Blog

Rich scientific content: improving the quality of manuscripts on behalf of authors

Keith S. Taber

Dear Ksenia …

Thank you for your email message headed "vacancy for an editor or a reviewer of the journal for [sic]" and beginning "Vacancy for an editor or a reviewer of the journal". Thank you for offering to answer all my questions. The introduction to your message initially gave me the impression that you have a vacancy for an editor or a reviewer for some journal – albeit one you were too modest (or embarrassed!) to specify. However, as I read on, it seems that is not the situation?

I learn that you "assist Professors from the United Arab Emirates, China, Viet Nam [sic], Russia to publish their scientific papers in the journals indexed in Scopus database or Web of Science database", and that you work with a "skillful [sic] team" and collectively "control and improve the quality of the papers that [you] receive from the authors" so as to ensure that "only manuscripts with good English language, rich scientific content and appropriate formatting style are sent to the Editors / Publishers by [your] team". So, if I understand correctly, I think you have set yourself up as a kind of intermediary between the authors of scientific papers, and the journals they wish to submit their work to?

You tell me that you "have [sic] already cooperate with good Editors and some well-known publishers". I wonder which publishers these are -would there be some I know and have worked with?

I see that you are looking for new partners and invite me to "publish some good manuscripts from my [i.e., your] side". I thought initially that you wanted me to send you my papers so you could improve them for me. But I think rather you may be asking me to help you publish papers you have already improved for other authors, so they are now good manuscripts. Is that correct?

I am a little unsure about the precise service that you and your team offer. I do certainly recognise that for authors working in English as an additional language, it can be very valuable for someone who is a native English speaker to offer some help with grammar and syntax, although this needs to be done without introducing semantic changes to manuscripts. I think there are already many organisations offering editing and poof-reading services of this kind – although they can only do this accurately when the intended meaning of the text in the original manuscript is entirely clear.

I am intrigued, however, about how you are able to "control and improve the quality of the papers that [you] receive" in terms of "rich scientific content". I would like to learn more about this. Does this mean that your team act as if independent peer-reviewers and advise authors on which manuscripts are likely to be judged suitable for publication by reputable journals? I can see that would be a feasible service, but wonder what one of your client authors would think of your service if your team 'reject' their work as lacking in sufficient quality to be placed in any of the journals that you send the improved manuscripts on to?

Or, alternatively, are your team actually able to help authors by ensuring that manuscripts which lack sufficient "rich scientific content" when submitted to your service are sufficiently improved in quality so they will later be judged as having "rich scientific content" when they are subsequently "sent to the Editors / Publishers by [your] team"? That would be a much more challenging task, and I would be very interested to know how the team can improve the quality of authors' works in that sense without having been intimately involved in the studies being reported.

I look forward to learning more about your team and services.

Best wishes

Keith

Dear 

Vacancy for an editor or a reviewer of the journal.

Hope this mail finds you well and in a good heath.
In order to save your time I will try to be concise and brief.

My name is Ksenia.
I assist Professors from the United Arab Emirates, China, Viet Nam, Russia to publish their scientific papers in the journals indexed in Scopus database or Web of Science database.
Together with my skillful team we control and improve the quality of the papers that we receive from the authors.
Only manuscripts with good English language, rich scientific content and appropriate formatting style are sent to the Editors / Publishers by my team (officially to the website of the journal or directly to the editor's mailbox). 

We have already cooperate with good Editors and some well-known publishers, but we want to find some more new partners for long fruitful cooperation.
I will be glad if you publish some good manuscripts from my side. 

If you are interested in this, please, let me know. I will forward all required information to you and answer all your questions.

Will be happy to hear from you soon.
Have a nice day.

P.S. Sorry for bothering you if you find this letter useless and not interesting for you.

Regards, ...
facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet

Molecules are like a jigsaw

Keith S. Taber

Tim was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. When Tim was interviewed in the first term of his 'A level' (college level) physics course he had been studying the topic of materials with one of his teachers, and "at the moment we're doing about why some materials are brittle, and some aren't, and about the molecules". When Tim was asked about the molecules, he compared molecules to the pieces in a jigsaw:

Interviewer: So what's a molecule?

Tim: Erm it's like a bit of a particle, so, something that makes up something.

I: Have you got any examples?

T: Of a molecule?

I: Yeah, something that makes up something.

T: Erm, like the wood in the table is made out of wood molecules.

