International Journal of Science Education

ISSN: 0950-0693 (Print) 1464-5289 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Young children's (711) ideas about light and their

development
Jonathan F. Osborne , Paul Black , John Meadows & Maureen Smith
To cite this article: Jonathan F. Osborne , Paul Black , John Meadows & Maureen Smith (1993)
Young children's (711) ideas about light and their development, International Journal of
Science Education, 15:1, 83-93, DOI: 10.1080/0950069930150107
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150107

Published online: 24 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 198

View related articles

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20
Download by: [University of Aegean]

Date: 03 January 2017, At: 01:23

INT. J. Sci. EDUC., 1993, VOL. 15, NO. 1, 83-93

Young children's (7-11) ideas about light

and their development
Jonathan F. Osborne and Paul Black, Centre for Educational Studies,
King's College, London, John Meadows, South Bank Polytechnic, London,
and Maureen Smith, Inner London Education Authority, UK
This paper describes research work which examined and developed young children's (711) understanding of light and associated phenomena. Previous work in the area is reviewed briefly. The work consisted
of four phases: a pilot phase, a pre-intervention elicitation, an intervention phase and a post-intervention
elicitation. Data were collected by a mixture of writing and drawing from 64 children and analysed using
systemic networks to provide a semi-quantitative picture of children's thinking. This enabled a
comparison of the features of children's ideas before and after the intervention phase. The work focused
on four aspects of children's ideas about light: ideas about sources of light, representations of light, the
nature of vision and the context dependence of answers. Data presented concentrate on one of these
aspects, children's views of the nature of vision.
The intervention made use of a set of open-ended strategies that were based in children's thinking and
designed to provide an opportunity for children to express their own concepts. The intervention was
generally successful with significant changes being noted in several aspects of children's understanding.

Previous research and introduction

Children's understanding of phenomena associated with light has attracted considerable interest from a number of researchers in different countries. Most of this
work has been done with secondary-age pupils and has produced findings of
remarkable similarity, reflecting a cultural and linguistic independency.
Some of the earliest research findings reported in this area were by Piaget (1974)
who noted that young children make no connection between eye and object while at a
later stage they commonly think of vision as 'a passage from the eye to the object'.
The nature of this link was studied further by Guesne (1978), and she and others
have since researched this area in further depth. The following is a summary of the
findings to date.
Children's ideas about light
A minority of students hold the view that light is an omnipresent medium and is not
identified with a particular source (La Rosa et al. 1984). Students holding this
conception will view daylight as providing a 'sea of light' which enables vision
(Guesne 1978). The light is located in space between source and effect and does not
propagate through space.
Guesne (1978) found that a minority of older children (13-14) would recognize
the notion of light moving in a rectilinear path and use this to explain shadows. She
identified two groups with distinctive notions which she saw as part of a
developmental process. Those students, generally younger (11-12), who equated
0950-0693/93 $1000 1993 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

84

RESEARCH REPORTS

light with its source, its effects or its state and those who recognized light as a separate
entity, situated in space between the source and its effects. The former would often
talk about light being 'in the bulbs' or 'on the ceiling' while the latter would talk about
light not being 'able to pass through the paper', causing a shadow. However, their
conception of movement along the path was unclear and their answers suggested that
light needs an impetus to maintain its motion throughout space. Stead and Osborne
(1980), using a set of simple but revealing multiple-choice questions, showed that the
impetus notion was widely held. With faint sources, the light did not move beyond
the surface of the source. It would also travel further at night. This view is supported
by work done by Guesne (1978) and by Andersson and Karrqvist (1983). There is
little evidence in any of the work that children commonly see light as something
which propagates indefinitely through space.
Shadows are often seen as being 'reflections' of objects. Guesne (1978) gave
several examples in which the term 'reflection' is used to explain shadow formation.
However, both she and Ramadas (Ramadas and Driver 1989) pointed to the fact
that the term is used loosely to describe the similarity of form, i.e., that the child is
merely equating the light with its effects, noting the correlation of the effects. Such
children would be able to predict the shape of the shadow correctly but would not be
able to predict the effect of changing the spatial relationship between source, object
and screen.
Image formation by a plane mirror has also been extensively investigated (Jung
1981, Guesne 1985, Watts 1985, Goldberg and McDermott 1986). The common
feature of this work is the widely and strongly held view that the image is resident on
the mirror or possibly just behind it. Ramadas (Ramadas and Driver 1989) reported a
study carried out in India with a group of 1415-year-olds with a teaching sequence
which was designed to challenge their ideas about the position of the image. Notably
it failed to produce any significant shift in their thinking.

