Introduction

An Innovative Teaching
Method for Geometric
Optics Using HandsOn Exercises in a Large
Classroom Setting to
Stimulate Engaged
Learning
Faheemah Saeed, OD, FAAO

Abstract
Conceptualizing the principles taught in geometric optics is difficult for many optometry students. A novel teaching method was developed to address this challenge.
Hands-on activities utilizing refractive lenses, mirrors and light sources not only
allow learners to visualize the concepts being taught in class but also sustain their
interest and attention and result in more engaged learning.
Key Words: geometric optics, engaged learning, visualization, hands-on activities,
higher education

he creation of the National

Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has elicited curiosity and interest among educators in higher learning regarding their
students engagement in the classroom.1,
2
Schreiner and Louis have defined engaged learning as positive energy invested in ones own learning, evidenced
by meaningful processing, attention to
what is happening at the moment and
involvement in specific learning activities.3
For instructors in the geometric optics
series taught in first-year optometry curricula, a primary goal is to stimulate the
highest level of student engagement in
the classroom and motivate students for
deeper learning in a decidedly demanding curriculum. Traditional lecturing
can be ineffective in stimulating student
engagement. Moreover, it leaves the visualization of important principles to
a students imagination, leaving many
with an incomplete grasp of the challenging concepts taught in the course.
With the growing emphasis of our profession on conceptual understanding,
deeper learning and comprehension are
expected of our students, and there is
a resulting need to de-emphasize rote
memorization of formulae with plugand-chug calculations.
This paper describes a novel teaching
approach that allows hands-on learning
of optical principles by small groups of
students within the large lecture setting.
This method was developed in an effort
to increase students engagement in the
classroom and allow visualization of optical principles utilizing table-top equipment. Equipment sets consisting of
lenses, mirrors, prisms and laser sources
were used in different exercises with the
intention of supplementing all major
topics taught in the geometric optics
course series. In the absence of a laboratory for geometric optics at our institution, these hand-on exercises proved to
be an invaluable addition to the course.

Workshops
Dr. Saeed is an Assistant Professor of Optometry at the Illinois College of Optometry. She is
involved in both clinical care and didactic teaching in the areas of geometric and physical optics
and low vision rehabilitation. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Optometry and
designs and participates in clinical research projects related to low vision rehabilitation
Optometric Education

54

Over the course of two academic quarters, seven workshop sessions were conducted, with each session scheduled
at the completion of the traditional
lecture component for a major topic.
Volume 38, Number 2 / Winter-Spring 2013

During these two-hour sessions, the

class of 160 students was divided into
20 groups. Ten groups met during the
first hour in the lecture center, and the
remaining 10 groups met during the
second hour. The group assignments
were randomly changed to allow students to work with different colleagues.
Each group of eight students worked
through some hands-on exercises utilizing laser boxes, lenses and mirrors that
were designed to present visually the
important concepts already presented
during lectures. The students were responsible for setting up the optical
equipment based on the instructions in
their handout, taking measurements,
answering multiple-choice questions,
and drawing and labeling ray diagrams.
One completed handout was turned
in by each group, the correctness of
which determined the grade earned for
the workshop session by each group
member. The discussion questions
that followed each exercise were specifically written to ensure that students
attended to the crucial elements of the
exercise setup and engaged in effective
group discussions.
Each group activity and interactive discussion was led by an upper classman
teaching assistant (TA) to ensure adequate and effective supervision. Prior
to each workshop, a one-hour training
session was scheduled for the TAs to
ensure consistency in their instructions
and a clear understanding of the goals
and expectations for the workshop sessions. During these sessions, the TAs
performed the entire set of exercises
that would later be completed by the
first-year students. The training sessions
allowed the TAs to review the material,
ask questions, and gain confidence for
leading the activities and discussions.
The TAs were equipped with a written answer key to ensure they provided consistent and accurate answers
to their first-year student groups during the workshop sessions. Additionally, the TAs were instructed to make
a conscious effort to ensure that each
student in their group took the lead
role in setting up a minimum of one
exercise during the session, participated
in all the discussions, and contributed
to the group activity. During the workshop sessions, the course coordinator
observed and supervised all the groups.
Optometric Education

The workshop design aimed to impact

deeper learning via fact recall, criticalthinking skills, problem-solving, and
enjoyment of the learning activity. The
exercise questions were designed to be
stepping stones toward the more complex exam questions. The purpose of
the exercise questions was to prompt
the students to start thinking about and
discussing concepts that would later be
tested in the exams.
The course was assessed by means of the
standard student opinion survey used
by the college at the end of each course.
The survey did not ask specific questions regarding the workshops. However, unsolicited comments from students
and TAs provided useful feedback.

Sample Workshop
Exercises
The two exercises described here are
among many that were designed to al-

low the study of optical systems and behavior of light. The first setup (Figure
1a), which utilizes a laser light source,
two convergent lenses and one divergent lens arranged in series, facilitates
visualization of real and virtual objects
and images. Parallel light rays from
the laser box are incident on the first
lens (L1). Convergent rays exit L1 and
are incident on the second convergent
lens (L2). The blue dot in Figure 1b
marks the location where these convergent rays would have intersected
with the optic axis if no other lens had
intercepted the light rays. In addition
to representing the location of the optically real image for L1, the blue dot
marks the location of the virtual object
for L2. In other words, when convergent light rays exit a lens, they represent a real image. However, when the
convergent rays are incident on a lens,
they represent a virtual object. Next,
the light rays pass through L2, which

Figure 1a

A setup utilizing two convergent lenses and one divergent lens

arranged in series allows students to observe a variety of objects
and images. Parallel light rays from the laser box are converged
by the first lens (L1). Before L1 can form a physically real image, the
second convergent lens (L2) intercepts the rays and converges them
even more. The convergent rays that exit L1 represent the optically
real image for L1 and also the virtual object for L2. The convergent
rays that exit L2 to form a focal point without being intercepted
represent the physically real image for L2. Next, the light rays
diverge and continue their travel toward a divergent lens (L5),
last in the series. L5 adds divergence to its incident light rays and
creates a virtual image.

55

Volume 38, Number 2 / Winter-Spring 2013

adds more convergence to the already

convergent rays. Because the rays that
exit L2 converge to a focal point without being intercepted, the image for L2
is physically real. Light rays diverge and
continue their travel toward a divergent
lens (L5), positioned last in the series.
The orange dot in Figure 1b represents
the location of the image for L2 and also
the real object for L5. Divergent light
rays exit L5 and form a virtual image. In
order to know the exact location of this
virtual image, students are instructed
to extrapolate the rays that exit L5. The
green dot in Figure 1b marks the location where the divergent rays intersect
the optic axis after being extrapolated.
An optical setup like the one shown
in Figure 1a not only aids visualization but also provides the framework
for more detailed discussions regarding conjugate points and the resulting
image parameters such as size, location
and orientation.
After setting up the equipment as photographed in Figure1a, the students are
instructed to identify the type of object
and image for each lens, mark the conjugate points for each lens and draw a
ray diagram to represent the optical setup, similar to the one shown in Figure
1b. Following are some examples of the
discussion questions that the students
review with their TA upon completion
of exercise 1:
1. Are the incident wavefronts for L2
steeper or flatter than the emergent
wavefronts for L2? To answer this
question, students need to recall
that the steepness of wavefronts is
directly proportional to the vergence. The students are encouraged
to sketch the incident and exiting
wavefronts on their diagram, as
shown in Figure 1c, to help them
visualize this concept.
2. Do the incident wavefronts become flatter or steeper as they approach L2? This question, though
testing a similar concept as the
previous question, is worded differently to place the emphasis on
L1 rather than L2. Additionally, it
challenges students to think about
how convergence increases when
convergent light travels downstream toward its focal point. To

Optometric Education

Figure 1b

A representation of the exercise setup, as drawn by students in the

workshop assignment shown in Figure 1a. The blue circle labeled
I1 and O2 represents the location of the optically real image for L1
and the virtual object for L2. The blue dotted rays leading to this
location are obtained by extrapolating the exiting rays for L1. The
orange circle labeled I2 and O3 marks the location of the physically
real image for L2, which also serves as the physically real object
for L5. The green circle labeled I3 represents the location of the
virtual image for L5. This location is obtained by extrapolating the
divergent rays that exit L5 (dotted green rays).

Figure 1c

A diagrammatic representation featuring incident and exiting

wavefronts for the exercise setup photographed in Figure
1a. The incident wavefronts for L1 are flat and perpendicular
to the parallel rays originating from infinity. The exiting
wavefronts for L1 are convergent and become steeper as they
travel downstream, away from L1 and approaching their focal
point. The exiting wavefronts for L2 are steeper compared
to the incident wavefronts because L2 adds convergence to
the wavefronts. After forming a point focus, the wavefronts
that continue to travel downstream toward L5 are divergent.
Divergent wavefronts become weaker and flatter as they travel
downstream, away from their point source, and approach L5.
The exiting wavefronts for L5 are steeper than the incident
wavefronts because L5 adds more divergence to the exiting light
rays.

