Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
To cite this Article Johnson, Philip(1998)'Children's understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, Part 1: Boiling water and
the particle theory',International Journal of Science Education,20:5,567 — 583
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/0950069980200505
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200505
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
INT. J. Sci. EDUC., 1998, VOL. 20, NO. 5, 567-583
As part of a three-year longitudinal study which explored the development of children's concept of a
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
substance (ages 11 to 14), this paper reports the findings in relation to children's understanding of
boiling water and particle ideas. Evidence is presented which suggests that, for most of the pupils,
particle ideas provided the means for them to begin to accept that the bubbles in boiling water were the
water changed to the gas state. The importance of this, in terms of children's understanding of a sample
of gas as a sample of a subtance, is discussed. It is argued that boiling water must be seen to have a
curriculum significance which goes far beyond its association with a defined temperature.
Introduction
The scientific idea of a substance is a high-order conceptualization, contingent
upon a number of other ideas (Johnson 1996). Crucially, one must appreciate
that the identity of a substance is independent of state and so a substance could
be in any of the three physical states. Along with conceptions of the states them-
selves, change of state has been an area which has received attention within the
recent research into children's understandings (Pfundt and Duit 1994). In keeping
with children's understanding in other areas of science the research has high-
lighted no little confusion. Within the literature we have been given 'snapshots'
of the situation but this does not tell us how an individual pupil's thinking might
develop. This paper reports findings from a three-year longitudinal study which
has given insights into the development of children's understanding of changes of
state; insights which suggest a way forward for science education. The study, as a
whole, explored the development of children's concept of a substance and so
change of state was but one of a number of interrelated ideas that were examined.
Part one of this paper is restricted to pupils' understanding of boiling water, part
two (Johnson 1998) will concern evaporation at room temperature and condensa-
tion of atmospheric water vapour. Melting and freezing were also addressed within
the study, but the changes involving the gas state were far more problematic for
the pupils.
Existing research
By their nature, the states and change of state feature, to varying degrees, in many
studies. Reviews covering this area can be found in Driver et al. (1985), Andersson
0950-0693/98 S12·00 © 1998 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
568 P.JOHNSON
(1990), Driver et al. (1994), Wandersee et al. (1994), Garnett et al. (1995). When
boiling, water is changing to the gas state. What does the literature tell us about
pupils' understanding of this end-point? Although it seems that most children at
age 11 do seem aware that there is 'something' called air all around us (Sere 1985,
Russell et al. 1991), and many would call it a gas, children also regard sprays, mists
(steam), flames and smoke as gases too (Russell et al. 1991). Gases can be seen or
not seen (Stavy 1988, Johnston and Driver 1991, Russell et al. 1991) and, indeed,
the main qualifying characteristic seems to be an ability to 'get into the air and
spread out' and, usually, 'up'. Some pupils also seem to use 'gas' more specifically
as a name for the familiar fossil fuel, and others use it more generally as something
harmful and intangible (Sere 1985, Russell et al. 1991). Andersson (1984) com-
ments:
. . . pupils tend to consider gas and air and air and oxygen as equivalent to each other.
In other words, they have not understood that gas is a superordinate concept and that
there are different gases with different properties. They say, for example, that 'air is
oxygen and gas' and that 'oxygen is something you breathe, that is, air.' (p. 45)
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
For a task where a drop of clear liquid was vaporized in a sealed container (of fixed
volume), both Mas et al. (1987) and Stavy (1990) report most 11- to 13-year-olds
not conserving mass. Piaget (1929) found that 'air' and 'gases' tend to be associated
with what seems immaterial and unexplained. The overall picture, then, is very
much one of children having only rather vague perceptions of what a gas is and an
associated looseness of terminology.
There are two main papers which specifically address the composition of the
bubbles in boiling water. The first of these is Osborne and Cosgrove (1983),
which, indeed, stands out as the seminal paper in the area of change of state.
The events and key questions, reproduced from the paper, are given in figure 1.
Only the first two of these events need concern us here.
Four commonly held views on the bubbles in boiling water are reported by
Osborne and Cosgrove (1983) (numbers of students out of the sample of 43, ages 8
to 18, are given in parentheses):
• the bubbles are made of heat (3);
• the bubbles are made of air (18);
• the bubbles are oxygen or hydrogen (6);
• the bubbles consist of steam (5).