Children's ideas about vision

Vision is perceived as an active process in which the subject is the origin of the
process. Typically a child will state
... Here my eyes can go right up to the box.... It's my sight.... If it [the box] was fifteen
kilometres away, I couldn't see it, because... my sight isn't strong enough ... (Guesne
1978, p. 26, emphasis added)
Guesne drew a careful distinction between this and historical parallels, notably the
Pythagorean view that vision was exclusively due to an invisible fire emanating from
the eyes. Children see the movement from the eyes to the object as something which
is essentially abstract and this is clearly differentiated from the 'visual fire' of early
theories. She found that, for a significant number of children, vision is represented as
a process in which the eye is sending out 'rays' which return to the head with a
message or picture. Remarkably similar ideas were found in the research of
Andersson and Karrquist (1983) who looked at the understanding of light held by
Swedish pupils, aged 12-15. Both Guesne and Andersson and Karrqvist (1983)
found that the physicist's model is relatively rare at this age. This evidence would
support Piaget's view (1974) that only children who achieve formal operations are
capable of recognizing that light exists as an independent entity between the eye and
object.

YOUNG CHILDREN'S IDEAS ABOUT LIGHT

85

Work by Crookes and Goldby (1984) revealed that some children held the view
that light comes to the eye and then goes to the object. This idea was also supported
by Ramadas and Driver (1989). The latter's research used some Assessment of
Performance Unit (APU) data to produce an extensive schema for classifying
children's ideas of vision. A simpler version was used by Guesne which identifies the
sequence of notions of ambient light, a sourceobject link, a sourceobject link with
'active' vision and a sourceobject link with receptive vision. Clearly identifiable in
this scheme are the two separate links that have to be made, i.e., source-object and
object-eye and the joint association between the two.
Both Guesne (1985) and Andersson and Karrqvist (1981) have pointed to the
influence of the metaphors used in language that help to reinforce the idea of vision as
a process in which something emanates from the eye. We 'look daggers', 'cast our
gaze', have 'piercing eyes' and 'stare at objects'. Such language clearly reflects and
reinforces the intuitive understanding found in many children. In addition, comic
strip figures have 'X-ray vision' which can penetrate walls. Jung (1987) makes the
case that common discourse is an accurate interpretation of children's understandings. Their ideas and language are rooted in a phenomenological approach to
learning. La Rosa et al. (1984) used Jung's earlier work (1981) to define an
interpretative framework for analysing data from 63 secondary school students (aged
16-17). Their work confirmed the findings of other researchers leading them to the
conclusion that 'it is difficult to find situations which challenge the predictive power
of such models'.
The work described here forms part of the SPACE project described in the
introduction to the paper by Harlen and Russell (1990). Whilst there are several
accounts in the literature about children's understanding of light, very little is
reported with children in the 7-11 age range that attempts to be systematic with the
qualitative data or to explore methods and possibilities of developing children's
understanding. The work reported here had four aims. The first was to explore ways
of eliciting ideas through the active involvement of the pupils in discussion and
experiment. A second aim was to develop systematic ways of analysing qualitative
data produced from these activities. The third aim was to design intervention
activities, involving practical explorations and discussions by pupils, and the fourth
aim was to explore the changes arising from these interventions using the methods of
analysis evolved previously.
Methodology
The approach taken to the research reported in this paper was based on four phases:
(a) pilot exploration; (b) pre-intervention data collection; (c) intervention; and (d)
post-intervention data collection.
Five primary schools (teaching the age range 5 to 11) were approached in the
Inner London area to work with the authors. Schools were selected from a range of
catchment areas to give a sample of children with a broad spread of abilities.
During the pilot phase, extensive interviews were conducted with a small sample
of materials using a wide range of activities to explore children's understanding of
the phenomena. Those activities which elicited relevant and wide-ranging responses
from children were selected and refined. The material employed was a mixture of
items used previously in the secondary sphere (Stead and Osborne 1980, Crookes
and Goldby 1984) and new instances devised by the research team. This phase was

86

RESEARCH REPORTS

considered necessary in view of the lack of any substantive documentation for the age
range and the necessity for the team to familiarize themselves with children's
thinking at these ages. Two extracts which reveal a typical understanding held by
children were as follows.
Interviewer:
Sam:
Interviewer:
Sam:

How does light get here?

