ETEC 533: Addressing Misconceptions

in Geometric Optics Through T-GEM

Chris Clarke
ETEC 533
Introduction

Preconceived misconceptions abound in science. Students create their own

knowledge and what they are capable of learning depends as much on what is already
in their heads, and the learning context, as the information being presented (Driver,
Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985). For students to have a fighting chance of properly
learning scientific concepts, it is important to overcome these misconceptions. A topic
that commonly has misconceptions is geometric optics. In particular, students have
misconceptions over how a convex lens functions in regards to when and how images
are formed depending on varying circumstances. I have taught geometric optics and run
across these issues. In particular, the approach presented below attempts to provide a
framework for ensuring a better understanding of what ray diagrams are and how they
relate to light.

Article Summaries Surrounding Geometric Optics Misconceptions

Blizak, D., Chafiqi, F., & Kendil, D. (2009, June). Students misconceptions about light in
Algeria. In ​Education and Training in Optics and Photonics​ (p. EMA5). Optical Society of
America.

This study investigated Algerian first year university students’ conceptions of

geometric optics. Its objective was to determine misconceptions that the students held.
They provided a closed questionnaire to 246 students where the majority of the
questions had been used by other researchers in past studies. The results of the study
showed that misconceptions similar to those in other countries existed relating to the
propagation of the light, vision, refraction and reflection. The study was completed to
evaluate misconceptions of students in Algeria and investigate whether a previously
unstudied misconception on the propagation of light in a vacuum existed. As previous
studies had used interviews and/or open-ended questionnaires, this study chose to use
multiple choice questions as a way to expand upon current research.
In the study it was shown that only 45% of students had an accurate scientific
understanding of vision. There were 44% that believed light could only propagate in air.
In regards to image formations from lenses, 63% of students incorrectly believed in how
the image would change in size and sharpness. Additionally, 73% of students held
misconceptions of what would happen to the image if half the lens was covered. The
two main misconceptions were that the image would disappear or the image would be
half the dimensions. There was also a strong belief that the center of the lens was the
location of image propagation. By comparing their results to previous studies, the
researchers were able to confirm that most geometric optics misconceptions discovered

1
up to 20 years ago still commonly exist. While the study was based in Algeria, its use of
similar questions to studies undertaken in other parts of the world can allow for
comparisons and similar conclusions to be drawn about students across the globe.

Ceuppens, S., Deprez, J., Dehaene, W., & De Cock, M. (2018). Tackling
misconceptions in geometrical optics. ​Physics Education,​ ​53​(4), 045020.

This paper focused on the testing exercises and experiments designed to elicit,
confront, and resolve misconceptions revolving around geometric optics. Through prior
research summaries, the paper identifies misconceptions in multiple areas of geometric
optics. When dealing with plane mirrors, students often believe the created image is on
the mirror’s surface. For convex lenses, most students believed that covering half the
lens would result in half the image disappearing. Even after instruction, 55-75%
maintained this misconception. Ray diagrams were seen as both a reinforcer of
misconceptions and as a powerful method to dispel misconceptions. Students often
misunderstand that the rays used in diagrams are merely geometric tools and not
physical entities. They have a hard time distinguishing between which rays have
equivalent rays in reality and which are tools to help represent the location of virtual
images. Ray diagrams tend to use certain significant or easy to understand rays to
determine the location of images. As a result, students often fail to understand the
infinite number of other possible rays that contribute to image formation.
The paper examined different methods of addressing these misconceptions. The
methods were based around using scaffolded ray diagrams and the use of observer’s
eyes to indicate location and show light rays continue until absorbed by an object or
eye. The exercises were conducted in 30 schools over a period of two years. Teachers
had a range of teaching experiences. Assessment of the teaching techniques was
evaluated using an online questionnaire. It focused on teachers’ opinions and their
non-standardised assessment tools. This was the biggest weakness of the study as it
didn’t not provide any standardised quantifiable results. All results of the student were
qualitative and subjective. Teachers reported increased student enthusiasm and
engagement and a general reduction in geometric optics misconceptions.

Favale, F., & Bondani, M. (2013, July). Misconceptions about optics: An effect of
misleading explanations?. In ​Education and Training in Optics and Photonics​ (p. EThI4).
Optical Society of America.

This study looked at the results of data collected from more than 200 students
and some considerations about figures and explanations found in textbooks. Based on
answers from a questionnaire on geometric optics, misconceptions and näıve ideas

2
about colors, ray tracing, and image formation in reflection and refraction were
confirmed. These misconceptions were widespread and did not depend on the gender,
the level, or the age of the students. The questions were a mix of open-ended and
multiple choice. This paper reaffirms some misconceptions discussed in the former
studies analysed above and adds some new ones. It reaffirms issues with determining
the location of an image in a plane mirror and how it’s affected based on the location of
the observer. It reconfirms the misconception that partially covering a convex lens will
cause half the image to disappear. It added a misconception that changing the location
of the light source would change the location of the object’s image.
The study suggests that the first step in overcoming these misconceptions is
acknowledging that they exist. It is important to take the time to discover them with a
class so students are aware of them as they move forward in the lessons. It also
discusses the need for teaching the least trivial examples possible so as to reflect that
physical reality is complex, but not necessarily complicated. It should be noted that
these points for addressing geometric optic misconceptions were posited by the authors
without significant evidence. Further work in attempting to test these teaching styles
should be considered, though the ideas have merit and shouldn’t be dismissed until the
research has been undertaken.