I: I see. So, that's one type of molecule, is it, a wood molecule? And there are other types of molecule?

T: Yes it's a bit like a jigsaw, like when you put all the, like you need to put the…, you put them all together to make – something.

I: I see, yeah. So, if I wanted to be really awkward, in what way is it like a jigsaw?

T: Erm, well they sort of fit together, like in a jigsaw some bits are sort of straight and have nice parallel, a nice parallel microstructure, and some, some jigsaws have funny bits that don't fit together quite as nicely.

I: I see. So are there some ways it's not like a jigsaw?

T: Yeah. (Tim laughs.) Well, erm, I dunno, it's like a jigsaw in the way that the bits fit together to make something, to make something, but then again, I dunno.

I: I mean, I quite like this idea of it being like a jigsaw – I was wondering whether, whether you had got that from somewhere, or that's just something you'd come up with?

T: No I just thought about it, just then.

I: Oh that's really creative.

T: It's quite random actually. (laughs)

Tim's comments about a molecules being a bit of a particle was followed up later in the interview, and it transpired he was not sure if a molecule is a bit of a particle – or vice versa.*

So when asked to explain about molecules in materials, Tim used an apparently spontaneous analogy of this being like a jigsaw, with different types of pieces that fitted together. Moreover, he also seemed to recognise that different materials had molecules that fitted together more or less readily, and materials could also be considered to have similar diversity. Tim described this as being 'random', which seems unfair as the analogy clearly has merit, but presumably saw it this way as the comparison had apparently appeared in his consciousness unexpectedly (i.e., the thought had 'popped into his mind', as a kind of insight.)

Tim seemed a little phased by being asked to explain the negative features of the analogy – and this may reflect the tendency to focus on the positive aspects of an analogy, rather than its limitations. Analogy has the potential to channel student thinking in inappropriate directions (e.g., as associative learning impediments) when not considered critically. However, analogies also have potential to help 'make the unfamiliar familiar' and so can be a powerful learning tool.

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet

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.

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet

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').

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet

Do the forces from the outer shells push the protons and the neutrons together?

Keith S. Taber

Annie was a colearner (participant) in the Understanding Chemical Bonding project. In her first interview, during the first year of her two year 'A level' college course, Annie was asked about a (Bohr type) representation of a (sodium) atom. Annie did not know what held the protons and neutrons together in the atomic nucleus, but suggested it might be due to forces from the electrons "pushing":

Interviewer: Can you identify the different parts of that diagram? What's the blob in the centre?

Annie: It's the nucleus.

I: That's the nucleus. Do you know what's in the nucleus?

A: The protons and, no the electrons and the neutrons, no the protons and the neutrons. The electrons are round the outside.

I: There's protons and neutrons in the centre okay.

A: Yeah.

I: Erm, what holds them together, any idea?

A: Is it the forces from the outer ring? Outer rings or outer shells? The electronic forces?

I: What repelling them in? Holding them

A: Yeah.

I: in the centre? It could be.

A: Pushing them.

I: It's not actually, but that's a sensible suggestion. So you haven't actually done anything about what holds the nucleus together?

A: No.

…

The question of why the nucleons should be held together (given the repulsion between positive protons) is not usually considered in school chemistry lesson, and does not seem to be a question which students tend to spontaneously consider. The interview continued…

I: What holds the electrons in place?

(pause, c.4s)

A: Er (pause, c.9s) Not really sure, but I know there's a set pattern of how many can go in each shell, so if its connected with that?

I: Huh hm, do you think, do you think you need anything to hold the electrons in place, or I mean is it just the way the Universe is, or God's will, or, you know, or just aesthetic, you know nature's aesthetic,

A: Yeah.

I: and it looks pretty? I mean do you think there has to be some physical reason why the electrons are there rather than anywhere else?

A: Probably is to do with the structure of it.

I: But you are not, you're not sure why,

A: No.

I: it should be that the electrons should be in orbitals or orbits?

A: No.

I: Rather than just scattered higgledy-piggledy.

A: No, I don't know that.

In this section of the interview, Annie seems to suggest she is not aware of any forces acting on the electrons, and suggests it may be something inherent in the electronic structure which holds the electrons in place. It seems odd that Annie does not invoke a force from the nucleus, given her comment just earlier about a possible pushing from the outer electron ring/shell onto the nucleons. It seems Annie does not know about, or at least does not bring to mind, an electrical force attracting the electrons and nucleus. However, this was tested by a slightly different question…

Okay. So can you tell me why the electrons don't fall out of the atom? I mean if you imagine that this was sort of, er, an atom that's placed vertically, why don't the electron's just fall out of the bottom?

