learner thinking – Page 10 – Science-Education-Research

Higher resistance means less current for the same voltage – but how does that relate to the formula?

The higher resistance is when there is less current flowing around the circuit when you have the same voltage – but how does that relate to the formula?

Adrian was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. When I interviewed him in Y12 when he was studying Advanced level physics he told me that "We have looked at resistance and conductance and the formulas that go with them" and told me that "Resistance is current over, voltage, I think" although he did not think he could remember formulae. He thought that an ohm was the unit that resistance is measured in, which he suggested "comes from ohm's law which is the…formula that gives you resistance".

Two alternative conceptions

There were two apparent alternative conceptions there. One was that 'Resistance is current over voltage', but as Adrian believed that he was not good at remembering formulae, this would be a conception to which he did not have a high level of commitment. Indeed, on another occasion perhaps he would have offered a different relationship between R, I, and V. I felt that if Adrian had a decent feel for the concepts of electrical resistance, current and voltage then he should be able to appreciate that 'resistance is current over voltage' did not reflect the correct relationship. Adrian was not confident about formulae, but with some suitable leading questioning he might be able to think this through. I describe my attempts to offer this 'scaffolding' below.

The other alternative conception was to conflate two things that were conceptually different: the defining equation for resistance (that R=V/I, by definition so must be true) and Ohm's law that suggests for certain materials under certain conditions, V/I will be found to be constant (that is an empirical relationship that is only true in certain cases). (This is discussed in another post: When is V=IR the formula for Ohm’s law?)

So, I then proceeded to ask Adrian how he would explain resistance to a younger person, and he suggested that resistance is how much something is being slowed down or is stopped going round. After we had talked about that for a while, I brought the discussion back to the formula and the relationship between R, V and I.

Linking qualitative understanding of relating concepts and the mathematical formula

As Adrian considered resistance as slowing down or stopping current I thought he might be able to rationalise how a higher resistance would lead to less current for a particular potential difference ('voltage').

Okay. Let’s say we had, erm, two circuits, and they both have resistance and you wanted to get one amp of current to flow through the circuits, and you had a variable power supply.
Okay.
And the first circuit in order to get one (amp) of current to flow through the circuit.
Yes.
You have to adjust the power supply, until you had 10 volts.
Okay.
So it took 10 volts to get one amp to flow through the circuit. And the second (unclear) the circuit, when you got up to 10 volts, (there is) still a lot less than one amp flowing. You can turn it up to 25 volts, and only when it got to 25 volts did you get one amp to flow through the circuit.
Yes, okay.

In mathematical terms, the resistance of the first circuit is (R = V/I = 10/1 =) 10Ω, and the second is (25/1 =) 25Ω, so the second – the one that requires greater potential difference to drive the same current, has more resistance.

Do you think those two circuits would have resistance?
Erm, (pause, three seconds) Probably yeah.

This was not very convincing, as it should have been clear that as an infinite current was not produced there must be some resistance. However, I continued:

Same resistance?
No because they are not the same circuit, but – it would depend what components you had in your circuit, if you had different resistors in your circuit.
Yeah, I've got different resistors in these two circuits.
Then yes each would have a different resistance.
Can you tell me which one had the bigger resistance? Or can’t you tell me?
No, I can’t do that.
You can’t do it?
No I don’t think so. No.

Adrian's first response, that the circuits would 'probably' have resistance, seemed a little lacking in conviction. His subsequent responses suggested that although he knew there was a formula he did not seem to recognise that if different p.d.s were required to give the same current, this must suggest there was different resistance. Rather he argued from a common sense position that different circuits would be likely to have different components which would lead to them having different resistances. This was a weaker argument, as in principle two different circuits could have the same resistance.

We might say Adrian was applying a reasonable heuristic principle: a rule of thumb to use when definite information was not available: if two circuits have different components, then they likely they have different resistance. But this was not a definitive argument. Here, then, Adrian seemed to be applying general practical knowledge of circuits, but he was not displaying a qualitative feel for what resistance in a circuit was about in term of p.d. and current.

I shifted my approach from discussing different voltages needed to produce the same current, to asking about circuits where the same potential difference would lead to different current flowing:

Okay, let me, let me think of doing it a different way. For the same two circuits, erm, but you got one let's say for example it’s got 10 volts across it to get an amp to flow.
Yeah. So yes okay so the power supply is 10 volts.
Yeah. And the other one also set on 10 volts,
Okay.
but we don’t get an amp flow, we only get about point 4 [0.4] of an amp, something like that, to flow.
Yeah, yeah.
Any idea which has got the high resistance now?
The second would have the higher resistance.
Why do you say that?
Because less erm – There’s less current amps flowing around the circuit erm when you have the same voltage being put into each circuit.
Okay?
Yes.

This time Adrian adopted the kind of logic one would hope a physics student would apply. It was possible that this outcome was less about the different format of the two questions, and simply that Adrian had had time to adjust to thinking about how resistance might be linked to current and voltage. [It is also possible too much information was packed close together in the first attempt, challenging Adrian's working memory capacity, whereas the second attempt fed the information in a way Adrian could better manage.]

