Year 12 Students' Mental Models of the Nature of Light

Abstract

This article reports on the third year of a three-year longitudinal investigation into six secondary students' understanding of optics at a secondary school level. In the third year of this investigation the students, who by now were in Year 12, underwent a teaching sequence that centred on the teaching and learning of physical optics and quantum ideas. The students' mental models of the nature of light were explored prior to, and following this teaching sequence. The researcher took on the dual roles of teacher and researcher. This paper will outline the findings of the third year of this study and the implications they have for the teaching and learning of optics at secondary school level.

Development and application of a four-tier test to assess pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions about geometrical optics

“…In his study Hubber (2006) listed seven key concepts of geometrical optics that should be used as criteria in the exploration of students" understanding. Those specified key scientific concepts of geometrical optics are:…”

Investigating students’ mental models about the nature of light in different contexts

“…First of all, frequently used drawings and descriptions were gathered under three different mental models. Lightrelated models used in Smit and Finegold (1995), Hubber (2006) and Şengören (2010) inspired the decision as to which mental model the explanations of students fit. The descriptions as to which drawings and explanations were collected under which mental models were given in table 1.…”

“…Some students showed the incident and scattered photon as sinus waves that are composed of dashed lines ( figure 4(b)) and as rays ( figure 2(c)). Because it is similar to the ray model, such use of the particle model was called 'the particle ray model' in studies conducted by Hubber (2006) and Şengören (2010). In other words, this model, which we could call an alternative mental model related to the scattering of light, comes into being as a similar model to both the particle model and the beam ray model.…”

“…Studies show that the alternative concepts that the students developed for light are different from scientific models , Galili and Lavrik 1998, Goldberg and McDermott 1986. In a study (Hubber 2006) with six secondary-grade students, the models students use in explaining various physical phenomena such as color, refraction, diffraction, etc, were determined. Some researchers who study understanding of physical optics (Ambroseet al 1999a) determined that students use a hybrid model in explaining phenomena related to geometric and physical optics.…”

Lessons from the History of the Concept of the Ray for Teaching Geometrical Optics

“…Radial lines emanating from a source have a preferential direction towards the opening and seem to be deflected by openings instead of crossing each other or they emanate in a parallel or diverging fashion and bend through the gap (Feher and Rice 1988;Rice and Feher 1987;La Rosa et al 1984;Galili and Hazan 2000b). Some 16 and 17 year old students view rays as actual constituents of light and understand the brightness of a source as a measure of the number of rays emitted, or they believe that the strength of a ray attenuates with distance (Galili and Lavrik 1998;Galili and Hazan 2000b;Hubber 2006). Some students and some prospective Elementary teachers hold a beam view of a ray, something like flashlight beams Galili and Hazan 2000b;Hubber 2006).…”