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

net/publication/234725712

Shadow Shapes

Article · January 1986

CITATIONS READS
6 1,955

2 authors, including:

Elsa Feher
University of California, San Diego
16 PUBLICATIONS   998 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Elsa Feher on 04 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Shadows and Anti-Images:
Children’s Conceptions of Light
and Vision. II.

ELSA FEHER AND KAREN RICE

Natural Science Department, San Diego State University, Sun Diego, CA
921 82

Introduction

“A shadow is an image that isn’t there” (Cole, 1980). This reciprocity

between a shadow and an image, or between the role of the obstacles (o-
paque objects) and apertures (windows) that form them, is apparent to the
physicist for whom a shadow is a kind of “anti-image’’ (Fig. 1).
In a companion article (Rice and Feher, 1987) we dealt with the concep-
tions held by school children about light propagation and image formation.
Using a very simple set-up consisting of a light source in the shape of a cross,
a screen and a set of circular apertures, we elicited children’s predictions and
explanations of the effects obtained. Their answers delineate what we have
called a “holistic” model, in which the light source emits a cross of light that
travels as a whole in space, and fits or squeezes through the apertures placed
in its path.
What happens if, instead of apertures, opaque objects are placed between
cross-source and screen? Do the notions of fit, squeeze and holistic propaga-
tion appear again? How is the shadow interpreted? As we report in this
article, most middle school children do not think of opaque objects (that
stop light by reflecting or absorbing it) as being the counterpart of apertures
(that let light through unchanged); they do not think of shadows as anti-
images but, rather, as dark images, a presence of something rather than an
absence of light. As a child put it in one of our interviews: “A shadow is
something that follows you around in the light.”
With the exceptions of the work of Piaget (1930) and Guesne (1 985), the
concept of shadow formation is a topic of investigation that has not received
in-depth attention. Yet, as we shall see, it is a very rich subject that yields a
wealth of insights on children’s notions about light and vision.

Work supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant MDR - 8652146.

Science Education 72(5): 637-649 (1988)

0 1988 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/88/0SO637-13$04.00
638 FEHER AND RICE

Figure 1. A pinhole and a bead placed in front of a cross-shaped light source (right) form, respec-
tively, a cross-shaped image and a cross-shaped shadow or “anti-image’’ on the screen (left).

Procedures

As in the work on pinholes and images (Rice and Feher, 1987), we inter-
viewed children ages 8 to 14 at our local science museum, the Reuben H.
Fleet Science Center. The exhibit we used consists of a screen, a light source
in the shape of a cross and opaque objects to be placed between source and
screen. The light source is made up of two perpendicular fluorescent tubes,
each 20 cm long. The objects used are spherical: one is a bead of diameter
d = l cm, small compared to the dimensions of the source; the other is a ball
of diameter d=20 cm, comparable in size to the source.
The dramatic effect shown at this exhibit is that when the bead is placed
in front of the cross light, about halfway between source and screen, the
shadow that appears is not in the shape of the bead but in the shape of the
light source, a cross.
The standard explanation of this phenomenon is as follows: Each point of
the light source emits rays in all directions. Each ray travels in a straight line
from the source to the screen unless it is blocked by an opaque object. In the
limiting case of a tiny bead only one ray is blocked for each point in the
cross light. Thus there is a point by point correspondence between the
shadow and the source. This explanation is similar to the one for pinhole
image formation, with the bead acting like an “anti-pinhole” and the shadow
as an “anti-image’’ of the source. (See Feher and Rice, 1986, Figs. 1, 2, 3.)
When the large ball is placed before the cross light, the shadow appears to
be like the ball but somewhat squarish. We can think of this object as being
made up of a large number of small beads. The center region of the shadow,
where all the cross-shadows overlap, is very dark. Along the edges the cross-
shadows give the shape its squareness.
We interviewed forty children using a protocol that was developed through
more than fifty pilot interviews. The basic protocol consists of six questions.
The first two are general and independent of the exhibit; the other four are
task-oriented and were asked while children interacted with the exhibit:
 SHADOWS AND ANTI-IMAGES 639

1. “What is a shadow?”
2. “Is there a shadow in the dark. where there is n o light?”
3. “If you put this ball here, what will you see on the screen when I turn on this
light? Show me with a drawing.”
4. “If you now put this small bead here in front of the light, what will you see
on the screen when I turn on the light? Show me with a drawing.”
5. Interviewer turns on the light while the child holds the bead in front of it.
“Can you explain why the shadow is a cross? Make a drawing.”
6. “Would you like to change your prediction for the big ball? If so. make a new
drawing.”

