Conceptual Blending Monitoring Students' Use of

Res Sci Educ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9717-8

Conceptual Blending Monitoring Students’ Use of Metaphorical Concepts to Further the Learning of Science Alexandra Fredriksson 1 & Susanne Pelger 1

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract The aim of this study is to explore how tertiary science students’ use of metaphors in their popular science article writing may influence their understanding of subject matter. For this purpose, six popular articles written by students in physics or geology were analysed by means of a close textual analysis and a metaphor analysis. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the students. The articles showed variation regarding the occurrence of active (non-conventional) metaphors, and metaphorical concepts, i.e. metaphors relating to a common theme. In addition, the interviews indicated that students using active metaphors and metaphorical concepts reflected more actively upon their use of metaphors. These students also discussed the possible relationship between subject understanding and creation of metaphors in terms of conceptual blending. The study suggests that students’ process of creating metaphorical concepts could be described and visualised through integrated networks of conceptual blending. Altogether, the study argues for using conceptual blending as a tool for monitoring and encouraging the use of adequate metaphorical concepts, thereby facilitating students’ opportunities of understanding and influencing the learning of science. Keywords Natural science . Education . Metaphorical concepts . Conceptual blending . Metaphor analysis . Semi-structured interview . Metaphor . Popular science writing . Learning

Introduction One of the most important outcomes of science education is students’ ability to communicate their subject while acting as conversant in their field, both in science contexts and in society at large. The latter requires a capacity to explain and discuss science in a language that can also be understood by laypeople. Science communication is, therefore, partly defined as the use of

* Alexandra Fredriksson [email protected]

1

Faculty of Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Res Sci Educ

adequate skills, media, actions, and dialogues to produce awareness, interest, public debate, and understanding (Burns et al. 2003). Through science communication, research should also be placed in a socio-cultural context to make its meaning and consequences comprehensible. This will better enable society to understand and criticise research (Perrault 2013). In higher education in Sweden, one of the learning outcomes required for a bachelor’s or a master’s degree is the student’s ability to ‘present and discuss information, problems, and solutions in speech and writing in dialogue with different audiences’ (SFS 1993:100). This means that natural science students should not only be able to communicate their subject with experts in their own field, but also to convey their own field of expertise to persons with different backgrounds and prior knowledge. To many students, communicating subject matter with laypersons may be a challenge, since it is often the scientific language and terminology that dominate science education. As an effect, science students may have limited ability to write and talk about their subject in an everyday language (Pelger et al. 2009). This may also have consequences for their own subject understanding. The language of natural science often describes, explains and discusses abstract phenomena without relating them to more concrete and familiar things (Lemke 1990; Olander 2009). One way of acquiring increased understanding of abstract matter is to anchor it to previous everyday experiences by means of rhetorical elements. Generally, rhetorical elements are divided into figures and tropes. Figures change, form, and re-structure different parts of a text. Tropes, exemplified by metaphors, move words or expressions from their original context to another, and may thereby influence the understanding of that word or expression (Fahnestock 2011; Fauconnier and Turner 2002; Lakoff and Johnson 2003[1980]). One way to visualise and help us understand this influence is what the cognitive linguists Lakoff and Johnson (2003[1980]) call conceptual metaphors. According to them, metaphors are conceptual and influence thought, reflection, and how the world is being understood and related to: We have found, on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature (Lakoff and Johnson 2003[1980], p. 3).

Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this research was twofold. The first aim was to study how metaphorical constructs are used in students’ popular science texts. The second aim was to explore how the use of metaphors may promote students’ understanding of their subject. There is reason to believe that metaphors, used in a science education context, influence the understanding of science, for both the reader and the writer. Regarding how this understanding is acquired, more remains to be done (Gärdenfors and Lindström 2008; Strömdahl 2012; Jeppsson 2013; Rundgren 2008). Thus, the cognitive effects of using metaphors when writing about science matter need to be investigated in more detail. The present study explores how science students use metaphors in popular science writing. The main research question is how does science students’ use of metaphorical devices in popular science writing influence their subject understanding? More specifically, the study aims at answering the following research questions:

Res Sci Educ

& & &

What kind of metaphorical devices occur in science students’ popular science articles? How do these metaphorical devices correlate to the subject content discussed in the articles? How can students’ choices of metaphorical devices reflect and influence subject understanding?

Background It has been proposed that understanding consists in seeing patterns (Gärdenfors and Lindström 2008; Fauconnier and Turner 2002). This means understanding could be described as a process where the parts that form the pattern are connected. In order to create a pattern, old and new pieces of knowledge need to be linked together. Understanding comprises the linking together of old and new knowledge, so that the new knowledge can be integrated and understood in a general way (Biggs 2003; Brown et al. 1983; Caine et al. 2009; Dewey 1933/1960; Gärdenfors 2010; Gärdenfors and Lindström 2008). For instance, when understanding an equation that represents a physical phenomenon, the student should not only use it on examples in the textbook, but should also be able to apply it in different contexts (Gärdenfors 2010). Closely related to understanding is memory (Gärdenfors 2010). Memory is a complex process, and only part of it will be approached in this paper: the semantic memory, which enables us to imagine things that are not conveyed by external stimuli but are only present in our minds (Fauconnier and Turner 2002; Lakoff and Johnson 2003[1980]). By means of the semantic memory, things may be categorised, and as a result, mental pictures may be created and visualised (Caine et al. 2009; Fauconnier and Turner 2002; Wolrath Söderberg 2012). This way, theoretical patterns may be more easily grasped and more accessible to the mind (Gärdenfors 2010; Gärdenfors and Lindström 2008; Lakoff and Johnson 2003[1980]). Furthermore, it has been shown that matter is often easier to remember when Bvisually^ represented in mind, for example by metaphors, than if only verbally conveyed (Helstrup and Kaufmann 2000). Memory and imagination may function well together in cognitive processes since both may store cognitive images, carrying knowledge.

The Metaphor as a Cognitive Tool One way to approach learning and teaching of subject matter is the use of metaphors, analogies, and other rhetorical elements that facilitate pattern making. According to Gärdenfors (2010) and Lemke (1990), these rhetorical devices can be efficient cognitive tools. The metaphor, as a mental pattern, is sense making since it connects the unknown to the known in cognitive Bvisual^ images: an unfinished picture is placed onto a similar, finished one, using already existing knowledge and experiences to facilitate understanding of new matter. It is, thus, both a cognitive visual image and a rhetorical device that may create patterns between different domains. However, just realising similarities would not be enough—understanding also comprises an ability to recognise the differences between elements (Dewey 1933/1960; Gärdenfors 2010). This is a natural step when using metaphors. Metaphors are, like any other cognitive concept or social structure, created by people. Thus, they are part of our shared views, values, and associations as well as symbolic, cognitive networks. Therefore, metaphors do not represent reality, but rather a ‘re-presentation’ of a shared reality (Black 1962; Eriksson 2014; Lakoff and Johnson 2003[1980]). The word

