Primary School Preservice Teachers’ Alternative Conceptions about Light Interaction with Matter (Reflection, Refraction, and Absorption) and Shadow Size Changes on Earth and Sun
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present qualitative study investigates the conceptual representations of 132 preservice Quebec elementary teachers regarding matter–light interaction (reflection, refraction, and absorption) and the size of the shadow of an object on the Earth’s surface illuminated by sunlight. A paper-and-pencil questionnaire composed of six questions was constructed and managed. The data analyses demonstrate that most encounter several conceptual difficulties in explaining phenomena related to light, which are omnipresent in their immediate environment and with which they interact daily. The conceptual difficulties identified in analyzing the students’ explanations were as follows: (1) a black-colored body absorbs all light rays; (2) light travels rectilinearly and stops when it hits a white paper; (3) a mirror reflects light; it does not absorb it; (4) the glass surface of a mirror reflects light; (5) specular reflection and diffuse reflection are confused; and (6) the shadow varies during the day because the Sun moves around the Earth. These findings have implications for creating teaching strategies that confront preservice elementary teachers’ alternative conceptions and their corresponding scientifically accepted counterparts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".