Conclusions on Geometrical Optics Misconceptions

The above studies all investigated the existence and prevalence of student
misconceptions in regards to geometric optics. Across the board, students consistently
had issues understanding where images propagate using mirrors and how lenses
actually form images. Often student misconceptions contradict themselves, but unless
students directly confront these contractions, they tend to hold onto the misconceptions.
It has been posited that ray diagrams are both a major source of student
misconceptions and also a powerful tool to dispel misconceptions. For the purposes of
efficiency and effectiveness, teachers tend use principal rays when modeling ray
diagrams for students. These tend to involve fewer measurements and allow for
repetition. On the surface these are both good things as they allow the student to grasp
the basics of ray diagrams; however, students can become fixated on the idea that only
two rays are needed to create each of the top and bottom points of an image. It is
extremely important that the teacher emphasise that these rays are tools used to
determine the location of the image, but that the actual image is formed by countless
other rays that interact with every part of the lens and contribute to the image.
Additionally, teachers need to explicitly state that not all rays used in a ray
diagram have a matching counterpart in reality. Rays that continue past the plane of a
mirror are virtual rays and need to be denoted differently than other rays through

3
methods such as dashed lines. An arrow should always be added to a ray diagram to
ensure the students understand where the light is traveling. This is especially true when
a ray is drawn from the eye of an observer. This technique is often used due to ease
and efficiency when determining the location of an image. If students can develop a firm
grasp of the concepts associated with creating ray diagrams, they will have a much
better chance of addressing their misconceptions around geometric optics.

Learning Goals

1. Students will develop an understanding of how convex lenses create images

2. Students will develop an understanding of how ray diagrams are used to
determine image locations
3. Students will improve their inquiry skills through T-GEM

Pedagogy

The following lesson will use the PhET simulation Geometric Optics (PhET,
2019) in conjunction with T-GEM to address misconceptions surrounding image
propagation of convex lenses. In particular, it will use the analysis of ray diagrams to
help inform how convex lenses work and what is needed to create an image. T-GEM
refers to: Technology, Generate, Evaluate, and Modify. It is a pedagogical theory that
involves a pattern of students generating, evaluating, and modifying knowledge using a
technological simulation (Khan, 2011, p. 215). The repeated pattern is important to the
process as it allows the students to confront their theories and adapt them until they fit
all of the scenarios presented by the teacher. This brings the students to self-generated
theories that match or are similar to the scientific theories the teacher is trying to explore
with them. This adds a level of ownership to the theories and further grounds the
students in scientific topics being investigated.
The simulation has five different manipulations for the rays. They are represented
by no rays, principal rays, marginal rays, multiple rays, and rays from multiple points on
the object. Using T-GEM, students will be directed to investigate each setting in a
specific order, record their observations, and determine whether their previous
conclusions need to be adjusted. The specific order to the investigation gives this
lesson a level of guided inquiry. The guided component is important as, while the goal is
for students to discover how images are formed using convex lenses and ray diagrams,
it is unlikely to occur in a timely fashion through random use of this specific simulation.
Using the simulation appropriately is key to a successful T-GEM based inquiry.
The PhET simulation being used in this lesson is part of a series of simulations
provided by the University of Colorado Boulder. The simulations have undergone

4
extension research over a number of years. When properly designed, computer
simulations are useful tools for a variety of contexts that can promote student learning
(Finkelstein, Perkins, Adams, Kohl, & Podolefsky. 2005. p. 7). Hands-on labs involving
light rays can often be difficult to run properly in high school settings. The light boxes
used are often old and do not produce the intensity of light rays needed for students to
easily see their interactions with the lens. The simulation provides quick and accurate
representations of image creation and shows exact representations of ray diagrams.
"Digital technologies such as computer simulations can be particularly engaging for
science students because they can manipulate variables in multiple ways and observe
changes as a result of this interaction" (Khan, 2011, p. 229).​ These quick and easy
manipulations allow for students to test multiple variables and theories in a short period
of time. T-GEM is also supported by computer simulations by being able to process
large amounts of information and view representations in multiple ways (Khan, 2011, p.
227).
A lesson plan has been created that follows the tenants laid out above.
Additionally, a video has been created to support the teacher in the use of the PhET
simulation. The video is not meant to be used with the students, but to demonstrate the
process of the lesson to the educator beforehand.

References

Blizak, D., Chafiqi, F., & Kendil, D. (2009, June). Students misconceptions about light in
Algeria. In ​Education and Training in Optics and Photonics​ (p. EMA5). Optical Society of
America.

Ceuppens, S., Deprez, J., Dehaene, W., & De Cock, M. (2018). Tackling
misconceptions in geometrical optics. ​Physics Education​, ​53​(4), 045020.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). ​Children’s ideas and the learning of
science​. Children’s ideas in science, 1-9.

Favale, F., & Bondani, M. (2013, July). Misconceptions about optics: An effect of
misleading explanations?. In ​Education and Training in Optics and Photonics​ (p. EThI4).
Optical Society of America.

Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When
learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer
simulations for laboratory equipment. ​Physics Education Research,1(​ 1), 1-8.

5
Khan, S. (2011). New Pedagogies on Teaching Science with Computer Simulations.
Journal Of Science Education And Technology, 20(​ 3), 215-.232

PhET Geometric Optics. (2019). Retrieved from:

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/geometric-optics/geometric-optics_en.html