Together with each request for a drawing, the interviewer makes a skele-
ton diagram showing a cross (the light source) and a large or small circle (the
ball or bead) for the child to fill in. Other questions were also asked in the
course of the interview in order to clarify the meaning of the children’s
drawings and verbalizations.

Results

Figure 2 illustrates the matrix format (the total matrix contains six col-
umns and forty rows) used to organize children’s answers and diagrams. The
protocol appears along the top horizontal line and each row below it con-
tains the schematic data from one interview. This is a very useful method of
organization that permits easy comparison of the answers of different chil-
dren to the same question. It also allows us to follow the answers of one
child to the different questions to check for stability of ideas across the
responses.

What is a shadow?

The children answered this question either by describing how a shadow is

formed or by describing the shadow itself. We classified their answers into
four types:
1. A shadow is formed when the light is blocked or deflected by an object.
2. A shadow is formed when the light acts on an object, when the light “reflects
on.” “shines on.” or “hits” an object.
3. A shadow is a “reflection.”
4. A shadow is “an image.” “a picture” that is the same shape and looks like the
object.

The use of the terms “reflection” and “reflect” is of interest (see also
Guesne, 1985) since it shows an inappropriate use of scientific terms that
can be deceiving. When the children call a shadow a “reflection,” there is no
evidence or implication that its formation has anything to do with the reflec-
tion of light. Rather, the term is used synonymously with “image” or
640 FEHER AND RICE
SUE!.lECT# PREDICTION WlTH BALL PREDlCTlON WITH BEAD EXPLANATION AFTER “WOULD YOU CHANGE
SEEING EFFECT YOUR PREDICTION
WITH BEAD FOR THE BALL?”

17
Girl 8 yeam
Grade 3
I
I
me Ihghl IS movmg thls way
so lhe shadows have lo
move (hat way loo
Iighl blockage
I gOmQ to show the bead tm I
*12

Grade 3
Lahl goes around shadow

r20
Girl 1 1 yeam
Grade 6 dark bigger

bhl -I I out
I
1
I

Giri 11 years
Grade6 The light comes and
Ah, cool The shadow d the
c r o and
~ bead‘ I NO, keep fl the same

r e l M S OW the ball and

L25
Boy I 1 years
Grade 5 some llght Light that goas from here
turns d o h
I The C h t g d n mht Pasf n
and (urn6 darh right on the 11 C h a w I to a blpscmy

1 screen.

u3i
;YE-
>’ g
\ / a +., Q --
e
Boy. yea5 The crolui hfls hem, then It Keep il. bOCaues that ball is
Light reltects on the hell The light h1s the bead then ref&ts on to th0 screen. Mseer The Ight hldss
Grade6 and the shadow qoes to the the shadow rellecls w1 lo behind the ball and mokea

I the screen. a refleclwn 01 Ihe whob

ball.

Figure 2. A portion of the matrix used to organize the results. Each horizontal line represents the
answers of one individual to the questions in the top row.

“picture” as in “I see my reflection in a mirror.” Type 3 answers then, are a

special case of type 4 that we separated out for the sake of emphasis. In type
2 answers we find the term “reflect” is used synonymously with “hits” or
“moves” and we hear phrases such as “the shadow reflects to the wall” with-
out reference to bouncing or changing direction.
See Table I for examples and frequency occurrence of answers to this
question;

Is there a shadow in the dark, where there is no light?

Although all children interviewed said that a shadow cannot be seen in

the dark, the underlying reasons were of two kinds:
About half the children said you cannot see the shadow because it does
not exist in the dark since light is necessary t o “make” it. The mechanisms
for making the shadows are the same as those invoked in the answers to
“What is a shadow?”: either light is blocked or deflected by the object or the
light acts on the object t o produce the shadow.
 SHADOWS AND ANTI-IMAGES 641

TABLE I
"What is a shadow?": Frequency of Occurrence of Various Types of Answers
(N=40)
TYPE EXAMPLE FREQUENCY

Light is blocked " A shadow is where light cannot go through so it's 27%
or deflected darker where light is not"
" A shadow is the darkness that the light can't
reach because you're blocklng i t "
"The object blocks out the light so it can't get
through."