Res Sci Educ

metaphor originates from the Greek word metafora, which means something that has been transferred from one place to another (Aristotle 2007, On Rhetoric III.2.1404b). The metaphor depicts a mental process and consists of two elements—a tenor and a vehicle. The tenor is the original domain, whereas the vehicle is the domain to which the tenor has been transferred; in ‘Atoms are small solar systems’, ‘atoms’ represent the tenor whereas ‘solar systems’ represent the vehicle. Sometimes, however, the tenor is hidden, as in the vehicle ‘sound waves’, which implies the tenor ‘sound waves move like waves in the sea’. Though these domains are different, they share some features, and it is the interaction between the tenor and the vehicle that creates the metaphor (Black 1962; Eriksson 2014; Richards 1976). This means that not only the sender, who chooses or constructs the metaphor, but also the receiver, who must interpret the metaphor, must understand how the vehicle resembles the tenor. The metaphor is always a reduction of reality, and its purpose is only to highlight some specific elements of the tenor (Black 1962; Eriksson 2014; Fahnestock 2011; Richards 1976; Wolrath Söderberg 2012). Despite its positive qualities, the metaphor is a double-edged sword, since it might invite to alternative and misleading interpretations. If the interpretation of the vehicle differs between sender and receiver, the metaphor might be more confusing than clarifying (Duit 1991; Glynn 1989; Hedberg et al. 2015; Strömdahl 2012). Metaphors can be categorised as active or inactive. Sometimes, the metaphorical character of expressions needs to be pointed out in order to be interpreted as metaphors. These metaphors are conventional and are categorised as inactive as the interpreter has to actively reflect upon them as metaphors since they are already established expressions to her. Such inactive metaphors could be exemplified by an electron CLOUD in physics and Earth CRUST in geology. By contrast, metaphors that create new content are non-conventional, and active, as they may change the way something is being interpreted. These are often easier to distinguish due to their novelty (Bergström and Boréus 2005; Goatly 1997; Richards 1976). In a natural science context, metaphors are used for making subject matter more comprehensible, less abstract, and easier to relate to, since the tenor is understood by means of something that is already known (Aristotle 2007, On Rhetoric III.1.1410b9; Fahnestock 2011); the metaphor anchors to and roots itself in a reality we can relate to (Dysthe et al. 2011; Eriksson 2014; Gärdenfors 2010; Lemke 1990; Wolrath Söderberg 2012). Depending on the tenors and the purpose of using metaphors, the number of vehicles varies, which implies both opportunities and limitations. When the vehicles can be related to the same ‘theme’, arising from a root metaphor, a metaphorical concept is created. Numerous vehicles that relate to the same theme or concept may therefore result in a more complete cognitive picture of the tenor, which could, hence, be understood to a greater extent. This could facilitate understanding since the vehicles together may create a coherent whole and convey information in a systematic way, which metaphors from numerous themes may not (Gärdenfors 2010; Lemke 1990; Olander 2009). In a previous study, we emphasised how metaphors used in popular science writing not only reflect, but may also support the writers’ subject understanding, especially when metaphorical concepts are created by the writers themselves (Fredriksson and Pelger 2016).

Conceptual Metaphors and Conceptual Blending In ‘Metaphors we live by’, Lakoff and Johnson (2003) mainly discuss conceptual metaphors, which we in this study would categorise as inactive metaphors. They speak of various metaphorical concepts, where a source domain (e.g. money) is discussed in terms of a target domain (e.g. time), upon which a cognitive pattern is established about the source domain and

Res Sci Educ

affects the understanding of it. Not only may such a concept affect both the way the domain is reflected on and understood—it may also influence how we live since these concepts, unconsciously, structure what is perceived as reality: Our conceptual system thus plays a central role in defining our everyday realities. If we are right in suggesting that our conceptual system is largely metaphorical, then the way we think, what we experience and what we do every day is very much a matter of metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 2003[1980], p.3) Time is money is such a conceptual metaphor, where time is being spoken of, related to and established in people’s life as something with a monetary value: ‘you are WASTING my time’ or ‘it is WORTH SPENDING hours in here’. Other examples of conceptual metaphors are ARGUMENT IS WAR and UP IS GOOD. We argue as if the argument is a war and we often experience that things which have an upward direction are positive: ‘her STRATEGY was to ATTACK every weak point’, or ‘I DEMOLISHED his argument and WON the debate’; and ‘the stock is going UP’ or ‘my spirits ROSE’. This way, different tenors and vehicles may create cognitive patterns by interacting with each other. These cognitive patterns may not only be an image in a person’s mind, but may also be reflected in the person’s way of thinking, relating to the world and learn new things (Lakoff and Johnson 2003[1980]). Although these metaphorical concepts often consist of conventional, inactive metaphors, it is the cognitive patterns and the understanding of the concepts that are interesting. Many metaphors being used in science education are inactive, but those most efficient for understanding of abstract science phenomena could possibly be active since they are more likely to help create a new perception of reality. Active metaphorical concepts can give new meaning to what is already known, and thus influence what is known and what will be understood (Haglund 2013; Lakoff and Johnson 2003[1980]; Schön 1993). Apart from conceptual metaphors, another theory that may help us understand this influence is conceptual blending (Fauconnier and Turner 2002). By combining tropes, thinking, experience, and understanding, conceptual blending visualises cognitive patterns created by means of metaphorical concepts. Conceptual blending could, thus, be used for illustrating, describing, reflecting upon, and gaining insight into mental operations entailing new meaning, understanding, and sense making through the comparison and combination of old and new experiences. The most basic illustration of conceptual blending consists of four spaces—two input spaces, a generic space, and a blended space, which together make up a conceptual integration network (Fauconnier and Turner 2002), as exemplified by Fig. 1. According to Fauconnier and Turner (2002), the input spaces are compared to one another in the generic space, which in turn comprises the different attributes that the input spaces share or do not share. Such qualities, e.g. identity, place, time, and causality, are called vital relations. The comparison between the vital relations of each input space is illustrated by lines and is called cross-space mappings. During the cognitive process, these relations move the blending forward to the blended space as the input spaces are fused. Each input space also includes qualities which are unique to it, and depending on how well these qualities resemble the other input space, may or may not be a part of the blend. The spaces are described as conceptual small packages that are created, structured, and reshaped while we are thinking about, talking about, and understanding our surrounding world. Consequently, they are part of the working memory (used in order to maintain and manipulate the impressions that are perceived at any point in time) (Fauconnier and Turner

Res Sci Educ

Fig. 1 A conceptual integrated network. All four spaces are presented. I1 represents what is less understood whereas I2 represents the transferred meaning to which I1 is compared. The solid lines are shared attributes (black dots), which are compared vital relations in the generic space. The dotted lines are cross-space mappings between the input spaces and the generic/blended space. The square is the emergent space, the ‘cognitive image’ that the mind grasps. The white dot is a new invented common quality

2002). These cognitive spaces thus partly illustrate how the memory apparatus might change as new things are learned. The cognitive scientist Glebkin (2015) criticises this theory by questioning whether the different structures illustrated in the conceptual integrated networks are only abstract, theoretical constructions, or existing cognitive processes as well. In the present study, this critique is not a major issue since the interpretation of the metaphorical expressions in students’ articles is accompanied by the students’ own reflections on their experienced learning. In this study, the theoretical model of conceptual blending is applied in a science education context to explore how students’ use of metaphors can be visualised and understood. Hence, the aim of the study is not to analyse students’ cognitive processes associated with the particular elements of the conceptual integration network. Instead, the aim is to explore how conceptual blending may be used as a tool for monitoring, discussing, and making students aware of their metaphorical choices, for the purpose of furthering learning and teaching of science.