A: The forces hold them together.

I: What kind of forces are they. Do you know?

(pause, c.5s)

A: The attraction from the nucleus, from the protons.

I: So the protons in the nucleus attract the electrons?

A: Yeah.

I: So what kind of attraction is that. What kind of force is that?

A: Er (pause, c.7s) I don't know

So Annie is aware that the electrons are attracted by the nucleus, and specifically by the protons. Despite this, Annie does not suggest the interaction is electronic, or specially refer to charge. Her suggestion that the outer electron shell may push on the nucleus, holding it together, contradicts Newton's third law in that forces between bodies are either attractive or repulsive, not not a mixture of the two. So if the nucleus attracts electrons, then electrons must attract (not push) the nucleus. Annie's suggestion was also inconsistent with the way forces between charges depend upon separation (by an inverse square law): the repulsion between adjacent protons would be far larger than any force due to the more distant electrons.

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet

Atoms within an element don't need to be bonded …

Atoms within an element don't need to be bonded because they're all the same sort

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. Annie was shown a representation of the close packing of 'atoms' in a metal (with the iron symbol, Fe, shown).

Okay, have a look at number 6…

• • • • • • (pause, c.6 s)

They are obviously iron atoms within an element.

Iron atoms within the element?

Yeah.

Okay. Can you say anything about the arrangement of the atoms?

They're all lined together. They're all close together.

They're closely together, yes, and they're all lined together, there's some sort of regular pattern there okay?

Yeah.

So you think that's in the element, that's a lump of iron, a sort of, a magnified view of a lump of iron.

Yes.

So Annie did recognise the image as representing particles ('atoms') in solid iron. The image showed the particles close together, and Annie was asked if they would hold together – the intention being to find out what, if anything, Annie knew about metallic bonding. Annie did think the atoms would be held together, but she did not suggest this was due to a bond or even a force (cf. "Sodium and chlorine don't actually overlap or anything and would probably get held together by just forces"*).

Do you think those atoms will hold together?

Yes.

Why do you think that is?

Because they're all the same sort.

Does that make them hold together?

Yeah.

So it seemed that Annie held an alternative conception that atoms of the same sort would hold together because they were of the same type. This interpretation was tested.

Yeah? Do you think there is any kind of bonds between the atoms?

• • • • • • • • • (pause, c.9s)

No, because they're all the same and they don't need to be bonded.

Right, okay so recapping…here we've got an example of something where the atoms are all the same, and that holds them together even though there's no chemical bonds.

Yeah.

So Annie held an alternative conception of atomic coherence – that atoms of the same type did not need bonding to hold them together, as being the same kind of atom was sufficient for them to hold together.

It is unlikely that Annie had been taught this idea, and it seems quite possible it is an intuitive idea that might be acting as an example of a 'grounded learning impediment': a notion based on general experience, and inappropriately applied in the context of atomic interactions.

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet

Because the sugar's so small it would evaporate with the water

Keith S. Taber

Morag was a participant in the Understanding Science project. In an interview in her first term of secondary school, Morag suggested that when sugar with mixed with water, it could not be separated out again. This was in the context of discussing chemical change, when she was explaining to me that a chemical change is where two things just go together:*

I: So what's a chemical reaction?

Morag: (I had to learn this) it's when two things, erm, are mixed together and can't be made to the original things easy, easily.

I: Oh, can you give me an example of that?

{pause c. 2 s }

M: Water mixing with sugar, but that's not a chemical reaction.

I: Oh so that's something else is it, is that something different?

M: I don't know.

I: Don't know, so can you mix water with sugar?

M: Yeah, but you can't get the water and the sugar back together very easily.

I: You can't. Is there a way of doing that?

M: No.

I: No? So if I gave you a beaker with some sugar in, and a beaker with some water in,

M: Mm.

I: and you mixed them together, poured them all in one beaker, and stirred them up – you would find it then difficult to get the water out or the sugar out, would you?

M: Ye-ah

I: Yeah, so is that a chemical reaction?

M: No.

The conversation went on to explore Morag's ideas about chemical reactions, and her notion that the flame reacts to the gunpowder * when a firework explodes. A little later we returned to her notions relating to mixtures of sugar and water (i.e., solutions).