Light acts on "The sun is so hot it hits you like a beam and the 45%
object shadow comes off you."
"Light shines on you and your shadow goes on
the ground"
"When you're walking, the sun hits you and the
shadow hits the ground"
"The sun reflects your shadow on the ground"
"When light hits an object, the object reflects the
shadow."

" IY s a reflection of yourself." 18%

i(
-3 Reflection "Your reflectionon the ground."

Image of the " I t s your image, like you" 10%

object "It's like a picture of yourself with no color."
S
u)

The other half of the children thought the shadow is actually there but we
cannot see it. One reason given for this is that light is needed t o release
the shadow from the object to where it will show. Another is that our visual
mechanisms aren't operative in the dark: our eyes don't function without
light or there is no contrast or the shadow is not illuminated. Some children
invoked both these arguments.
Table I1 gives examples and shows the frequency of occurrence of these
responses.

Predictions.

More than three quarters of the children predicted that the shadow would
be a circle for both the ball and the bead. The remainder predicted shadows
that include or blend elements of the source and the object, such as a circle
with a cross inside it. (See Table 111.) The explanations and diagrams that
accompanied these predictions clarify the children's thinking. They fall into
two broad categories: 1. Those that emphasize that the shadow is caused by
the absence of light (the light is blocked or deflected by the object); and 2.
642 FEHER AND RICE

TABLE It
”Is there a shadow in the dark, where there is no light?”: Frequency of Occur-
rence of Various Types of Answers and Explanations (N=40)

TYPE EXAMPLE FREQUENCY

Light is blocked “No, you have to have light to block” 27%

or deflected “No, light shines on you, then it can’t get through,
so it‘s dark on the back”
a,
Light acts on “Well, when light hits the object, the shadow goes 13%
object off of it If there’s no light to hit an object, there
can’t be any shadow.”
’No, there’s no light hitting you. When the sun hits
you, the shadow goes on to the ground it jumps
off of you.”
=No,there’s no light to make it When light hits
c something it creates a darkness that keeps going
till it hits something.”

Light acts on ”Yes, it would be there. When light hits an object, 13%
object the object reflects the shadow.”
“ It‘s probably on the ground, you need light to go

to the object and then go on the wall and make the

shadow there.”
“Yes, because a shadow follows you everywhere. It
is something that comes off you in the sun
because the sun is so hot”

Light illuminates “It‘s always there, your eyes can’t see in the dark” 32%
” It‘s really there, like the floor is there when it‘s
dark The wall is dark and the shadow is dark”
“The shadow is dark and you would already be in a
shadow.”
“If there isn’t light it’s still there. You have to turn
L on the light to prove it”

W
m
t “ I don’t really know. it could be.” I5%
r4

Those that emphasize that the shadow is the presence of “something” that is
pushed or moved or thrown to the screen (by either the light of the opaque
object) i.e. a reified shadow.
Table IV shows the four subgroups in our classification :

la. The path of the light is blocked; the opaque object “stops,” “absorbs”
or “reflects” the light and the shadow appears where the light does not
reach. These explanations are accompanied by diagrams showing light
 SHADOWS AND ANTI-IMAGES 643

OBJECT PREDICTED SHADOW

L

Blended shapes

I. + +# e- g.

Before { d
1
:
78%
78%
2% 20%
22%

After { Ball 33% 22% 45%

rays that propagate in rectilinear, parallel fashion. One interesting dia-

gram that appears a couple of times shows a lit cross on the screen with
a dark circular shadow in the middle. (See Fig. 2, #2.)
lb. The light is deflected around the object and leaves behind a “tube of
darkness” that is the shadow. In the accompanying diagrams the light
flows around the object much like water flows around a pebble in a
stream.
2a. Light hits the object and the shadow goes to the screen, either self-pro-
pelled or “cast,” “reflected,” or “projected” by the object. These dia-
grams typically show a dark area or shadow movement between object
and screen. They are clarified through the child’s explanation. (See also
Fig. 2, #3 1.)
2b. Light initiates and helps carry out the movement of the shadow to
the screen. Light interacts with the opaque object and with the shadow
in a force-like manner: it “hits” the object and “transfers” or “carries”
or “pushes” the shadow to the screen. These diagrams are characterized
by the presence of light between the object and the screen (see also Fig.
2? #7, #23, #25.)
 644 FEHER AND RICE

TABLE I V
Frequency of Occurrence of Various Types of Diagrams and Explanations that Accom-
pany the Predictions (N=40)

TYPE EXAMPLE FREQUENCY

r Explanation
Light IS blocked . ”The shadow 18 where light cannot go through, SO 20%

i;
/
l it‘s darker where ilght IS not”

0
z
%
m
Light is deflected ,-;’J “First it goes straight towards the ball, it stops and
some light escapes over the ball; thars what
7%
a L
’I \\
creates a shadow.“

\“/-
;$
+-=cm
Object casts shadow “The ball casts a shadow, it throws forward the 26%
h ’I \\’ @ shadow, it projects it to the screen.”