56

Volume 38, Number 2 / Winter-Spring 2013

answer this question correctly, the

students need to recall that the
curvature of wavefronts is inversely
proportional to the distance of the
wavefront from the focal point.
3. Do the incident wavefronts become flatter or steeper as they
approach L5? This question is designed to initiate a discussion on
how divergence decreases as light
travels downstream from its point
source.
The second exercise, which involves a
thick prism and a laser light source, allows students to visualize the passage of
a single light ray through a prism. (Figure 2a) At the first surface of the prism,
the light ray refracts toward the normal
as it travels from a rarer to a denser medium. The resulting angle of refraction
is smaller than its corresponding incident angle. The light ray then travels
through the prism in a straight line to
reach the second refracting surface of
the prism. At the second surface, the
incident angle being larger than the
critical angle results in total internal reflection, and the law of reflection governs the behavior of light at this prism
surface. The reflected ray creates an incident angle at the third surface (base)
of the prism where light travels from a
denser to a rarer medium, resulting in a
larger angle of refraction than the corresponding incident angle.
The students are instructed to set up
the equipment as photographed in
Figure 2a, measure all angles of incidence, refraction and reflection, draw a
ray diagram as shown in Figure 2b and
label all the angles. Snells law is applied
to aid understanding of the relationship between the incident angle and
the angle of refraction at each surface
of the prism. Students are asked to calculate the value of the critical angle for
the prism and predict which incident
angles at the second refracting surface
of the prism would yield total internal reflection. This setup also provides
the framework for observing the effect
of the prisms apical angle and refractive index on the deviation of light by
employing different prisms. This workshop provides an effective visual vehicle
for observing the set-up for minimum
deviation, maximum deviation and
normal incidence with thick prisms.
Optometric Education

Figure 2a

Utilizing a laser box and thick prism, students can study the
relationship between variables, including the angles of incidence
and refraction (or reflection) of light, the apical angle of the prism
and the index of refraction.

Figure 2b

A diagrammatic representation of the exercise setup, as

completed by students in the workshop assignment shown in
Figure 2a. Light refracts toward the normal at the first surface
of the prism. The resulting angle of refraction () is smaller
than the incident angle () at the first surface. Light reflects
at the second surface because the incident angle (1) is larger
than the critical angle for this prism. The corresponding angle
of reflection (1) is equal to 1. Light refracts away from the
normal at the third surface of the prism. The resulting angle
of refraction (2) is greater than the corresponding incident
angle (2).

57

Volume 38, Number 2 / Winter-Spring 2013

Impressions
Informal feedback from students and
colleagues indicated that the new
hands-on activities were well-received
by a majority of the students. Students
enjoyed the activities and appreciated
being able to observe the behavior of
light. A majority of the students commented on enjoying the interaction
and discussions with their colleagues.
Some students stated that they liked
the activities due to the variety that
they brought to the course and that
the activities kept them engaged and
interested. Students also commented
that discussing a concept with their
colleagues helped them understand it
better and prompted them to pay attention to details they may have otherwise overlooked. Higher scores were
observed on scheduled mid-quarter
and final comprehensive examinations
compared to the previous year, possibly
reflecting better grasp of concepts. Additionally, the exam performance was
improved in spite of a larger proportion
of conceptual questions that are generally considered to be more challenging
by students.
Many uncontrolled variables can potentially influence exam performance
from one year to the next, such as the
student body itself and changes in class
and exam schedules. Therefore, it is inappropriate to attribute improved exam
performance solely to the workshops. A
more controlled study in the future,
with the use of pre-workshop and postworkshop exams, might better allow
determination of the impact of these
workshops on students exam performance. Students also commented on
ways to improve the activities, which
included suggestions for more time to
ensure adequate opportunity for discussions with the group TAs. Students
requested better timing of the workshops in the weekly schedule to increase
the time between the workshops and
exams. Both of these issues can be addressed easily going forward.
Clinical instructors who worked with
students who had participated in the
optics workshops the previous year and
rotated through the Low Vision Service
in an observational capacity reported a
noticeable difference in students understanding of the underlying optical
principles of low vision devices, parOptometric Education

ticularly fixed-focus magnifiers and the

resulting virtual image. Positive comments were also received from the TAs,
who reported that the concepts covered
during these workshop sessions allowed
them to better understand the course
material compared to when they had
learned it themselves originally, without workshops. Upper classmen have
requested a workshop session to help
them review the course material for the
National Board Examination.

