Skip to Content
Education SciencesEducation Sciences
  • Article
  • Open Access

29 April 2023

Primary School Preservice Teachers’ Alternative Conceptions about Light Interaction with Matter (Reflection, Refraction, and Absorption) and Shadow Size Changes on Earth and Sun

Department of Didactics, Faculty of Science Education, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC H3C 3P8, Canada
This article belongs to the Special Issue Learning and Teaching Optics

Abstract

The present qualitative study investigates the conceptual representations of 132 preservice Quebec elementary teachers regarding matter–light interaction (reflection, refraction, and absorption) and the size of the shadow of an object on the Earth’s surface illuminated by sunlight. A paper-and-pencil questionnaire composed of six questions was constructed and managed. The data analyses demonstrate that most encounter several conceptual difficulties in explaining phenomena related to light, which are omnipresent in their immediate environment and with which they interact daily. The conceptual difficulties identified in analyzing the students’ explanations were as follows: (1) a black-colored body absorbs all light rays; (2) light travels rectilinearly and stops when it hits a white paper; (3) a mirror reflects light; it does not absorb it; (4) the glass surface of a mirror reflects light; (5) specular reflection and diffuse reflection are confused; and (6) the shadow varies during the day because the Sun moves around the Earth. These findings have implications for creating teaching strategies that confront preservice elementary teachers’ alternative conceptions and their corresponding scientifically accepted counterparts.

1. Introduction

Since the 1980s, many studies have extensively investigated alternative conceptions (ACs), i.e., conceptions about light that contradict accepted scientific theories held by students from preschool to the university [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Fewer studies focused on identifying ACs among preservice and in-service teachers [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. On this subject, Krall et al. [19] (p. 2) underlined that these studies among students as well as elementary teachers “indicate that individuals over a broad range of ages and with diverse educational experiences have many conceptual difficulties with light concepts.”
The most common ACs identified in those works are that white light cannot be a mixture of light colors; black color consists of all wavelengths of light; color is an intrinsic property of the object; yellow light is less dark than red; the eyes see an object’s color rather than the reflexive light’s color; confusion between light and pigment colors; light moves to different distances, depending on whether it is daylight or dark; only shiny materials (e.g., mirrors, lakes, polished metal) reflect light, rough surfaces do not reflect light; light needs air to travel; light does not take time to travel somewhere—it is instantaneous; a shadow is a reflection because it is the same shape as the object; the shadow’s size depends on the light source’s intensity; a luminous source does not emit light rays in all directions; confusion between light and its effects (e.g., intense illumination or glare); and light does not need to reach the eye to see an object. Notably, these ACs are made-up assumptions derived from linguistic constructions (e.g., daily used phrases such as “come out of your shadow”). On this subject, Galili and Hazan [24] (p. 59) point out that many daily used phrases reinforce ACs about light and its properties and constitute an obstacle to acquiring scientific language:
“Thus, many linguistic constructions do not conform to present-day scientific knowledge. Phrases such as ‘her eyes shine’, ‘his face radiates light’, ‘she casts a glance’, ‘light fills the room’, ‘the mirror reflects images’, and ‘the tree casts its shadow’ are at odds with contemporary optics.”
Moreover, they note conceptual difficulties related to the limitations of the senses in interpreting a light property such as color addition (i.e., the production of various colors of light by mixing the three primary colors of light: red, green, and blue) and the light propagation phenomenon. For example, the eye cannot distinguish the addition of two wavelengths as when we combine light green with light blue color, and the brain assimilates them to a single wavelength, yellow. Another example is related to the model of the rectilinear propagation of light in space [24] (p. 59):
“[In optics], the observed phenomenon presumes an inclusion of the observer’s eye as a part of the optical system. Nothing indicates his/her true physical role to the observer since vision and light delivery to the eyes are not accompanied by perceptible muscular effort. Like breathing, the progress of seeing (i.e., interpretation of visual images) operates subconsciously.”
These common misconceptions also derive from other types of influence, such as intuitional or spontaneous learning; popular science, based on the daily use of language and media images; and school science, based on a symbolic universe and idealized science class [25].
It should be noted that only some of the above research focused on the ACs of both students and teachers concerning light and matter interaction to explain notions such as reflection, refraction, and absorption. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the following questions:
  • Do elementary preservice teachers know that reflection, refraction, and absorption occur when light falls on the material’s surface?
  • Do elementary preservice teachers know that light is a form of energy and travels as a particle and a wave?
  • Do elementary preservice teachers know that energy light absorbed by a given object is converted to heat energy?
  • Do elementary preservice teachers know that when we illuminate an object, electrons in the object’s atoms vibrate more firmly in response to the oscillating electric field of the illuminating light?
  • Do elementary preservice teachers know that the shadow of a given object on the surface of the Earth changes size because of the rotation of the Earth on itself and around the Sun?