”The dark hits the screen and makw a tiny dark

spot and the rest is light“
0 dark hits here
w
t w ; ;”!L F!r,;.e shadow like a wave pushes a 47%

“Light reflects oft the ball and forms a shadow.

+ ~ p shadow screen
Light transfers it there, it carries it over.”

Explanations of the Cross-Shaped Shadow.

After seeing the effect of holding the bead in front of the cross light,
three-quarters of the children said that the cross-shaped shadow on the
screen was “a shadow of the cross light.” About half of these children in-
sisted that the shadow of the bead was also there, in the center of the cross-
shaped shadow: “The cross is going to reflect over there to the screen, but
it’s going to show the bead too.” These children drew shadows in the shape
of a cross with a small dot in the center. (See Fig. 2, #7, #12, #20.) A few
of the children said that the cross-shaped shadow was a four-pronged shadow
of the bead: “It’s the bead in four places; it forms a cross because of the way
the light’s shining.”

Would you like to change your prediction for the big ball?

Almost half the children changed their prediction for the shape of the
shadow of the ball after having seen the shadow of the bead. (See Table 111.)
All went from an initial prediction of a circular shadow to a cross or a blend:
“Probably a bigger cross, since the ball is bigger than the, bead”; “A cross,
but I think it will have a ball in the middle.” Many children who claimed
 SHADOWS AND ANTI-IMAGES 645

that the cross-shaped shadow contained the circular shadow of the bead in
the middle drew a new prediction: a larger circle (the ball) in the middle of
a cross. Of the children who decided not to change their initial prediction,
many explained that the ball is big and blocks the cross light, “so the shadow
will still be a circle.” (See also Fig. 2, #3 1 .)

Discussion

The two major questions addressed in this study are: How do children
think about shadows? and, What does this tell us about how they think of
light? We deal with the first question in the discussion of the reified shadow
and the “trigger model”, which we have identified and characterized. The
second question is addressed in the discussion of the various roles ascribed
to the light and of the propagation of light.

The Reified Shadow.

Only about one-quarter of the children we interviewed had a clear concep-

tion that a shadow is the absence of light. Most of the children spoke of the
shadow as if it were the presence of something that has material character-
istics: This reified shadow has a well-defined shape, occupies space, is capa-
ble of motion and is susceptible to being pushed. Most of these notions can
be traced to common language and experience. The shadows we see under
usual circumstances when we stand on the pavement in the sun are caused
by objects that are far from the light source and close to the screen. In these
cases, the shape of the shadow is indeed the same as the shape of the object.
Probably for this very reason we ascribe the shadow t o the object; we speak
of “its” shadow or “our” shadow always in the possessive. What is more, we
say the object “casts” its shadow as if it were throwing out something it
previously held within it. The epitome of this way of thinking is Peter Pan’s
shadow: it has Peter Pan’s shape, it moves around with him never too far
from him or the wall or the floor, and is material enough that Wendy can
sew it back on when it accidentally becomes detached.
This idea that the shadow belongs to an object is so strong that, when the
children in our study were confronted with a shadow that was not in the
shape of the opaque object (the bead), most of them explained that the light
source has a shadow (note the possessive) and one-half of them insisted that
the circular shadow of the bead was in the middle of the cross-shaped
shadow of the source. They were surprised by the shape on the screen, but
not unduly concerned with how the cross light became a cross shadow. When
given a chance to make a new prediction for the ball, twenty percent of the
children kept the circular shadow of the ball in the center of a “shadow of
the cross.”
The notion of shadow as quasi-material presence is documented in Piaget’s
646 FEHER A N D RICE

