See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252972470

On the Conceptual Understanding of the Photoelectric Effect

Article · July 2010

DOI: 10.1063/1.3479845

CITATION READS

1 2,558

4 authors, including:

See Kit Foong Paul Lee

Nagoya University National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore
50 PUBLICATIONS   459 CITATIONS    333 PUBLICATIONS   5,585 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Darren Wong
Ministry of Education, Singapore
33 PUBLICATIONS   527 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Applying Mathematical Reasoning in Physics View project

Magnetic materials synthesis using plasma focus device View project

All content following this page was uploaded by See Kit Foong on 09 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 On the Conceptual Understanding of the
Photoelectric Effect
S. K. Foonga, P. Leeb, D. Wongc, and Y. P. Chee*d

Natural Sciences and Science Education, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore; * Present address: Higher Education Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore
a
seekit.foong@nie.edu.sg, bpaul.lee@nie.edu.sg, cdarren.wong@nie.edu.sg, dchee_yu_ping@moe.gov.sg

Abstract. We attempt an in-depth literature review that focuses on some finer aspects of the photoelectric
effect that will help build a more coherent understanding of the phenomenon. These include the angular distribution
of photoelectrons, multi-photon photoelectron emission and the work function in the photoelectric equation as being
that associated with the collector rather than the emitter. We attempt to explain the intricacies of the related
concepts in a way that is accessible to teachers and students at the Singapore GCE A-level or pre-university level.
Keywords: photoelectric effect, conceptual understanding, literature review, Singapore
PACS: 01.40.Fk; 01.50.Zv

INTRODUCTION information presented in typical A-level and

The photoelectric effect plays a prominent role in
helping students build their understanding of the
photon model for light. It is a key topic in the
Singapore A-level physics curriculum that points to
the inadequacy of the classical wave model in
explaining the observations of the photoelectric effect
and hence the introduction to the particle nature of
light. Figure 1 shows a typical schematic of the
photoelectric effect experiment.
FIGURE 1. Typical schematic of the photoelectric effect
experiment
We had earlier developed and trialed inquiry-based
instructional materials on this topic in four junior
colleges [1]. Through our interactions with teachers
and analyzing the student reasoning difficulties related
to the photoelectric effect, we realized that there were
gaps in our understanding of the topic and the
introductory undergraduate textbooks on the topic was
not sufficient to address and resolve some of the
questions from teachers and students. This motivated
us to conduct a more systematic literature review on
the conceptual understanding of photoelectric effect in
order to develop a deeper and more coherent
understanding of the topic.
SOME FINER ASPECTS
For this paper, we will focus on some finer aspects
of the photoelectric effect that will help build a more
coherent understanding of the phenomenon. These
include the angular distribution of photoelectrons,
multi-photon photoelectron emission and the work
function in the photoelectric equation as being that
associated with the collector rather than the emitter. In
the following sections, we will attempt to explain the
intricacies of the related concepts in a way that is
accessible to teachers and students at the A-level.
Angular Distribution of Photoelectrons
One of the pre-test questions in the trial of our
instructional materials [1] probed student’s thinking on
the relative number of photoelectrons reaching the
collector from the emitter. This required the
knowledge of the angular distribution of photoelectron