2. Population and Methods

2.1. Population

The present study concerns the preservice ACs of absorption and light diffusion. To this end, 132 preservice teachers from Quebec, enrolled in the third academic year of the four-year final exam program in elementary education, participated in this study in the setting of a structural course on the didactics of the sciences. They were aged 19 to 25 years, the majority were female, and they came from the sector of the liberal arts and were not taking any science courses at the university. Their only science education went back to their secondary studies, where they had taken two courses in physics and biology.

2.2. Methods

To investigate trainee teachers’ ACs, we constructed a paper and pencil questionnaire with open-ended and multiple-choice questions. As illustrated in the Appendix A, five questions were formulated as a multiple-choice questionnaire with 2 or 3 answer choices and one open-ended question. They explained their choices of multiple-choice answers to characterize their conceptual explanations.
They were given sixty minutes to complete the paper-and-pencil questionnaire. It is pertinent to note that the questions were formulated based on works on student and teacher ACs about the light properties summarized above. Moreover, the questions formulated require students to refer to their conceptual knowledge. Thus, we do not ask students to recite a law (e.g., the Snell–Descartes laws of reflection or refraction) but rather to explain the physical phenomena when light interacts with a given object. On this subject, Timmermann and Kautz [26] (Page 26.1179.4) point out that such an approach has two positive features:
“[…] On the one hand, we do not expect students to recite the law in question but rather to be able to apply it. Thus, it is only logical to also test for this. On the other hand, this makes it easy to generate many different questions about the same topic without the possibility for students to memorize the correct answer. One can exchange the situation the students have to predict.”
We analyzed the data collected from the “paper-pencil” questionnaire with the approaches that require the definition of scientific response (nomothetic) and the classification of students’ justifications in specific categories (ideographic) [27,28,29].
We have referred to two approaches to identify the categories of the students’ conceptual representations:
  • The data collected from the answers provided by the students.
  • The conceptual framework underlining the questions formulated. Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun [28] underline that at the methodological level, this step of analysis is relevant in the qualitative study because it allows the researcher to know what he is looking for in the experimental data:
    2.1
    Scientifically correct and complete explanations.
    2.2
    Responses involving correct but incomplete explanations.
    2.3
    Ideas that include partially correct and incorrect statement sentences (i.e., the coexistence of several contradictory representations).
    2.4
    Explanations that are challenging to understand or that have no relationship with the question.
    2.5
    Students who did not provide any explanation related to the question and used the same expression given in the question.
We regrouped students’ answers into distinct categories of representations for each question. The number of categories is variable from one question to the other. Second, we interpreted the set of categories identified to prove their representations.
The paper-and-pencil questionnaire was designed to take sixty minutes to identify trainee teachers’ ACs about the interaction between light and matter, particularly the absorption and diffusion phenomenon, and was composed of six questions. The questions were constructed based on works on the conceptual understanding of basic optics topics by pupils and trainee teachers, as summarized above. Moreover, we considered the notions prescribed in the Québec Education Program [30]. In the document, the scientific concepts and instruments about light phenomena that pupils must acquire (explicitly or implicitly) in each of the three elementary school cycles (two years duration each) related to the following categories: I. Material World; II. Earth and Space; and III. Living Things (see Table 1). For more details about the structural concept of each category, see Métioui [31].
Table 1. Scientific notions prescribed in the Quebec Education Program.