In relation to the second event most of the students identified the visible mist
coming away as 'steam', and, it was also noted that 'many of these pupils consid-
ered that when steam was no longer visible it had changed into air; i.e. it had
become air' (p. 829). Although using different expressions, all seemed to appreci-
ate the steam was turning back into water on the saucer. At this point some
concern must be registered, particularly in the light of children's perceptions of
the gas state itself noted earlier. The authors suggest that 'steam' is the acceptable
scientific view for the composition of the bubbles. However, this hardly seems fair
on the students who might be noting the contrast between the clarity of the bub-
bles and the mistiness of what they called 'steam' (and were asked about as steam).
Given that the students talked of steam changing into air it seems a pity that the
students' meaning for 'air', in reference to the bubbles, was not explored (Johnson
and Gott 1996). Similarly, concern must be raised in relation to a multiple-choice
CHANGES OF STATE INVOLVING THE GAS STATE, PART 1 569
of the jar.
The question: From where has the water on the
outside of the jar come?
survey of a larger sample of students where 'air', 'steam', 'heat', and 'oxygen or
hydrogen' were given as the only options; each could be interpreted differently by
pupils and none seems particularly satisfactory as an answer.
The study by Bar and Travis (1991) was closely modelled on the work of
Osborne and Cosgrove. They report most children at age 11 in a category of
'when water is boiled vapour is seen; this vapour is coming from the vessel' (p.
368). On the basis of this they claim that 'many children know that water changes
into gas by the process of boiling' (p. 371), and later that, 'Children from a young
age have an almost correct view about boiling; they only confuse steam with
vapour. Otherwise they understand that during boiling liquid is changed into
gas' (p. 378). These researchers have conflated a mist with the gas state, as if
the distinction was of no importance. This conflation is unexpected, especially
since they also note the paradox of most of these pupils saying the bubbles were
'air' in other responses. Unless the pupils were using 'air' as a general term for the
gas state, and, therefore, meant that the bubbles were 'water turned into an air' it
seems difficult to see how one can say they appreciated this change of state for
what it is — the water itself becoming a body of gas.
From this work, while it seems one can say that secondary pupils are aware
that water somehow leaves boiling water as a mist (which then disappears), any
connection with the bubbles is in doubt. This suggests that the change from the
liquid to gas state is not well understood. Furthermore, the meanings of 'steam'
and 'air' would seem to be problematic.
570 P. JOHNSON
Methodology
For a full description of the methodology the reader is referred to Johnson (1995)
and Johnson and Gott (1996). Only a brief account giving those aspects most
relevant to the content of this paper can be given here.
Data were collected over a three-year period (1990—93), in an English non-
selective (comprehensive) secondary school, from a cohort of pupils (JV = 147) as it
moved from year 7 to year 9 (ages 11—14). The principal means of data collection
was the periodic interviewing of a sample of pupils from the cohort (N = 33).
Interviews were of the 'clinical type', using objects and events as a stimulus for
questioning (Posner and Gertzog 1982, Bell et al. 1985). Four teaching units,
directly concerned with the development of the concept of a substance, formed
the background to the study. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the teaching
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
8 June-July INTERVIEW 4
1992
units and the interviews. Figure 3 outlines the content of the teaching units in
relation to all changes of state and figure 4 gives an outline of the tasks and
questioning on boiling water only. It should be noted that, in addition to the
interviews, pupils also answered a questionnaire as part of the first teaching
unit. Squaring evaporation below boiling point with boiling (a special case of
evaporation) is not an easy matter and it was for this reason that the two phenom-
ena were separated within this study - for both the teaching units and the inter-
views.
The findings
The findings are an unfolding story and so some discussion is necessary as part of
their presentation. For the big bubbles in boiling water, the pupils' responses
could be placed in any of four categories. These categories are defined below
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
and the frequencies at each data collection point are given in table 1.
Unitl
Pupils had experiences of changes of state; boiling salt water to dryness, simple distillation
(water from salt water), boiling water in a glass beaker, and melting ice. The following
macroscopic explanation for the bubbles in boiling water was 'given';
About 30 "C Small bubbles start forming on the bottom of the beaker. These are
bubbles of air. Cold water has air dissolved in it. Hot water can't
dissolve air very well. So, as the water gets hotter the air can't stay
dissolved and so bubbles out.
About 90 °C Big bubbles try to form but collapse.