Writing to Learn According to Vygotsky (1987:202), writing ‘requires a high degree of abstraction’, and ‘written speech is speech in thought, in representations’. The quotes reflect how writing may

Res Sci Educ

engage ‘silent speaking’. For example, when writing ‘atoms are small solar systems’, the writer’s inner voice may create a mental representation of what this might look like. Vygotsky (1987:272) also claimed that written speech is connected ‘with consciousness and intentionality from the outset’, meaning that when we write, we are simultaneously, intentionally engaging thought; we are forced to reflect on old experiences and knowledge that might suit whatever new thing we are to learn, so it can be explained in a way that makes it accessible and comprehensible to the mind. This kind of reflection, which involves the personal archive of stored experiences and knowledge, requires the writer to generalise the specific subject matter and put it in perspective to connect it to an already existing pattern (Pelger and Nilsson 2016; Vygotsky 1987). Writing may involve metaphorical thinking, sense making, and conceptual blending. Therefore, writing has the potential of influencing pattern making by organising and clarifying ideas, as well as reflecting on them (Dysthe et al. 2011; Langer and Applebee 1987; Mason and Boscolo 2000). Not only may writing make thoughts accessible to the mind, but by placing them on paper or on a screen, writing also makes thoughts observable. This way, it is possible to trace back to thoughts, and hence, it will be possible to both analyse how they emerged and develop them (Dysthe et al. 2011; Langer and Applebee 1987; Mason and Boscolo 2000). In the natural sciences especially, writing argumentative, explanatory, and reflective texts has been shown to promote the writer’s own understanding of concepts, the subject, and the scientific method (Reynolds et al. 2012). The cognitive effects can be illustrated by the knowledge-transforming model of Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987), in which considerations about subject matter and rhetoric are made in parallel by the writer. During this process, exchanges occur between two cognitive spaces, the content problem space and the rhetorical problem space, thereby successively entailing conceptual knowledge structures as well as knowledge of scientific genres and nature of science (Keys 1999). One example of how writing may benefit science understanding is a study on the effects that biology students experienced when writing a popular science article on their degree project. In an open-ended questionnaire, the students reported that popular science writing widened their perspective on their subject and helped them discover the aim, relevance, and significance of their own project (Pelger and Nilsson 2016). A second study further explored which different perspectives could be identified in biology students’ texts at different stages of their popular science writing. The study concluded that while the research perspective was dominant at the starting point, socio-scientific perspectives, e.g. environmental, medical, ethical, and economical perspectives, were successively included throughout the writing process (Pelger 2017). These two studies imply that popular science writing may support students’ learning of science and development of scientific literacy. In the current study, the cognitive effects of science students’ popular science writing are further explored, more specifically with respect to the surveyed students’ metaphorical choices, how these choices were justified, and how they correlate to the subject content in the texts. While close textual analysis is the method applied for analysing the metaphorical content of the texts, conceptual blending is used for illustrating which metaphors occur and how they correlate (or not) to subject concepts and phenomena.

Res Sci Educ

Methodology Educational Setting As part of their bachelor’s project, science students at a Swedish university write a popular science article along with their scientific thesis. This one-page popular science article is written individually. Prior to the assignment, the students are offered a 90min lecture on popular science writing. The lecture focuses on the differences between scientific writing and popular science writing, where the following aspects are emphasised: target group and communication situation, content, key message, levels of abstraction, perspectives, structure, language, and style. Rhetorical figures common in popular science texts, such as concrete examples, metaphors, analogies, and alliterations, are also presented and exemplified.

Empirical Data The material of the study consists of six popular science articles written by bachelor students with a major in geology or physics, as well as interviews conducted with all of these students. The two majors were chosen at random, as an example, from among 14 Bachelor’s programmes in science. The articles were chosen from of a corpus of all articles (a total of 93) written by students in the two majors who had graduated with a bachelor’s degree. Among the articles, a total of 20 contained some kind of metaphor, which was identified by close reading, primarily searching for active metaphors but acknowledging inactive metaphors as well. The authors of these articles were asked to participate in an interview and six accepted: three in geology and three in physics. It is the articles and interview answers of these six students that comprise the empirical data of this study. For this paper, three of the students (Anna (geology), Hugo (geology), and Alex (physics)) were selected to illustrate the variation with respect to the use of metaphors in the six articles, and the students’ reasoning about their rhetorical choices. The surveyed students’ names have been replaced with pseudonyms.

The Interview and the Analyses of the Articles For the study, a qualitative case study approach (Cohen et al. 2007) was applied including semi-structured interviews and metaphor analyses, in order to analyse each student’s article and explore how the students experienced the use of metaphors and the writing of a popular science article. According to Cohen et al. (2007), the purpose of a case study is to describe, analyse, and interpret situations that can be easily accessed and repeated. As such, the case study method offers an opportunity to explore complex phenomena within their contexts (Baxter and Jack 2008). In the current study, the case is science students’ use of metaphors in popular science writing, and the context is the science educational setting in which this writing is performed. The case study methodology, thereby, provides a systematic way of looking in depth at and analysing the surveyed students’ articles and interview answers more closely, as well as reporting on how the presence or lack of different metaphors may influence subject understanding.

Res Sci Educ

Metaphor Analysis and Metaphorical Concepts To find the metaphors that were used for presenting, concretising, and explaining subject matter in the texts, a metaphor analysis was initially employed. The metaphors were distinguished and defined in connection to a close textual analysis (CTA) in order to provide an increased understanding of the article as a whole (its disposition and how the interaction between language, form, and content are related) (Browne 2009). The metaphor analysis was conducted as is described in Burkholder and Henry (2009) and Bergström and Boréus (2005), and as applied in Fredriksson and Pelger (2016). In order to detect possible metaphorical concepts, integrated networks of conceptual blending (Fig. 1) were used as helping tools, where I1 represents science matter (geology or physics) whereas I2 represents the transferred meaning.

Semi-structured Interview As a complement to the textual analysis, a semi-structured interview was conducted with each student, according to the qualitative research interviewing method described by Kvale (1997). The primary purpose of conducting interviews was to gain more knowledge through conversation about students’ metaphor-like expressions—how they were invented, why, and how the students’ relate to them—and then use the case study to generalise a phenomenon (Kvale 1997). In the present study, the interviews, thus, aimed at providing knowledge about the rhetorical choices made by the students when writing a popular article and which were the motives for their choices. The interviews took place 6 months after the articles were written. Prior to the interview, the students were asked to read through their article, in order to recapitulate how they came up with the text. Before the interview started, an informed consent between the interviewee and interviewer according to CODEX—rules and guideline for research (2017) was signed. All interviews were conducted in Swedish, which was the interviewees’ native language. The interview questions were composed in accordance to Kvale’s (1997) semi-structured interview. The main questions presented below initiated each topic, from which the sub questions followed (Appendix). The sub questions allowed the students to elaborate further on popular science writing, their own article, its content (mainly from a stylistic perspective and how the choices of words may influence both the writer and reader), and the subject. 1. What do you think makes a good popular science text? 2. Can you, in as much detail as possible, tell me how you experienced the task of writing popular scientifically about your area of expertise? 3. How did you come up with this article? How did you reason? 4. How has your understanding been affected by the writing of the popular science article? 5. (i) The interviewer introduces the concept of Conceptual Blending to the student (see explanation in appendix). (ii) In retrospect, can you—in any way—relate how you created your article and your expressions to the theory of Conceptual Blending? Although it is generally preferable to avoid leading questions (Kvale 1997), it was necessary to include some leading questions (ibid.) in this interview guide (such as question 3 and its follow-up questions) because this study aims to understand how the students have managed to relate their different metaphorical expressions and intends to discuss how

Res Sci Educ

metaphors may facilitate comprehension. The last question included conceptual blending in order to find out whether the students could relate to this perspective. The present study does not study the linguistic perspectives, but the content of the students’ answers, so a rough transcription was undertaken without such elements as intonation and prosody. The transcription method chosen for this study is based on Linell (1994) and Norrby (2014).

Results In the present study, six articles written by science students were analysed with respect to the occurrence of metaphorical concepts. The six students were also interviewed about the articles with regard to their way of conveying and explaining their subject matter, focusing on metaphors and metaphor-like words and expressions. Table 1 gives an overview of the orientation and content of the students’ articles, including proposed blends constructed from the used metaphors. Three cases will be presented in more detail: Anna, Hugo, and Alex. These cases were chosen as representatives of the variation found regarding the students’ subject, use of metaphors, and cognitive experiences. For each case, a short presentation will be given of the student and the subject, followed by a presentation and an analysis of all metaphors (found in each article are presented in tables), and an analysis of the interview. The outcomes of the analyses will be based on the metaphor analyses, interpretations of the found metaphors, and how they correlate to each other and to subject content, as well as the interview answers. Thus, the analyses focus on students’ rhetorical choices and their correlation to content, not on the accuracy of subject content as such.