2.3. Diversification and Saturation Sample

In order to ensure the variability of the conceptual representations and the validity of the conclusions, we considered the two criteria generally accepted in qualitative research, namely the diversification of the sample and the saturation of the responses [29]. Concerning the diversification criterion, the question does not arise since all the students registered in the teacher training program hold a college diploma in human sciences. During their secondary studies, they had all taken two courses in science. The second criterion used to ensure the variability of the representations is that of saturation, that is to say, the phenomenon by which the researcher has the impression of not learning anything new from the students’ responses. Of course, if one changes the context in which we question the students, such as interviews instead of the paper-and-pencil questionnaire, or interview students in an informal setting, we will learn more because of the dynamic and complex nature of the notion of representation.
Below, we will present the goal of each question and its analyses, followed by some students’ answers as illustrations. To keep the anonymity of the respondents, we identified students (S) by the Si letter (“i” represents the number designating the student).

3. Results

3.1. Objective and Data Analyses: Question #1

The first question aimed to find out how students explain what happens when light strikes the solid surface of a mirror. When light hits the mirror surface, the light rays reflect off. To make a mirror, we need a perfectly polished surface on a microscopic scale. In practice, it is a metal layer (good conductor of electricity) placed on a shiny glass plate. This layer of metal reflects most of the light rays, while the glass in front serves as a support. Indeed, when the light rays (electromagnetic waves) reach their surface, the free electrons compensate for the electric and magnetic fields of the incident wave and return a wide range of visible frequencies. Formerly, we interpreted the reflection by referring to Newton’s corpuscular nature of light or Huyghens’s wave aspect of light. The reflection phenomenon for Newton was due to the corpuscles’ reflection, and for Huyghens, the wavefront’s reflection when light clashed with the mirror.
Thus, Newton proposed that small particles compose light that travels through space. As for Huyghens, light propagates perpendicular to the direction of its movement. It was Maxwell who proposed that light is a wave phenomenon made up of electromagnetic waves (e.g., the human eye can detect wavelengths from 380 to 700 nanometers) propagating in space at the speed of light. Finally, thanks to the work carried out by Einstein on the nature of light, we know that light is composed of photons (e.g., a “particle of light”), and these photons travel in waves.
We divide the student responses into two response categories. The first category represents students according to whom light emitted by the flashlight surrenders on the mirror and stops on its surface. The second category represents students for whom light emitted by the flashlight stops on the mirror and is sent back by the mirror elsewhere in the piece. The data put forward to explain their answers allowed us to identify three subcategories in the first category and four subcategories in the second category, as illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2. Categories and their subcategories for Question #1.
In Table 3, we synthesize students’ responses and percentages for these categories and subcategories, followed by students’ responses for illustrative purposes.
Table 3. Students’ responses to Question #1: categories and subcategories and their percentages.
The categorization of the answers was based on the observation that many students (76%) affirm that the mirror will reflect light. However, the advanced justifications are incomplete, absent, or are simply a matter of the evidence, for example, the fact that a mirror reflects light and absorbs some (e.g., significantly less than the reflected light). Students should have referred to the principle of constructing a mirror to explain its reflective property as synthesized above.

3.2. Objective and Data Analyses: Question #2

As for the mirror, the present question aimed to know the students’ conceptions about the phenomenon happening when light reaches the surface of the sheet of white paper. In both cases, we observe the phenomenon of reflection. However, in the case of the piece of paper, the rays of light are reflected irregularly with different angles, which gives the paper a translucent appearance.
In the case of the paper, we want to know if, for the students, the paper will act as a mirror when the light reaches its surface. The paper must be smooth relative to the wavelength of light striking the surface. It is not the case; even though the paper’s surface appears smooth, a photograph taken under a microscope reveals its irregular surface. Thus, the light rays will be reflected irregularly with different angles, making the paper translucent.
We divide the students’ responses into two conceptual categories. The first category represents students according to whom light emitted by the flashlight surrenders on the paper; it stops there. It is relevant to note that in Guesne, Sere, and Tiberghien’s [32] research with 10–14-year-old French students about the nature and behavior of light, most of them thought that after light strikes a blank sheet of paper, the light remained on this surface.
The second category grouped together students for whom light emitted by the flashlight surrenders on the paper and is sent back by the paper elsewhere in the room. The data put forward to explain their answers allowed us to identify three subcategories in the first category and three subcategories in the second category, as illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4. Categories and their subcategories for Question #2.
In Table 5, we synthesize students’ responses and percentages for these categories and subcategories, followed by students’ responses for illustrative purposes.
Table 5. Students’ responses to Question #2: categories and subcategories and their percentages.