You seem pretty sure about that, does that make sense to you?
Yes, it makes sense when you put it like that.
Right, but when I had it the other way, the same current through both, and one required 10 volts and one required 25 volts to get the same current.
Yes.
You did not seem to be too convinced about that way of looking at it.
No. I suppose I have just thought about it more.

Having made progress with the fixed p.d. example, I set Adrian another with constant current:

Yes. So if I get you a different example like that then…let’s say we have two different circuits and they both had a tenth of an amp flowing,
Okay. Yes.
and one of them had 1.5 volt power supply
Okay yes.
and the other one had a two volt power supply
Yeah.
but they have both got point one [0.1] of an amp flowing. Which one has got the high resistance?
Currents the same, I would say they have got different voltages, yeah, so erm (pause, c.6s) probably the (pause, c.2s) the second one. Yeah.
Because?
Because there is more voltage being put in, if you like, to the circuit, and you are getting less current flowing in and therefore resistance must be more to stop the rest of that.
Yes?
I think so, yes.
Does that make sense to you?
Yeah.

So this time, having successfully thought through a constant p.d. example, Adrian successfully worked out that a circuit that needed more p.d. to drive a certain level of current had greater resistance (here 2.0/0.1 = 20Ω) than one that needed a smaller p.d. (i.e. 1.5/0.1 = 15Ω). However, his language revealed a lack of fluency in using the concepts of electricity. He referred to voltage being "put in" to the circuits rather than across them. Perhaps more significantly he referred to their being "less current flowing in" where there was the same current in both hypothetical circuits. It would have been more appropriate to think of there being proportionally less current. He also referred to the greater resistance stopping "the rest" of the current, which seemed to reflect his earlier suggestion that resistance is how much something is being slowed down or is stopped going round.

My purpose in offering Adrian hypothetical examples, each a little 'thought experiment', was to see if they allowed him to reconstruct the formula he could not confidently recall. As he had now established that

greater p.d. is needed when resistance is higher (for a fixed current)

and that

less current flows when resistance is higher (for a fixed p.d.)

he might (perhaps should) have been able to recognise that his suggestion that "resistance is current over, voltage" was inconsistent with these relationships.

Okay and how does that relate to the formula you were just telling me before?
Erm, No idea.
No idea?
Erm (pause, c.2s) once you know the resistance of a circuit you can work out, or once you know any of the, two of the components you can work out, the other one, so.
Yeah, providing you know the equation, when you know which way round the equation is.
Yes providing you can remember the equation.
So can you relate the equation to the explanations you have just given me about which would have the higher resistance?
So if something has got a higher resistance, so (pause, c.2s) so the current flowing round it would be – the resistance times the voltage (pause, c.2s) Is that right? No?
Erm, so the current is resistance time voltage? Are you sure?
No.

So Adrian suggested the formula was "the current flowing round it would be the resistance times the voltage", i.e., I = R × V (rather than I = V /R ), which did not reflect the qualitative relationships he had been telling me about. I had one more attempt at leading him through the logic that might have allowed him to deduce the general form of the formula.

Go back to thinking in terms of resistance.
Okay.
So you reckoned you can work out the resistance in terms of the current and the voltage?
Yes, I think.
Okay, now if we keep, if we keep the voltage the same and we get different currents,
Yes.
Which has, Which has got the higher resistance, the one with more current or the one with less current?
Erm (Pause, c.6s) So, so, if they keep the same voltage.
That’s the way we liked it the first time so.
Okay.
Let’s say we have got the same voltage across two circuits.
Yes.
Different amounts of current.
Yes.
Which one’s got the higher resistance? The one with more current or the one with less current?
The one with less current.
So less current means it must be more resistance?
Yes.
Ok, so if we had to have an equation R=.
Yes.
What’s it going to be, do you think?
Erm
(pause, c.7s)
R=
(pause, c.3s)
I don’t know. It's too hard.

Whether it really was too hard for Adrian, or simply something he lacked confidence to do, or something he found too difficult being put 'on the spot' in an interview, is difficult to say. However it seems fair to suggest that the kind of shift between qualitative relationships and algebraic representation – that is ubiquitous in studying physics at this level – did not come readily to this advanced level physics student.

I had expected my use of leading (Socratic) questioning would provide a 'scaffold' to help Adrian appreciate he had misremembered "resistance is current over, voltage, I think", and was somewhat disappointed that I had failed.

Resistance is how much something is being slowed down

"Resistance is how much something is being slowed down or is stopped going round"

Adrian was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. When I interviewed him in Y12 when he was studying Advanced level physics he told me that "We have looked at resistance and conductance and the formulas that go with them". However, when asked about the formula, he suggested, without conviction, that "resistance is current over voltage". So, I asked him how he might go about explaining resistance to a younger student:

We will come back to the formula in a minute then, so let us say you had a younger brother or sister who hasn’t done much physics.
Yes.
And doesn’t do, doesn’t like maths, doesn’t like formulas.
Okay.
So what does it mean though? Why is it important? What’s resistance about?
Erm – I would say it was how much something is being slowed down, or erm how much it is being stopped going round. If it is in electric¬… electricity then it is in a circuit. If it’s in like the wide open range of things it's like erm how resistant is something if you push it? How much force does it give back?

So Adrian was aware of electrical resistance, and also aware of resistance in the context of mechanics.