Table 1 This table gives an overview of surveyed students and their popular science articles, presented in the (random) order as they were interviewed. The number of metaphors (categorised) as well as the proposed blends are also provided here Student Major

Anna

Title of article

Carl

Geology Fracture minerals gossip about the history of Skåne Physics None

Eric

Physics

Ida

Hugo

Alex

The pattern of molecular mutations Geology Quartz grains—a journey into the past Geology The Bushveld complex—a treasury Physics None

Subject of article

Blend and number of metaphors (active/ inactive/both)

About minerals, contained in bedrock cracks, that gossip about the Swedish landscape’s history About transistors and their influence on technology About how DNA-coding generate protein structure and the physical impact

Fracture minerals as storyteller (9/1/0) Transistors as a maze of doors (12/1/1) Protein structures as patterns/human beings (6/6/2) Microtextures as time machines (8/1/1)

About how quartz grains and micro textures reflect history and geological movement About the biggest layered levered intrusion The Bushveld in South Africa and how it was formed complex as a treasury (1/3/2) About Higgs fields and how an extended Higgs field as waves in a bathtub (7/2/4) theory could contribute to more knowledge within the field

Res Sci Educ

Anna: ‘Fracture Minerals Gossip About the History of Skåne’ Anna, a geology student, wrote an article that deals with how minerals, contained in bedrock cracks, can gossip about the Swedish landscape’s history and thereby provide a deeper and more detailed explanation on how the bedrock of Skåne has developed over time. There are ten unique metaphors in total. Most of the metaphors in Anna’s text (Table 2) relate to storytelling. The fracture minerals appear as if they were tattletales or journalists who tell stories or report on events and hold secret information. They are described as hidden, waiting to be discovered. Anna writes about the bedrock as a massive archive (and not as a gigantic rock) and about heights as a filing cabinet (and not as horsts, for instance). The metaphors are active, apart from ‘building blocks’, which is a well-established metaphor in everyday language. Since the metaphors could be related to the same theme, the concept ‘FRACTURE MINERALS AS STORY TELLERS’, was suggested as a potential metaphorical concept. This may illustrate how Anna gained an increased understanding of her own subject matter. The concept may have been pattern creating, where the different metaphorical expressions have been connected to the whole via their shared entity and generated associations to Anna’s own experiences. In the article, she discusses fracture minerals as geological phenomena that geologists analyse in order to discover how different ‘clues’ (each mineral’s components) are interrelated. The geologists may, thus, get an idea of how a geological phenomenon has developed over time.

Table 2 Metaphors found in the geology student Anna’s popular science article. The metaphors are explained and categorised as either active, inactive, or both. The small caps in the first column highlight the metaphors Quote (vehicle)

Tenor

Active/ inactive

‘BUILDING BLOCKS’ ‘Beneath our feet RESTS AN ANCIENT HISTORY…’ ‘Beneath our feet rests an ancient history with a MASSIVE ARCHIVE, so called bedrock’ ‘In that way the fracture minerals GOSSIP ABOUT IMPORTANT EVENTS…’ ‘HEIGHTS [horsts] – a filing cabinet’

Smaller units which build up something bigger The fracture minerals indicate something

Inactive Active

The bedrock presents material from a historical perspective

Active

‘get an insight into a world smaller than the world of NILS KARLSSON PYSSLING1’ ‘Fracture minerals GOSSIP’ ‘different minerals can GIVE significant INFORMATION’ ‘There, HIDES…’ ‘filled up with other minerals that WAIT TO BE DISCOVERED’

By studying fracture minerals, one could discover Active geological events Since a horst is part of the bedrock and can present a Active selection of it, the horst can be interpreted as a filing cabinet From a microscopic perspective, a quite small world Active

The fracture minerals indicate something The fracture minerals indicate something

Active Active

Something that must be found Something that must be found

Active Active

1 This is a character, small as a mouse, in the world of the Swedish writer Astrid Lindgren. Nils Karlsson Pyssling, hence, views his world from a mouse’s perspective which to us, who are human, would be a very small world (furniture, corridors, things etc.).

Res Sci Educ

It seems reasonable to believe that Anna’s understanding of the subject matter has been supported by different meaning-making channels. She might, for instance, have created a conceptual overall picture where she compares fracture minerals (and related terms) with an archive, a story, and clues that describe the history. Hence, the writing process may have been pattern creating since the metaphorical expressions could be interpreted as originating from the same root metaphor. Furthermore, the metaphors most likely create cognitive images, which relate either to different everyday premises or to human actions and characteristics that make the natural science easier to understand. In the interview, Anna said that she finds it easier to assimilate information if she can visualise the natural science phenomenon in her head. She claims that she does this when she can relate the technical term to something she already knows—‘[then] you can link them to one another’. She continues: when you have enough knowledge about the subject, it… for me, it feels pretty natural to write in a simplified way. (…) I believe it has to do with how you associate things with one another. You come to think of things that remind you of this or that. Perhaps that it might also help other people understand the subject better. The quote demonstrates Anna’s own learning, implying that she acquires more knowledge through the use of cognitive images, which may concretise subject matter by comparing new and old knowledge. She also implies that there is a connection between using metaphorical constructions and making information more accessible. ‘Nils Karlsson Pyssling’ is, for example, an expression that should clarify what a microscopic world may be like. Thus, according to Anna, when having enough knowledge of something, it is easier to invent accurate metaphors in order to ‘simplify’ information due to a more efficient and adequate associative ability. Hence, the use of metaphorical devices for explaining something abstract may indicate a certain degree of subject understanding. When discussing the article and the expressions about fracture minerals, Anna’s answers indicated that a metaphorical concept or conceptual blending could illustrate a cognitive process, where the transformation of scientific language to popular science language may entail understanding. An example of this is when Anna elaborates on the title of her article. Does Anna regard fracture minerals as things that gossip? Well, it is not like they give big lectures. It is more like BHere is little me and I have a small thing to tell but you cannot say to anyone else^. (—) They do not say much; it is more like tiny clues^. Here, Anna talks about the fracture minerals as if they are tattletales or storytellers who repeat a story. The quote also insinuates that the metaphor is productive as it can be elaborated on. She reflects on how the vehicle relates to the tenor and in what way it does not. Later, she admits that she partly reflected upon the fracture minerals as if they ‘gossip’ rather than ‘indicate’ things. She has probably grasped the function of fracture minerals by means of metaphors, and more specifically, metaphors that somehow relate to human actions. When discussing the expression ‘that the bedrock is a massive archive’, Anna mentioned that the bedrock is described as an archive among geologists since it consists of ‘a sedimentary stratification, where the deepest layer is often the oldest layer’. Anna concludes that the bedrock actually turns into ‘a filing cabinet where one can look up the different eras [the

Res Sci Educ

sediments], and then they will tell what has happened during the eras they represent’. She adds that the understanding of what the bedrock is partially disappears if the metaphor ‘massive archive’ is removed from the text. It would be like BWell, the bedrock^. That would not define the bedrock in any way. It would simply be Bwell, the bedrock is the bedrock^. (—) It is an archive to geologists. One has to define its meaning.

