Tag: particulate nature of matter

Where does the molecule go? A diagnostic question

Many undergraduates seem to think molecules like to hang around rather than moving on

Keith S. Taber

image showing oart of a layer of molecules in a solid
A representation of a small part of a layer of molecules in a solid substance – with one molecule highlighted by colour.
If the solid were melted, and then refrozen, where would the highlighted molecule be?

If you are a science teacher: what would your students think?

In this article I offer my own version (actually two versions, see below) of a question I saw used in a published study (Smith & Villarreal, 2015a). As I no longer have any students, I cannot easily try this out, but perhaps a reader who is currently teaching science might be tempted to see what their pupils or students might think? (If you do, I would apreciate hearing about what you find!)

The two versions of the question can be downloaded from the links below.

The question could be given to individual learners, or as the basis of small group discussion, or perhaps just projected onto the screen for a 'show of hands' for each response option. (Exploring student thinking to detect misconceptions is known as diagnostic assessment.)

Alternative conceptions abound

I am very familiar with the extensive evidence which shows that is very common for learners, at all levels, and in any topic, to hold alternative conceptions ('misconceptions') at odds with canonical science and the target knowledge set out in the science curriculum. So, I am seldom surprised when I read about a study which reports finding learners demonstrating such conceptions.

Yet one study I read which reported learners commonly holding an alternative conception did surprise me. I would have not been surprised if the respondents had been secondary levels students, and a minority of them had demonstrated this particular conception, but I would not have expected how the study found a high incidence of the alternative conception among undergraduates studying chemistry.

The research asked about what happens when a solid is either dissolved, or melted, and then returns to the solid state. It used an instrument that presented a figure representing the particles in a small section of a solid, with one particle marked out, and asked the learners to draw the equivalent images after the solid had either dissolved and then been recrystallised, or melted and then been refrozen.

I an going to limit myself to the easier context (melt, then freeze – no solvent molecules involved). According to the researchers, the results suggested that a large proportion of the undergraduates indicated that the atom that had been marked out would be found in the same position in the solid at the end of the process: the exact proportion shifted in two versions of the study (65%, 50%) but a very rough gloss was that at least half of the learners located the marked particle back at its original point.

"These results indicated that a large proportion of the students viewed the [marked] molecule as being near to the same position after melting as it was before melting, and being in the position it was originally in after the liquid froze back to the solid."

Smith & Villarreal, 2015a: 277-278

Perhaps this should not have surprised me – I have been told by very bright A level students that on homolytic bond fusion each atom would always get its own electrons back, and this seems something of a parallel notion.

Now there was some questioning of the methodology and instrument used here (Langbeheim, 2015; see also Smith & Villarreal, 2015b) – as there often is in educational research – but it seemed a substantial proportion of learners thought the solid would reform with particles in their original positions, and this suggests a rather limited understanding of the level of molecular motion in the dissolved or molten state. I would not have been so surprised if this work had been carried out with, say, twelve year olds – but such a high level of misconception among undergraduates did surprise me as it reflects a failure to imagine the nature of the molecular world, and that surely makes learning high level (e.g., degree level) chemistry very difficult.

Now there are serious challenges in representing the nanoscale (thus the questioning of the representations used in the study) simply because molecules, ions, electron, atoms – are not the kinds of things we can draw realistically – they are fuzzy objects with no surfaces that somewhat blend into their neighbours. This raises a possible defence for students in such studies

'yes, your honour, I did show the particle as having returned to the same position, but as the focal figure had been drawn unrealistically as a set of circles I did not think authenticity was being asked for!'

It seems unlikely any learner really did think that – and the researchers did ask learners about their reasoning. The most common type of explanations were (Smith & Villarreal, 2015a: 278):

  • In the molten state: The molecule doesn't move far from its original position
  • After resolidification: The molecule ends up near where it was positioned in the liquid

Representing quanticles

Molecules, ions, atoms are 'quantum objects' which do not have the properties of familiar macroscopic objects. The nanoscopic particles in a lattice or liquid are not like the particles in table salt (grains) or sugar (granules) which each have a definite volume and surface, and which cannot be made to overlap their neighbours.