Oh I see, so, erm if I asked you to push that table over there
Yes.
There might be resistance to that?
Yes.
And that’s different to if we were talking about meters and wires and things?
Yes.
Are they similar in some way?
They have got the same name. {laughs}
Got the same name, okay.
They probably are similar. I've never really thought about it.

So although Adrian associated electrical resistance with 'resistance' in mechanical situations, the similarity between the two types of resistance seemed primarily due to the use of the same linguistic label. This was despite him describing the two forms of resistance in similar terms – "how much something is being slowed down… how much it is being stopped going round" cf. "how resistant is something if you push it".

To a physicist, a property such as resistance should be defined precisely, and therefore preferably mathematically – and so operationally in the sense that there is no ambiguity in how it would be measured. However when students are learning, definitions and formulae may be abstract and have little meaning or connection to experience, so qualitative understanding is important. Students' initial suggestions of what technical terms mean when they first learn about them may be vague and flawed, but if this is linked to a feeling for the concept this may ultimately be a better starting point than a formula which cannot be interpreted meaningfully – as seemed to be the case with Adrian.

Arguably, understanding a relationship in qualitative terms can support later formalising the relationship in mathematical terms, whereas trying to learn a formulae by rote may lead to misremembering and algorithmic application (and so, for example, not noticing when non-feasible results are calculated).

Adrian's suggestion that resistance might be"how resistant is something if you push it? How much force does it give back?" presumably linked to his own experiences of pushing and pulling objects around. However, it seemed to confuse notions of inertia and reaction force (as well as possibly frictional forces). If Adrian were to push with a force of 100N on the wall of a building, a puck on an ice rink, or on a sledge on gravel the reaction force would be 100N in each case (cf. Newton's third law) – although the subjective experience of resistance would be very different in the different situations – as would the outcome on the object pushed.

In these situations it may be difficult for a teacher to know if a vague or confused description reflects conceptual confusion (and/)or limited expression. Yet, students need time and opportunities to be able to explore concepts in their own terms to link the abstract scientific ideas with the 'spontaneous conceptions' they have developed based on their own experiences of acting in the world.

The teacher should offer feedback, and model clear language, but needs to recognise that understanding abstract scientific ideas takes time. After all, Aristotle would be considered to have alternative conceptions of mechanics by comparison with today's science, but Aristotle was clearly highly intelligent and gave the matter a lot of thought!

After this there was extended discussion on the way resistance related to current and voltage, following Arian's comment that resistance is current over voltage. As part of this he was asked about ⚗︎ an example where different voltages were needed in different circuits to allow the same current to flow. ⚗︎ He suggested that the circuit with the higher resistance would be the one where "there is more voltage being put in, if you like, to the circuit, and you are getting less current flowing in, and therefore resistance must be more to stop the rest of that".

Adrian's way of talking about the current in the circuits did not seem to reflect a view of current as driven by a given p.d. across a circuit and limited by a certain resistance, but almost as a fixed potential flow, some of which would be permitted to pass, but some of which would be stopped by the resistance ("how much it is being stopped going round", "resistance … to stop the rest of that"). Yet, as suggested above, it can take time, and opportunities for exploration and discussion, for students' concepts and ways of talking about them to mature towards canonical science.

That Adrian could talk of "more voltage…less current…therefore resistance must be more" seemed promising, although ⚗︎ Adrian could not relate his qualitative description to the mathematical representation of the formula. ⚗︎

When is V=IR the formula for Ohm's law?

"Resistance is current over voltage, I think"

So what exactly is resistance?
Resistance is, erm (pause, c.3s) Resistance is current over, voltage, I think. (Pause, c.3s) Yeah. No.
Not sure?
I can’t remember formulas.

So Adrian's first impulse was to define resistance using a formula, although he did not feel he was able to remember formulae. He correctly knew that the formula involved resistance, current and voltage, but could not recall the relationship. Of course if he understood qualitatively how these influenced each other, then he should have been able to work out which way the formula had to go, as the formula represents the relationship between resistance, voltage and current.

And what about this resistance in electricity then, do you measure that in some kind of unit?
Yes, in, erm, (pause, c.2s) In ohms.
So what is an ohm?
Erm, an ohm is, the unit that resistance is measured in.
Fair enough.
It comes from ohm's law which is the, erm, formula that gives you resistance.

V=IR is the formula that gives you resistance, but it is a common misconception, that Ohm's law is V=IR.

Actually, Ohm's law suggests that the current through a metallic conductor (kept at constant conditions, e.g., temperature) is directly proportional to the potential difference across its ends.

So, in such a case (a metal that is not changing temperature, etc.)

I ∝ V

which is equivalent to

V ∝ I

which is equivalent to

V = kI

where k is a constant of proportionality. If we use the symbol R for the constant in this case then

V= RI

which is equivalent to

V = IR

So, it may seem I have just contradicted myself, as I denied that V=IR was a representation of Ohm's law, yet seem to have derived V=IR from the law.

There is no contradiction as long as we keep in mind what the symbols are representing in the equation. I represented the current flowing through a metallic conductor being held at constant conditions (temperature, tension etc.), and V represented the potential difference across the ends of that metallic conductor. If we restrict V and I to this meaning then the formula could be seen as a way of representing Ohm's law.