3.3. Objective and Data Analyses: Question #3

This question aims to know if, for the students, the black cardboard cannot absorb all the visible light it receives; otherwise, we will not see it. It is noteworthy that black is the absence of color, which means that almost all the incident light is absorbed. Following the principle of conservation of energy, this light energy is transformed into thermal energy.
We divide the students’ responses into two response categories. The first category represents students according to whom black cardboard will absorb all visible light it receives, and the second category, students for whom black cardboard will absorb almost all the visible light it receives and diffuse the rest. The data put forward to explain their answers allowed us to identify six subcategories in the first category and two subcategories in the second category, as synthesized in Table 6.
Table 6. Categories and their subcategories for Question #3.
In Table 7, we synthesize students’ responses and percentages for these categories and subcategories, followed by students’ responses for illustrative purposes.
Table 7. Students’ responses to Question #3: categories and subcategories and their percentages.

3.4. Objective and Data Analyses: Question #4

This question asks whether students referred to the light waves’ properties and their propagation in different materials to explain why the submerged part of the pencil appears bent. In this experiment, the pencil appears to bend, but this is only an illusion created by the wave nature of light. In modern optics, we know that any transparent substance has an index of refraction, which measures the slowing down of light passing through matter and is ultimately related to its chemical composition. It is important to note that when light waves pass through glass and water, their propagation speed changes while the frequency remains unchanged. The submerged pencil does not change color or appearance; its relative position and shape appear altered when viewed through a substance with a different refractive index than air. So, when light transmits from air to water, it changes direction slightly based on its properties (liquid water is denser than air). In the following passage, Walmsley [33] (p. 23) synthesizes the refraction of a ray at the interface between air and water to explain the ‘kink’ observed in a pencil partially immersed in a cup of water by drawing an analogy with walking through water:
“The refractive index can be thought of as being a measure of the optical ‘sluggishness’ of the medium as experienced by a light ray. So light travels more slowly in a medium with a larger refractive index because the molecules of the medium are slightly more resistant to having their atoms and electrons moved by the light. It is like running in a pool of water. If the depth is very small, your legs can move easily and you can run fast. If the water is up to your knees, it’s harder, because you have to work against the resistance of the water.”
In addition, we wanted to know in the case of students who refer to the change in the speed of light from air to water if this speed variation causes the brain to interpret the ray’s light inclination as a pencil twist.
We divide the students’ responses into five response categories: (1) the pencil appears bent because the speeds of light in air and water differ, (2) the light rays that enter the water are deflected because the water is denser than the air, hence the illusion of seeing the deformed pencil, (3) the pencil seemed bent because the water acted like a magnifying glass, (4) the pencil looks bent due to the angle of our vision, and (5) the pencil appears bent because the light path is bent as it passes from air to water.
In Table 8, we synthesize the percentage of students in each category and their responses for illustrative purposes.
Table 8. Students’ responses to Question #4: categories and their percentages.

3.5. Objective and Data Analyses: Question #5

The size of the shadow changes during the day. How to explain this phenomenon? The Earth makes two important movements; one around the Sun (translational movement) that lasts one year, and one around its north–south axis (rotational movement) that takes one day. The Earth rotates counterclockwise. This counterclockwise rotational movement gives us the false perception that the Sun “rises in the east” and “sets in the west.” The size of a person’s shadow changes during the day because the angle of the Sun’s ray intercepted by a point on the Earth’s surface changes throughout the day. The angle is the lowest in the horizon, very early in the morning, so the shadow is the most elongated. At midday, the angle is highest (most perpendicular) to the Earth’s surface, so the shadow size is the smallest. After that time, the shadow begins to enlarge, but in a different direction.
We divide the students’ responses into five response categories: (1) the size of the shadow changes because sunlight is at a different intensity during the day; (2) the size of the shadow changes because the Sun changes places; (3) the shadow’s size changes because the Sun’s position changes: depending on the time of day, it is either up or down; and (4) the shadow’s size changes because the Earth goes around the Sun.
In Table 9, we synthesize the percentage of students in each category and their responses for illustrative purposes.
Table 9. Students’ responses to Question #5: categories and their percentages.