At 100 °C Big bubbles form, rise to the top and burst. The water is boiling. The
temperature stays at 100 "C. This is the boiling point of water. The big
bubbles are water as a gas - sometimes called steam.
The teacher's guide also suggested it be emphasised that proper steam can't be seen and that the
visible mist is condensed steam.
Unit 2
There was a heavy emphasis on exact change of state points in connection with ideas of purity
and identity. Boiling points of ethanol, ethanol/water, and water samples were tested. Samples
of wax, chocolate, lead, tin and zinc were melted.
Particle ideas were introduced as an explanation for the three states and change of state. For a
'demonstration' of the change from liquid to gas, a flat balloon containing a little water was
placed in a glass fronted oven (internal temperature of 140 °C). It was emphasised that the
clear big bubbles in boiling water were water in the gas state and that visible steam is
condensation.
Unit 3
This considered the evaporation of water below its boiling point and condensation of atmospheric
water on cooling. A particle explanation was covered.
Unit 4
This re-examined the idea of exact change of state points, now using temperature-time graphs,
and gave some prominence to the energy changes involved. Boiling water was a particular
focus. As a demonstration, an empty glass gas syringe, heated in the glass fronted oven, was
injected with a drop of water. Again, particle ideas were revisited.
Figure 3. Outline of the content of teaching units with respect to change
of state.
572 P. JOHNSON
Questionnaire
As a class experiment, pupils heated a beaker of water to boiling point, and maintained it there
for a few minutes. They were then given a questionnaire which sought to probe their thinking
on a number of related aspects, in the order given below;
a) What the big bubbles in boiling water are made of and whether the response was
something the pupil Icnew already', or had just 'thought up'.
b) What happens if a beaker of water is left boiling for some time.
c) What steam is.
d) What the little bubbles are when water is first heated.
Specific opportunities were also given, after (b) and (c), for pupils to reconsider earlier
answers in the light of thoughts prompted by later questions.
Interview 1
The pupil was asked to predict the effect of heating a beaker of water for some time, and then
what the t i g bubbles' at boiling were.
Interview 2
This was the last section of this interview, and followed a section on particle ideas, which
included water.
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
a) Using the diagram depicting bubbles in boiling water (below) the pupil was questioned on
the big bubbles and wnat was happening to the water.
b) The pupil was then referred to his or her previously drawn particle diagram for water and
asked if he or she could use particle ideas to give an explanation.
c) The pupil was asked if he or she had changed his or her mind on this matter. After a reminder
of the balloon in the glass oven, an explanation of this event, using particle ideas if possible,
was invited.
Interview 5
This was the first section of the interview, before ideas of particles were 'formally' addressed
in the section that was to follow.
a) The pupil was questioned as for part (a) at interview 2, but with many more supplementary
questions . If a pupil volunteered ideas of particles, he or she was asked to draw particle
diagrams for the inside of a bubble and a part of the liquid'.
b) The pupil was asked if he or she had changed his or her mind since year 7. The pupil was
reminded of the 'gas syringe experiment', and asked to explain what happened, and if there
was a connection to the beaker of boiling water and any previous particle diagrams.
c) The pupil was asked about 'steam'.
d) The next section of the interview moved onto particle ideas, which were then prompted for if
necessary. At the end of this section, any pupil who had not invoked particle ideas for the
boiling water was invited to do so.
Heat: The bubbles were heat. This seemed to be merely a descriptive state-
ment that heat was causing the bubbles.
Air: The bubbles were either air, oxygen or gas (most said air). There was
no link between the interior of the bubbles and the loss of water.
Air and water: The interior was said to be air, but with some water mixed
with it.
Water as a gas: The water itself was changing into a gas to form the bubble.
CHANGES OF STATE INVOLVING THE GAS STATE, PART 1 573
Number of pupils
Composition of bubbles Survey* Interview 1% Interview 2|§ Interview 5
Heat 4 0 0 1
Air 23 21 11 9
Air and water 0 0 8 2
Water as a gas 4 11 12 20
Notes: * One pupil was absent
% One pupil gave oxygen from the breakdown of water
§One pupil gave 'energy', which was not the same as 'heat'
a simultaneous loss of water from the beaker. For all but one pupil this appeared to
be the case. This pupil consistently failed to show an appreciation of the decrease
in the amount of water (other than by 'boiling over') and therefore his responses
are not included in table 1 (hence N = 32).