Over-generalising

However, that is not how we usually understand these symbols in electrical work: V generally represents the potential difference across some resistive component or other, and I represents the current flowing through that component: a resistor, a graphite rod, a salt bridge, a diode, a tungsten filament in a lamp…

In this general case

V = IR

R = V/I

is the defining equation for resistance. If R is defined as V/I then it will always be the case, not because there is a physical law that suggests this, but simply because that is the meaning we have given to R.

This is a bit like bachelors being unmarried men (an example that seems to be a favourite of some philosophers): bachelors are not unmarried men because there is some rule or law decreeing that bachelors are not able to get married, but simply because of our definition. A bachelor who gets married and so becomes a married man ceases to be a bachelor at the moment they become a married man – in a similar way to how a butterfly is no longer a caterpillar. Not because of some law of nature, but by our conventions regarding how words are used. If V and I are going to be used as general symbols (and not restricted to our carefully controlled metallic conductor) then V = IR simply because R is defined as V/I and the formula, used in the general case, should not be confused with Ohm's law.

In Ohm's law, V=IR where R will be constant.

In general, V=IR and R will vary, as Ohm's law does not generally apply.

It would perhaps be better for helping students see this had there been a convention that the p.d. across, and the current through, a piece of metal being kept in constant conditions were represented by, say V_ⓜ and I_ⓜ, so Ohm's law could be represented as, say

V_ⓜ = k I_ⓜ

but, as this is not the usual convention, students need to keep in mind when they are dealing with the special case to which Ohm's law refers.

A flawed teaching model?

The interesting question is whether:

teachers are being very careful to make this distinction, but students still get confused;
teachers are using language carefully, but not making the discrimination explicit for students, so they miss the distinction;
some teachers are actually teaching that V=IR is Ohm's law.

If the latter option is the case , then it would be good to know if the teachers teaching this:

have the alternative conception themselves;
appreciate the distinction, but think it does not matter;
consider identifying the general formula V=IR with Ohm's law is a suitable simplification, a kind of teaching model, suitable for students who are not ready to have the distinction explained.

It would be useful to know the answers to these questions, not to blame teachers, but because we need to diagnose a problem to suggest the best cure.

Many generations later it's just naturally always having fur

Keith S. Taber

Bert was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. In Y11 he reported that he had been studying about the environment in biology, and done some work on adaptation. he gave a number of examples of how animals were adapted to their environment. One of these examples was the polar bear.

…our homework we did about adapting, like how polar bears adapt to their environments, and camels….
And so a polar bear has adapted to the environment?
Yeah.
So how has a polar bear adapted to the environment?
Erm, things like it has white fur for camouflage so the prey don't see it coming up. Large feet to spread out its weight when it's going over like ice. Yeah, thick fur to keep the body heat insulated.

Bert gave a number of other examples, including dogs that were bred with particular characteristics, although he explained this in terms of inheritance of acquired characteristics: suggesting that dogs that have been taught over and over to retrieve have puppies that automatically have already got that sense. Bert realised that his example was due to the work of human breeders, and took the polar bear as an example of a creature that had adapted to its environment.

Yeah, so how does adaption take place then? …
I don't know. It may have something to do with negative feedback.…Like you have like, you always get like, you always get feedback, like in the body to release less insulin and stuff like that. So in time … organisms, learn to adapt to that. Because if it happens a lot that makes a feedback then it comes, yeah then they just learn to do that.
Okay. Give me an example of that. I'm trying to link it up in my head.
Okay, like the polar bear, like I don't know. It may have started off just like every other bear, but because it was put in that environment, like all the time the body was telling it to grow more fur and things like that, because it was so cold. So after a while it just adapted to, you know, always having fur instead of, you know, like dogs shed hair in the summer and stuff. But like if it was always then they'd just learn to keep shedding that hair.
So if it was an ordinary bear, not a polar bear, and you stuck it in the Arctic, it would get cold?
Yeah.
But you say the body tells it to grow more fur?
Erm, yeah.
How does that work?
I'm not sure, it just … I don't know. Like, erm, like the body senses that it's cold, it goes to the brain, and the brain thinks, well how is it going to go against that, you know, make the body warmer. And so it kind of, you know, it gives these things.

So Bert seemed to have notion of (it not the term) homoeostasis, that allowed control of such things as levels of insulin. He recognised thus was based on negative feedback – when some problematic condition was recognised (e.g. being too cold) this would trigger a response (e.g., more insulation) to bring about a countering change.

However, in Bert's model, the mechanism was not initially automatic. Bert thought that this process which initially was based on deliberation became automatic over many generations…

I see. So the bear has already got a mechanism which would enable it to have more fur, but it's turned on to some extent by being put into the cold?
Yeah.
And then over a period of time, what happens then?
Erm I guess it just it doesn't really need that impulse of being cold, it's just naturally there now, to tell it to do it more.
So how does that happen? Is this the same bear or is this many generations later?
I would probably think many generations later.
Right, so if it was just one particular bear, it wouldn't eventually just produce more hair automatically itself, but its offspring eventually might?
Yeah.
So how does that happen then?
I don't know. Probably from DNA or something. We haven't gone over that yet.