3.6. Objective and Data Analyses: Question #6

When we walk, our shadow makes the same movements as us. Which of the moves is the fastest? This question aims to test students’ knowledge of the speed of light propagation and the relationship between light and shadow. Mathematically, body movements occur before ‘shadow movements’. As the speed of light propagation is about 300,000 km/s, perception of the shift, with the naked eye, between the movements of the body and those of the shadow is impossible.
We divide the students’ responses into four categories: (1) the body and the shadow movements will be the same; (2) the body and the shadow move at the same speed; (3) the movement of the shadow is faster than that of the body; and (4) the body’s movement is faster than the shadow’s.
In Table 10, we synthesize the percentage of students in each category and their responses for illustrative purposes.
Table 10. Students’ responses to Question #6: categories and their percentages.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

In the case of Question 1, the objective was not to ask students about plane mirror image formation as analyzed in many studies but to know their ACs about the interaction between the particles composing the mirror (Question 1), the white sheet of paper (Question 2), or the black card (Question 3) and those composing light, as synthesized above.
In the same perspective, Question 4 aimed to know their ACs about the interaction between light and water on the surface and the water inside the glass. The analyses presented above show that most students need help elaborating on absorption and light diffusion. However, in the case of the bent pencil in water, some students referred to the density of water compared to that of air to explain the variation in the speed of light in these two environments. On the other hand, for 18% of the students, the pencil seems bent because of the change of medium (air → water).
Regarding question 5, for 23% of preservice teachers, the size of the shadow depends on the light intensity. This false conception has been investigated by many researchers with children 10–12 years old [11]. However, let us note in this regard that for several students when one suspends above an object posed on a table and illuminates it with lights of various intensities at the same distance, the size of the shadow does not vary. It was established that when we asked them about the same phenomenon but in a more complex case, such as the Earth–Sun system, they explained the variation in the size of the shadow by referring to the intensity of the light. Thus, the misconceptions that students abandon as a result of teaching resurface in the case of more complex situations [34].
Regarding preservice teachers’ conceptual difficulties revealed in the present study and those published in international scientific reviews as outlined in the Introduction [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23], many researchers have used various conceptual change strategies to help students and preservice teachers’ ACs to incorporate different light phenomena such as image formation in plane mirrors, the shape of shadows, rectilinear propagation of light, and matter and light color properties [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. They have used different teaching approaches such as hands-on laboratory experiments [45], analogies [46], phenomenological approaches [38,39], historical approaches [41], and other critical didactic strategies.
With regard to the historical approach, researchers Dedes and Ravanis [42] and Djebbar, de Hosson, and Jasmin [43] experimented with pupils from elementary school, using experiments related to the formation of shadows, and the rectilinear propagation of light and vision, placed in their historical context. To do this, among other things, they offered the pupils the opportunity to analyze historical texts that they adapted to their level. Paulo, Bianor, and Isabel [44] (p. 527) highlighted teaching geometrical optics by creating a teaching sequence requiring a dialogical process between preservice students’ previous knowledge and the history of geometrical optics development. Such an approach will make it possible to value preservice teachers’ misconceptions by studying false theories developed during history by renowned scientists. Bhakthavatsalam [48] (p. 5) highlighted the relevance of false theory in teaching and learning science:
“Teaching false theories goes against the general pedagogical and philosophical belief that we must only teach and learn what is true. In general, the goal of pedagogy is taken to be epistemic: to gain knowledge and avoid ignorance. […] There are several good reasons for teaching false theories in school science. These are (a) false theories can bring about genuine (non-factive) understanding of the world; (b) teaching some false theories from the history of science that line up with children’s ideas can provide students “intellectual empathy” and also aid in better grasp of concepts; (c) teaching false theories from the history of science can sharpen students’ understanding of the nature of science; (d) scientists routinely use false theories and models in their practice and it is good sense for science education to mirror scientific practice; and (e) learning about patently non-scientific and antiscientific ideas will prepare students to face and respond to them.”