1
released in order to answer it correctly. About 90% of
the 152 students from the four junior colleges were not
able to answer it correctly. This prompted us to delve
deeper into the angular distribution of the emitted
photoelectrons from the surface of the emitter. A
literature search revealed that H. E. Ives et. al [2] had
studied the angular distribution of photoelectron
emission using two types of metal surfaces: liquid
alloys of sodium and potassium, and thin films of
potassium or rubidium, and found, as shown in Figure
2, that the experimental results is well described by a
Lambert’s cosine law, namely the intensity of the
photoelectrons emitted at angle θ to the normal to the
plane of the emitter is given by
I (θ ) = I 0 cos θ (1)
where I0 is the intensity in the normal direction. The
locus of I(θ) as described by eq. (1) is a circle of
radius ½I0 centered at ½I0 on the normal.
FIGURE 2. Experimental results showing symmetrical
angular distribution of photoelectrons well described by
Lambert’s law. Arrow shows direction of incidence of light.
Incident light with electric vector perpendicular (parallel) to
the plane of incidence is denoted by ┴ (║). (From Figure 18
of [2])
In the posttest, students were asked to sketch
graphs of photocurrent against the voltage applied V
for two wavelengths on the same axes. No mention
was made about the assumptions – whether the
intensity of light is kept constant (and thus the photon
flux is reduced for shorter wavelength) or whether the
photon flux is kept constant (and thus the intensity is
increased for shorter wavelength); this was left to the
interpretation of the students. As for the emission
efficiency, it is assumed at A-level to be 100% and is
frequency independent. Figure 3(a) and 3(b) show two
of their typical sketches. They are similar (and correct)
in terms of having two stopping voltages where the
current drops to zero, with the longer wavelength
having a smaller stopping voltage and lower
photocurrent. This is because photoelectrons generated
by the longer wavelength light have lower energy thus
less can overcome the potential energy barrier to make
it to the collector, and hence a lower photocurrent.
However, the sketches differ in how the photocurrents
intercept the I-axis (in other words, the behavior of the
currents at V=0) and the voltage at which the two
currents saturate: in 3(a) the two currents coincide and
saturate at V=0 while in 3(b) the photocurrent for the
shorter wavelength is larger until saturation where it
merges with that of the longer wavelength.
(a)
I
V
(b)
I
V
(c) I
FIGURE 3. (a), (b) Typical I-V curves drawn by students,
solid curve for short wavelength and dotted curve for long
wavelength, and (c) Our proposed I-V curve.
Which of 3(a) and 3(b) is correct for the region V ≥0?
Both do not fit the assumption that intensity of light is
kept constant since this requires the photocurrent at
saturation to be different: smaller when shorter
wavelength is used. With the assumption that the
photon flux is kept constant, the two currents must
coincide at V=0 (and Figure 3(a) meets this
requirement), regardless of the distribution of the
emitted photoelectrons, whether they obeyed
Lambert’s law or are emitted in the direction normal to
the emitter surface.
The difference in the distribution of the emitted
photoelectrons will nevertheless show up as the
voltage turns positive. For the Lambert’s distribution,
as the applied voltage is increased, the photocurrent
will rise as more photoelectrons that have earlier
missed the collector are captured. The slower the
emitted photoelectrons, the larger the fraction captured,
giving rise to a larger photocurrent for longer
wavelength since longer wavelength produces slower
2
emitted photoelectrons. As the applied voltage is seen that the experimental points near the maximum
increased further, a point will be reached where all the values of incident power fall very close to line B,
emitted photoelectrons are captured and the indicating that the total current in this region arises
photocurrent will cease to increase and saturate. Since almost exclusively from two-quantum transitions…”
shorter wavelength light produces higher energy
electrons, the applied voltage required for current
saturation is larger than that for the longer wavelength.
However, the value of the saturation current is the
same for both wavelength because the same number of
photoelectrons were emitted, a consequence of our
assumption.
If the photoelectrons were emitted in the direction
normal to the emitter surface, the photocurrent would
remain the same as the applied voltage is increased
beyond zero, as in Figure 3 (a), since the collector
plate is of the same size as the emitter plate and so all
photoelectrons emitted from the emitter plate would
had been captured. Thus, neither 3(b) nor 3(a) is
correct for the region V ≥0, and based on the
discussions up to this point, we propose the sketch of
Figure 3(c) as the most logical sketch for the I-V curve
for the photoelectric effect at A-level.

Multi-Photon Photoelectric Effect

In Singapore classrooms, it is typically emphasized
in the teaching of photoelectric effect that one photon
gives up all its energy to one electron, where in fact
two or three photons may deliver their energy to a
single electron: Two-photon photoelectric emission [3]
from a metal (sodium) surface of work function 1.95
eV when irradiated by photons of a lower energy 1.48
eV from a GaAs laser, and three-photon photoelectric
effect [4] in gold were already reported in the 1960s.
The conclusion that n-photon photoelectric effect
had been observed came from the way the
photoelectric current depended on the power of the
incident light. For example, the theoretical
calculations for the two-photon metal surface
photoelectric effect by Smith [5] predicted that the
double-quantum photocurrent is proportional to the
square of the incident radiation power and inversely
proportional to the area irradiated. Here, we quote
from the paper of Teich et. al [3] to illustrate how they
inferred the occurrence of two-photon photoelectric
effect from the results of a typical run shown in Figure
4: “…The resulting experimental data may be fitted
quite well by the curve A + B, obtained by adding line
A of slope 1 to line B of slope 2. Line A shows a linear
dependence of photoelectric current on light power
and represents the single-quantum photoelectric
contribution…, while line B shows a quadratic
dependence of photoelectric current on light power
representing the double-quantum photocurrent. It is
FIGURE 4. The photoelectric current against the peak
radiation power incident on the Na surface. (From Figure 2
of [3])
The Wrong Work Function
When eVs, where Vs is the stopping voltage, is
plotted against the frequency ν, one obtains the well-
known straight line
eV = hν − φ (2)
whose gradient gives a value for the Planck constant h.
The intercept φ on the eV-axis is nearly always
erroneously taken as the work function of the emitter
φe, instead of the correct work function of the collector,
φc, as pointed out and explained by James [6], as well
as Rudnick and Tannhauser [7] whom we based our
discussion here. To derive the equation, it is customary
to consider that an electron leaves the emitter after
absorbing a photon. Since by definition the work
function of a metal is defined as the minimum energy
necessary to transfer an electron from just inside the
metal to just outside the metal, energy balance dictates
that the maximum kinetic energy that the emitted
electrons can have is given by