I: And when you mix sugar and water, you get kind of sugary water

M: Yeah.

I: Have you got a name for that, when you mix a liquid and solid like that?

{pause c. 1 s}

I: Or is that just mixing sugar and water?

{pause c. 1 s}

M: There is a name for it,

I: Ah.

M: but I don't know it.

I: Okay, so when we mix it we get this sugar-water, whatever, and then it's harder to, it's hard to separate it is it, and get the sugar out

M: Yeah.

I: and the water out?

M: Yeah.

As I probed further, I elicited a difference that Morag perceived between water/sugar mixture (solution) and water/salt mixture (solution). At the time I was not sure what to make of this, and feeling that Morag was probably to some extent searching for answers on the spot, decided to move back to other themes. However, in retrospect, Morag seems to be saying there is a difference because in some sense the sugar is smaller, and so on evaporation can be taken away with the water – unlike the case with salt (solution). Her explanation is vague, but she refer to water:salt ratio, so appear to mean how much can dissolve rather than thinking in terms of molecular size.

I: So is that a chemical reaction?:

{pause c. 3 s}

M: No.

I: No, is that a chemical change?

{pause c. 3 s}

M: Yes.

I: Ah, okay. So what's the difference between a chemical change and a chemical reaction?

M: A reaction is where two things react with each other, like the gunpowder and flame, and a change is where two things just go together. You know like water and sugar, they go together like water and salt. Partially, they go together.

I: Mm. Partially?

M: Yeah. 'cause, erm, in water and salt you can get the salt back, whereas you can't with water and sugar.

I: Oh, so it's different, is it? Oh, I see. So if you had water and salt, how would you get them back again?

M: Erm, you'd put the water and salt by the window, and let the sun do all the evaporating of the water, and you would be left with the salt crystals.

I: So what if you took water and sugar, and put that by the window, would it evaporate the water, and leave you with the sugar?

{Pause, c. 1 s}

M: N-o.

I: That's different then, is it?

M: Yeah, cause the water's absorbed kind of like the sugar, and because they're, it's so small it would just take the sugar with it.

I: What do you mean it's so small?

{Pause, c. 1 s}

I: What if I had a big beaker of water and sugar?

{Pause, c. 2 s}

M: But there would be more water to salt ratio.

I: …Okay, so there is a difference, then, there's a difference

M: Yeah.

I: between the sugar and the salt?

M: Yeah.

This is an unsatisfactory place to leave the discussion, and in hindsight there are questions I would like to have asked. (Why did she think she could not recover sugar by leaving the water to evaporate? Was she thinking of the amount of sugar / salt needed to form what we would call a saturated solution?…)

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet

Plants store sunlight

Keith S. Taber

Bill was a Y7 student participating in the Understanding Science project. He used the idea of energy in talking about some aspects of his science. So when considering melting "the particles in (a solid), would have the energy, to move about more, and then it would melt down, because of its melting point, and go into a liquid". Although he could not explain what energy was, he knew "it gives something – the energy to move, it will make something else move or something". He remembered having done some work "where we had to make elastic band powered, 'cause the elastic band stored the energy to make it move", so energy could be stored.

Bill also told me about how in his previous school "we did a lot about plants, and – inside them, how they produce their own food". He explained that "inside, it has leaves, inside it, there is chlorophyll, which stores sunlight, and then it goes, then it uses that sunlight to produce its food. It also uses water from the roots, and the soil, and oxygen in the air. So it needs sunlight, oxygen and water to make its food and live."

However, Bill did not relate this process to the notion of energy, and see that the 'storing sunlight' might have been like the energy stored in an elastic band:

Interviewer: We were talking about energy just now.

Bill: Yeah

I: Do you think that's got anything to do with energy? That process you just talked about?

B: Hm, erm, (pause, c.3 seconds) I'm not sure

So Bill did not make the connection between storing energy, and what he interpreted from his science lesson as 'storing sunlight'. This appears to be an example of a fragmentation learning impediment.

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet

An element needs a certain number of electrons

An element needs a certain amount of electrons in the outer shell

Keith S. Taber

Bert was a participant in the Understanding Science project. In Y10 Bert was talking about how he had been studying electrolysis in class. Bill had described electrolysis as "where different elements are, are taken out from a compound", but it transpired that Bert thought that "a compound is just a lot of different elements put together"*. He seemed to have a tentative understanding that electrolysis could only be used to separate elements in some compounds.

if they're positive and negative then they would be able to be separated into different ones.

