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').