The following is my representation of a section of a layer of molecules in a solid substance. I have shown them round as that is simpler. Most molecules are not round (but 'molecules' of, say, neon or argon, are.) I have tried to show them as being fuzzy rather than as if ball-bearings with definite surfaces as the 'substance' of atoms, ions and molecules is largely electric fields and electron 'clouds' (a rather appropriate metaphor) rather than anything 'solid'. (And, of course, the word solid loses its meaning for a single molecule. We might, figuratively, suggest the atom is like a tiny liquid drop surrounded by an immense volume of gas – but it is probably best to avoid using such comparisons with learners becasue of the potential for them taking the terms literally.)

Should the molecules be touching in the solid? That is a problematic question as how do we decide whether things are touching when the things concerned do not have distinct surfaces but rather fade away to infinity? (If the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn were to ever come together, how would we decide at what point they had actually physically collided?)

Often in science teaching we cheat and show molecules touching in solids when teaching about the differences between condensed and gaseous states; but then hope students have forgotten this by the time we want to teach about thermal expansion of solids.

My diagram shows a layer of the regular crystal structure, so if you think my 'molecules' should touch then you can imagine that they would once the adjacent layers were drawn in.

image showing art of a layer of molecules in a solid

The image I have used might suggest too much space between molecules…

image showing part of molecules in a solid - 2 layers

…adding another layer might help give the appearance of close packing, but if a different colour is used this may suggest some physical difference…

image showing part of molecules in a solid - 2 layers

yet making both layers the same colour makes the figure more dificult to interpret.

It is a problem of scale

The real issue for the novice learner here is one of scale. The scale of atoms is far beyond our ready grasp. My figure shows a much more extended section of material than that in the original study – but still, a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of a solid we could readily see and manipulate. If the solid substance melted, then (e.g., around room temperature) we would expect molecular speeds of the order of hundreds of metres per second. In the gas phase that might be somewhat reflected in how far some molecules get (but diffusion is still much slowed by collisions), but in a condensed phase, so in a liquid, the molecules are not going to get very far at all before colliding with a 'neighbour' and being deflected off course.

The so-called 'random walk' of any molecule in a liquid will reflect mean speeds orders of magnitude less than the hundreds of metres per second instantaneous speed (as it is constantly being shifted to a new direction, and is just as likely to be sent back in the direction it originated).

(See an animated simulation of a random walk here)

But then, given the size of the sample represented, the distance from one end of the image to the other is of the order of maybe 0.000 000 001 metres. If a molecule with an instantaneous speed of hundreds of metres per second only has to travel of the order of perhaps 0.000 000 000 1m before colliding with the next molecule, it is going to have an awful lot of collisions each second – many billions. So, a molecule bumping around at say 300 m/s would not take very long to move 0.000 000 001 m (and so off the region of lattice shown in my figure) even with all those restrictive collisions!

Two versions of the diagnostic question for use in class

dignostic question showing particles in solid, and asking about position of molecule after melting and refreezing.
A 3-option diagnostic question testing understanding of molecular motion (Download a copy of this file)
dignostic question showing particles in solid, and asking about position of molecule after melting and refreezing.
A 4-option diagnostic question testing understanding of molecular motion (Download a copy of this file)

Even if the solid melts and is a liquid for only a few minutes (that is, a few hundred seconds), and even if we have placed the original solid in a tightly constricting container such that the liquid does not change overall shape, what are the chances of the molecule ending up in the same lattice position? Or even being in the frame when we represent such a small section of the lattice?

If we are only representing one layer of molecules, then what are the chances of the molecule even ending up in the same layer (it is likely to have moved 'up'/'down' just as much as laterally along the plane represented whilst in the liquid state).

Three random walks starting from the same origin. The molecule moves in all three dimensions.
(Image from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Walk3d_0.png – licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licence)

So, I think this is an easy question.

😉

Each of the options (in both versions of the question) are possible outcomes.

Given that the section of the latice shown is so limited, all the positions shown are pretty much local to the starting point, so I would argue the molecule could almost equally likely end up in any of the lattice positions in the figure (so: A, C and D are, in effect, equally likely – as would be any other lattice position you selected from the image).

What about Option B?

Option B reflects all the possibilities where the molecule ends up outside the small section of lattice layer illustrated, including all the options where it has moved to a different layer. There will be billions and billions of these options, including, at least, many thousands of options close enough for the molecule to have easily moved there in the number of 'random walk' steps feasible in the time scale.

So, the answer to the question of which option is most likely (in either version of the question) is easy – option B is by far most likely.

But I wonder if most students who have been taught about particle models and states of matter would agree with me? If Smith and Villarreal's undergraduate sample is anything to go by, then I guess not.