So for Bert, the individual bear could change its characteristics through activating a potential mechanism (in this case for keeping year-round thick fur) through a process of sensing and responding to environmental conditions. Over many generations this changed characteristic could become an automatic response by eventually being coded into the genetic material. As with his explanation of selective breeding, Bert invoked a model of evolution through the inheritance of acquired characteristics, rather than the operation of natural selection on the natural range of characteristics within a breeding population.

Like many students learning about evolution, Darwin's model of variation offering the basis for natural selection was not as intuitively appealing as a more Lamarckian idea that individuals managed to change their characteristics during their lives and pass on the changes to their offspring. This is an example of where student thinking reflects a historical scientific theory that has been discarded rather than the currently canonical scientific ideas taught in schools.

The brain thinks: grow more fur

The body senses that it's cold, and the brain thinks how is it going to make the body warmer?

Keith S. Taber

…our homework we did about adapting, like how polar bears adapt to their environments, and camels….
And so a polar bear has adapted to the environment?
Yeah.
So how has a polar bear adapted to the environment?
Erm, things like it has white fur for camouflage so the prey don't see it coming up. Large feet to spread out its weight when it's going over like ice. Yeah, thick fur to keep the body heat insulated.

Bert gave a number of other examples, including dogs that were bred with particular characteristics, although he explained this in terms of inheritance of acquired characteristics: suggesting that dogs that have been taught over and over to retrieve have puppies that automatically have already got that sense. Bert realised that this example was due to the work of human breeders, and took the polar bear as an example of a creature that had adapted to its environment.

Yeah, so how does adaption take place then? You've got a number of examples there, bears and dogs and camels and people. So how does adaption take place?
I don't know. It may have something to do with negative feedback.
That's impressive.
Like you have like, you always get like, you always get feedback, like in the body to release less insulin and stuff like that. So in time people like or whatever, organisms, learn to adapt to that. Because if it happens a lot that makes a feedback then it comes, yeah then they just learn to do that.
Okay. Give me an example of that. I'm trying to link it up in my head.
Okay, like the polar bear, like I don't know. It may have started off just like every other bear, but because it was put in that environment, like all the time the body was telling it to grow more fur and things like that, because it was so cold. So after a while it just adapted to, you know, always having fur instead of, you know, like dogs shed hair in the summer and stuff. But like if it was always then they'd just learn to keep shedding that hair.
So if it was an ordinary bear, not a polar bear, and you stuck it in the Arctic, it would get cold?
Yeah.
But you say the body tells it to grow more fur?
Erm, yeah.
How does that work?
I'm not sure, it just … I don't know. Like, erm, like the body senses that it's cold, it goes to the brain, and the brain thinks, well how is it going to go against that, you know, make the body warmer. And so it kind of, you know, it gives these things.
Is that an example of feedback?
Yes.

However, in Bert's model, the mechanism was not automatic. Rather it depended upon conscious deliberation: "the brain thinks, well how is it going to …make the body warmer". Bert thought that this process which initially was based on deliberation then became automatic over many generations.

This seems to assume that bears think in similar terms to humans, that they identify a problem and reason a way through. This might be considered an example of anthropomorphism, something that is very common in student (indeed human) thinking. To what extent it may be reasonable to assign this kind of conscious reasoning to bears is an open question.

However there was a flaws in the process described by Bert that he might have spotted himself. This model suggested that once the bear had become aware of the issue, and the needs to address, it would be able to grow its fur accordingly. That is, as a matter of will. Bert would have been aware that he is able to control some aspects of his body voluntarily (e.g., to raise his arm), but he cannot will his hair to grow at a different rate.

Of course, it may be countered that I am guilty of a kind of anthropomorphism-in-reverse: Bert is not a bear, but rather a human who does not need to control hair growth according to environment. So, just because Bert cannot consciously control his own hair growth, this need not imply the same is true for a bear. However, Bert also used the example of insulin levels, very relevant to humans, and he would presumably be aware that insulin release is controlled in his own body without his conscious intervention.

As often happens in interviewing students (or human conversations more generally) time to reflect on the exchange raises ideas one did not consider at the time, that one would like to be able to to text out by asking further questions. If things that were once deliberate become instinctive over time, then it is not unreasonable in principle to suggest things that are automatic now (adjusting insulin levels to control blood glucose levels) may have once been deliberate.

After all, people can control insulin levels to some extent by choosing to eat a different diet. And indeed people can learn biofeedback relaxation techniques that can have an effect on such variables as blood pressure, and some diabetics have used such techniques to reduce their need for medical insulin. So, did Bert think that people had once consciously controlled insulin levels, but over generations this has become automatic?

In some ways this does not seem a very likely or promising idea – but that is a judgement made from a reasonably high level of science knowledge. It is important to encourage students to use their imaginations and suggest ideas as that is an important aspect of how science woks. Most scientific conjectures are ultimately wrong, but they may still be useful tools for moving science on. In the same way, learners' flawed ideas, if explored carefully, may often be useful tools for learning. At the time of the interview, I felt Bert had not really thought his scheme through. That may well have been so, but there may have been more coherence and reflection behind his comments than I realised at the time.

A wooden table is solid…or is it?