Hugo: ‘The Bushveld Complex—a Treasury’ The geology student Hugo discusses and describes the Bushveld complex—the biggest layered levered intrusion in the world, located in South Africa—and how it was formed. Compared to the other articles, this article does not contain many metaphors (there are six in total), and those that are used are mainly inactive (Table 3). During the interview, it became evident that he had not reflected upon the used metaphors. Three of the metaphors in Hugo’s article give the impression that the Bushveld complex has sunk to a deep hiding place at the bottom of the sea, just like a treasure chest from a wreck, waiting to be discovered. Alternatively, the complex might have arisen from the bottom of the sea. The other three metaphors, however, do not seem to belong to the suggested concept, which makes it difficult to motivate that there could have been such an underlying concept by which Hugo tried to understand his subject. Hugo’s text contains the smallest number of metaphors. Whether a metaphorical concept can be constructed from this small amount of metaphors or not is unclear. However, when taking the metaphors into consideration, a possible concept could be ‘THE BUSHVELD COMPLEX AS A TREASURY’. Many metaphors were categorised as inactive and most of them do not seem to belong to the same theme or concept. There is no minimum number of metaphorical constructions required for a cognitive process to take place (Fauconnier and Turner 2002; Lakoff and Johnson 2003[1980]). Thus, whether the number, and perhaps also the themes, of metaphorical expressions are crucial or not, is difficult to say. As stated in the introduction, it seems however reasonable to assume that the more vehicles contribute to a coherent whole (a metaphorical concept), the clearer the cognitive overall picture of the tenor becomes.

Table 3 Metaphors found in the geology student Hugo’s popular science article. The metaphors are explained and categorised as either active, inactive, or both. The small caps in the first column highlight the metaphors Quote (vehicle)

Tenor

Active/ inactive

‘The Bushveld complex – a TREASURY’ ‘Have crystallised at different moments and SUNK to the BOTTOM of the magma CHAMBER’ ‘Greenstone BELTS’ ‘Where hot magma has RISEN from the crust of the Earth’

A complex, containing valuable things How the valuable things became a part of the complex A distinct geological stratum Something that comes from below, perhaps all of a sudden and in a great quantity A geological stratum A geological stratum

Active Active and inactive Inactive Inactive and active Inactive Inactive

‘CRUST of the Earth’ ‘Delamination of the MANTLE’

Res Sci Educ

The interview with Hugo indicated that he might not be entirely aware of how he makes abstract terms comprehensible to himself. He seemed convinced that the scientific language should be preferred to the popular science language for the learning of subject matter. He also argued that popular science language is not as substantial and that it may comprise quite silly expressions. Moreover, Hugo stated that he did not acquire more knowledge from writing the article. Meanwhile, the interview implied that he had concretised geology by means of popular science writing that, among other elements, comprised metaphors. Thereby, it is not possible to exclude that his subject matter understanding was favoured by more concrete language. Just like the other students, Hugo stated that translating or concretising technical terms can be a challenge. According to him, the intense work with a bachelor’s project could make students narrow minded. Hence, it might be difficult for them to view their own subject matter from a distance or from different perspectives and also to discuss it using non-expert terminology. Thereby, it gets more difficult to talk about their own field in a way that lay people understand. Meanwhile, Hugo acknowledged that a term or a scientific concept could be translated to everyday language by relating it to such things that ‘people know’. When asked to reflect upon the title, ‘treasury’, Hugo answered that he imagined his readers to be children, and therefore, the title had to be easy to understand. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Hugo tried to view the Bushveld complex from a perspective that includes metaphors, resulting in a cognitive image, put together by vehicles that already exist in his mind. He continues: And it is also the world’s greatest deposition of these ores, so it has a connection [to the treasury]^ since the complex is Bthe world’s greatest^ and also since it is Bwhere there are most ores of this sort, so it really is a sort of treasury. If this expression were removed from the article, Hugo believes that the article would have been regarded as more serious but less sense making: …personally, if I was to encounter this on the internet or on some poster or whatever, without knowing what it is, and it says Ba treasury^, I would much rather read it than if it doesn’t. According to Hugo, the expression ‘treasury’ describes and explains, in short, what the Bushveld complex could be regarded as or thought of. That is why he preferred the present title; the name ‘the Bushveld complex’ is not particularly sense making itself. Overall, he seemed to believe that ‘treasury’ in fact is important since the metaphor concretises the complex and makes it easier to understand by relating it to something more familiar. ‘Subduction’, a less familiar term, is being discussed, and more specifically, what would happen to the text if it was replaced with a less abstract word? According to Hugo, replacing the term would have been very difficult. When asked to explain what the term refers to, Hugo’s answer included a metaphor where the Atlantic turns into a driver and ‘drives underneath Sweden’, i.e. that an ocean ‘goes underneath’ a continental crust. The interviewer did not really understand, and Hugo struggled to explain further, ultimately expressing frustration. He found it difficult to clarify what subduction is and could only provide a partial explanation. He stated that it actually is a quite simple geological process, yet, it is difficult to explain. Moreover, it turned out that subduction is a concept that comprises many different processes.

Res Sci Educ

The interviewer asked whether the concept is being explained along with pictures in the textbook, and Hugo answered: Definitely, on a number of occasions. However, it [the Bushveld complex] really is a back-arc, which is a process that is part of subduction. This is difficult to convey with a popular science approach without pictures. This illustrates that the term is probably linked to Hugo’s internal representation of what ‘subduction’ means and could explain why he had difficulties explaining the concept: most likely, he had understood the concept by means of the pictures, which illustrate what words cannot say. Thus, it gets difficult to explain subduction without pictures. Another explanation could be that Hugo cannot distance himself from the idea and explain it without his own inner cognitive images. Such an inability to express his understanding of subduction in metaphors may possibly reveal that his understanding of the concept is not very solid. For example, he states that the Bushveld complex is a process (rather than a phenomenon), which may be an indication of insufficient subject knowledge and understanding. When discussing conceptual blending, the interviewer asked Hugo whether he could relate to it concerning the understanding of abstract concepts in geology. Although no other cognitive process was given as an alternative, he said that he could indeed relate to the cognitive process that conceptual blending illustrates, mainly because much was new in the beginning of the bachelor’s project: Especially terminology, and hence many geological processes had to be compared to other things in order to make them comprehensible. I have definitely compared to things I already know – otherwise I could not have understood [the terminology]!

Alex: ‘About Higgs Fields’ The physics student Alex’s article deals with the Higgs field (a theory that describes that different particles have a mass), disturbances in such fields, and how an extended theory could contribute to more knowledge within this research field. There are 13 metaphors in total (Table 4), and the article starts out with terminology, presented as an active metaphor: ‘Imagine the waves that spread on the water surface in a bathtub into which a stone has been dropped, but in three dimensions instead of two—that is a field’. Through this metaphorical construct, Alex’s readers may understand the ‘standard model’, a quantum field theory, by means of everyday cognitive images and concepts. From the metaphors in Alex’s article, the metaphorical concept ‘HIGGS FIELD AS WAVES IN A BATHTUB’ was created. It might, however, not consist of as many closely related metaphors as does Anna’s. The concept seems to be Alex’s starting point and what he builds on. From this, he discussed, in the interview, the field as a soup within which particles travel, causing signals and distortions. Some of the metaphors are active, but not all—at least not to physicists, but perhaps to laypersons. Among the six surveyed students, Alex was probably the student who was most aware of his own sense making: how he managed to acquire knowledge and why a certain way of reflecting on or thinking about something led to sense making, and hence was beneficial to him. Alex claimed that human consciousness can more easily grasp macroscopic objects than

Res Sci Educ Table 4 Metaphors found in the physics student Alex’s popular science article. The metaphors are explained and categorised as either active, inactive, or both. The small caps in the first column highlight the metaphors Quote (vehicle)