The pupils' meaning for the terms 'air', 'oxygen' and 'gas' is particularly
problematic. Unless one has good reason to think otherwise, these terms must
be regarded as synonymous (Andersson 1984). Added to this is the everyday mean-
ing of 'steam', which refers to a mist rather than water truly in the gas state. It was
here that a pupil's use of such terms in other parts of the same interview, and in
other interviews, proved most helpful in the interpretation (see Johnson and Gott
1996 for an example of this kind of triangulation that could be carried out). There
were a number of occasions where pupils used 'air' as a general term for the gas
state (as science once did) and did seem to mean 'water as an air' (and so were
placed in the fourth category). However, many did not and did seem to mean air as
of the air in the room. As far as the 'air' category is concerned, the key feature is
that the pupils seem to see no link between the interior of the bubbles and the loss
of water — 'air' did not seem to mean 'water as an air'. Even so, an involvement of
the bubbles was envisaged by some. This was a 'mechanical' association, in the
sense that water was carried out by the rising hot air as the bubbles burst at the
top, e.g. for pupil 27:
Another association was as a heating mechanism for the surface water; 'hot air
warms water at the top . . . and then steam rises from the top of the hot water' (pupil
19). When pressed on the source of the air (at interview 1), replies revolved around
three possibilities:
574 P. JOHNSON
Generally, the pupils did not regard the accumulating number of bubbles, as water
is kept boiling, as an issue of concern. All the while there was water there was also
air; the two decreased proportionately. However, six pupils, perhaps seeing the
need for a greater supply, proposed ideas of a 'cycling process'; i.e. cold air enters
and goes down to the bottom (unseen) as the bubbles of hot air burst. For the
survey, 'water as a gas' represents a collection of somewhat imprecise responses.
The telling point was that it seemed that a connection between the interior of the
bubbles and the loss of water was being made. For one of these pupils, part (b)
triggered a change of mind from 'air' to 'hot water' for the bubbles. This exem-
plifies an important point; the frequencies in table 1 represent the final responses
of the children at each stage. There were a number of occasions where pupils
changed their responses during the questioning; i.e. after they had started to
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
think about the matter at issue. In most cases this worked in the direction of a
change from 'air' to 'water as a gas'. However, for one pupil (who was in the
author's teaching group at the time) this worked in reverse. She did not really
believe the bubbles were water as a gas. Pupil 4 (interview 2) had started by saying,
'the heat's making it go into a water gas kind of, but could give no explanation of
how this could happen. The interview continued:
Finally, two anomalous responses should be noted. One pupil (at interview 1),
using knowledge of the composition of water, suggested that the bubbles were
oxygen due to the breakdown of the water. He was quite confused as to what
might have happened to the hydrogen, and suggested that this might be the
steam (the oxygen, as a clear gas leaving unseen). He maintained this line of
thinking at interview 2, but changed to the water itself as the gas at interview 5.
There were no other cases of pupils using the idea of water breaking down into its
constituent 'gases'. Also, at interview 2, one pupil gave 'energy'. From the whole
response this was clearly not the same as the 'heat' category.
Water
asagas
Oxygenfrom
water
Air
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
heat
Based on the literature, the survey responses had been anticipated and the sub-
sequent teaching in unit 1 aimed to address the 'facts' of boiling water (figure 3).
Naively, it had been reasoned that the bubbles were not usually a focus of teaching
and so due attention to what was happening to the water was all that was required.
(It is difficult to find a standard school text that deals directly with this matter.)
Interview 1 showed how wrong one can be! Why did so many of the pupils still
maintain that the bubbles were air? Did the pupils really think the bubbles in
boiling water were air, or was it that the pupils had no conception of a liquid
turning to 'a body of gas' as something that can happen? Without this notion,
the pupils would have no option other than to bring in a 'ready-made gas' (air),
by whatever means, to account for the bubbles. The most telling response, given
by one of the most able pupils, when pressed on the source of air was: 'I honestly
don't know' (pupil 22, interview 1). Such an interpretation led to the construction
of the glass-fronted oven, and its use in units 2 and 4 (figure 3). Unless one has
already accepted the bubbles as water in the gas state, an open beaker of boiling
water, where water seems to merge into the air (via visible 'steam') does not
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
provide strong perceptual support to the idea of liquid water itself becoming a
'body of gas' just like the air. However, this on its own appeared to make little
impact (very few of the pupils freely recalled the 'demonstration' at interview 2).
What did seem to make a difference was the introduction of particle ideas.
• A few pupils used model B for the liquid state but model A for the gas state.
These were placed in a category called AB, but for this paper these have been
merged with model A.
CHANGES OF STATE INVOLVING THE GAS STATE, PART 1 577
• Some pupils used model B for different substances in different states but
used model C for the same substance in different states; i.e. the particles did
not change on a change of state. These were placed in a category called BC,
but for this paper these have been merged with model C.
• Some pupils used a variation of model B where 'air' was said to be between
the particles. These pupils have not been distinguished as a separate cate-
gory, but will be noted in illustrations.
• The questioning at interview 2 did not allow specifically for the differentia-
tion between models B and C. This undifferentiated category has been called
W. Overall, the evidence suggested that only three pupils might have been at
model C.
Tables 2 and 3 show the three main bubble composition categories cross-tabulated
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
Table 4. Points at which pupils started using particle ideas (interview 5).
Point at ivhich a pupil invoked particle ideas Number of pupils
Model A, which is still essentially a continuous view of matter, does not seem to
offer much in the way of helping a pupil to envisage water changing to the gas
state. It is not surprising that four of the pupils at 'air - model A' (interview 2) did
not apply particle ideas. The four pupils who did not apply particle ideas at inter-
view 5 (table 4) were also in the model A category.
The 'water as a gas' — model A combinations (table 2 only) seem, then, on the
face of it, somewhat contradictory. However, of these five cases, three were of
those that had started with the macroscopic idea of the composition of the bubbles
being linked to water right back at the first survey, long before any mention of
particles. It is possible that the other two pupils arrived at a macroscopic concep-
tion for this change, but a little later. It is worth noting that one of these pupils had
given a particularly ambiguous response at the survey which might have been
better placed in the 'water as a gas' category anyway. For the other pupil, it also
seems possible that her particle ideas did actually help in some way. This pupil had
an unusually strong collective dimension to model A. In this early application of
her particle model to the formation of a bubble we see the particles used to repre-
sent behaviour, and it is possible this was of assistance. Pupil 13 (interview 2), said:
... they've got hotter and the attraction's weakened, can't pull them together so much
so they sort of fly apart... go where they want.
They can go where they want... with the liquid they're just restricted to where the
water is —the liquid.
It is interesting to see how the attractions are interpreted as the intervening sub-
stance operating on the particles, rather than particle to particle. The other pupils
at 'water as a gas' — model A also showed signs of the particles helping to visualize
their existing idea, with the movement of the particles being used to represent the
process of the change of state, but not the substance itself.
This view renders the nature of the particles redundant, but those at model B still
seemed to need 'the support' of thinking that the nature of the particles also
changed. Nearly all of the pupils using either models B or C did talk of the
particles moving apart but for some the connection to the bubble was a problem.
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
Pupil 5 (interview 2) provides a salutary reminder of the need for care and caution
when interpreting pupils' words. His first response seemed to represent a sound
understanding: 'well the heat give the particles more energy and they can break
away from the attraction... and um... go ...and and turn into a gas. They get
freedom from the others.' However, for him, the bubbles were still air from
between the particles, and he went on to explain: 'as the particles break apart
the air is able to come out'. The turbulence of the water was interpreted as the
particles 'pulling apart', and it was the released air that formed the bubbles, not the
separating particles. When asked if one could ever see the gas he had referred to he
replied, 'yes... steam', which could be seen 'coming out', but not when it was in
the water. (This is one of the instances of a particle model of continuous air
between the water particles.)
By definition, one might expect to find all model C pupils in the bubble
category, 'water as a gas', therefore, the air-model C combination seems anom-
alous. One of these pupils was pupil 13, again! In all of the later particle tasks she
showed a model C, indeed her explanation of water changing to the gas state in the
'syringe' was particularly good. However, she seemed to have a block in translating
this to the formation of the bubbles. For her, the loss of water was due to particles
leaving at the surface, independently of the bubbles, even though she was quite
specific about the separation starting at the bottom as the heat 'worked its way
through'. However, when asked if one could notice the particles separating within
the water of the beaker, she replied: 'no, not in a beaker of water... you can't see
it... all you can see is the steam ... steam comes off the top'. This, then, still leaves
the need for something like air to form the bubbles. Linking the actual bubbles to
the separation of the water particles was a problem for four other pupils at inter-
view 5 — it was not a problem for the syringe. The formation of bubbles within the
bulk of a liquid might pose an additional demand on pupils, as well as the change
of state itself.
become a body of gas. A ready-made gas (air) is used to provide the 'body' of the
bubble for the water to mix in to. There were two variations on this theme (of
equal frequency at both interviews 2 and 5), reflecting differing degrees of depen-
dence on the air.