Thus, the pupils and the future primary teachers could compare their ideas on the phenomena above with those developed by the Greek, Arab, and European researchers who marked the development of optics.
It is important to note that the classic approach to teaching the reflection and absorption of light does not allow us to understand the interaction between the molecules and electrons that make up matter and the photons when they reach this object. Most textbooks limit themselves to presenting a quantitative analysis of reflection and refraction based on the Snell–Descartes laws.
These researchers affirm that more is needed to construct a teaching strategy that considers students’ alternative conceptions, which many teachers are unaware of, for the reasons raised in the theoretical framework presented in the Introduction.
Thus, we must develop situations consider their ACs and the relevant scientific concepts synthesized in Table 11. The activities must be embedded in standard teaching and fit into a theoretical framework. We propose investigating conceptual conflict problems and their practical effectiveness in future studies. It is not enough to suggest an experiment that contradicts the student’s conception so that he would abandon it. According to many researchers, these false conceptions persist in teaching. Moreover, we are considering constructing a two-tier diagnostic instrument to detect elementary preservice teachers’ ACs in the area of light.
Table 11. Summary of preservice teachers’ alternative conceptions and their corresponding scientifically accepted counterparts.
A brief review of the literature on students’ and preservice teachers’ ACs of light phenomena presented in the Introduction shows their inconsistency with the scientific notions. It has been established using à paper-and-pencil questionnaire that student teachers in Québec experience considerable difficulties in explaining the interaction between light and matter, as summarized in Table 11. The data analyses revealed accurate knowledge and erroneous reasoning in the student teachers’ explanations.
The poor performance of the preservice teachers in the test is not surprising since the conceptual understanding of the nature of the light aroused intense quarrels among renowned scientists such as Newton and Huygens [49,50,51]. The epistemological rupture between everyday and scientific language also explains the students’ conceptual difficulties [52].
Concerning the study’s limitations, the paper-and-pencil questionnaire represents a shortcoming. On the one hand, the preservice teachers’ answers required more information that could be collected using semi-structured interviews. In addition, the questions formulated do not refer to the phenomenon of the interaction between light and matter in fields of knowledge such as biology, chemistry, and the environmental sciences and are limited to the area of physics. Another limitation relates to categorizing the answers given by all participants for each question. Thus, it would have been relevant to categorize each student’s answers with each question to obtain his epistemological profile, as the French philosopher Bachelard recounted in his book The Philosophy of No [53]. Such an analysis consists of carrying out an interpretation for each subject and for all the questionnaire questions, which makes it possible to bring to light the variability of representations of the same subject.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable to this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are confidential in accordance with human research ethics.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Paper-and-Pencil Questionnaire.
Table A1. Paper-and-Pencil Questionnaire.
Question #1
One illuminates a mirror with a flashlight. Which of the two following affirmations best represents the trajectory followed by Light?
❒ Light emitted by the flashlight surrenders on the mirror and stops there.
❒ Light emitted by the flashlight surrenders on the mirror and is sent back by the mirror elsewhere in the piece.
Explain as best you can your choice of the answer:
Question #2
A white sheet of paper deposing on a table, and one illuminates it with a flashlight. Which of the following affirmations best represents the journey followed by light?
❒ Light is emitted by the bulbs’ pocket-size lamp, surrenders on the paper, and stops there.
❒ Light emitted by the bulbs’ pocket-size lamp surrenders on the paper and is sent back elsewhere by the paper in the piece.
Explain as best you can your choice of the answer:
Question #3
Consider a black cardboard on a table, and one illuminates it with a flashlight. Which of the following statements best represents the interaction between light emitted by the flashlight and the surface of the black cardboard?
❒ Black cardboard will absorb all visible light it receives.
❒ Black cardboard will absorb almost all the visible light it receives and diffuse the rest.
Explain as best you can your choice of the answer:
Question #4
If one places a long, narrow object like a pencil in a transparent glass filled with water so that one half is under the water and the other protrudes out of the glass, it appears to bend as soon as it enters the water. How do you explain this phenomenon?
Question #5
The size of our shadow changes during the day. How to explain this phenomenon?
Question #6
When we walk, our shadow makes the same movements as us. Which of the moves is the fastest:
❒ That of our body
❒ That of our shadow
❒ None
Explain answer choice:

References

  1. Jelinek, J.A. Exploring the Phenomenon of the Additive Color Process While Using a Computer Programme by 7–8-Year-Old Students. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Martini, B.; Tombolato, M.; D’Ugo, R. Primary colors as a source of possible misconceptions: An insight into teaching and learning about color. Color Cult. Sci. J. 2019, 11, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Feher, E.; Meyer, K.R. Children’s Conceptions of Color. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 505–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rice, K.; Feher, E. Pinholes and images: Children’s conceptions of light and vision. I. Sci. Educ. 1987, 71, 629–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Andersson, B.; Karrqvist, C. How Swedish pupils, aged 12–15 years, understand light and its properties. Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1983, 5, 387–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Watts, D.M. Student conceptions of light: A case study. Phys. Educ. 1985, 20, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Langley, D.; Ronen, M.; Eylon, B.S. Light Propagation and Visual Patterns: Preinstruction Learners’ Conceptions. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34, 399–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Osborne, J.F.; Black, P.; Smith, M. Young children’s (7–11) ideas about light and their development. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1993, 15, 8–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ravanis, K.; Zacharos, K.; Vellopoulou, A. The formation of shadows: The case of the position of a light source in relevance to the shadow. Acta Didact. Napoc. 2010, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, S.M. Shadows: Young Taiwanese children’s views and understanding. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2009, 31, 59–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Feher, E.; Rice, K. Shadows, and anti-images: Children’s conceptions of light and vision. II. Sci. Educ. 1988, 72, 637–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Uzun, S.; Alev, N.; Karal, I.S. A cross-age study of an understanding of light and sight concepts in physics. Sci. Educ. Int. 2013, 24, 129–149. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fetherstonhaugh, A.; Happs, J.; Treagust, D. Student misconceptions about light: A comparative study of prevalent views found in Western Australia, France New Zealand, Sweden, and the United States. Res. Sci. Educ. 1987, 17, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Favale, F.; Bondani, M. Misconceptions about optics: An effect of misleading explanations? In Proceedings of the 12th Education and Training in Optics and Photonics Conference, Porto, Portugal, 23–26 July 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Grigorovitch, A.; Nertivich, D. Représentations mentales des élèves de 10–12 ans sur la formation des ombres\mental representations of students of 10–12 years old on the formation of shadows. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 2017, 3, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Atwood, R.K.; Christopher, J.E.; McNall, R. Elementary teachers’ understanding of standards-based light concepts before and after instruction. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX, USA, 5–7 April 2005; pp. 3–18. Available online: https://mspnet-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Atwood_NARST_05.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  17. Bendall, S.; Goldberg, F.; Galili, I. Prospective elementary teachers’ prior knowledge about light. JRST 1993, 30, 1169–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Heywood, D.S. Primary trainee teachers’ learning and teaching about light: Some pedagogic implications for initial teacher training. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27, 1447–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Krall, R.M.; Christopher, J.E.; Atwood, R.K. Comparison of central Appalachian in-service elementary and middle school teachers’ understanding of selected light and force and motion concepts. Sci. Educ. 2009, 18, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mumba, F.; Mbewe, S.; Chabalengula, V.M. Elementary School Teachers’ Familiarity, Conceptual Knowledge, and Interest in Light. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 37, 185–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aydin, S.; Ural Keleş, P.; Haşiloğlu, M.A. Establishment for misconceptions that science teacher candidates have about geometric optics. Online J. New Horiz. Educ. 2012, 2, 7–15. [Google Scholar]
  22. Métioui, A.; Trudel, L. The model of the rectilinear propagation of light and the study of the variation of the size of a shadow. US-China Educ. Rev. 2012, 2, 173–186. [Google Scholar]
  23. Yildiz, A. Pre-Service Teachers Levels of Understanding the Light-Related Concepts. World J. Educ. 2022, 12, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Galili, I.; Hazan, A. Learners’ knowledge in optics: Interpretation, structure, and analysis. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 22, 57–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Beaty, W. The origin of misconceptions in optics? Am. J. Phys. 1987, 55, 872–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Timmermann, D.; Kautz, C.H. Multiple Choice Questions that Test Conceptual Understanding: A Proposal for Qualitative Two-Tier Exam Questions. In Proceedings of the 122nd ASEE Annual Conference, Seatle, WA, USA, 14–17 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
