Learners' knowledge in optics: interpretation, structure and analysis

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

“…In these studies the researchers identified the abundance of the students" pre-and post-instruction schemes of knowledge and interpreted the gain in each scheme by a scheme gain coefficient (which is the difference in the abundance of each scheme before and after instruction). Among eight mentioned schemes, Spontaneous Vision had the most negative gain coefficient (-18 per cent), meaning that the students in this study changed their conception in "how we see objects" after instruction with more scientific conception schemes as analyzed by Galili and Hazan (2000a). In this study 166 high school and teacher training college students" knowledge of light, vision and related topics were explored before and after commonly practiced instruction.…”

Designs for Collective Cognitive Responsibility in Knowledge-Building Communities

“…Optics is a domain that often leads to young students demonstrating a broad array of naïve conceptions (Galili & Hazan, 2000). To assess scientific sophistication-the extent to which a student has moved from an intuitive toward a scientific framework-we coded students' ideas in their portfolio notes on a 4-point scale (1 = pre-scientific, 2 = hybrid, 3 = basically scientific, and 4 = scientific).…”

The sky as a topic in science education

“…Students' ideas with regard to visibility distance can be directly related to their views regarding vision in general (Galili & Hazan, 2000a). Thus, the scheme, which includes claims of "vision is weakening," as a natural fact (VS-I), is compatible with the Spontaneous Vision Scheme that implies vision performed "naturally," by a simple act of looking (a mere presence of the eye).…”

“…Later on, facing an extreme multiplicity of the documented facets-of-knowledge (reflecting a great veracity of the situations being explained), a hierarchy of the known facets was introduced (e.g., Galili & Hazan, 2000a, 2000bGalili & Lavrik, 1998). A two-level hierarchy was suggested to distinguish between the facets of a rather global, less context-dependent meaning (scheme-of-knowledge) and a more concrete facets-of-knowledge, presenting implication for a particular situation of a certain explanatory idea, stated by a scheme-ofknowledge.…”