Work cited:
  • Smith, K. C., & Villarreal, S. (2015a). Using animations in identifying general chemistry students' misconceptions and evaluating their knowledge transfer relating to particle position in physical changes [10.1039/C4RP00229F]. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 273-282. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00229F
  • Langbeheim, E. (2015). Reinterpretation of students' ideas when reasoning about particle model illustrations. A Response to "Using Animations in Identifying General Chemistry Students' Misconceptions and Evaluating their Knowledge Transfer Relating to Particle Position in Physical Changes" [10.1039/C5RP00076A]. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 697-700. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00076A
  • Smith, K. C., & Villarreal, S. (2015b). A Reply to "Reinterpretation of Students' Ideas when Reasoning about Particle Model Illustrations. A Response to 'Using Animations in Identifying General Chemistry Students' Misconceptions and Evaluating their Knowledge Transfer Relating to Particle Position in Physical Changes' by Smith & Villarreal (2015)" [10.1039/C5RP00095E]. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 701-703. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00095E

ChemTeach – is a discussion list for sharing information and expertise among those involved in teaching chemistry. Click here to learn more about, or find out how to join, the group

The book  Student Thinking and Learning in Science: Perspectives on the Nature and Development of Learners' Ideas gives an account of the nature of learners' conceptions, and how they develop, and how teachers can plan teaching accordingly.

It includes many examples of student alternative conceptions in science topics.

A case of hybrid research design?

When is "a case study" not a case study? Perhaps when it is (nearly) an experiment?

Keith S. Taber

I read this interesting study exploring learners shifting conceptions of the particulate nature of gases.

Mamombe, C., Mathabathe, K. C., & Gaigher, E. (2020). The influence of an inquiry-based approach on grade four learners' understanding of the particulate nature of matter in the gaseous phase: a case study. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(1), 1-11. doi:10.29333/ejmste/110391

Key features:

  • Science curriculum context: the particulate nature of matter in the gaseous phase
  • Educational context: Grade 4 students in South Africa
  • Pedagogic context: Teacher-initiated inquiry approach (compared to a 'lecture' condition/treatment)
  • Methodology: "qualitative pre-test/post-test case study design" – or possibly a quasi-experiment?
  • Population/sample: the sample comprised 116 students from four grade four classes, two from each of two schools

This study offers some interesting data, providing evidence of how students represent their conceptions of the particulate nature of gases. What most intrigued me about the study was its research design, which seemed to reflect an unusual hybrid of quite distinct methodologies.

In this post I look at whether the study is indeed a case study as the authors suggest, or perhaps a kind of experiment. I also make some comments about the teaching model of the states of matter presented to the learners, and raise the question of whether the comparison condition (lecturing 8-9 year old children about an abstract scientific model) is appropriate, and indeed ethical.

Learners' conceptions of the particulate nature of matter

This paper is well worth reading for anyone who is not familiar with existing research (such as that cited in the paper) describing how children make sense of the particulate nature of matter, something that many find counter-intuitive. As a taster for this, I reproduce here two figures from the paper (which is published open access under a creative common license* that allows sharing and adaption of copyright material with due acknowledgement).

  • Pre-test data from Mamombe et al, 2020
  • Post-test data from Mamombe et al, 2020.

Figures © 2020 by the authors of the cited paper *

Conceptions are internal, and only directly available to the epistemic subject, the person holding the conception. (Indeed, some conceptions may be considered implicit, and so not even available to direct introspection.) In research, participants are asked to represent their understandings in the external 'public space' – often in talk, here by drawing (Taber, 2013). The drawings have to be interpreted by the researchers (during data analysis). In this study the researchers also collected data from group work during learning (in the enquiry condition) and by interviewing students.

What kind of research design is this?

Mamombe and colleagues describe their study as "a qualitative pre-test/post-test case study design with qualitative content analysis to provide more insight into learners' ideas of matter in the gaseous phase" (p. 3), yet it has many features of an experimental study.

The study was

"conducted to explore the influence of inquiry-based education in eliciting learners' understanding of the particulate nature of matter in the gaseous phase"

p.1

The experiment compared two pedagogical treatments :

  • "inquiry-based teaching…teacher-guided inquiry method" (p.3) guided by "inquiry-based instruction as conceptualized in the 5Es instructional model" (p.5)
  • "direct instruction…the lecture method" (p.3)

These pedagogic approaches were described:

"In the inquiry lessons learners were given a lot of materials and equipment to work with in various activities to determine answers to the questions about matter in the gaseous phase. The learners in the inquiry lessons made use of their observations and made their own representations of air in different contexts."