So some things are, some things aren't?

Yeah, it matters how many electrons that they have.

Ah. [pause, c.3s] So have you got any examples of things that you know would definitely be positive and negative?

Well I could tell you what happens.

Yeah, go on then.

Well erm, well if a, if an element gives away, electrons, then it becomes positive. But if it gains, then it becomes negative. Because the electrons are negative, so if they gain more, they just go a bit negative.

Yeah. So why would an element give away or gain some electrons? Why would it do that?

Because erm, it needs a certain amount of electrons in the outer shell. It matters on what part of the periodic table they are.

Okay, let me be really awkward. Why does it need a certain number of electrons in the outer shell?

[Pause, c.2 s]

Erm, well, I don't know. It just – 

So Bert thought that an element "needs a certain amount of electrons in the outer shell" depending upon it's position in the periodic table, but he did not seem to recall having been given any reason why this was. The use of the term 'needs' is an example of anthropomorphism, which is commonly used by students talking about atoms and molecules. Often this derives from language used by teachers to help humanise the science, and provide a way for students to make sense of the abstract ideas. If Bert comes to feel this is a sufficient explanation, then talk of what an element needs can come to stand in place of learning a more scientifically acceptable explanation, and so can act as a grounded learning impediment.

References to atoms needing a certain number of electrons is often used as an explanatory principle (the full shells explanatory principle) considered to explain why bonding occurs, why reactions occur and so forth.

Bert's final comment in the short extract above seems to reflect a sense of 'well that's just the way the world is'. It is inevitable that if we keep asking someone a sequence of 'well, why is that' question when they tell us about their understanding of the world, they eventually reach the limits of their understanding. (This tendency has been labelled 'the explanatory gestalt of essence'.) Ultimately, even science has to accept the possibility that eventually we reach answers and can not longer explain further – that's just the way the world is. Research suggests that some students seem to reach the 'it's just natural' or 'well that's just the way it is' point when teachers might hope they would be looking for further levels of explanation. This may link to when phenomena fit well with the learner's intuitive understanding of the world, or tacit knowledge.

Bert's reference to an element needing a certain amount of electrons in the outer shell also seems to confuse description at two different levels: he explicitly refer to substance (element), when he seems to mean a quanticle (atom). Element refers to the substance, at the macroscopic level of materials that can be handled in the laboratory, whilst an atom of the element (which might better be considered to gain or lose electrons) is part of the theoretical model of matter at a submicroscopic level, used by chemists as a basis for explaining much macroscopic, observed behaviour of samples of substances.


facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet

Because they are laws these things have to be true

Keith S. Taber

Ralph was a participant in the Understanding Science project. When I interviewed him in Y10 he suggested that what was particular to science was that with science it will always be the same, i.e., that the nature of science was that it was universal rather than relative to a particular place. Ralph had commented that "because they're kind of like, they are laws so…these things have to be true".

I: So in say maths you have these laws that are what, universal?

R: Yeah.

I: And science you think is the same sort of thing?

R: Yeah.

So Ralph was asked about the universal nature of laws in science:

I: So what laws do you know in science then that will apply anywhere?

R: Erm, well there's kind of like the laws of gravity and things, which are always there. But they can, that is one exception, because that can be changed depending on what planet you are on, but that's kind of like very, far off so, if you went on the moon and did physics there it might be ever so slightly different, but I'm not sure because I haven't been to the moon though.

…

R: And chemistry it's so – reactions and things – but the environments can change those, but not to a large extent, so, so iron will always react with something, no matter what, and two of the same element will not react together because they're already the same and things like that.

I: Mm?

R: Erm, yep, and biology's because most is kind of like is an average so, it can be different as well, but they're kind of like, saying they're all universal laws and all actually the same is kind of a bit untrue, but if like, there are exceptions to the rule in different places, so biology you can kind of like have erm illnesses or disfigurements that change how you look at biology, and things, which is kind of complicated and you don't tend to do that in this kind of level of biology, 'cause that's more kind of like that's specialised, that's more in kind of medical biology and things.

I: So it's a kind of 'unless' law, so, you know, a dog will always have four legs,

R: Yeah.

I: unless one of them's been torn off

R: Yeah.

I: or unless it is a mutant and grown an extra one?

