microscopic".

Although it is very common for such particles to be said to be 'microscopic', a better term would be 'nanoscopic'. Microscopic suggests visible under a microscope, and the particles referred to here ('quanticles') are actually submicroscopic." The term microscopic could therefore be misleading, and it is known that often when students first learn about particles in science they often have in mind small grains of powder or dust.

Bill explained that "there is particles in everything". Bill was able to talk a lot about particles in solids, liquid and gases and explain what happened during melting.

Later in the same interview Bill talked about how in his primary school he had studied "a lot about plants, and – inside them, how they produce their own food", and how "inside, it has leaves, inside it, there is chlorophyll, which stores [sic] sunlight, and then it uses that sunlight to produce its food."

I asked Bill if plants had anything to do with particles:

Well in the plant, there is particles….'cause it's a solid…. inside the stem is, 'cause going up the stem there would be water, so that's a liquid. And, it also uses oxygen, which is a gas, to make its food, so. I think so.

Bill explained that "…in the leaves it is chlorophyll which is a green substance, so that would make, give it its colour".

Do you think chlorophyll is made of particles?

Hm, don't know.

So it seemed that although 'there is particles in everything', Bill did not seem to feel this meant that he could apply the particle idea to all substances. This could be an example of a fragmentation learning impediment: that is, where learning in one area is not recognised as relevant in studying other subjects or topics.

Atoms evolved so that they could hold on to each other

Bert Suggests Chemical Bonding Evolved 

Keith S. Taber

Bert was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. During one interview he reported that he had just completed a topic of alkanes and alkenes in his chemistry classes. He explained that a carbon atom has "to have four bonds", so if a carbon atom had "only got one two carbons on one side and one hydrogen then it'll make a double bond, to have four bonds". So I asked him what he understood a bond to be:

I: …what's a bond?

B: A bond is erm, it just, it's something to hold, hold two atoms together.

I: So what might you use to hold two atoms together?

B: Erm, So they can be kept, so that they're not too, I think it's just to make, so it can make big lines so it can erm, oh, so they, so not every, so because solids they have erm, I guess a lot of bonds, to keep it all, all together, I'm guessing. And erm like gas has a lot less bonds because it's a lot more free.

I: That makes sense [Bert], I'm just wondering what you would use to bond two atoms together. … I'm just wondering what kind of thing you use to bond two atoms together.

B: Erm • • I'm not sure. I guess, I guess they were just, when er, they're made with it I guess.

I: Yeah. Do you think it's made of adhesive? … is it made of a glue do you think?

B: No, I don't think so. I think it was like, I don't know, it could have been like evolution, like.

I: Ah.

B: Yeah, the atoms evolved so that they could hold on to each other.

I: Oh I love that. • • • The atoms evolved so that they could hold on to each other?

B: I guess so. That's how the world was made.

In this interview segment Bert seems not to have considered the nature of the bonds between atoms, but just to have accepted what he has learnt about valency. When asked about the nature of the bond he could offer no mechanism for bonding, but instead suggested that chemical bonds had evolved as "that's how the world was made". Here Bert is drawing upon a general explanation considered to be universal in the domain of living things, but applying his learning from biology to explain a physical phenomena.

This seems to be a creative association drawing upon prior learning, but the idea of evolution is being used outside is canonical range of application, leading to a potential associative learning impediment. Potentially, Bert's thinking about evolution as explaining how atoms can bond (a potential explanation about origins, though inappropriate if evolution is understood as natural selection) could stand in place of seeking a physical explanation for the nature of bonding.

Creating an explanation for the soot from Bunsen flames

Letting the dirt out: Creating an explanation for the soot from Bunsen flames in the absence of appreciation the nature of combustion

Keith S. Taber

Jim was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. Jim, a Y7 student, had been studying burning in science. He had been using Bunsen burners, and had been taught about the different flames (i.e., the safety flame, and the 'roaring' blue flame used for heating), and the use of the valve at the base of the burner to select the frame. Not yet appreciating the nature of burning, he was not aware that the soot obtained when interrupting the safety flame was due to incomplete combustion. Rather he had developed his own interpretation of why using the burner with the hole closed off led to a dirty flame:

What is burning, then?