"the teacher gave probing questions to learners who worked in groups and constructed different models of their conceptions of matter in the gaseous phase. The learners engaged in discussion and asked the teacher many questions during their group activities. Each group of learners reported their understanding of matter in the gaseous phase to the class"

p.5, p.1

"In the lecture lessons learners did not do any activities. They were taught in a lecturing style and given all the notes and all the necessary drawings.

In the lecture classes the learners were exposed to lecture method which constituted mainly of the teacher telling the learners all they needed to know about the topic PNM [particulate nature of matter]. …During the lecture classes the learners wrote a lot of notes and copied a lot of drawings. Learners were instructed to paste some of the drawings in their books."

pp.5-6

The authors report that,

"The learners were given clear and neat drawings which represent particles in the gaseous, liquid and solid states…The following drawing was copied by learners from the chalkboard."

p.6
Figure used to teach learners in the 'lecture' condition. Figure © 2020 by the authors of the cited paper *
A teaching model of the states of matter

This figure shows increasing separation between particles moving from solid to liquid to gas. It is not a canonical figure, in that the spacing in a liquid is not substantially greater than in a solid (indeed, in ice floating on water the spacing is greater in the solid), whereas the difference in spacing in the two fluid states is under-represented.

Such figures do not show the very important dynamic aspect: that in a solid particles can usually only oscillate around a fixed position (a very low rate of diffusion not withstanding), where in a liquid particles can move around, but movement is restricted by the close arrangement of (and intermolecular forces between) the particles, where in a gas there is a significant mean free path between collisions where particles move with virtually constant velocity. A static figure like this, then, does not show the critical differences in particle interactions which are core to the basic scientific model

Perhaps even more significant, figure 2 suggests there is the same level of order in the three states, whereas the difference in ordering between a solid and liquid is much more significant than any change in particle spacing.

In teaching, choices have to be made about how to represent science (through teaching models) to learners who are usually not ready to take on board the full details and complexity of scientific knowledge. Here, Figure 2 represents a teaching model where it has been decided to emphasise one aspect of the scientific model (particle spacing) by distorting the canonical model, and to neglect other key features of the basic scientific account (particle movement and arrangement).

External teachers taught the classes

The teaching was undertaken by two university lecturers

"Two experienced teachers who are university lecturers and well experienced in teacher education taught the two classes during the intervention. Each experienced teacher taught using the lecture method in one school and using the teacher-guided inquiry method in the other school."

p.3

So, in each school there was one class taught by each approach (enquiry/lecture) by a different visiting teacher, and the teachers 'swapped' the teaching approaches between schools (a sensible measure to balance possible differences between the skills/styles of the two teachers).

The research design included a class in each treatment in each of two schools

An experiment; or a case study?

Although the study compared progression in learning across two teaching treatments using an analysis of learner diagrams, the study also included interviews, as well as learners' "notes during class activities" (which one would expect would be fairly uniform within each class in the 'lecture' treatment).

The outcome

The authors do not consider their study to be an experiment, despite setting up two conditions for teaching, and comparing outcomes between the two conditions, and drawing conclusions accordingly:

"The results of the inquiry classes of the current study revealed a considerable improvement in the learners' drawings…The results of the lecture group were however, contrary to those of the inquiry group. Most learners in the lecture group showed continuous model in their post-intervention results just as they did before the intervention…only a slight improvement was observed in the drawings of the lecture group as compared to their pre-intervention results"

pp.8-9

These statements can be read in two ways – either

  • a description of events (it just happened that with these particular classes the researchers found better outcomes in the enquiry condition), or
  • as the basis for a generalised inference.

An experiment would be designed to test a hypothesis (this study does not seem to have an explicit hypothesis, nor explicit research questions). Participants would be assigned randomly to conditions (Taber, 2019), or, at least, classes would be randomly assigned (although then strictly each class should be considered as a single unit of analysis offering much less basis for statistical comparisons). No information is given in the paper on how it was decided which classes would be taught by which treatment.

Representativeness

A study could be carried out with the participation of a complete population of interest (e.g., all of the science teachers in one secondary school), but more commonly a sample is selected from a population of interest. In a true experiment, the sample has to be selected randomly from the population (Taber, 2019) which is seldom possible in educational studies.

The study investigated a sample of 'grade four learners'

In Mamombe and colleagues' study the sample is described. However, there is no explicit reference to the population from which the sample is drawn. Yet the use of the term 'sample' (rather than just, say, 'participants') implies that they did have a population in mind.

The aim of the study is given as to "to explore the influence of inquiry-based education in eliciting learners' understanding of the particulate nature of matter in the gaseous phase" (p.1) which could be considered to imply that the population is 'learners'. The title of the paper could be taken to suggest the population of interests is more specific: "grade four learners". However, the authors make no attempt to argue that their sample is representative of any particular population, and therefore have no basis for statistical generalisation beyond the sample (whether to learners, or to grade four learners, or to grade four learners in RSA, or to grade four learners in farm schools in RSA, or…).

Indeed only descriptive statistics are presented: there is no attempt to use tests of statistical significance to infer whether the difference in outcomes between conditions found in the sample would probably have also been found in the wider population.

(That is inferential stats. are commonly used to suggest 'we found a statistically significant better outcome in one condition in our sample, so in the hypothetical situation that we had been able to include the entire population in out study we would probably have found better mean outcomes in that same condition'.)

This may be one reason why Mamombe and colleagues do not consider their study to be an experiment. The authors acknowledge limitations in their study (as there always are in any study) including that "the sample was limited to two schools and two science education specialists as instructors; the results should therefore not be generalized" (p.9).

Yet, of course, if the results cannot be generalised beyond these four classes in two schools, this undermines the usefulness of the study (and the grounds for the recommendations the authors make for teaching based on their findings in the specific research contexts).

If considered as an experiment, the study suffers from other inherent limitations (Taber, 2019). There were likely novelty effects, and even though there was no explicit hypothesis, it is clear that the authors expected enquiry to be a productive approach, so expectancy effects may have been operating.

Analytical framework

In an experiment is it important to have an objective means to measure outcomes, and this should be determined before data are collected. (Read about 'Analysis' in research studies.). In this study methods used in previous published work were adopted, and the authors tell us that "A coding scheme was developed based on the findings of previous research…and used during the coding process in the current research" (p.6).

But they then go on to report,

"Learners' drawings during the pre-test and post-test, their notes during class activities and their responses during interviews were all analysed using the coding scheme developed. This study used a combination of deductive and inductive content analysis where new conceptions were allowed to emerge from the data in addition to the ones previously identified in the literature"

p.6

An emerging analytical frame is perfectly appropriate in 'discovery' research where a pre-determined conceptualisation of how data is to be understood is not employed. However in 'confirmatory' research, testing a specific idea, the analysis is operationalised prior to collecting data. The use of qualitative data does not exclude a hypothesis-testing, confirmatory study, as qualitative data can be analysed quantitatively (as is done in this study), but using codes that link back to a hypothesis being tested, rather than emergent codes. (Read about 'Approaches to qualitative data analysis'.)

Much of Mamombe and colleagues' description of their work aligns with an exploratory discovery approach to enquiry, yet the gist of the study is to compare student representations in relation to a model of correct/acceptable or alternative conceptions to test the relative effectiveness of two pedagogic treatments (i.e., an experiment). That is a 'nomothetic' approach that assumed standard categories of response.

Overall, the author's account of how they collected and analysed data seem to suggest a hybrid approach, with elements of both a confirmatory approach (suitable for an experiment) and elements of a discovery approach (more suitable for case study). It might seem this is a kind of mixed methods study with both confirmatory/nomothetic and discovery/idiographic aspects – responding to two different types of research question the same study.

Yet there do not actually seem (**) to be two complementary strands to the research (one exploring the richness of student's ideas, the other comparing variables – i.e., type of teaching versus degree of learning), but rather an attempt to hybridise distinct approaches based on incongruent fundamental (paradigmatic) assumptions about research. (** Having explicit research questions stated in the paper could have clarified this issue for a reader.)

So, do we have a case study?

Mamombe and colleagues may have chosen to frame their study as a kind of case study because of the issues raised above in regard to considering it an experiment. However, it is hard to see how it qualifies as case study (even if the editor and peer reviewers of the EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education presumably felt this description was appropriate).

Mamombe and colleagues do use multiple data sources, which is a common feature of case study. However, in other ways the study does not meet the usual criteria for case study. (Read more about 'Case study'.)

For one thing, case study is naturalistic. The method is used to study a complex phenomena (e.g., a teacher teaching a class) that is embedded in a wider context (e.g., a particular school, timetable, cultural context, etc.) such that it cannot be excised for clinical examination (e.g., moving the lesson to a university campus for easy observation) without changing it. Here, there was an intervention, imposed from the outside, with external agents acting as the class teachers.

Even more fundamentally – what is the 'case'?

A case has to have a recognisable ('natural') boundary, albeit one that has some permeability in relation to its context. A classroom, class, year group, teacher, school, school district, etcetera, can be the subject of a case study. Two different classes in one school, combined with two other classes from another school, does not seem to make a bounded case.

In case study, the case has to be defined (not so in this study); and it should be clear it is a naturally occurring unit (not so here); and the case report should provide 'thick description' (not provided here) of the case in its context. Mamombe and colleagues' study is simply not a case study as usually understood: not a "qualitative pre-test/post-test case study design" or any other kind of case study.

That kind of mislabelling does not in itself does not invalidate research – but may indicate some confusion in the basic paradigmatic underpinnings of a study. That seems to be the case [sic] here, as suggested above.

Suitability of the comparison condition: lecturing

A final issue of note about the methodology in this study is the nature of one of the two conditions used as a pedagogic treatment. In a true experiment, this condition (against which the enquiry condition was contrasted) would be referred to as the control condition. In a quasi-experiment (where randomisation of participants to conditions is not carried out) this would usually be referred to as the comparison condition.

At one point Mamombe and colleagues refer to this pedagogic treatment as 'direct instruction' (p.3), although this term has become ambiguous as it has been shown to mean quite different things to different authors. This is also referred to in the paper as the lecture condition.

Is the comparison condition ethical?

Parental consent was given for students contributing data for analysis in the study, but parents would likely trust the professional judgement of the researchers to ensure their children were taught appropriately. Readers are informed that "the learners whose parents had not given consent also participated in all the activities together with the rest of the class" (p.3) so it seems some children in the lecture treatment were subject to the inferior teaching approach despite this lack of consent, as they were studying "a prescribed topic in the syllabus of the learners" (p.3).

I have been very critical of a certain kind of 'rhetorical' research (Taber, 2019) report which

  • begins by extolling the virtues of some kind of active / learner-centred / progressive / constructivist pedagogy; explaining why it would be expected to provide effective teaching; and citing numerous studies that show its proven superiority across diverse teaching contexts;
  • then compares this with passive modes of learning, based on the teacher talking and giving students notes to copy, which is often characterised as 'traditional' but is said to be ineffective in supporting student learning;
  • then describes how authors set up an experiment to test the (superior) pedagogy in some specific context, using as a comparison condition the very passive learning approach they have already criticised as being ineffective as supporting learning.

My argument is that such research is unethical

  • It is not genuine science as the researchers are not testing a genuine hypothesis, but rather looking to demonstrate something they are already convinced of (which does not mean they could not be wrong, but in research we are trying to develop new knowledge).
  • It is not a proper test of the effectiveness of the progressive pedagogy as it is being compared against a teaching approach the authors have already established is sub-standard.

Most critically, young people are subjected to teaching that the researchers already believe they know will disadvantage them, just for the sake of their 'research', to generate data for reporting in a research journal. Sadly, such rhetorical studies are still often accepted for publication despite their methodological weaknesses and ethical flaws.

I am not suggesting that Mamombe, Mathabathe and Gaigher have carried out such a rhetorical study (i.e., one that poses a pseudo-question where from the outset only one outcome is considered feasible). They do not make strong criticisms of the lecturing approach, and even note that it produces some learning in their study:

"Similar to the inquiry group, the drawings of the learners were also clearer and easier to classify after teaching"

"although the inquiry method was more effective than the lecture method in eliciting improved particulate conception and reducing continuous conception, there was also improvement in the lecture group"

p.9, p.10

I have no experience of the South African education context, so I do not know what is typical pedagogy in primary schools there, nor the range of teaching approaches that grade 4 students there might normally experience (in the absence of external interventions such as reported in this study).

It is for the "two experienced teachers who are university lecturers and well experienced in teacher education" (p.3) to have judged whether a lecture approach based on teacher telling, children making notes and copying drawings, but with no student activities, can be considered an effective way of teaching 8-9 year old children a highly counter-intuitive, abstract, science topic. If they consider this good teaching practice (i.e., if it is the kind of approach they would recommend in their teacher education roles) then it is quite reasonable for them to have employed this comparison condition.

However, if these experienced teachers and teacher educators, and the researchers designing the study, considered that this was poor pedagogy, then there is a real question for them to address as to why they thought it was appropriate to implement it, rather than compare the enquiry condition with an alternative teaching approach that they would have expected to be effective.

Sources cited:

* Material reproduced from Mamombe, Mathabathe & Gaigher, 2020 is © 2020 licensee Modestum Ltd., UK. That article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) [This post, excepting that material, is © 2020, Keith S. Taber.]

An introduction to research in education:

Taber, K. S. (2013). Classroom-based Research and Evidence-based Practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Some particles are softer than others

Keith S. Taber

Image by Alexander Ignatov from Pixabay

Bill was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. Bill was a Year 7 student when he told me that previously, when he had been in primary school, "we did a lot about plants, and – inside them, how they produce their own food". As he had been talking to me about learning about particles (e.g. Gas particles try to spread out and move apart), I asked if there was any link between these two topics.

Okay. What about particles, we were just talking about particles, do you think that's got anything to do with particles?

Well in the plant, there is particles.

Are there?

'cause it's a solid.

Ah. So there'll be particles in that then?

Yeah.

Is it all solid, do you think?

Inside the stem is, 'cause going up the stem there would be water, so that's a liquid. And, it also uses oxygen, which is a gas, to make its food, so. I think so.

So it would be solids, liquids and gases?

Mm, I think some.

But they've all got some particle in them, they are all made up of particles.

Yeah.

Okay.

As Bill had talked to me earlier about there being particles in a gas when ice was melted, and then boiled, I wanted to see if he though the particles in different substances were the same:

Erm. Do you think that the particles in the – oxygen's a gas isn't it?

Yeah.

Do you think the particles in the oxygen gas, are the same as the particles in the steam that you said was a gas, in your experiment you did earlier?

Erm, I don't think so, no.

You think they'd be different sort of particles?

Yeah, they're different gases.

Okay. And in the solid part of the plant, do you think the particles that make up the solid part of the plant, are the same as the particles that make up this table, that's a solid?

Well, the particles, plants are soft, some plants are soft, and you, when you squeeze them they're, they feel soft and erm, but the table is hard so I think that the particles would be slightly different, but they would have, because they hold this different shape, and they would, they would be {pause} erm {pause} then they would, ob¬, then they would be softer as well.

So the softer, the plant which is softer, > > would have softer particles?

< Yeah. < I think so yeah

And the harder wood, made of harder particles?

I think so.

Here Bill offered evidence of a very common alternative conception about the particle theory. A key feature of particle theory is that chemists use particle models to explain the properties of substances macroscopically (what can be observed directly) in terms of the very different nature and properties of conjectured 'particles' (quanticles) at a submicroscopic level.

Yet after learning about these 'particles', students commonly 'explain' macroscopic properties of substances and materials by suggesting that the particles of which they are made up themselves have the property to be explained – being hard, sharp, colourless, conducting, etc.

Particles in a solid can be seen with a microscope

Keith S. Taber

Image by 2427999 from Pixabay 

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

Image from Pixabay 

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

Image by Colin Behrens from Pixabay 

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?

Liquid iron stays a liquid when heated

Keith S. Taber

Sophia was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. In Y7, Sophia had told me that if molten iron was heated "some of it would evaporate but not all of it, 'cause it's not like water and it's more heavy". She thought only "a little" of the iron would evaporate to give iron vapour: The rest "really just stays as a liquid". [See 'Iron is too heavy to completely evaporate'.]

Just over a year later (in Y8) Sophia had been studying "that different erm substances have different freezing and melting and boiling points, and some aren't like a liquid at room temperatures, some are a solid and some are a gas and things like that".

Give me an example of something else that's a solid at room temperature?

Iron.

Do you think iron would have a melting point?

Yeah.

Yeah, and if I, what would I get if I, if I heated iron to its melting point?

It would become a liquid.

And why would it do that?

Because it's got so hot that particles – they have spread out or something?

So what do you think would happen if I heated the iron liquid?

It would stay a liquid.

No matter how much I heated it?

It might, I don't know if it would become a vapour.

Can you get iron vapour?

No, I don't think so.

You don't think so?