R: Exactly, unless there is some kind of other, erm, other … event which … changes how that will work, so … like a snail would normally have no legs, but if you put loads of radiation on it, I dunno, maybe it would grow an arm or something.

It seemed Ralph's notion of a law of gravity was not the universal law of Newtonian physics, but something linked to the local strength of the gravitational field. (Later in the interview Ralph explained that the law of gravity is that things will always move towards the centre, but it is different on the moon*). In chemistry, Ralph seemed to see ideas about which substances reacted together as laws, although he acknowledge that in some cases these patterns were dependent upon conditions. In biology, Ralph associated laws with the normal forms of organisms, which again he knew could be changed by environmental factors.

In general then, Ralph's notion of scientific laws did not match the scientific notion of a law, which would generally operate at a 'deeper' level (i.e., a higher level of abstraction from observations), but seemed more at the level of 'facts'.

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet

With science it will always be the same

Keith S. Taber

Ralph was a participant in the Understanding Science project. When I interviewed him in his first term of upper secondary science he told me he was studying a range of topics in science, so I asked him what was common to these topics that made these different lessons all science.

I: So what makes that science, then, because it all seems so varied?

R: Well (Exhales) – physics is kind of like just like, distinguishing it from like, like forces and the things that we can't really see, so it's like, whereas chemistry is like big bangs and things so you can like, very visual one, and biology is like understanding the human body and things, so, I've completely forgotten what the original question was.

I: So what makes physics, chemistry and biology science, why don't we just call them three separate subjects, have they got anything in common?

R: Mm, erm. Er (Pause, c.2s, then Ralph exhales) … Erm, it's more because they're kind of like, they are laws so they kind of like effect, so these things have to be true. Whereas kind of in English and things, yeah that's fine, but they can be changed with different places, depending where you are, whereas, with science, it will always be the same. It's like maths because maths is kind of like physics and physics uses maths, because maths will always be the same wherever you go, 'cause the, you can't like, you can't say like in one place that two will equal two and in another place two will equal three or something. They've always got to be the same.

So for Ralph, a distinguishing criterion for science (and maths) was the universal nature of science: that it offered laws which "will always be the same". This is an interesting observation about the nature of science, with Ralph rejecting any relativistic notions of science, which might apply to some other subjects ("they can be changed with different places, depending where you are"). The need for scientific laws to apply regardless of context would be widely accepted, although Ralph's comments could also be seen to ignore the provisional nature of science (e.g. if laws are seen as  human constructions to interpret patterns in nature, rather than understood as given in nature).

(Although Ralph observed that because they are laws these things have to be true, when he attempted to exemplify this in physics, chemistry and biology, he was not able to suggest clear examples of universal laws in science.)

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet

An atom is the smallest amount of matter you can get

Keith S. Taber

Mohammed was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. When Mohammed was near the end of his first term of upper secondary science (in Y10) he told me that in his chemistry lessons he had been studying atoms and ionic bonding. When I asked him what an atom was, he suggested it was "the smallest amount of matter you can get" as well as being "it's the building block of all matter". It is not unusual for students to suggest that atom is the smallest thing that one can get, and then go on to report that it has smaller constituent parts when asked about atomic structure! Mohammed justified his suggestion that an atom was "the smallest amount of matter you can get" by excluding individual subatomic particles from being considered matter:

I: So – if I ask you, what's an atom?

M: It's the smallest amount of matter you can get, it's the building block of all matter.

I: So you can't get anything smaller?

M: No. If, if you – if I, let's say, took the electrons away, then it wouldn't be matter any more.

I: What would it be then, then?

M: It would just be a nucleus.

I: So, if we have got an atom, and you take the electrons away, that would seem to be smaller than the atom? But you are saying it is not really matter any more, it does not count as matter.

M: Yeah.

I: So how do we know what's matter? What's matter?

M: Matter is something that is built out of protons, neutrons and electrons.

I: Ah, so it has to have all three?

M: Yeah.

So from Mohammed's perspective it would not necessarily have been inconsistent to suggest that an atom was the smallest particle of matter possible, despite it having structure, if the definition of matter included suitable criteria. However, Mohammed did not suggest that, for example, matter had to have overall neutrality, and his suggestion that matter is something that is built out of protons, neutrons and electrons had to be amended when it was then tested out. He maintained, however, that if you take all of the electrons off an atom, then you would stop having matter.*


facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet