Facts About Gases

Casey and Jesse are learning about gases:

Three Facts About Gases

  1. Gases are made up of lots of tiny particles

  1. The particles are too far apart to exert any force on each other

  1. The particles move around rapidly in all directions – up, down, and sideways

A.) Jesse says:“I was learning about gases yesterday. Gasesfill the whole space they are in. You can tell that from Fact #1.” What is Jesse claiming about gases? Circle one:

  1. “I was learning about gases yesterday.”
  2. “Gases fill the whole space they are in.”
  3. “You can tell that from Fact #1.”
  4. None of the above

Note: The numerical Levels indicated in the scoring rubrics were for research purposes. Higher Levels indicate higher quality argumentation. We encourage you to use a scoring scheme that matches your present goals for students.

Part A
Argumentation Level 0b: Identifying a claim

Level / Description
1 / Student selects option 2 – “Gases fill the whole space they are in.”
0 / Student selects any option besides 2

B.) What is Jesse’s reason? Circle one:

  1. “I was learning about gases yesterday.”
  2. “Gases fill the whole space they are in.”
  3. “You can tell that from Fact #1.”
  4. None of the above

Part B
Argumentation Level 1b: Identifying reasoning

Level / Description
1 / Student selects option 3 – “You can tell that from Fact #1.”
0 / Student selects any option besides 3

C.) Casey disagrees with Jesse about why “gases fill the whole space they are in”.

Who’sargumentmakes more sense?

Check the better argument
Jesse: “Fact #1 explains it because if the gas particles are tiny, they will float up and fill the whole space.” /
Casey: “Fact #3 explains it because if gas particles move in all directions, then they will move around into the whole space.” /

D.) Explain why that argument makes more sense.

The argument makes more sense because…

______

______

______

Part C and D
Argumentation Level 2b: Constructing a one-sided comparative argument

JESSE’S POSITION: GASES FILL THE WHOLE SPACE THEY ARE IN
JESSE’S ARGUMENT: Jesse appeals to Fact #1 (i.e., gases are made of lots of tiny particles). Jesse argues that, “Fact #1 explains it because if the gas particles are tiny, they will float up and fill the whole space.”
CASEY’S POSITION: GASES FILL THE WHOLE SPACE THEY ARE IN (same position as Jesse)
CASEY’S ARGUMENT: Casey appeals to Fact #3 (i.e., The particles move around rapidly in all directions – up, down, and sideways). Casey argues that, “Fact #3 explains it because if gas particles move in all directions, then they will move around into the whole space.”
Acceptable reasons for why Jesse’s argument is better:
[NOTE: Jesse’s argument is scientifically incorrect, so what follows are possible misconceptions]
  • Sure, the motion is random, but just because it is random doesn’t mean that the random motion will quickly disperse throughout the container the gas occupies. Maybe the random motion is confined to a smaller region of the container? [note: this would be a critique of Casey]
  • Gases are made of particles, and when particles are pressed next to each other, there still may be empty space between them. Hence gas particles cannot occupy all the space in which the gas is contained.[note: this would be a critique of Casey]
  • Just because particles are small doesn’t mean they will disperse throughout the container that holds them. After all, solids are made out of tiny particles too, but solids do not necessarily occupy the entire space of the container that holds them. [note: this would be a critique of Casey]
Acceptable reasons for why Casey’s argument is better:
[NOTE: this is actually the scientifically correct position]
  • Gases do not just float in one direction (e.g., up)
  • Gases do not “float” in the first place – even very small objects experience gravity insofar as they have mass
  • If gases “float” opposite of gravity, eventually the gas particles would only occupy the top of the container

Level / Description / Empirical Example
3 / Student constructs a one-sided comparative argument, by identifying
(1) who has the better argument AND
(2) explaining why it is the better argument
In order to completely satisfy (2), the student answer could perhaps refer to the quality of evidence, the quantity of evidence, the strength of connection between claim and evidence, or perhaps the consistency with outside world/their own experiences. Appealing to all of these criteria is not necessary, but to get a Level of 3 the student needs to provide an acceptable reason for why the argument they selected is better. Please see above in boldface for examples of what counts as acceptable. / [chooses Casey] Casey’s make more sense because particles don’t just float up, they float around. Note: While similar to repeating Casey’s argument, this answer actually critiques Jesse’s argument by correctly noting that gas particles move in all directions, not just up
Chooses Jesse] Fact number 3 doesn’t mention particle size so if the particles were big there would be empty voids that can’t be filled in since this argument mentions that they are small they can fill the space
Note: States a good objection to Fact 3, namely that particle size is not addressed and that large particles would have gaps, thereby not filling the space
[chooses Casey] The argument makes more sense because Jesse says that if they float up it will take up all the space. But that would only be in a single direction. While if you move in all directions you’d take up all the space.
2 / Student attempts to argue for whether Jesse or Casey has the better argument
BUT
Student provides an only partially acceptable reason for why the argument they selected is better. Please see above in boldface for examples of what counts as acceptable. / T506[Chooses Casey] Casey made more sense because it’s like smoke when you see them move around Note: This appeal to everyday experience is not a complete justification, but still an attempt to go beyond the givens of the problem.
[Chooses Casey] If the atoms did not move it would be a solid Note: Not scientifically correct, but still an attempt to go beyond the givens of the problem.
1 / Student makes an authentic attempt to go beyond the givens of the problem and argue for whether Jesse or Casey has the better argument
BUT
Student provides an incoherent explanation and/or the student appears to misunderstand the problem. / [Chooses Casey] They can explain or spread due to their mass and formNote: explain or spread due to mass and form” is incoherent – a lot would have to be inferred from this statement to give the student a higher Level
[Chooses Jesse] Atoms move, and not all gases are made of a lot of atomNote: attempted explanation is authentic, but not coherent
[Chooses Jesse] If it took up a whole space it wouldn’t have enogh room to move up, down, and sidewaysNote: this an example of the student misunderstanding the problem, as the student chooses Jesse but then argues against the gas particles taking up the entire space of their container, which is precisely Jesse’s position
[Chooses Casey] Because gases do move around it will moveNote: attempted explanation is authentic, but not coherent
0 / Student does not explain why an argument is better.
This includes a student claiming that one argument is better, but providing no justification at all as to why it is superior (e.g., “Jesse’s/Casey’s argument is better because it’s right”)
This also includes a student merely repeating information already provided to them (e.g., simply repeating the arguments advanced by Jesse and/or Casey). / [Chooses Casey] Because there moving all overNote: justrepeats Casey’s argument
[Chooses Casey] Fact 3 makes more sense because as particles move around they fill up the spaces
[Chooses Jesse] Because they explainingNote: No real reason provided

E.) Explain why the other argument make less sense?

The other argument makes less sense because…

______

______

______

Part E
Argumentation Level 2a: Providing a counter-critique

JESSE’S POSITION: GASES FILL THE WHOLE SPACE THEY ARE IN
JESSE’S ARGUMENT: Jesse appeals to Fact #1 (i.e., gases are made of lots of tiny particles). Jesse argues that, “Fact #1 explains it because if the gas particles are tiny, they will float up and fill the whole space.”
CASEY’S POSITION: GASES FILL THE WHOLE SPACE THEY ARE IN (same position as Jesse)
CASEY’S ARGUMENT: Casey appeals to Fact #3 (i.e., The particles move around rapidly in all directions – up, down, and sideways). Casey argues that, “Fact #3 explains it because if gas particles move in all directions, then they will move around into the whole space.”
Acceptable reasons for why Casey’s argument is WORSE:
[NOTE: Jesse’s argument is scientifically incorrect, so what follows are possible misconceptions]
  • Sure, the motion is random, but just because it is random doesn’t mean that the random motion will quickly disperse throughout the container the gas occupies. Maybe the random motion is confined to a smaller region of the container? [note: this would be a critique of Casey]
  • Gases are made of particles, and when particles are pressed next to each other, there still may be empty space between them. Hence gas particles cannot occupy all the space in which the gas is contained. [note: this would be a critique of Casey]
  • Just because particles are small doesn’t mean they will disperse throughout the container that holds them. After all, solids are made out of tiny particles too, but solids do not necessarily occupy the entire space of the container that holds them. [note: this would be a critique of Casey]
Acceptable reasons for why Jesse’s argument is WORSE:
[NOTE: this is actually the scientifically correct position]
  • Gases do not just float in one direction (e.g., up)
  • Gases do not “float” in the first place – even very small objects experience gravity insofar as they have mass
  • If gases “float” opposite of gravity, eventually the gas particles would only occupy the top of the container

Level / Description / Empirical Example
3 / Student constructs a one-sided comparative argument, by identifying
(1) who has the WORSE argument AND
(2) explaining why it is a WORSE argument
In order to completely satisfy (2), the student answer could perhaps refer to the quality of evidence, the quantity of evidence, the strength of connection between claim and evidence, or perhaps the consistency with outside world/their own experiences. Appealing to all of these criteria is not necessary, but to get a Level of 3 the student needs to provide an acceptable reason for why the argument they selected is WORSE. Please see above in boldface for examples of what counts as acceptable. / [chooses Jesse] If it floats up it won’t fill the whole space. Only the top.
[chooses Jesse] If the gas particles are tiny, they would FLOAT UP. If they’re just going to float up, there will be none left on the bottom. How will it fill up the whole space if there are none left at the bottom?
[chooses Casey] If they’re always moving, there will always be a gap due to movement
[chooses Casey] The other argument makes less sense because if you only float up, you only fill a part of the space.
2 / Student attempts to argue for whether Jesse or Casey has the WORSE argument
BUT
Student provides an only partially acceptable reason for why the argument they selected is WORSE. Please see above in boldface for examples of what counts as acceptable. / [chooses Jesse] If it just floats, it won’t move unless something does. Note: Student begins to make an argument against Jesse’s “floating” scenario, but the argument is incomplete
1 / Student makes an authentic attempt to go beyond the givens of the problem and argue for whether Jesse or Casey has the WORSE argument
BUT
Student provides an incoherent explanation and/or the student appears to misunderstand the problem. / [chooses Jesse] Jesse doesn’t make much sense because gas particles just don’t float and fill the whole spaceNote: Student misunderstands the question, because both Jesse and Casey agree that gas particles fill the entire space that encloses the gas
[chooses Jesse] Gas doesn’t stick together so why would it go all into one spaceNote: Student misunderstands the question, because both Jesse and Casey agree that gas particles fill the entire space that encloses the gas.
Because only some of it goes in the thing
0 / Student does not explain why an argument is WORSE.
This includes a student claiming that one argument is WORSE, but providing no justification at all as to why it is INFERIOR (e.g., “Jesse’s/Casey’s argument is worse because it’s wring”)
This also includes a student merely repeating information already provided to them (e.g., simply repeating the arguments advanced by Jesse and/or Casey). / They are gases are they
It sounds confusing because its basically saying it it make’s no sense!