No.

So it seems that Sophia had shifted from accepting that iron would partially evaporate (when learning about the particle model of the different states), to considering that iron (probably) can not become a vapour. The notion of iron as a gas is not something we can readily imagine, and apparently did not seem very feasible. In part this might be because we think of iron the material (a metal, which cannot exist in in the vapour phase) rather than as a substance that can take different material forms.

It seems Sophia's prior knowledge of iron the material was working against her learning about iron the substance, an examples of a grounded learning impediment where prior knowledge impedes new learning.

In Y7 Sophia had seemed to have a hybrid conception where having been taught a general model of the states of matter and changes of state, she accepted the counter-intuitive idea that iron could evaporate, but thought that (unlike in the case of water) it could not completely evaporate . This might have been a 'stepping stone' between not accepting iron could be in the gaseous state and fitting it within the general model that all substances will when progressively heated first melt and then evaporate (or boil) as long as they did not decompose first.

However, it seems that a year later Sophia was actually more resistant to the idea that iron could exist as vapour and so now she thought molten iron would remain liquid no matter how much it was heated. If anything, she had reverted to a more intuitive understanding. This is not that strange: it has been shown that apparent conceptual gains which are counter to strongly held intuitions that are brought about by teaching episodes that are not regularly reinforced can drop away as the time since teaching increases. Conceptual change does not always involve shifts towards the scientific accounts.

[Sophia was in lower secondary school when I talked to her about this: but I was also told by a much older student that the idea of iron turning into a gas sounds weird.]

In a sponge, the particles are spread out…

In a sponge, the particles are spread out more, so it can absorb more water 

Keith S. Taber

Morag was a participant in the Understanding Science Project. In her first term of secondary school, she told me that he had learnt about particles. Morag had explained, and simulated through role play for me, the arrangements of particles in the different states of matter (See: So if someone was stood here, we'd be a solid.) She had also emphasised just how tiny the particles were, "little, little-little-little things", and so how many there were in a small object: "millions and millions and millions". This suggested she had accepted and understood the gist of the scientific model of submicroscopic particles.

Yet as the conversation proceeded, Morag suggested the macroscopic behaviour of sponge in absorbing water could be explained by the arrangement of particles leaving space for the water. This is perhaps a reasonably, indeed quite imaginative, suggestion at one level, except that the material of a sponge is basically solid (where, as Morag recognised, that the particles would be very close together). A sponge as whole is more like a foam, with a great volume of space between the solid structure (where air can be displaced by liquid) and an extensive surface area.

Do you think it is important to know that everything is made of particles?

No.

It's not important?

Well it could be important, but it's not that important. Well, you see, like that [indicating the voice recorder used to record the interview] has got like lots and lots of particles pushed together this [Morag gestures]…But a sponge, the particles are like, the particles are more kind of like, they're still the same, but it's just spread out more, so it can absorb more water.

Oh I see, so are you saying that the same particles are in my little recorder, as in the sponge.

Yeah, they're the same, but there's just more of them in one than there would be in the other.

The failure here is perhaps less Morag's inappropriate explanation, than the tendency to teach about the ideals of solids, liquids and gases, which strictly apply only to single substances, where most real materials students come across in everyday life are actually mixtures or composites where the labels 'solid', liquid' and 'gas' are – at best – approximations.

Teaching has to simplify complex scientific ideas to make them accessible to students of different ages, so often teaching models are used. But sometimes simplifications can cause misunderstandings, and so the development of alternative conceptions. If 'everything is a solid, liquid or gas' is used as a kind of teaching model, or even presented as a slogan or motto for students to echo back to the teacher, when lots of things students come across in everyday life (e.g., butter, clouds, the pet cat – a bathroom sponge) do not easily fit these categories, and this is likely to lead to students overgeneralising.

Although it is often not possible to assign a single simple cause to a student's flawed thinking, this could be considered likely to be an example of a pedagogic learning impediment (a type of grounded learning impediment) in chemistry: a case where an approach to teaching can lead students' thinking in unhelpful directions.

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

Keith S. Taber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keith S. Taber

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it just does it.

It just does it?

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

And later:

…are there particles in other things?:

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

What about the gases?

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

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

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

And later:

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

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

What about the particles in the gas?

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

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

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

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

There are particles in everything – but maybe not chlorophyll

Keith S. Taber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think chlorophyll is made of particles?

Hm, don't know.

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

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.