Keith S. Taber

Wood (cork coaster captured with Veho Discovery USB microscope)

Bill was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. Bill (Y7) was explaining that he had been learning about the states of matter, and introduced the notion of there being particles:

So how do you know if something is a solid, a liquid or a gas?
Well, solids they stay same shape and their particles only move a tiny bit
So what are these particles then?
Erm, they're the bits that make it what it is, I think.
Ah. So are there any solids round here?:
Yeah, this table. [The wooden table Bill was sitting at.]
That's a solid, is it?:
Yeah

Technically the terms solid, liquid and gas refer to samples of substances and not objects. From a chemical perspective a table is not solid. A wooden table (such as those in the school laboratory where I talked to Bill) is made of a complex composite material that includes various different substances such as a lignin and cellulose in its structure.

Wood contains some water, and has air pockets, so technically wood is not a solid to a chemist. However, in everyday life we do thing of objects such as tables as being solid.

Yet if wood is heated, water can be driven off. Timber can be mostly water by weight, and is 'seasoned' to remove much of the water content before being used as a construction material. Under the microscope the complex structure of woods can be seen, including spaces containing air.

Bill also suggested that a living plant should be considered a solid.

I think teaching may be a problem here, as when the states of matter are taught it is often not made clear these distinctions only apply clearly to fairly pure samples of substances. In effect the teaching model is that materials occur as solids, liquids and gases – when a good many materials (emulsions, gels, aerosols, etc.) do not fit this model at all well.

Particles in a solid can be seen with a microscope

Keith S. Taber

Bill was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. Bill was explaining that he had been learning about the states of matter, and introduced the notion of there being particles:

So how do you know if something is a solid, a liquid or a gas?
Well, solids they stay same shape and their particles only move a tiny bit
So what are these particles then?
Erm, they're the bits that make it what it is, I think.
Ah. So are there any solids round here?:
Yeah, this table.
That's a solid, is it?:
Yeah

Technically the terms solid, liquid and gas refer to samples of substances and not objects. From a chemical perspective a table is not solid. However, I continued, accepting Bill's suggestion of a table being solid as a reasonable example.

Okay. So is that made of particles?
Yeah. You can't see them.
No I can't!
'cause they're very, very tiny.
So if I got a magnifying glass?
No.
No?
No.
What about a microscope?
Yeah.
Yeah?
Probably
Possibly?
Yeah, I haven't tried it.
You haven't tried that yet?
No.
But they are very, very tiny are they?
Yeah.

Bill knew that the particles in a solid were very tiny. He seemed to be convinced of their existence, despite not being able to see them. He considered they were too small to be seem with a magnifying glass, but large enough to probably be seen with a microscope.

Bill, like a good scientist, qualified this answer as he had not actually undertaken the necessary observation to confirm this: but his intuition seemed to be that these particles could not be so small that they would not be visible through a microscope.

Later in the interview, Bill used the term microscopic to describe the particles in a solid, where a scientist would describe them as 'submicroscopic' (or 'nanoscopic'):

Tell me the bit about the solids again? Tell me what you said about the particles in the solids?
They move a very tiny amount, but we can't see that … because they are microscopic.

The term 'particle' used in introductory science classes is often used generically to cover atoms, molecules and ion. These entities are usually much too small to be see with an optical light scope (although other instruments such as scanning tunnelling 'microscopes' provide images showing electric potential profiles that can be interpreted as indicating individual atoms).

Students have no real basis on which to understand the scale of atoms and molecules, and often assume they are particles much like the specks and grains that can just be seen. Bill did not make this error, as later in the interview he told me that "the kind of specks of dust, has lots of particles in it, to make up the shape of it".

This becomes important later because much of chemistry supposes that many of the characteristics of substances as observed in the lab. are emergent properties that results from enormous numbers of molecule-scale 'particles' (or 'quanticles') that themselves have quite different behaviour individually.

Learners however may assume that the properties of the bulk materials are due to the particles having those properties – so students may suggest that, for example, that some particles are softer than others or that in a sponge, the particles are spread out more, so it can absorb more water.

Particles are further apart in water than ice

Keith S. Taber

Bill was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. Bill, a Y7 student, explained what he had learnt about particles in solids, liquids and gases. Bill introduced the idea of particles when talking about what he had learn about the states of matter.

Well there's three groups, solids, liquids and gases.

So how do you know if something is a solid, a liquid or a gas?

Well, solids they stay same shape and their particles only move a tiny bit.

This point was followed up later in the interview.

So, you said that solids contain particles,

Yeah.

They don't move very much?

No.

And you've told me that ice is a solid?

Yeah.

So if I put those two things together, that tells me that ice should contain particles?

Yeah.

Yeah, 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.

Bill reports that the particles in liquids are "further apart, than the ones in … solids". This is generally true* when comparing the same substance, but this is something that tends to be exaggerated in the basic teaching model often used in school science. Often figures in basic school texts show much greater spacing between the particles in a liquid than in the solid phase of the same material. This misrepresents the modest difference generally found in practice – as can be appreciated from the observations that volume increases on melting are usually modest.

Although generally the particles in a liquid are considered further apart than in the corresponding solid*, this need not always be so.

