Teaching and Learning Optics in High School: From Fermat to Feynman
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although this work is not particularly original (but works which are partly similar are adequately referenced) it well summarizes the authors' perspective on the sum over paths approach for an unifying approach to optics. The article is well written and I have no special suggestions to give for improvement.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The text is very well written, the exposition is clear and detailed, without being boring.
In general, I think it is necessary to include a few more references (with bibliography) to the syllabuses taught in secondary school (the author rather hastily claims that subjects such as relativity and quantum mechanics are hardly ever taught. I do not think so). More references are due also concerning the problem on "how to" teach physics (and especially optics, quantum mechanics) in high schools.
Above all, personally, I think it would be appropriate to include some thoughts on the school context: how many hours of lesson to devote to this subject? And to optics following this proposal? In what kind of secondary school? What prerequisites should pupils have (e.g. calculus)? Does the author believe that such an exposition can exhaust the subject 'optics' or should it be complemented with laboratory activities? It is then difficult for me to imagine that such a subject could be dealt with in any secondary school, for example in classes where many students are not interested in physics. For what kind of school, then, can such an approach be effective?
Details: In the initial historical reconstruction of the development of optics, the author is necessarily schematic, and must obviously overlook many contributions by authors not mentioned. I think he should say so explicitly.
Lines 139-140: should be written in English.
Also, I would not write "Physics" with a capital P.
Lines 139-140: should be written in English.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This article takes a high-quality approach to school knowledge on the issue of learning and teaching of optics at higher levels of education. The overall effort contributes to a deep understanding of the dimensions of the choices made in the “didactic transposition” of scientific knowledge into school-level knowledge. This paper proposes and documents the possibility of introducing the basic ideas of a complex topic such as quantum physics in a way that is accessible to high school students and with methodological choices that explain the phenomena related to the interactions of light with objects in a unified framework.
In the first part of the article ("Fermat's principle") a systematic analysis of the teaching objects as they are approached in the classical framework of the geometrical optics perspective is carried out.
In this first part it would be interesting for the author to insist on the deadlocks created by the insistence of many programmes on the classical approach to teaching concepts such as reflection or refraction.
The second part ("Quantum mechanics and the Feynman approach applied to light phenomena") develops a teaching framework based on Modern Physics but extends the approach of the first part. The approach taken here is innovative and opens a new field of discussion in the international literature.
On lines 276-278 the authors state that "…..these didactic investigations used the theoretical framework of the Theory of Conceptual Fields (TCC) [28] as well as the notions of didactic transposition and teaching by inquiry [29]". However, in the development of the argumentation of the article, the didactic transposition is at the center while the contribution of "Theory of Conceptual Fields (TCC)" is not clear. Here it would be much better for the author to focus on didactic transposition and avoid the crossing with the Theory of Conceptual Fields for a future theoretical treatment.
In the paragraph on lines 279-290, reference is made to textbooks that downplay the importance of models in the teaching of optics. Since this is a major problem, it would be good to provide 2-3 relevant literature references.
The discussion is systematic and careful.
Finally, two technical remarks:
The subtitle of Figure 4 to be written in English.
Figure 11 is missing from the text although its systematic description makes it obvious. However, it is certainly an omission, and the author should incorporate it into the article.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This article is a very interesting approach to three important and solidly structured "Paradigms" for learning and teaching Optics: that of classical Geometric Optics and that of wave and quantum Optics. The "tension" between these Paradigms is strong at the school level and instead of programs everywhere in the world taking care to delineate and utilize them, they are usually silenced. Here the authors move in the opposite direction in a context in which they frame these paradigms at the level of learning and teaching, and this is an innovation in the international literature. The clear demarcation proposed by the authors is the basis for an organised and planned transition from one model to the other.
Sections 2-6 present systematically and accurately the classical approaches to the teaching of optics. However, there is a need here to discuss the modelling difficulties that may arise in students' thinking and the limits of these approaches to teaching.
Besides, these difficulties lead to the necessity of exploiting modern Physics which is here approached with the important theoretical construction of Feynman. The idea of managing the mathematical formalism is fruitful since this model will be used in teaching. This is always a crucial question in the context of the theory of didactic transposition which the authors systematically use. The result of the work presented here is entirely satisfactory and as can be seen from the literature references that are not visible there is a great familiarity of the authors with this working framework and perhaps this explains the accuracy and systematic work. The analysis carried out and its application to the phenomena of reflection and refraction allow the formation of a didactic proposal that establishes both the necessity of the transition from the classical to the probabilistic model and the type of teaching practices that are compatible with the probabilistic model.
The discussion that takes place carefully and precisely raises the issues arising from the simultaneous discussion of the different Paradigms and contributes significantly to the creation of a new area of thinking for the development of programmes, textbooks and teaching strategies.
The article is systematic, well written and innovative. It can be published with minor revisions to which we have referred.
Two technical remarks:
On line 270 the references [14-10] do not appear to be correct. The authors should check this
On line 373 there is a caption for Figure 11 but the Figure itself is missing.
...
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have appropriately rectified some aspects on which I had commented.
However, not on the aspect that I consider fundamental. So I will repeat my objection by trying to be more direct: the strictly content aspect is clear and rigorous; however, the "educational" aspect is not at all. In my opinion, the authors should include considerations on: the type of school in which this subject can be addressed; in which school grade; with what kind of approach (frontal lesson?); for how many hours and with what prerequisites; with what kind of testing; why to use this method; what advantages both in physics-specific learning and in cultural and educational learning in general; what strategies can be adopted if there are students with different abilities in the class. Also: has this approach been tried in any classrooms? With what results? Or is it rather a proposal that has never really been tried out in the classroom? If so, on what basis do the authors believe it can be successful?
All this is absent from the article. And that is all very well, but not for a journal dealing with "Education."
Therefore, my judgment remains that the article needs an "educational" completion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