Discussion
Several studies have examined and
reported the benefits of group collaboration and engagement. The positive correlation between engagement
and deeper learning has been reported
by Tagg.4 Benbunan-Fich and Arbaugh found that students on average
achieved better grades in courses where
they engaged in collaborative assignments and participated in knowledge
construction. In terms of final grades,
the absence of both factors (knowledge
construction and group collaboration)
had a detrimental effect on student performance.5 McHarg et al. reported a
positive relationship between students
performance on knowledge-based assessments and the level of group engagement and collaboration in problembased learning. Students who engaged
most during the problem-based learning process performed markedly better
in assessments of knowledge.6
Carini et al. studied the association
between student engagement and academic performance in 1,058 students
at 14 four-year colleges and universities. The authors reported a positive
link between student engagement and
desirable learning outcomes such as
critical thinking and grades. The authors also found student engagement to
be more beneficial for college students
with the lowest SAT scores. Additionally, student engagement was converted
into higher performance on criticalthinking tests more effectively at certain institutions than others.7
Pollock et al. compared the effects of
different types of face-to-face discussions, including small-group and largeclass discussions, on learners.8 Greater
participation and more positive student
perceptions were reported in smallgroup discussions. Previous academic
58

achievements were reported to be less

impactful on the level of participation
in small groups.8
The relationship between faculty practices and student engagement has been
explored and reported by Umbach
and Wawrzynski. Their findings suggest that students report higher levels
of engagement and learning at institutions where faculty members use active
and collaborative learning techniques,
engage students in experiences and activities in the classroom, and maintain
a high level of interaction.9
Hands-on exercises where the participating student is responsible for setting
up the exercise, explaining the setup to
his fellow group members and discussing the results guarantee a more active
learning approach. These small group
exercises require greater student involvement both mentally and physically compared with a large classroom lecture setting where students are allowed
to be passive receivers of information.
Inclusion of these hands-on group exercises in this first-year geometric optics course helped the participating
students to grasp concepts more easily
by means of greater group interaction
and presentation of material from a different perspective. A major advantage
of group discussions is that they allow
the topic of interest to be discussed in
multiple ways, with each participant
bringing his/her own perspective to the
discussion. Additionally, small group
activities create a sense of responsibility
and accountability among the participants. In these workshops, each group
member was required to take the lead
role in at least one exercise, which resulted in observable efforts by the participants to better grasp the concepts so
they could effectively contribute to the
group activity.
Another important feature of these
hands-on exercises that makes them
uniquely helpful in learning is that
they allow visualization. The students
are able to actually observe the diverging and converging light rays, pinpoint
the exact location and predict the size
and orientation of an object or image.
With less reliance on their imagination,
students can be uniformly equipped
with a solid knowledge base. With the
basic and trivial concepts mastered, the
Volume 38, Number 2 / Winter-Spring 2013

entire class can then move on to more

complex discussions and problem solving. Hands-on activities can play an
instrumental role in learning for all students, but likely are especially important for the visual learners.
Currently, a project is under way to
examine the link between student engagement during workshop sessions
and academic performance. The study
will compare students performance on
exam questions before and after participation in workshop sessions by means
of short multiple-choice questions. Additionally, the students will be asked to
complete a survey to evaluate the contribution of each workshop session to
their understanding of the course material.

Conclusion
Courses in higher education, especially
those that lack a laboratory portion,
can benefit from course components
that allow group interaction, activities
that trigger engagement and discussion,
and exercises that stimulate interest and
allow visualization.

Optometric Education

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Kelly
Frantz, OD, and Bruce Teitelbaum,
OD, for their help with preparation of
this manuscript.

References
1. Hayek JC, Kuh GD. Principles for
assessing student engagement in
the first year of college. Assessment
Update. 2004;16(2):11-13.
2. Kuh GD. What were learning
about student engagement from
NSSE. Change. 2003;35(2):24-32.
3. Schreiner L, Louis M. Measuring engaged learning in college
students: Beyond the borders of
NSSE. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
the Study of Higher Education;
2006, November; Anaheim, CA.
4. Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Bolton, MA: Anker
Publishing.
5. Benbunan-Fich R, Arbaugh JB.
Separating the effects of knowledge construction and group collaboration in learning outcomes
of web-based courses. Original
Research Article. Information
& Management. 2006, September;43(6):778-793.

59

6. McHarg J, Kay EJ, Coombes LR.

Students engagement with their
group in a problem- based learning curriculum. European Journal of Dental Education. 2012,
Feb;16(1):e106-10.
7. Carini RM, Kuh GD, Klein SP.
Student engagement and student
learning: Testing the linkages.
Research in Higher Education.
2006;47:1-32.
8. Pollock P, Hamann K, Wilson
B. Learning through discussions:
Comparing the benefits of smallgroup and large-class settings.
Journal of Political Science Education. 2011;7(1):48-64.
9. Umbach PD, Wawrzynski MR.
Faculty do matter: The role of
college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in
Higher Education. 2005, March;
46(2):153-184.

Volume 38, Number 2 / Winter-Spring 2013