Indeed it is not so for water – so ice floats in cold water. The partial disruption of the hydrogen bonds in the solid that occurs on melting allows water molecules to be, on average, closer* in the liquid phase at 0˚C.

As ice float in water, it must have a lower density. If the density of some water is higher than that of the ice from which it was produced on melting then (as the mass will not have changed) the volume must have decreased. As the number of water molecules has not changed, then the smaller volume means the particles are on average taking up less space: that is, they seem to be closer together in the water, not further apart*.

Bill was no doubt aware that ice floats in water, but if Bill appreciated the relationship of mass and volume (i.e., density) and how relative density determines whether floatation occurs, he does not seem to have related this to his account here.

That is, he may have had the necessary elements of knowledge to appreciate that as ice floats, the particles in ice were not closer together than they were in water, but had not coordinated these discrete components to from an integrated conceptual framework.

Perhaps this is not surprising when we consider what the explanation would involve:

Coordinating concepts to understand the implication of ice floating

Not only do a range of ideas have to be coordinated, but these involve directly observable phenomena (floating), and abstract concepts (such as density), and conjectured nonobservable submicroscopic/nanoscopic level entities.

* A difficulty for teachers is that the entities being discussed as 'particles', often molecules, are not like familiar particles that have a definitive volume, and a clear surface. Rather these 'particles' (or quanticles) are fuzzy blobs of fields where the field intensity drops off gradually, and there is no surface as such.

Therefore, these quantiles do not actually have definite volumes, in the way a marble or snooker ball has a clear surface and a definite volume. These fields interact with the fields of other quanticles around them (that is, they form 'bonds' – such as dipole-dipole interactions), so in condensed phases (solids and liquids) there are really not any discrete particles with gaps between them. So, it is questionable whether we should describe the particles being further apart in a liquid, rather than just taking up a little more space.

Particles in ice and water have different characteristics

Making a link between particle identity and change of state

Keith S. Taber

Bill was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. Interviews allow learners to talk about their understanding of science topics, and so to some extent allow the researcher to gauge how well integrated or fragmented a learner's ideas are.

Occasionally there is a sense of 'seeing the cogs turn', where it appears that the interview is not just an opportunity for reporting knowledge, but a genuine site for knowledge construction (on behalf of the students, as well as the researcher) as the learner's ideas seem to change and develop in the interview itself.

One example of this occurred when Bill, a Y7 student, explained what he had learnt about particles in solids, liquids and gases. Bill seemed unsure if the particles in different states of matter were different, or just had different properties. However, when asked about a change of state Bill related heating to changes in the way particles were arranged, and seemed to realise this implied the particles themselves were the same when a substance changes state. Bill seemed to be making a link between particle identity and change of state through the process of answering the researcher's questions.

Bill introduced the idea of particles when talking about what he had learn about the states of matter

Well there's three groups, solids, liquids and gases.
So how do you know if something is a solid, a liquid or a gas?
Well, solids they stay same shape and their particles only move a tiny bit.

This point was followed up later in the interview.

So, you said that solids contain particles,
Yeah.
They don't move very much?
No.
And you've told me that ice is a solid?
Yeah.
So if I put those two things together, that tells me that ice should contain particles?
Yeah.
Yeah, 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.
Okay. So the particles in the liquid, they seem to be doing something a bit different to particles in a solid?
Yeah.
What about the particles in the gas?
The gas, they, they're really, they're far apart and they try and expand.
Does that include steam, because you said steam was a gas?
Yeah.
Yeah?
I think.
So, we've got particles in ice?
Yeah.
And they have certain characteristics?
Yeah.
And there are particles in water?
Yeah.
That have different characteristics?
Yeah.
And particles in gas, which have different characteristics again?
Yeah.
Okay. So, are they different particles, then?
N-, I'm not sure.

There are several interesting points here. Bill reports that the particles in liquids are "further apart, than the ones in … solids". This is generally true when comparing the same substance, but not always – so ice floats in water for example. Bill uses anthropomorphic language, reporting that particles try to do things.

Of particular interest here, is that at this point in the interview Bill did not seem to have a clear idea about whether particles kept their identify across changes of state. However, the next interview question seemed to trigger a response which clarified this issue for him:

So have the solid particles, sort of gone away, when we make the liquid, and we've got liquid particles instead?
No {said firmly}, when a solid goes to a liquid, the heat gives the particles energy to spread about, and then when its a liquid, it's got even more energy to spread out into a gas.
So we're talking about the same particles, but behaving differently, in a solid to a liquid to a gas?
Yeah.
That's very clear.

It appears Bill had learnt a model of what happened to the particles when a solid melted, but had not previously appreciated the consequences of this idea for the identity of particles across the different states of matter. Being cued to bring to mind his model of the effect of heating on the particles during melting seemed to make it obvious to him that there were not different particles in the different states (for the same substance), where he had seemed quite uncertain about this a few moments earlier.

Whilst this has to remain something of a speculation, the series of questions used in research interviews can be quite similar in nature to the sequences of questions used in the method of instruction known as Socratic dialogue – a method that Plato reported being used by Socrates to lead someone towards an insight.

So, a 'eureka' moment, perhaps?