This used the idea of water particles being dispersed throughout continuous air. In
the liquid state the air was said to be between the particles, heating then forcing the
air out, taking water particles with it. The bubble is the inverse of air in water -
water in the air. The water particles by themselves could not be conceived of as a
gas.
Discussion
The results show that half of the pupils had moved to an acceptance of the idea of
the bubbles being 'water as a gas' by the end of the study, with four (possibly five)
pupils having started with this conception — at a macroscopic level. For almost all
of those who changed this was not a result of 'teaching' a macroscopic description
of boiling water — instead, the move to water as a gas coincided with the introduc-
tion of particle ideas. Did the particle ideas actually help the pupils to conceive of
the bubbles as being water, but in the gas state? Of course, given time, more of the
pupils might have taken to a macroscopic view but there do appear to be grounds
for suggesting that the particle ideas did help. First, it would seem to be more than
coincidence that all but one of the pupils with models B or C invoked particle ideas
in their responses at interview 5. The one pupil who did not was one of the pupils
who had started with macroscopic ideas. She was quite able to apply particle ideas
when asked to do so, but, presumably, did not need to for her own benefit. When
asked about any change of mind, some pupils admitted the role of particle ideas:
CHANGES OF STATE INVOLVING THE GAS STATE, PART 1 581
e.g. pupil 17 (interview 2), 'I used to think air — didn't realize the particles'. The
following exchange gives more direct evidence. Pupil 1 (interview 5):
P: When you put the water in the... well that gas that's been trapped... comes
up ... when you boil it it comes up.
I: Which gas?
P: The air.
I: Where was it?
P: Inside the beaker...
I: Can you explain how the water level goes down?
P: When you heated it the particles get given more energy and their attraction
becomes weaker... so they can turn into a different state which is gas and they
comes up... hang on just thinking about that - is that when the particles turn into
a gas - the bubbles?
Therefore, it would seem that most of the pupils did not start with the idea that
water could be a sample of gas and it was the particle ideas which helped them to
think of this as something that could happen. Informing a pupil that the bubbles in
boiling water are water in the gas state is not enough; the pupil needs a means of
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
seeing why such a happening is a possibility. Particle ideas seem to provide a way
of starting to think about this possibility. Model A, as might be expected, would
appear to be of little use. However, model B does seem to be of value in providing a
way of starting to think about this possibility - even if the 'support' of ascribing the
macroscopic character to the particles is still needed. The aim, of course, is for a
model C; an entirely paniculate view, which, essentially, 'only' requires a separa-
tion of the particles.
The 'air and water' category is an example of a kind of thinking that surfaced
in many parts of the wider study. Pupils appear to be thinking in terms of three
types of substance — 'solids', 'liquids' and 'gases'. Although the water particles
were apart from each other, the pupils needed a substance that was 'a gas' to form
the 'gas' of the bubble - either continuously or as particles. The water particles
themselves could not 'be the gas'. Whether this category represents some kind of
progress from an 'air' category is difficult to say. It does not concede that the water
itself can be 'the gas' but seven of the eight pupils at interview 2 did move on.
Perhaps, linking the loss of water to the interior of the bubbles is an important first
step towards appreciating what is happening. A response of oxygen and/or hydro-
gen, so commonly reported in the literature, is also consistent with 'types of sub-
stance' thinking — oxygen and hydrogen are known 'to be gases'. In this respect, a
feature of this study was that only one pupil gave such a response. From his
reading out of school, this pupil was already aware of the composition of water
in year 7 - the others were apparently not (a salutary reminder of just how different
11-year-olds' worlds are from a science teacher's). In the teaching, water as a
compound of hydrogen and oxygen was not introduced until unit 4 and it seems
possible that this 'holding back' might have given the pupils a better chance to
develop the idea of this change of state without the distraction of this extra 'knowl-
edge' at an early stage.