Tenor

Active/ inactive

A field within which particles (stones) cause Active ‘The standard model is a quantum field. The distortions (surges) fields describe distortions in fields, which are called particles. Imagine the SURGES, emerging from dropping a STONE, that spread on the water surface in a BATHTUB – but in three dimensions instead of two’ ‘Higgs SOUP’/‘STEW’ An illustration of a Higgs field, and also of the Active particles that move in this field and how they obtain mass ‘Higgs DUPLICATES’ A copy of a Higgs particle Active and inactive ‘May cause DISTORTIONS’ Interference in a homogeneous field, which Active and results in an irregular field inactive Inactive ‘TOP quark’/‘CHARM quark’ Quark names, where the top quark in some way could be regarded as ‘high up’. A charm quark is unclear ‘A SIGNAL of this decay’ Something that indicates the decays Active and inactive ‘And they come in different TASTES’ Different ‘sets’, or ‘a range of’ similar Active and characterisations inactive ‘They become SLOW (inertial), as physicians The particles get resistance from being in the Active field call particles with mass, by TRAVELLING THROUGH the Higgs soup’ ‘To let more Higgs particles DO THE JOB’ The field achieves something Active

microscopic ones, which could explain why natural science may be difficult to understand, for instance, the Higgs field: When diving into the quantum soup, things behave totally different and it’s simply not possible to get an intuitive image of what it is. How a particle can be a wave, how one can be in different places at the same time, and that, that is difficult. Due to the lack of similar logic in the macroscopic world, one has to invent brand new cognitive images. Alex believes that everyday experiences, comprising cognitive images, are crucial for understanding such things as the ‘quantum soup’. In the interview, he elaborated that he usually tries to compare everyday premises with abstract physics, which could lead to an increased understanding of the subject. Meanwhile, he told that the primary reason for trying to invent analogies is that he finds the process funny and challenging. Thus, he did not explicitly mention any possible relation between cognitive images and understanding. When asked, ‘why a soup?’, Alex explained the similarities that the Higgs field and the soup share. The field is, in a figurative sense, a soup/a stew: If one stirs a soup with a ladle … or perhaps a stew would be more appropriate. If one stirs a soup with a ladle, if feels quite dense. /—/ The analogy applies to an even lower

Res Sci Educ

level since the soup consists of molecules with which they [the particles] collide all the time, and the closer they are, the more denser it is. It is not really like that in Higgs – what really matters there is what kind of ladle you use, what particle it is. It is not the Higgs field as such that has higher or lower density. As the excerpt reflects, Alex thoroughly explained how the field and soup/stew are interrelated. Besides the metaphors already presented, new metaphors were invented which too seem to be related to the proposed concept. Before explaining why a soup, Alex was asked how he came up with his article (main question 3). Alex answered that he first and foremost tried to create a whole in the article. According to Alex, the terms that followed could be placed within this entity, upon which the cognitive overall picture appeared clearer. This way of reasoning indicates a meta-reflexive way of thinking, which implies that Alex gained an increased understanding of his own subject matter. In the following interview excerpt, Alex is reasoning about how he might have come up with the cognitive picture ‘imagine the waves …’ in his article. Well, it is probably that image I have in mind when I imagine quantum fields, and it is really interesting because there are no actual … there is no one who can give you a clear model that says Bthis is how you should imagine it^, thus it is something I have developed during my three years of studies. There is something, within quantum mechanics and in general, which is called wave-particle duality: that particles have, on a microscopic level, both wave characteristics and particle characteristics, and to try to get an image of how it can be both a wave and a particle at the same time, that is, well, it was confusing and gave me much head-scratching. Alex speculated on what would have happened to the article if the bathtub metaphor had been removed. If the reader is a beginner, the bathtub metaphor would be essential for the reader’s understanding. Yet, even to an expert reader, the cognitive image of Higgs field would become less clear without the metaphor. Alex concluded that the metaphor would probably facilitate understanding, regardless of the reader’s prior knowledge. Furthermore, he explained that the purpose of the bathtub metaphor was to create representative and explanatory cognitive images: ‘In my opinion, that is the fun part … or what I would have liked to convey [by using the bathtub metaphor], is how one could visualise what it looks like when one tries to imagine it. So that one can imagine a picture of it’. In the interview, Alex explained that cognitive images, which are often generated by metaphors and other tropes, are important in the process of understanding something that is difficult and abstract: I: Is it important to have this picture in your head? Alex: Important? Well, to a physicist, it is probably pretty important to have some kind of picture. I: Because? Alex: Or, it is rather like you cannot escape it! It’s only when you start thinking hard about Balright, does this picture work?^, and then visualising something in front of yourself, and then you always have to think Bno, it can’t be like that^. However, you can still use that picture as inspiration and see, Bok, but what happens if you do it this way?^

Res Sci Educ

I don’t believe there is any physicist who doesn’t have some kind of image. Probably not the same, though. Alex discussed the benefits of converting and concretising abstract terminology and mathematical formulae to concrete representations, and expresses that such cognitive images are essential to a physicist’s understanding of abstract premises. This illustrates, once again, why tropes can be important to sense making. Moreover, he stated that he tested his own cognitive images, and if the images were not able to present the physical phenomenon in an adequate way, he rejected them. Here, Alex actively reflected upon his own way of thinking and how metaphorical constructions may result in an increased understanding. In the following excerpt, he explains that one of many purposes of using analogies is to make abstract things (1) easier to understand and (2) accessible to the mind: Imagine that it is a bathtub full of water, but what is it about that [the Higgs field] distinguishes itself from a bathtub, because it is obviously not a bathtub. Then one has to say: Bok, you start from there and then remove the things that do not fit into the analogy, and then try to modify it and get a, well, an image of it. Well, but I believe that one uses such things [previous experiences] that one knows from before. It is probably like that for everyone. /—/) Within physics anyway, it is a lot like that. /—/. One starts out with something that one already knows. . /—/ I do that. His reasoning indicates a cognitive process creating a pattern in terms of a metaphorical concept, ‘HIGGS FIELD AS WAVES IN A BATHTUB’, which could be illustrated by means of conceptual blending. In the conceptual integrated network, input space 1 contains the tenor, ‘particles’, while input space 2 contains the vehicle ‘water in a bathtub’. The cognitive process during which the metaphorical concept emerges could, thus, be visualised by the blending space formed as the two input spaces fuse. The resulting metaphorical concept, represented by this blend, is less abstract and more accessible to the mind compared to the physics terminology. Alex’s reasoning thus supports the idea that the conceptual blend not only exists in theory, but could also illustrate his process of understanding Higgs fields and related physics terminology.

Students’ Use and Choice of Metaphors Altogether, four of the six students’ texts in this study contained a high degree of active metaphors. This was exemplified above by Anna’s and Alex’s articles, where most of the metaphors are non-conventional in the context where they occur. In these two texts (and in Ida’s and Carl’s), there was also a correlation between the identified metaphorical devices and the subject content, i.e. the metaphors related to a common, recurring theme. This means that no systematic differences were observed between geology and physics students’ ways of using metaphors in this study. Even if these observations imply that science students’ rhetorical choices may not be specific to the discipline, it is not possible to draw any general conclusions based on the limited data from this case study. In the interviews, it was only the four students using active metaphors relating to a common theme who reflected actively upon their use of metaphors. In their reflections, these students motivated their choice of metaphors as to how complex subject matter could be explained.

Res Sci Educ

They also elaborated on the cause-and-effect relationship between their subject understanding and use of non-conventional metaphors. In addition, the four students articulated, to a varying degree, how conceptual blending might describe the cognitive process comprising the use and invention of metaphors in their texts.