By the light bulb and from the wires.
From the wires?
Yes, it comes up through the electricity in the wires.

Interviewer:
Sam:
Anne:

What happens to the sun at night?

It changes into the moon.
The sun goes out.

As a result of the pilot investigation, six activities were chosen for use in the
elicitation phase: investigating where light comes from; how bicycle reflectors work;
investigations with a torch and a mirror; investigations with a torch and paper;
looking at candles; and how do we see?
The activities were used with children on an individual basis to gather data about
their understanding of light. The data collected consisted of drawings and written
material; complete data from all phases of the research was obtained from 64 children
in six classes within the age range 7 to 11. The data collected were discussed with
teachers to provide some insight into the range of ideas and understanding expressed
by children in their classrooms.
The data were then analysed (see results below) and the preliminary results of
this examination were used to design intervention activities. The rationale underpinning the intervention was twofold: first, that children should be provided with an
opportunity to express their own ideas and hypotheses about phenomena, and that
experiences provided by the invention should be appropriate to developing their
thinking from their current conceptions; second, that since one of the purposes of
science education is to develop an understanding which is closer to the current
scientific perspective, intervention activities should facilitate the development of this
understanding.
Thus, for the design of the interventions, a list of concepts commensurate with a
scientific understanding was compiled. These concepts were then compared with the
evidence of the nature of children's thinking observed from the data to guide the
design of the interventions so that they would reflect the principles previously
outlined. Intervention activities were selected that would require children to
hypothesize about the way light travels and how they are able to see light, requiring
them to use a representation of light. The intervention consisted of three activities:
bouncing light around a table; investigating shadows; passing light through a box.
In the first of these, children were asked to participate in a game and guess how
they could possibly bounce light from a bright torch around the four sides of a table
using mirrors and to draw their ideas before attempting the activity. In the second
activity, children were asked to predict where the shadow of a pencil would fall and
the effect of moving the source. In the final intervention activity, children were
provided with a shoe box with two holes on either side and a mirror placed at one end.
The box was sealed. Children were asked to try and make the light go straight
through with one child shining the torch and the other looking through the hole.
Then they were asked to see if they could make the light go into the box, bounce off
the mirror and out again. The final activity asked them to discuss whether they would

YOUNG CHILDREN'S IDEAS ABOUT LIGHT

87

be able to see the light going through when they looked into this same box through a
third hole opposite the mirror. Common to all these activities was a requirement that
children should discuss and represent their ideas about possible solutions prior to
any attempt and for the successful solution to be drawn and discussed with their
peers and their teacher.
A group meeting was held with all the teachers prior to the intervention to discuss
the approach and introduce the activities. In addition, teachers were visited
individually to discuss the results of the elicitations and, thereafter, on a regular basis
throughout the intervention, to provide clarification and assistance when necessary.
The activities normally took place in the context of classrooms where children
were engaged in a variety of activities simultaneously and children were given up to
half a morning to complete each activity. The activities were normally organized and
run by the class teacher. However, in one school, where the teacher lacked confidence
with the material and approach, initial assistance was provided in the classroom by
one of the authors.
After the intervention activities had ceased, and always within a fortnight,
researchers visited the schools and carried out another phase of elicitation using
materials that were identical to those used previously. The results described below
thus comprise two sets of elicited data, pre- and post-intervention for both upper and
lower juniors.

Results
The qualitative data were collected from children's written responses and drawings
and analysed using systemic networks (Bliss, Monk and Ogborn 1983). Only
children who were present in both the pre- and post-elicitation phase were used for
the sampling. This approach identified four main features of interest in children's
ideas. These were:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

sources of light;
representations of light;
the nature of vision;
the context dependence of answers.