Conclusion
If pupils do not appreciate that a substance, such as water, can exist as its own
body of gas (i.e. be a sample of gas) one has to ask what they are supposed to
understand when told of 'gases' such as oxygen or carbon dioxide. As noted earlier,
582 P.JOHNSON
the literature suggests that children find this third state very mysterious. That a
'gas' is a sample of a substance, just as much as an iron nail or a pool of water, is by
no means an obvious notion. And yet, of course, it is vital to an understanding of
the material world — chemistry rests upon this. The significance of the bubbles in
boiling water, then, is that attention to this provides a way in to understanding
what 'a gas' might be. If one can see that a substance such as water can exist 'as a
gas' one might then be able to think 'a gas' such as oxygen is equally a substance -
the only difference is that it has already boiled. One can also see how it is possible
to have different gases — these are different substances. A most fundamental under-
standing of science is at stake here. A treatment of boiling water which ignores the
composition of the bubbles and just considers a general leaving of water into the air
misses the point: one suspects this is common practice in our schools. Water
dispersing into an existing body of gas does little, if anything, to suggest what
the gas state might be. On this basis, even allowing for a distinction between
vapour and condensation, the claim by Bar and Travis (1991) that children from
a young age 'understand that during boiling liquid is changed to gas' must be
Downloaded By: [Brunel University] At: 20:30 21 July 2009
questioned.
If we are to develop pupils' understanding of the bubbles in boiling water, and
hence an understanding of the gas state, the particle theory would appear to be a
necessary way in (for most pupils of this study, at least). The particle model must
be seen as a means of first establishing the possibility of a sample of substance being
in the gas state. Given that pupils' understanding of particle ideas is generally very
poor, it is important that our teaching here is improved (see Johnson 1998). It is
surely no coincidence that understanding in both of these areas is so lamentable.
Even with a model B the possibility of a substance in the gas state can start to be
entertained and once this has happened the particle model might then be able to
lose its 'macroscopic supports' and develop to model C.
Note
1. The term 'gas' will be used for a sample of material where the particles are dispersed,
whether or not the sample is above its critical temperature or pure.
References
ANDERSSON, B. (1984) Chemical Reactions, EKNA report 12 (Gothenburg: Institutionen for
Praktisk Pedagogik, University of Gothenburg, Sweden).
ANDERSSON, B. (1990) Pupils' conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12-16).
Studies in Science Education, 18, 53-85.
BAR, V. and TRAVIS, A. S. (1991) Children's views concerning phase changes. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 363-382.
BELL, B., OSBORNE, R. and TASKER, R. (1985) Finding out what children think. In R.
Osborne and P. Freyburg (eds), Learning in Science (London: Heinemann), 151-165.
DRIVER, R., GUESNE, E. and TIBERGHIEN, A. (eds) (1985) Children's Ideas in Science (Milton
Keynes: Open University Press).
DRIVER, R. SQUIRES, A., RUSHWORTH, P. and WOOD-ROBINSON, V. (1994) Making Sense of
Secondary Science - Research into Children's Ideas (London: Routledge).
GARNETT, P., GARNETT, P. and HACKLING, M. (1995) Students' alternative conceptions in
chemistry: a review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in
Science Education, 25, 69-95.
JOHNSON, P. M. (1995) The development of children's concept of a substance. Unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Durham, UK.
CHANGES OF STATE INVOLVING THE GAS STATE, PART 1 583
POSNER, G. J. and GERTZOG, W. A. (1982) The clinical interview and the measurement of
conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 195-209.
RUSSELL, T., LONGDEN, K and MCGUIGAN, L. (1991) Materials, Liverpool King's SPACE
Project (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press).
SERE, M. G. (1985) The gaseous state. In R. Driver, E. Guesne and A. Tiberghien (eds),
Children's Ideas in Science (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).
STAVY, R. (1988) Children's conception of gas. International Journal of Science Education,
10(5), 553-560.
STAVY, R. (1990) Children's conception of changes in the state of matter: from liquid (or
solid) to gas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 247-266.
WANDERSEE, J. H., MINTZES, J. J. and NOVAK, J. D. (1994) Research on alternative con-
ceptions in science. In D. Gabel (ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and
Learning (New York: Macmillan), 177-210.