English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

During our activities of physics dissemination with High School students especially concerning optics, we are used to distribute a questionnaire about colors and image formation by mirrors and lenses. The answers to some questions clearly show misconceptions and naïve ideas about colors, ray tracing, image formation in reflection and refraction. These misconceptions are widespread and do not depend on the gender, the level, and the age of the students: they seem to depend on some wrong ideas and explanatory models that are not changed by the curricular studies at school. In fact, the same errors are present in groups of students before and after taking optics courses at High School. On the other hand we have also found some misleading explanations of the phenomena both in textbooks and websites. Most of the time, errors occur in the explanatory drawings accompanying the text, which are based on some hybrid description of the optical processes: sometimes the description of the path of the ray light is confused with the image reconstruction by the lenses. We think that to partially avoid some errors it is important to use a teaching path centered on the actual path of the rays and not on what eyes see (the vision). Here we present the results of data collected from more than 200 students and some considerations about figures and explanations found in textbooks.

Misconceptions about optics: An effect of misleading explanations?