For the purpose of this paper, the results reported focus principally on the section in
category (iii), namely children's ideas about the nature of vision, as an exemplar. Full
details of the investigations and results for the other areas can be found in the
published research reports by Osborne, Black, Smith and Meadows (1990).
Figure 1 shows the final network used for classifying children's responses which
expressed their understanding of the nature of vision. Several items in the elicitation
were specifically designed to explore this topic. How the responses are coded can be
understood by examining figure 2 b in combination with figure 1. It was found that
children offered responses about vision that consisted of no explanation, explanations without links and explanations with links. The response shown is clearly an
explanation with links. Of the explanations with links, some were consistent in all
responses and these were considered to be examples where the child was using a
single model of explanation while some were inconsistent between one response and
another (dual models). The other data obtained from this child indicated that her
responses were inconsistent and hence she was using 'dual models'. Since the

88

RESEARCH REPORTS
PRE-INTERVENTlON
Lowor
Juniors
n-31

Uppot
Juniors
n-33
16

POST INTERVENTION

Juniors
n-31
11

- 10 object

-to objeci > to eye

- no arrows

-to y > lo object

object/dye
pmgle
ingle link

\c

13

10

23

2C

18

24

26

22

I
s

consisting 4
0

[_ beams/panicles/

igle model
dual model

12

21

Explanations (see 'with pupils'/]

'without links (with our eyes/
)
('just see' etc
)

no explanalio

ia*"

25

Ldual links
lines

Explanations
^ w i t h links
'

both

13
1

wiih
piopanie

Upprtf
Junlor6
n-33

11

Notes: 1. The network contains a recursive branch and should be examined by commencing with the
figures for 'single' and 'dual' models, i.e. for Lower juniors there were 12 single model responses (with
links) prior to the intervention and four dual responses making 20 responses (with links) in all. The upper
half of the network shows what form these responses took. 2. Changes which are significant at p < 001 are
shown with ** and those which are significant at p< 005 are shown with *. The significance of responses
has been evaluated by considering the change in the total number of responses of any one type in relation
to the others. For instance, the number of responses from upper juniors which show vision in terms of a
single link to object from the eye decreases from 16 out of 27 responses to 13 out of 44 responses.

Figure 1. Network analysis of children's responses to questions about the

nature of seeing.

network contains no more branches at this position, this branch is known as a

'terminal' and the count at this terminal incremented by one.
The nature of the link is then categorized. The response in figure 2 b consists of
lines so the terminal denoted 'lines' in figure 1 is marked. The properties of the
response show single links to the object from both the eye and the source which is
indicated by marking the terminal 'both'. Finally the response shows a direction of
travel to the object from both the eye and the source which is marked in the terminal
'from both'.
For the purpose of analysis, children in the first two years of junior school (aged
7-9) were classified as 'lower juniors' while children in the last two years (aged 9-11)
were classified as 'upper juniors'. The network shows four broad categories of
response:

YOUNG CHILDREN'S IDEAS ABOUT LIGHT

With

89

ort>

Figure 2 a. 8-year-old child.

Figure 2 b. 10-year-old child.

Children who provided no explanation about vision: For these children, the process of
vision appeared to be non-problematic and explanations and drawings provided no
indication of anything other than the simple act of looking. A typical diagram would
be a picture of a child and a book with nothing between them.
Children who provided explanations without links: These children provided simple
mechanistic explanations which recognized that eyes are essential to vision and that
light is needed for vision. Such a response is typified by the following extract.
We would tell them that when the light is on our eyes we can read the words. But when
the light if off we can't read the words.
However, these explanations failed to provide any further detail of the role played by
light.
Children who provided explanations in terms of simple links: Many children provided
responses (figure 2 a) which consisted of a single link between eye and object which in
some cases included a direction. Such drawings were considered to be consistent
with the idea that vision is active in selecting and viewing.
Children who provided explanations in terms of dual links: A small number of children
recognized the need to show a source-object and object-eye link to explain vision.
Identifying that light is necessary 'to see' and 'we need our eyes to see with' led to a
wide variety of attempts to show such thinking. Figure 2 b shows one child's attempt
to reconcile these views and explain how they are able to see the torchlight in the
mirror.
The network analysis provides a fuller view of the range of thinking exhibited by
children about light. The data show a significant increase between pre- and postelicitation in the numbers of both lower juniors, from 16 to 28 (/><0-01), and upper
juniors, from 24 to 3 3 (p < 0-05), who show a link between eye and object. One feature
of the data is the change in the number of explanations to explain vision in terms of
links by upper juniors (9-11). The number using single links between eye and object
changed from 25 out of 27 responses (pre-intervention) to 24 out of 44 (p<0-0\,
post-intervention). This was accompanied by a significant increase in the numbers of
responses from upper juniors which showed dual links, from 2 out of 27 to 20 out
of 44 (/><0-01).
All the other terminals were analysed for significant changes. The data show
clearly that many more significant changes occurred for upper juniors than for lower
juniors.
Analysis of the data with a network provided a summary for the whole cohort but
failed to provide evidence of the changes that occurred for individual children. A

90

Figure 3 a.