pioneering work on children’s conceptions of shadows (Piaget, 1930). Piaget

tells us that children 5 to 9 years of age think of a shadow as “a substance
that emanates from the objects themselves” and “travels about.’’ Very young
children (ages 5 and 6) regard this substance as being alive and conscious.
Older children, ages 8 and 9, no longer consider the shadows to be animate
objects; they have discovered there is a relation between shade and light and
may therefore predict correctly that the shadow will always be on the side
of the object that is opposite the light source. However, this does not mean
they have a true understanding of the cause and effect relationship between
the light and the shadow since they may still claim that at night the objects
go on producing shadows.
In our study, which takes off age-wise where Piaget’s ended, we find that
half of our subjects, the younger ones, believe that the shadows are there at
night. A shadow that is there at night is a shadow that belongs to the object.
Either the object produces it and we just can’t see it or the shadow is hiding
within the object and cannot be produced or cast until the light hits the
object and provokes it to do so. But, in either case, the shadow “belongs” to
the object.
The power of the exhibit that we use in this work lies in the dramatic way
in which it confronts children with the notion that the light source plays a
fundamental role in shadow formation and challenges the very deeply held
notion that the shadow belongs only to the non-luminous object. The chil-
dren’s answers to the last two questions of the protocol show them dealing
with the discrepant event through assimilation into, or accommodation of,
their mental frameworks. Some children, unwilling or unable to give up the
idea of the shadow of the object (produced by the light), postulated a
second co-existing shadow, the shadow of the light (produced by the object).
These explanations are an attempt to reinterpret the role of the light source.
In this sense, the tasks and questions we have used are not only a valuable
research tool but also a potentially powerful instructional tool (Feher and
Rice, 1987).

The Various Roles of Light

All the children interviewed acknowledged that light plays a role in con-
nection with shadows but the nature of that role varied greatly, all the way
from active formation t o passive illumination. Most often, light played
simultaneously more than one role. From the ensemble of children’s answers
we clearly distinguish the following:

1. Light produces a shadow when it is blocked by an object. This is an essential-

ly correct explanation of the role of light in that the shadow is conceptual-
ized as the absence of light, even though the actual propagation diagrams and
geometrical constructions may be incorrect.
 SHADOWS AND ANTI-IMAGES 647

2 . Light produces a shadow when it is deflected by an object. T h s is a transi-

tional explanation for, even though the shadow is absence of light, the chil-
dren refer to the region of darkness behind the object as if it had material
existence (“the light goes around the tube of darkness”). There is also no geo-
metrical construction that accounts for the shape or size of the shadow.
3. Light causes the object to produce or cast a shadow, and may also push the
shadow to the screen. Here light plays a dynamic role acting in a forceful
manner upon object and shadow.
4. Light enables us to see the shadow. Light plays a passive role in allowing us to
see a reified shadow.

The role (or roles) that each child ascribes to the light is very consistent
throughout the answers in one interview. The one-quarter of our sample that
we identified as being well on their way to a correct understanding of shad-
ow formation (shadows are absence of light) gave answers of type 1 or 2
throughout the protocol (e.g. Fig. 2, #2, #12, #20). These are the older chil-
dren, 11 to 14 years old. The remaining three-quarters consistently gave
type 3 and type 4 answers (e.g. Fig. 2, #7, #23, #25, #31).

The Trigger Model.

For the majority of the children light played a dual role: a dynamic one,
causing the object to produce or cast a shadow, and a passive role, enabling
us to see the shadow. This way of thinking characterizes what we call the
“trigger model.” In this model, the shadow is a quasi-material entity, asso-
ciated with an opaque object, whose movement to the screen where we can
see it is initiated, or triggered, when the light hits the object. From object to
screen the shadow either moves on its own, like a projectile shot out by the
opaque object, or it is pushed by the light. Once it is on the screen, we need
light to see the shadow just like we need light to see any other object: not
through an active reflection process but because ambient light is necessary as
a medium that enables our eyes to see. (See Feher and Rice, 1985; Guesne,
1985.)
Trigger model users are of two kinds: those who maintain that shadows do
not exist at night (in the dark) and those who say they do. For the latter
group, the shadows exist independently of the light and often the light itself
will push them to the screen, “The light will drive the shadows before it”
(Piaget, 1930). The children in this group are mostly 8 and 9 years old. As
t o the children who deny the existence of the shadow in the dark, they
already understand there is a cause and effect relationship between light and
shadows. However, they do not yet understand the subtractive nature of
that relationship. This group of children ranges from 9 to 1 I years of age.
They represent a transitional stage between the non-causal explanations and
the accepted scientific one.
648 FEHER AND RICE