It usually involves a flame. Erm which can either be yellow, orangey-yellow, or …like a, bluey colour, bluey-purple.

I: Oh, so is that significant, the colour of the flame, does that mean something?

J: Well, the yellow one has a lot of …if you touch it with glass or something, …will go black, but if you use the blue flame, it won't, so if you are heating something, you should use the blue flame.

I: Why do you think it goes black, if you use the orangey-yellow flame?

J: Because with the Bunsen burners, if you are twisting the knob, open, the dirt gets out, and you get the nice clear blue flame, but to get the orange flame, you have to have it closed, don't you, and then that doesn't let the dirt out, so it doesn't kind of, when it gets out of the top it doesn't have time.

I: So what happens if the hole is open?

J: You get, a blue flame.

I: Right, and what happens if the hole is closed?

J: Get a yellow flame.

I: And why does the hole make a difference?

J: I don't know, it probably lets the dirt out, or the air get into it or something.

I: So what dirt is this, that might be let out, do you think. Dirt from where?

J: Maybe the excess gas particles that have already been burnt or something. Don't know.

Presumably no one had told Jim that the hole was to let dirt out of the Bunsen so it did not get into the flame. However the hole was presumably letting something in or out (he later suggests, the hole might let air in – perhaps something the teacher had told the class but which had not been readily recalled?) and there was dirt in the flame when it was closed, which was not there when it was open. Jim interpreted his observations in terms of prior knowledge (of what holes do, and of dirt) to construct an explanatory scheme that made some sense of the effect of closing or opening the air hole. This would seem to have potential to be an associative learning impediment of the 'creative' type.

Gas particles like to have a lot of space, so they can expand

Keith S. Taber

Derek was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. I interviewed Derek when he was in Y7 of the English school system. We had been talking about work that Derek has been doing in his science classes on burning. As part of the conversation, Derek defined a solid in particle terms:

what's a solid then, what's a solid?

Lots of particles really close together that can't move a lot.

When I followed this up, Derek explained how a liquid or gas was different to a solid:

And you say solids are made of particles. What are liquids then, they are not made of particles then?

No they are, they are just more spread out particles. And then, you get a gas, which the particles can move a lot more than solid and liquid, they can move wherever they like.

And where do they like to move?

As far away from each other as possible.

Why do you think that is?

'cause they like to have a lot of space, so they can expand.

Why do you think particles like to have a lot of space?

(Pause, c.3s)

Don't know.

Are they unfriendly lot, unsociable?

(Pause, c.2s)

No, they just, they like to have, like be as well away from each other as possible.

The question "where do they like to move" was couched in anthropomorphic terms to reflect the anthropomorphism of Derek's statement that gas particles could "move wherever they like", to see if he would reject the notion of the particles 'liking'. However Derek did not query my use of this language, and indeed suggested that the particles "like to have a lot of space".

When he was asked why, there was a pause, apparently suggesting that for Derek the notion of the particles liking to be far apart seemed to be reasonable enough for him not to have thought about any underlying reason, and his "don't now" was said in a tone suggesting this was a rather uninteresting question. Although Derek rejected the suggestion that the particles were 'unfriendly', 'unsociable' his tone did not suggest he thought this was a silly suggestion: rather it was just that the particles "like" to be as far "away from each other as possible".

The use of anthropomorphism is very common in student talk about particles. Whether or not Derek really believed these gas particles actually had 'likes' in the way that, say, he himself did, cannot be inferred from this exchange. But, in Derek's case, as in that of many other students, the anthropomorphic metaphors seem to offer a satisfactory way of thinking about particle 'behaviour' that is likely to act as a grounded learning impediment because Derek is not open to looking for a different kind (i.e., more scientifically acceptable) type of explanation. Given the common use of his language, it seems likely that it derives from the way teachers use anthropomorphic language metaphorically to communicate abstract ideas to students ('weak anthropomorphism'), but which students accept readily because thinking about particle behaviour in terms of the 'social' models makes sense to them ('strong anthropomorphism').