Discussion In this study, six popular science articles, written by students in physics and geology, were analysed with respect to the occurrence and character of metaphors in the text. In addition, interviews were conducted with the students to explore how their use of metaphorical devices in popular science writing may reflect and influence their subject understanding. The results of the textual analyses and interviews indicate that a consequent use of metaphors and the capacity to invent accurate metaphors within the same domain require a certain degree of subject understanding. This idea was supported by Anna’s and Alex’s reasoning that sufficient knowledge about a topic may favour more accurate associations. In her interview, Anna claimed that her knowledge of geology facilitated associations to other domains and helped her find adequate metaphors. Her reasoning is in line with Gärdenfors’ (2010) statement that choosing appropriate metaphors requires sufficient subject knowledge. The opposite may be illustrated by a lacking capacity to find metaphorical expressions in the same domain. For example, Alex demonstrated that he is able to express his cognitive images, and hence, his understanding of the Higgs field in words for others to understand, while Hugo, who used fewer metaphors (both active and inactive), did not demonstrate this ability. Students’ way of using metaphors could, thus, reflect their awareness of the correlation between metaphors and content, and thereby their understanding of the subject. In terms of conceptual blending, a metaphorical concept could be described as a blend emerging through the interaction between subject concepts in input space 1 and cognitive images in input space 2 (Fig. 1). This was exemplified in Anna’s article, where the subject concept ‘fracture minerals’ interacted with cognitive images related to storytelling, and were fused into a blend, ‘Fracture minerals as story tellers’. Similarly, in Alex’s article, the interaction between ‘particles’ and ‘water in a bathtub’ created the blend ‘Higgs field as waves in a bathtub’. In the third example, Hugo’s article, however, the relatively few metaphors were mainly not active, nor did they belong to a common theme. This made the blend of subject content and metaphors incomplete, which makes it more difficult to motivate that a clear concept was constructed during his process of understanding the subject matter. The occurrence of incorrect facts in this student’s text and interview answers could be an indication that subject matter was not fully understood. Insufficient understanding might, thus, have made it difficult for him to find adequate cognitive images when explaining content to a wider audience. As illustrated by the three students’ articles, conceptual blending could be used for displaying students’ choice of metaphors and how these choices correlate to subject content. Thereby, conceptual blending offers a tool for monitoring students’ subject understanding as demonstrated through their use of metaphorical concepts. Conceptual blending may, however, not only be used for visualising, but also for supporting students’ subject understanding. This was made especially clear in the interview with Alex, who emphasised that the creation of mental images is crucial to the acquisition of physics knowledge. Furthermore, he stated that a metaphorical language makes natural science concepts more comprehensible when a full picture emerges and makes these concepts easier

Res Sci Educ

to grasp and relate to. In the current study, metaphors that were consequently used throughout an article, and which belong to the same theme, may, thus, have contributed to making difficult natural science terminology easier to understand, both for the authors of the popular science articles and their readers. In particular, the use of active metaphors, and metaphors which are tied to a common root metaphor, has been advocated for to facilitate students’ subject understanding (Fredriksson and Pelger 2016; Fauconnier and Turner 2002; Gärdenfors 2010; Jeppsson 2013; Lakoff and Johnson 2003[1980]; Lemke 1990). When popular science writing entails the creation and use of metaphors, it may also encourage students’ reflection on their own cognitive image archive, experience, and prior knowledge. As described by Anna and Alex in the interviews, the writing task helped to organise and clarify ideas and thoughts, by making them more relatable and accessible, and hence also possible to analyse and develop further. Although Alex did not refine a metaphor in writing, he did so in the interview where he corrected himself: ‘If one stirs a soup with a ladle … or perhaps a stew…’. he probably reflected on his expression (the active metaphor ‘stew’) and decided that there was a more suitable metaphor for the phenomenon. This shows that the use of metaphors can be productive in terms of learning and understanding matter. Both Anna and Alex stated that whether the metaphor was adequate or not could not be decided until it was written down. Their statement, hence, illustrates the cognitive impact that popular science writing has shown to the learning of science (Pelger and Nilsson 2016; Pelger 2017). Students’ use of metaphors in popular science writing exemplifies how writing about and learning the subject matter may mutually benefit from each other, as has been described by the knowledge-transforming model of Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987). In a natural science context, Keys (1999) further described how argumentative writing means an interchange between two cognitive spaces, the content problem space and the rhetorical problem space, where the development of scientific and rhetorical understanding are intertwined. In the content problem space, relevant data are identified and interpreted, conclusions are drawn, and subject understanding successively develops. In the rhetorical problem space, rhetorical choices are made, the significance of data is articulated, arguments are verbalised, facilitating understanding of the genre and the nature of science. In the present study, the outcomes, as described by Keys (1999), would be an increased understanding of both the student’s subject—physics or geology—and the popular science genre and science as such. In Keys’ (1999) model, the encounter of the two cognitive spaces makes an iterative process, the recurrence of which may promote the writer’s ability to identify novel problems and define new goals. One way to better understand the interplay between content and rhetoric during the writing process could be the use of conceptual blending for monitoring the writer’s processing and verbalisation of subject matter. Conceptual blending offers a tool for visualising metaphorical concepts where all metaphors used (both metaphors that seem to be a part of the metaphorical concept and those that do not) are included. Thereby, conceptual blending could help students to become more aware of their rhetorical choices as well as their subject understanding and learning process. Altogether, the results of this study indicate that the use and creation of metaphorical concepts could (i) monitor students’ subject understanding through their choice of metaphors; (ii) benefit students’ subject understanding by relating to subject matter and making them accessible to thought; (iii) benefit students’ meta-cognitive skills and understanding of their own learning. In addition, the results suggest conceptual blending as a tool for visualising and encouraging science students’ use of adequate metaphorical concepts, thereby facilitating their opportunities of understanding and influencing the learning of science.

Res Sci Educ

Implications The results of this study imply that monitoring and reflecting upon the use of metaphorical concepts in science students’ writing could benefit learning and that one way of displaying these concepts could be through the integrated network of conceptual blending. Conceptual blending could, thus, be applied in science education with the purpose of helping students verbalise and visualise abstract phenomena and concepts. Through a transferring input space, students could concretise and search for vital relations to abstract science matter in the subject input space. Hence, conceptual blending may offer a method and a meta-language for students to create a cognitive picture of their subject as well as their learning, thereby supporting students’ understanding of both science matter and the learning process. Accordingly, in science education, conceptual blending could be applied as a method for inventing, reflecting upon, and criticising the use of metaphors, and as a meeting place for students and teachers, where cognitive pictures of subject matter may be visualised and discussed. Conceptual blending may also prepare students for acting as future experts in their field, communicating subject matter with lay people, and contributing to making science comprehensible and sense making to the general public, which could ultimately promote informed decision-making in a democratic society. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Anders Eriksson, Associate professor in Rhetoric, for valuable discussions during the study and helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Many thanks to Jennifer Lööfgren as well, Genombrottet, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, for valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Lastly, we also thank Professor Helena Alexanderson, Professor in Quaternary Sciences, and Ashley Gumsley, Doctoral student in Lithosphere and Biosphere Science, for clarifying comments on geology content in the surveyed students’ texts and interview answers.

Appendix: interview questions Below all interview questions are presented. The asterisk indicates that the question was further specified to fit the interviewee regarding his or her field as well as degree project. 1. What do you think makes a good popular science text?

& & &

For whom is popular science beneficial? Would you say that physics/geology* is an abstract topic? How, in what ways? Do you believe that it is sufficient to explain a phenomenon in scientific terms?

–

If Bno", what more is required from a linguistic point of view?

2. Can you, in as much detail as possible, tell me how you experienced the task of writing popular scientifically about your area of expertise?

& &

Did you experience any differences between writing science versus writing popular science? Has your article made you look at your topic differently/from a different perspective?

Res Sci Educ

&

Did you find it difficult to explain any phenomena in your article with everyday words?

– –

If Byes," tell me more / why do you believe that is? If Bno", do you believe that any reader will understand all that you have written about your topic in this article?

3. How did you come up with this article? How did you reason?

&

In what ways do you concretise your subject in the article?