The Propagation of Light

When we compare the diagrams and explanations given by the children in

this study with those given by’the children who worked with apertures, we
find many of the same elements. For example, most of the diagrams used
with the predictions of shadows, both in the geometrical and the more ad-
vanced dynamic explanations, showed parallel rays of light leaving the source
and forming a shadow the same size as the opaque object. These drawings are
analogous to the “fit” diagrams so common in the work with apertures: the
impression on the screen (shadow or image) is made by that portion of the
parallel ray beam that spans the obstacle or window. Also, as in the work
with apertures, each point of the source is shown emitting only one ray in
the ray beam, and the notion that each point of the source emits light in all
directions is conspicuously absent.
Finally, the holistic concept is present in all predictions of shadow shapes
that are blends of a cross and a circle. In these predictions, whatever leaves
the light source, be it a cross light or a cross shadow, travels as a whole t o
the screen; how much of it is seen on the screen depends on the size of the
object in its path. We actually expected to find more predictions (there were
only two) showing a lit cross with the shadow of the object in the center,
since in our previous work, with apertures, half the children predicted to see
a lit cross on the screen when nothing was placed between source and
screen.

Conclusion

A major accomplishment of this work is the identification and full charac-

terization of the trigger model of shadows. Our detailed description of this
model shows how it is used by children in a progression from non-causal to
causal thinking. The two interesting notions that are an integral part of this
model are the reified shadow and the dynamic light. From an instructional
standpoint, these are notions that must be dispelled before progress can be
made towards understanding a shadow as the geometrical blocking of light.
When that understanding is in place, shadows can be conceived as anti-images
and a conceptual synthesis can be achieved that is the very essence of scien-
tific thinking.
This study puts in evidence the multiplicity of roles that the children
attribute to light. Taken across domains, the multiplicity results in different
explanations for different visual phenomena (e.g. images and shadows). This
diversity is in contrast with the approach of the expert scientist who synthe-
sizes in the search to provide one explanation for many phenomena. How-
ever, there is underlying unity in the way children deal with light phenom-
ena. Some notions about light propagation appear repeatedly and in a variety
of tasks. Work is needed t o establish the existence of these constants or uni-
versals in other areas in optics.
 SHADOWS AND ANTI-IMAGES 649

As we increase our knowledge about the models and universals in chil-

dren’s thinking we become better equipped to tackle questions of learning.
How can we induce or accelerate changes in understanding? How, for exam-
ple, can we help a pupil progress from a trigger model to a model where
shadows are formed by blocking rays of light? We have seen that when the
student is exposed to an unexpected phenomenon, there occurs a certain
amount of dislocation and reorganization of mental structures. Such is the
case when the student acknowledges that the light must do more than trigger
the effect since “its shadow also appears on the screen.” However, one such
experience is not likely t o produce a shift in model. Only the cumulative,
integrated experience with a large number of related effects can result in
change.
Our work in progress examines the value of expanding these students’ ex-
perience with phenomena involving multiple shadows, in particular the
shadows obtained by decomposing the extended light source into discrete
units, and the shadows obtained with sources of different colors. Immersion
in such a phenomenon-rich environment is undoubtedly a necessary, even if
not sufficient, condition for learning to occur.

We thank Bob Miller of the Exploratorium in San Francisco, who created the exhibit used
in this work. and whose marvellously intuitive way of “seeing the light” started us on this
research.

References

Cole, K. C. (1980). Facets of Light: Color, Images, and Things that Glow in the Dark.
San Francisco: The Exploratorium.
Feher, E. and Rice, K. (1985). Development of Scientific Concepts Through the Use of
Interactive Exhibits in a Museum. Curator, 28, 35-46.
Feher. E. and Rice, K. (1986). Shadow Shapes. Science and Children, 24, 6-9.
Feher, E. and Rice, K. (1987). A Comparison of Teacher-Student Conceptions in Optics.
In J. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Misconcep
tions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell
University.
Guesne, E. (1985). Light. In R. Driver. E. Guesne, and A. Tiber&en (Eds.), Children’s
Ideas in Science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Piaget. J. (1930). The Child’s Conception of Physical Causality. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Rice, K . and Feher. E. (1987). Pinholes and Images: Children’s Conceptions of Light and
Vision I. Science Education, 71, 629-639.

Accepted for publication 17 January 1988

View publication stats