  27. Taber, K.S. Recherche en Classe et Pratique Fondée sur des Preuves: Une Introduction, 2nd ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  28. Beichner, R. Testing Student Interpretation of Kinematics Graphs. Am. J. Phys. 1994, 62, 750–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fraenkel, J.R.; Wallen, N.E.; Hyun, H. How To Design and Evaluate Research in Education, 8th ed.; McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  30. Québec Education Program, Progression of Learning in Elementary School. Science and Technology. 2009, pp. 3–13. Available online: http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/education/jeunes/pfeq/PDA_PFEQ_science-technologie-primaire_2009_EN.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2023).
  31. Métioui, A.; Trudel, L. Conceptual Analysis of Quebec Primary School Programs in Canada: Science and Technology. J. Teach. Educ. 2014, 3, 439–446. [Google Scholar]
  32. Guesne, E.; Sere, M.G.; Tiberghien, A. Investigations on childrens’ conceptions in physics: Which method for which result? In Proceedings of the 1983 International Seminar on Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics, Ithaca, NY, USA, 20–22 June 1983; pp. 420–426. [Google Scholar]
  33. Walmsley, I. LIGHT: A Very Short Introduction; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  34. Métioui., A.; Trudel., L. The persistence of the alternative conceptions: The case of the unipolar model. In Teaching/Learning Physics: Integrating Research into Practice, Proceedings of the GIREP-MPTL 2014 International Conference, Palermo, Italy, 7–12 July 2014; Fazio, C., Sperandeo Mineo, R.M., Eds.; Universita degli Studi di Palermo: Palermo, Italy, 2015; pp. 117–127. [Google Scholar]
  35. Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C. Students’ conceptions on white light and implications for teaching and learning about color. Phys. Educ. 2017, 52, 044003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aydın, S. Eliminating the misconceptions about image formation in plane mirrors by conceptual change texts. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. Res. 2017, 3, 1394–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fetherstonhaugh, T.; Treagust, D. Students’ understanding of light and its properties: Teaching to engender conceptual change. Sci. Educ. 1992, 76, 653–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fredlund, T.; Airey, J.; Linder, C. Exploring the role of physics representations: An illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. Eur. J. Phys. 2012, 33, 657–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Galili, I.; Goldberg, F.; Bendall, S. Some Reflections on Plane Mirrors and Images. Phys. Teach. 1991, 29, 471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sebald, J.; Fliegauf, K.; Veith, J.; Spiecker, H.; Bitzenbauer, P. The World through My Eyes: Fostering Students’ Understanding of Basic Optics Concepts Related to Vision and Image Formation. Physics 2022, 4, 1117–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fliegauf, K.; Sebald, J.; Veith, J.M.; Spiecker, H.; Bitzenbauer, P. Improving Early Optics Instruction Using a Phenomenological Approach: A Field Study. Optics 2022, 3, 409–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dedes, C.; Ravanis, K. History of Science and Conceptual Change: The Formation of Shadows by Extended Light Sources. Sci. Educ. 2009, 18, 1135–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Djebbar, A.; de Hosson, C.; Jasmin, D. Les Découvertes en Pays d’Islam; Éditions Le Pommier: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  44. Paulo, M.; Bianor, V.; Isabel, C. A Didactic Sequence of Elementary Geometric Optics Informed by History and Philosophy of Science. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2017, 15, 527–543. [Google Scholar]
  45. Métioui, A.; Trudel, L. The design of a constructivist hands-on laboratory: Qualitative study of simple electrical circuits. In Proceedings of the ICERI2019 Conference, Seville, Spain, 11–13 November 2019; Gómez Chova, L., López Martínez, A., Candel Torres, I., Eds.; IATED Academy: Seville, Spain, 2019; pp. 3384–3389. [Google Scholar]
  46. Grigorovitch, A. Children’s misconceptions and conceptual change in Physics Education: The concept of light. J. Adv. Nat. Sci. 2014, 1, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ravanis, K.; Papamichaël, Y.; Koulaidis, V. Social marking and conceptual change: The conception of light for ten-year old children. J. Sci. Educ. 2002, 3, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
  48. Bhakthavatsalam, S. The Value of False Theories in Science Education. Sci. Educ. 2019, 28, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Darrigot, A. A History of Optics from Greek Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sabra, A.I. Theories of Light from Descartes to Newton; History of Science Library: Oldbourne, UK, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mach, E. The Principles of Physical Optics: An Historical and Philosophical Treatment; Dover: Mineola, NY, USA, 1926. [Google Scholar]
  52. Métioui, A.; Trudel, L. Life-world Knowledge and Scientific Knowledge: An Epistemological Rupture. Adv. Soc. Sci. Res. J. 2018, 5, 398–405. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bachelard, G. The Philosophy of No: A Philosophy of the New Scientific Mind; Orion Press: New York, NY, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.