BBC corrects cruel (to cats) scientific claim on its website
Keith S. Taber
I just got 80% on a science test for primary school children
I've just scored 4/5 (80%) on an on-line KS2 science test on the BBC (the British Broadcasting Corporation) educational website. 80% sounds quite good out of context, but I am a science teacher and KS2 is meant for 7-11 year olds.
My defence is that the question I got wrong was ambiguous (but, as Christine Keeler might have said, I would say that).
I was actually getting round to checking on something from a while back.
In 2019 I came across something on the website that I thought was very misleading – and I complained to the BBC through their website form. I had an immediate, but generic response:
"Thank you for taking the time to send us your comments. We appreciate all the feedback we receive as it plays an important role in helping to shape our decisions.
This is an automated message (sorry that we can't reply individually) to let you know that we've read your comments and will report them overnight to staff across the BBC for them to read too (after removing any personal details). This includes our programme makers, commissioning editors and senior management.
Thanks again for contacting the BBC.
BBC Audience Services.
NB: Please do not reply to this email. It includes a reference number but comes from an automated account which is not monitored."
Email: 6th Sept., 2019
This kind of response is somewhat frustating. My complaint had been recieved, and would be passed on, but it looked like I would get no specific response (as presumably if my "comments" were to be reported to relevant staff "after removing any personal details", those staff would not be in a position to let me know if they were following up, dismissing, or simply ignoring, my comments.) Indeed, I never did get any follow up.
So, my intention was to check back after a decent period had elapsed (n.b., where does all the time go?) and see if anything had been changed in response to my complaint. Strictly, if there had been a change this could be because:
- a) I complained
- b) someone else/some other people complained (i.e., people who's complaints were taken more seriously than mine)
- c) I was one of number of people who complained
- d) material had been updated compleltely independently of any compaints
That is, I could not know if I personally had had any effect, BUT if the offending material (because as a chemist I was offended professionally, even if not personally) was still there then I would know my compaint had not been heeded.
So, I intended to check back; I expected to find no change (as pointing out blatant, basic, errors in the science in the English National Curriculum to government ministers did not have any effect, so the BBC…? ); and, if so, I thought of following up with an email or an old fashioned snail-mail … ("…yours, disgusted of Cambourne"*).
Well done, BBC
So, I am happy to publicly acknowledge that the BBC has changed its materials appearing under the heading 'What are the states of matter?'
The topic comprises of a short animation (with odd anthropomorphised {"guys"} geometric shapes handling examples of the states of matter: solid, liquid and gas); a series of bullet points on each state; a sorting task; and then the set of five objective (multiple choice) questions.
There are a number of issues with the examples used here, as discussed below. But the main focus of my complaint, a cartoon cat, has now been released from the indignity of being classified as a state of matter. Yes, a cat!
Limitations of the three states of matter model
The idea that matter can exist in three states is a pretty important foundation for a good deal of other science.
However there is big problem with the generality of the model. Basically it really applies to pure samples of substances: generally substances (not materials in general, and certainly not objects) exist as solids, liquids, or gases, depending on the conditions of temperature and pressure – although at high enough temperatures plasmas are formed (and theoretically when hot enough even the atomic cores, and eventually nuclei would break down – but those conditions are pretty extreme and not found in the typical home or classroom).
Examples of substances include water, salt, calcium carbonate, iron, mercury, hydrogen, graphite, carbon dioxide, sulphur… that is, elements and compounds. Of course, many of these are seldom met in pure form in everyday life outside school science labs.
Most materials that people come across are mixtures or composites. Mixtures often exist as solutions or suspensions – as gels or foams or emulsions – not as solids, liquids or gases.
This is probably why the terms 'solids', 'liquids' and 'gases' actually have two sets of meanings – the science or technical sense, and the everyday or 'life-world' sense. So milk is a liquid(everyday) as you can pour some into your tea cup and a block of wood is a solid(everyday) as it retains its shape and integrity as you nail it to another structure. But milk and wood are not substances – and so not liquid(scientific) or solid(scientific).
Does this matter? Yes, because if we are teaching children things in science lessons, it would be good to get the science right. A solid will melt at a distinct melting temperature to give a liquid which will boil at a distinct boiling temperature. Wood, for example, does not.
Wood is a complex material. It has gas pockets. It has (variable) moisture content, and the structure contains various compounds – lignin, cellulose, and many more. The response to heating reflects that complex constitution.
The BBC's examples of solids, liquids, and gases
The BBC website suggests examples of the three states of matter to introduce primary age students to the concept.
Animation:
Solids: block of ice, football
Lquids: water, honey
Gases: none are specified – animation shows the clouds (of liquid water droplets) forming around a kettle spout, and 'gas' put into in fizzy drinks is referenced.
A football is not solid, but usually air (a mixture of gases with some other components) contained in a plastic shell. (The voiceover refers simply to a 'ball', but the animation show a large ball with a traditional football pattern being used to do 'keepy uppies' by the cartoon character.)
Honey is not a liquid(scientific) but a complex mixture of sugars in solution. There is usually much more sugar than water. (So, arguably, it is more solid than liquid – but it is better to simply not consider it as either.) This is where I dropped a mark on the terminal test:
Web text:
The bullet points on the site list some further examples:
"Examples of solids include ice, wood and sand." (Ice and sand are solids(scientific).)
"Examples of liquids include water, honey and milk." (Only water is liquid(scientific) here.)
"Examples of gases include steam, helium and oxygen." (3/3, well done BBC!)
Sorting task:
In the sorting task, children are asked to sort a number of examples shown on cards into solid, liquid, and gas:
The examples presented are air, a feather, helium, milk, a pencil, sea, steam, syrup, wood. Of these only helium and steam strictly meet the criteria for being a solid(scientific)/liquid(scientific)/gas(scientific). Yet, as suggested above, it is difficult to find genuine examples that are both scientifically correct and familiar to young children. Perhaps sea and air (at least materials) are closer approximations than a pencil or a feather ("solids retain their shape" – would a child using the website have handled a feather, and, if so, would it have retained its shape under child-handling?)
So, I still have reservations about this material, whilst acknowledging the need to balance scientific correctness with relevant (to children) examples. Strictly, some of the examples can be seen as encouraging children to get the science wrong. These things matter if only because children are learning things on this site that later in their school career will be judged as alternative conceptions and marked as wrong.
(Read 'Are plants solid?')
None the less, I am pleased that the BBC has at least decided to amend its sorting task, and remove the poor cat:
The website had previously been quite clear that putting the cat as anything other than solid was 'wrong'. It is classed as a solid even though a cat (like any animal) is (or would be if separated out into its constituent substances – and children should not try this at home) more water than anything else.
I had real trouble seeing how that example fitted with the criteria specified on the webpage:
"[Cats] stay in one place and can be held.
[Cats] keep their shape. They do not flow like liquids.
[Cats] always take up the same amount of space. They do not spread out like gases.
[Cats] can be cut or shaped."
Characteristics of solids, but perhaps not entirely true of cats?
* cf. the idiom 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' – referring to a hypothetical person who writes to media complaining about matters of concern.
Images used here are screenshots, copyright of the BBC – a publicly funded public service broadcaster.