– Can you give examples? & How did you go about creating this expression? How did you reason in order to result in Bthis" specific expression*? –

& &

Was this the first expression or did you reason about and try other ideas or expressions? What do you think would happen to the text if you were to remove expression X/ technical term Z*? Do you see any difference between metaphor X and Y metaphor*?

4. How has your understanding been affected by the writing of the popular science article?

&

Is there a difference between your understanding of your subject before compared to after you wrote your article?

–

Has your understanding deepened? Do you feel that it is easier for you to talk about your topic now than before – both internally with yourself and when you reason, and when you're talking about your topic with others? Do you feel that you remember your topic better when having put it in terms outside of the subject-specific area? Did you see your area of expertise just as a physical/geological phenomenon or you could think and talk about it in other ways than in physical/geological terminology?

& &

5. (i) The interviewer introduces the concept of Conceptual Blending to the student: Conceptual blending is a way to describe how sense making works. The theory is based on the premise that, when dealing with something unknown, one uses and compares that with what is already known (existing knowledge and prior experiences) in order to easier understand and relate to it. By means of finding similarities and differences between the things that are compared, we easier understand the new and unknown. Perhaps you explain: 1) a parallelogram as a rectangle that someone has pushed on so it has fallen slightly forward to the side; 2) the gravitation as something that pulls things downwards so they do not levitate; 3) a UFO as a flying bisque; 4) or a leverage (physics) as a seesaw.

Res Sci Educ

6 (ii) In retrospect, can you – in any way – relate how you created your article and your expressions to the theory of conceptual blending?

& & &

Did you create your expressions based on already existing mental images? Did you invent the expressions yourself? Would you say that the Conceptual Blending helps you to explain how you managed to come up with your various metaphorical formulations?

References Aristotle. (2007). On rhetoric: a theory of civic discourse (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bergström, G., & Boréus, K. (2005). Lingvistisk textanalys (Textual analysis). In G. Bergström & K. Boréus (Eds.), Textens mening och makt: metodbok i samhällsvetenskaplig text- och diskursanalys. (The purpose and power of the text: methodology about social studies’ text and discourse analyses) (pp. 263–304). Studentlitteratur: Lund. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does (2nd ed.). London: The Society for Research into Higher Education. Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 77–166). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Browne, S. H. (2009). Close textual analysis: approaches and applications. In T. A. Kuypers (Ed.), Rhetorical criticism: perspectives in action (pp. 63–76). Lanham: Lexington Books. Burkholder, T. R., & Henry, D. (2009). Criticism of metaphor. In T. A. Kuypers (Ed.), Rhetorical criticism: perspectives in action (pp. 97–116). Lanham: Lexington Books. Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183–202. Caine, R. N., et al. (Eds.). (2009). 12 brain/mind learning principles in action: developing executive functions of the human brain (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. CODEX – rules and guideline for research (updated in Nov 2016) (2017). http://www.codex.vr.se/en/manniska2. shtml, Accessed 21 February. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer. Dewey, J. (1933/1960). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Heath. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning sciences. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672. Dysthe, O., Hertzberg, F., & Hoel, T. L. (2011). Skriva för att lära: skrivande i högre utbildning. (Writing to learn: writing in higher education) (2., [rev.] ed.). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Eriksson, A. (2014). Metaforens makt över tanken i det politiska språket (The metaphor’s power over thoughts in political language). In O. Fischer, J. Viklund, & P. Mehrens (Eds.), Retorisk kritik (Rhetorical criticism) (pp. 103–118). Ödåkra: Retorikförlaget. Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhetorical style: the uses of language in persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. Fredriksson, A. & Pelger, S. (2016) Metaphorical concepts in molecular biology student’s texts - a way to improve subject-matter understanding. NorDiNa, 12(1), 90–106. Gärdenfors, P. (2010). Lusten att förstå: om lärande på människans villkor (Wanting to understand: about learning on a human being’s conditions). Stockholm: Natur & kultur. Gärdenfors, P., & Lindström, P. (2008). Understanding by experiencing patterns. In P. Gärdenfors & A. Wallin (Eds.), A smorgasbord of cognitive science (pp. 149–164). Nora: Nya Doxa. Glebkin, V. (2015). Is conceptual blending the key to the mystery of human evolution and cognition? Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 95–111.

Res Sci Educ Glynn, S. M. (1989). The teaching with analogies model. In K. D. Muth (Ed.), Children’s comprehension of text: research into practice (pp. 185–204). Newark: International Reading Association. Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. Haglund, J. (2013). Självgenererade analogier stöder lärande (Self-generated analogies supports learning). In J. Haglund & F. Jeppsson (Eds.), Modeller, analogier och metaforer i naturvetenskapsundervisning (Models, analogies and metaphors in natural science education) (pp. 185–199). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Hedberg, D. A., Haglund, J. A., Jeppsson, F. A., & Uppsala University, T. O. (2015). Metaforer och analogier inom termodynamik i kemiläroböcker för gymnasiet (Metaphors and analogies in thermodynamics in chemistry textbooks). NorDiNa, 11(1), 102–117. Helstrup, T., & Kaufmann, G. (2000). Kognitiv psykologi (Cognitive psychology). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Jeppsson, F. (2013). Begreppsliga metaforer i studenters dialog (Conceptual metaphors in students’ dialogues). In F. Jeppsson & J. Haglund (Eds.), Modeller, analogier och metaforer i naturvetenskapsundervisning (Models, analogies and metaphors in natural science education) (pp. 155–166). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115–130. Kvale, S. (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun (The qualitative research interview). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003[1980]). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: a study of teaching and learning. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English. Report No. 22. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex. Linell, P. (1994). Transkription av tal och samtal: teori och praktik (Transcription of speech and conversation: theory and practice). Linköping: Univ., Tema kommunikation. Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes? Instructional Science, 28(3), 199–226. Norrby, C. (2014). Samtalsanalys: så gör vi när vi pratar med varandra (Conversation analysis: what we do when talking to each other) (3rd, [rev.] ed.). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Olander, C. (2009). Towards an interlanguage of biological evolution: exploring students’ talk and writing as an arena for sense-making. Diss. Göteborg: Göteborg University, 2010. Göteborg. Pelger, S. (2017) Popular Science Writing Bringing New Perspectives into Science Students' Theses. International Journal of Sciene Education part B. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1371355. Pelger, S. & Nilsson, P. (2016). Popular science writing to support students’ learning of science and scientific literacy. Research in Science Education. Springer. Pelger, S., Santesson, S., & Josefsson, G. (2009). Naturvetare skriver populärvetenskap, [Natural science students write popular science]. Lund: Lärande Lund, Lund University. Perrault, S. T. (2013). Communicating popular science: from deficit to democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., & Thompson Jr., R. J. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: a community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(1), 17–25. Richards, I. A. (1976). The philosophy of rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press. Rundgren, C-J. (2008). Visual thinking, visual speech: a semiotic perspective on meaning-making in molecular life science: how visualizations, metaphors and help-words contribute to the formation of knowledge about proteins among upper secondary and tertiary level students. Diss. Linköping: Linköping University. Schön, D. A. (1993). Generative metaphor: a perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 137–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strömdahl, H. (2012). On discerning critical elements, relationships and shift in attaining scientific terms: the challenge of polysemy/homonymy and reference. Science & Education, 21(1), 55–85. Swedish Code of Statutes (SFS 1993:100). Higher Education Ordinance. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1, Problems of general psychology including the volume thinking and speech. New York: Plenum P. Wolrath Söderberg, M. (2012). Topos som meningsskapare: retorikens topiska perspektiv på tänkande och lärande genom argumentation (Sense making by topos: topical perspectives on thinking and learning through argumentation in rhetoric). Diss. Örebro: Örebro University, 2012. Ödåkra.