RESEARCH REPORTS

Schematic map of changes in links used by children (Upper

juniors) to explain vision.

Figure 3 b. Schematic map of changes in directions of links used by

children (Upper juniors) in explaining vision.
methodology we developed based on a schema of categories. Children were then
placed on this schema depending on their response to the collection of items. This
process was then repeated for their response in the post-elicitation phase. The
diagrams shown in figures 3 a and 3 b show the results for upper juniors. Each
enclosed area represents one of the four classifications into which each pupil's
response was assigned. The numbers show changes only, those on arrows representing the number of pupils who changed in the direction indicated, those in boxes
representing the number who did not change. Thus for vision (figure 3 a), of the
original 43 responses showing no links, 29 changed to showing single or dual links, 14
did not change and 3 regressed to this category.
The diagram provides a visual representation of the range of thinking expressed
by children between no understanding and a complete understanding of vision and
the movement of individuals within that. In these terms, 56% of upper juniors
showed an improvement in their understanding, 38% maintained the same and 6%
regressed.
The data for response elements are summarized in a different way in table 1,
where results for lower juniors are included. Table 1 shows the data for the changes
in children's explanations of vision (vision) and changes in the direction of vision
indicated (directions).
Comparison of upper and lower juniors show that changes for lower juniors are
similar but less marked.

91

YOUNG CHILDREN'S IDEAS ABOUT LIGHT

Table 1. Percentage of responses by children showing changes between

pre- and post-elicitation.

No change
Upper
Vision
juniors Directions
(iV=95)

38

Lower
Vision
juniors Directions
(JV=87)

48

Change to more
features of
a scientific
model

Change to fewer
features of
a scientific
model

56
59

6
33

46
68

6
21

11

N Is the total number of responses obtained from children, i.e. there were an average of three responses
per child that provided an explanation for vision.

Table 2. Data showing aspects of children's representations of light.

Pre-intervention

Extensive lines
Use of arrows
More than one
representation of
light

Post-intervention

Lower
juniors
(%)

Upper
juniors
(%)

Lower
juniors
(%)

Upper
juniors
(%)

39
35

52
48

87
42

82
66

26

27

48

61

Results-sources of light, representations of light and

context dependence
The methods of elicitation, intervention, and analysis of pre- and post-elicitation
results were similar to those used for vision. This section gives only a very brief
summary of the outcomes.
For sources, children showed awareness of a wide variety of sources, predominantly primary sources for 7-9-year-olds with a more complex model incorporating
recognition of secondary sources, e.g. by reflection or scattering for 911 -year-olds.
The intervention produced very little change in children's understanding of sources
and it is possible that the significant differences between the ages are due to everyday
experience and its effect on development.
The representations used by children covered a wide range. Children were asked
to use drawings in their explanations of activities they undertook with sources and
mirrors and these drawings were a rich source of data. The dominant feature was the
use of lines to represent light from the earliest age (age 7). Light around a source was

92

RESEARCH REPORTS

nearly always represented by short lines. Less popular representations used broken
lines or strings of small balls, and shading across the whole area to represent 'a sea of
light'. Also used were indications of beams by means of broad patches and the use of
'blobs', a term children used to describe patches of light which they drew at the end
of a torch or mirror or piece of paper.
The data in table 2 show that the use of extensive lines, e.g. to link a source to an
object or an object to the eye, was limited prior to the intervention but enhanced
afterwards with increased use of arrows for the older children.
Another notable feature shown by the data in table 2 was that representations,
particularly for upper juniors (9-11) were more varied and context dependent after the
intervention in that increased use of more than one representation was found. Most
of this can be accounted for by the additional use of beams to represent light. Very
few children, even before the intervention, attempted no representation of light.
More evidence of context dependence in children's responses was obtained from
their explanations for vision. Figure 1 shows that four lower juniors and three upper
juniors used 'dual models', i.e., responses that showed single links in one instant and
dual links in another before the intervention. After the intervention, this had
diminished to zero 'dual models' for lower juniors and increased to 11 for upper
juniors. The pattern that emerged from the data was that a significant minority of
children failed to produce a consistent response to similar items.