3
 K max = hν − φ e (3)
Let’s assume that φc > φe and the voltage supply is
set to zero. In this case, the emitter and the collector
are both at the same potential since they are connected
through the wire, and therefore an electron at the
emitter will have the same energy as an electron at the
collector, and an electron at rest just outside the
emitter (collector) will have energy φe (φc). This
scenario may be illustrated by Figure 5.
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 5. Maximum energy inside the emitter and the
collector and minimum energy in the space between emitter
and collector (line BC). φe and φc are the respective work
functions. (a) No back-voltage applied (b) finite back-
voltage applied.
Thus in order that some of the emitted electrons make
it to the collector, we must have
K max ≥ φc − φe (4)
or hν ≥ φ c . (5)
Now consider the case when the voltage supply is
turned up to V volts to search for the stopping voltage
at which the emitted elections will not be able to make
it to the collector. In this case, the emitter and the
collector are no longer at the same potential – the
potential of the collector is lower than the emitter by V
volts, and therefore an electron at the collector will
have energy eV higher than an electron at the emitter,
and an electron at rest just outside the collector will
now have energy φc + eV, as illustrated by Figure 5.
Thus in order that some of the emitted electrons make
it to the collector, we must have
K max ≥ φc + eV − φe (6)
When V = Vs, only those photoelectrons with the
maximum kinetic energy can make it to the collector,
namely
View publication stats
K max = φc + eVs − φe
(7)
hv = φc + eVs
Therefore, the correct straight line equation describing
the Millikan type of photoelectric experiment is
eV = hν − φc (8)
DISCUSSION
Engaged students are capable of asking many
difficult questions that may be beyond the scope of the
class or even beyond the scope of the knowledge of the
teachers [8]. The understanding of finer aspects such
as these of the photoelectric effect is necessary for
comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was motivated by our earlier research
project where Professors L. McDermott, P. Shaffer, M.
Stetzer and Dr. A. Crouse of the PEG at the University
of Washington provided invaluable advice, and where
the principals, teachers and students of the
participating junior colleges provided much support.
We also thank our team members: C. C. Lim, S. K.
Munirah, C.Y. Lau, and Dr. L. Kwan for their
collaborations. This research is funded by the CRPP,
NIE, Singapore, through CRP 08/07 FSK.
REFERENCES
[1] Y. P. Chee, S. K. Munirah, C. C. Lim, T. S. Koh, C. Y.
Lau, D. Wong, Lyna, P. Lee and S. K. Foong: On
Improving Students’ Understanding of the Photoelectric
Effect. In Ayhan Bilsel and Mehmet Garip (Eds).
Proceedings of the Frontiers in Science Education
Research Conference 22-24 March 2009, p. 201-210.
(Famagusta: Eastern Mediterranean Univ. Press, 2009).
[2] H. E. Ives, A. R Olpin and A. L. Johnsrud, The
Distribution in Direction of Photoelectrons from Alkali
Metal Surfaces, Phys. Rev. 32, 57-80 (1928).
[3] M. C. Teich, J. M. Schroeer and G. J. Wolga, Double-
Quantum Photoelectric Emission from Sodium Metal,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 611-614 (1964).
[4] E. M. Logothetis and P. L. Hartman, Three-Photon
Photoelectric Effect in Gold, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 581-
583 (1967).
[5] R. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. 128, 2225 (1962).
[6] A. N. James, Photoelectric effect, a common
fundamental error, Phys. Educ. 8, 382-384 (1973).
[7] J. Rudnick and D. S. Tannhauser, Concerning a
Widespread Error in the Description of the Photoelectric
Effect, Am. J. Phys. 44, 796-798 (1976).
[8] S. B. McKagan, W. Handley, K. K. Perkins and C. E.
Wieman, A Research-based Curriculum for Teaching the
Photoelectric Effect, Am. J. Phys. 77, 87-94 (2009).