K-plus represents a potassium atom that has an extra electron

Keith S. Taber

Annie was a participant in the Understanding Chemical Bonding project. She was interviewed near the start of her college 'A level' course (equivalent to Y12 of the English school system). Annie was shown, and asked about, a sequence of images representing atoms, molecules and other sub-microscopic structures of the kinds commonly used in chemistry teaching.

Earlier in her interview she had suggested that plus and minus signs represent the charges on neutral atoms when discussing the Na-plus (Na⁺) and Cl-minus (Cl^–) symbols, suggesting an alternative conception of electrical charge in relation to atoms, ions and molecules She gave similar interpretations in the case of K-pus (K⁺) and F-minus (F^–):

Right, okay, so this one here where it's got a K and a plus, what does that represent?

Potassium…An atom that has an extra electron.

Potassium atom, and it's got one extra electron over a full shell

Yeah.

and that's what the plus means, one more electron than it wants?

Yeah.

And what about the F minus?

Represents fluorine which has one, it has an outer shell of seven which has one less electron.

So, for Annie:

K⁺ referred to the potassium atom (2.8.8.1), not the cation (2.8.8)

and

F^– referred to the fluorine atom (2.7), not the fluoride anion (2.8)

Students often present incorrect responses in class (or in interviews with researchers) and sometimes these are simply slips of the tongue or memory, or 'romanced' answer guessed to provide some kind of answer.

When a student repeats the same answer at different times it suggests the response reflects a stable aspect of their underlying 'cognitive structure'. In Annie's case she not only provided repeated answers with the same examples, bit was consistent in the way she interpreted plus and minus symbols across a range of different examples, suggested this was a stable aspect of her thinking.

Magnets are not much to do with electricity

Keith S. Taber

Physicists see electromagnetism as one of the fundamental forces in the universe, and physics often includes a topic or module on 'electricity and magnetism'. Magnetism can be considered an electrodynamic effect (i.e., due to the movement of charges), but this will not be obvious to students.

Sophia was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. I spoke to here in Y7 (of the English school system) when she told me about the things she had been learning in the topic of electricity. I asked her,

Anything else you've done on electricity?
The er, I don't know what, it's not that much to do with electricity but, yesterday or the day (before) we done magnets.
Oh right. So that's a new topic, is it, not to do with electricity, or?
Well, I think we're still doing electricity. I don't know if it was just something – so we know what might, er, so we know what, what electricity will flow through, and maybe it's something to do with – 'cause magnets like stick to other things, they might be – I'm not sure, I think we might just have had a break from it, I don't know, but.

So, Sophia came up with some suggestions for why magnets might be featured in the electricity topic, but she was not very convinced about this rationale, and considered it was quite possible that the teacher was just interspersing other material to give a 'break' from the main topic. So, instead, they "done magnets".

It is interesting that one of Sophia's suggestions was "what electricity will flow through". The constructivist theory of learning ( read about constructivism here) suggests that meaningful learning involves learners making sense of what they are taught by linking it to their existing ideas and wealth of past experiences. This is a creative process, and sometimes students make unhelpful associations, that can act as learning impediments. Although ceramic magnets are increasingly common, iron, a good conductor, and its alloys, are still used for bar and horseshoe magnets that children will often be familiar with – so this association has potential to be built on constructively.

Of course electricity and magnetism were at one time considered quite distinct phenomena by scientists – and James Clerk Maxwell is rightly remembered for his synthesising theoretical work showing that electricity, magnetism and light could all be understood as manifestations of a single underlying 'phenomenon' of electromagnetism. (Indeed it seems stretching then notion of phenomena to refer to electromagnetism as a single phenomenon, as no one would intuitively perceive its manifestations as being observations of the same phenomenon!) We can hardly expect students to appreciate why electricity and magnetism might be considered a unitary physics topic in school science.

To the science teacher, magnetism is an electrical effect, and electromagnetism is one of the fundamental forces in nature. The unification of electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetic radiation is seen as a major integrative step forwards in science–but our students are not going to see the connections without some help.
Taber, 2014, p.169

When I asked her to tell me what she learnt about magnets she told me that the north pole and the south poles go together because one of them is coming out and one is going in.

Light bounces off the eye so you can see

Light is actively bounced out of the eye towards objects, so we can see

Keith S. Taber

Sophia was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. Y8 pupil Sophia had been studying sound and light in her school science lessons. Her model of sight involved light entering the eye, but then reflecting out again.

Do you know how you hear and see?
Does the light come in your eye, and it reflects off so you can see. … Just reflects, does it, and bounces on.
So if I've got my eye, some light comes in, some light comes in, what does it do, it bounces where?
About.
Inside the eye?
No around … it bounces out.
And then what?
Then you can see…so you look where you want to see, so it bounces off like in that direction, …you've got to actually look over, …you've got to look that way.

One long-established historical model of sight was based on rays coming from the eyes to detect objects in the outside world. Sophia's model appears to be a hybrid of this historical model, and modern understandings. For Sophia, light does not originate form the eye, but bounds out of it towards the object of sight. The idea that something must come out of the eye for us to see seems to be an intuitive assumption some people make – perhaps because we actually turn out heads and direct out eyes at what we want to focus on. This intuition has potential to act as a grounded learning impediment to learning the scientific model for vision.