Conclusions
The data presented here support earlier research findings for older children, notably
for children's ideas about vision and light. As such, they provide evidence that
children are able to articulate models of phenomena associated with light at a
younger age than previously reported. They also provide some insight into the
nature and development of children's thinking. The data presented in figures 3 a and
3 b, which have arisen from an interplay of the researchers' models of scientific
understanding and the empirical evidence from children, may represent a map of
children's conceptual development in their understanding of vision. Analysis of the
data has been attempted more systematically than previously and gives a new form of
indication of the range, fluidity and context dependence of children's thinking.
The data obtained pre- and post-intervention are useful in providing a
perspective on the effect of one attempt to change children's thinking. The overall
character of the intervention is successful and does show that changes can be made in
children's ideas without didactic methods. This result was based on using relatively
'informal' and open-ended activities which provide an opportunity for children to
explore phenomena which take place in ordinary classrooms where the assistance
provided by researchers to teachers was minimal.
There is clearly a need for delayed post-tests to provide a fuller description of the
long-term effects of the intervention. A comparison with other interventions in
different concept areas using the same methodology would help to explore the
contribution of the methodology to the overall result.
This article is only a short account of the research work and the results. A full
account is described in Osborne et al. (1990).

YOUNG CHILDREN'S IDEAS ABOUT LIGHT

93

References
B. and KARRQVIST, C. (1981). Light and its Properties. EKNA report No. 8,
Institution for Praktisk Pedagogik, Goteborg Universitet, Sweden.
ANDERSSON, B. and KARRQVIST, C. (1983). How Swedish pupils, aged 12-15 years, understand
light and its properties. European Journal of Science Education, 5 (4), 387-402.
BLISS, J., MONK, M. and OGBORN, J. (1983). Qualitative Data Analysis for Educational
Research. London, Croom Helm.
CROOKES, J. and GOLBY, G. (1984). How we see things. In The Science Curriculum Review in
Leicestershire (Eds.), Science as a Process: Encouraging the Scientific Activity of
Children, Leicestershire Education Authority (pp. 71-85).
GOLDBERG, F. and MCDERMOTT, L. C. (1986). Student difficulties in understanding image
formation by a plane mirror. The Physics Teacher, 24, 472-480.
GUESNE, E. (1978). Lumire et vision des objets: une example de representations des
phnomnes physique, preexistant l'enseignement. In G. Delacote (Ed.), Physics
Teaching in Schools. London, Taylor & Francis (pp. 265273).
GUESNE, E. (1984). Children's ideas about light. In E. J. Wenham (Ed.), New Trends in Physics
Teaching, IV. Paris, UNESCO (pp. 179-191).
GUESNE, E. (1985). Light. In R. Driver, E. Guesne and A. Tiberghien (Ed.), Children's Ideas
in Science. Milton Keynes, Open University Press (pp. 10-32).
HARLEN, W. and RUSSELL, T. (1990). Children's ideas about evaporation. International
Journal of Science Education, 11 (5), 566-576.
JUNG, W. (1981). Conceptual frameworks in elementary optics. Paper presented at the
International Workshop, Selbstverlag Pdagogische Hochschule, Ludwigsburg.
JUNG, W. (1987). Understanding Students' Understandings: The Case of Elementary Optics.
Proceedings of the Second International Seminar: Misconceptions and Educational
Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Vol. III (pp. 268-277), Dept. of Education,
Cornell University, U.S.A.
LA ROSA, C , MAYER, M., PATRIZI, P. and VINCENTINI-MISSONI, M. (1984). Commonsense
knowledge in optics: preliminary results of an investigation into the properties of light.
European Journal of Science Education, 6 (4), 387-397.
OSBORNE, J., BLACK, P., SMITH, M. and MEADOWS, J. (1990). Light-Science Process and
Concept Exploration Project Report. Liverpool, Liverpool University Press.
PIAGET, J. (1974). Understanding Causality. New York, W. W. Norton.
RAMADAS, J. and DRIVER, R. (1989). Aspects of secondary students' ideas about light. Centre
for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
RONCHI, V. (1970). The Nature of Light: An Historical Survey. London, Heinemann.
STEAD, B. F. and OSBORNE, R. J. (1980). Exploring science students' concepts of light.
Australian Science Teachers Journal, 26 (3), 84-90.
WATTS, D. M. (1985). Student conceptions of light: a case study. Physics Education, 20 (4),
183-187.
ANDERSSON,