Physics Learning Gaps: Spherical Mirrors and Lenses in Focus
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20025894Keywords:
instructional delivery; optics; problem solving; science teachers; spherical mirrors; thin lensesAbstract
The study sought to evaluate the level of students’ understanding, problem-solving skills, practical application, and difficulties encountered in their learning of spherical mirrors and thin lenses, as well as their perceptions of how their science teachers deliver their lessons in the classroom setting. The study adopted a quantitative descriptive correlational research design to systematically examine the relationships among these variables. The researcher also employed a two-stage cluster sampling technique to ensure a representative selection of participants. The respondents of this study were 165 Grade 10 students from three randomly selected schools in Santa Catalina District 2. The researcher utilized a 30-item test questionnaire to measure students’ level of knowledge and a Likert scale survey to gather their perceptions regarding instructional delivery. The data analysis used in this study included mean, standard deviation, and composite scoring to provide a clear interpretation of the results. The study found that the Grade 10 students had a satisfactory level of understanding of spherical mirrors and lenses, particularly in practical application and ray diagram interpretation. However, the students demonstrated their lowest performance in problem-solving and conceptual understanding, especially when they were required to explain concepts without relying on formulas. This indicates a tendency to depend on procedural knowledge rather than deep conceptual reasoning. The students also encountered some difficulties in applying formulas accurately, constructing ray diagrams, and understanding light behavior in mirrors and lenses. On the other hand, the students perceived the instructional delivery of their science teachers as very effective, as clear explanations, real-life examples, and hands-on learning activities significantly helped them understand concepts and solve problems more effectively.
References
Acosta, R. A. N. (2021). Development and validation of grade 10 science learning materials in selected secondary schools in district III, division of Puerto Princesa City, Philippines. Journal of Educational Research in Developing Areas, 1(3), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.47434/JEREDA.1.3.2020.248
Almulla, M. A. (2023). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for students’ critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving to affect academic performance in higher education. Cogent Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2172929
Anggraini, R. T., Hidayat, A., Fauziyah, S., Pramono, N. A., Supriana, E., & Ali, M. (2021). The building of students’ problem-solving skills through STEM approach with virtual simulation media. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1842(1), 012073. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1842/1/012073
Apsari, M. R., Supardi, Z. A. I., Puspitawati, R. P., & Budiyanto, M. (2023). Improving problem-solving skills with problem-based learning models in optical wave courses. International Journal of Current Educational Research, 2(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.53621/ijocer.v2i1.206
Arboiz, K. M., & Malayao, S. O. (2024). A simulation-based guided inquiry laboratory package in teaching mirrors and lenses for grade 10 learners. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, VIII(VI), 2558–2567. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.806195
Banda, H. J., & Nzabahimana, J. (2021). Effect of integrating physics education technology simulations on students’ conceptual understanding in physics: A review of literature. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2), 023108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023108
Bruner, J. (2023). The role of prior knowledge in a constructivist learning environment. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19578.50885
Cabural, A. B. (2024). Beyond benchmarking: A diagnostic inquiry into the underlying determinants of low performance in Philippine PISA science. Journal of Tertiary Education and Learning, 2(3), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.54536/jtel.v2i3.3063
Canuto, P. P., Choycawen, M., & Pagdawan, R. (2024). The influence of teaching competencies on teachers’ performance and students’ academic achievement in primary science education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 82(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/24.82.2
Chand, S. P. (2023). Constructivism in education: Exploring the contributions of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 12(7), 274–278. https://doi.org/10.21275/sr23630021800
Danner, A., Poulin-Girard, A., & Wong, N. (2022). Sixteenth Conference on Education and Training in Optics and Photonics: ETOP 2021. Proceedings of SPIE, 12297, 122971L. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2635558
De La Cruz, R. J. D. (2022). Science education in the Philippines. In R. Huang et al. (Eds.), Science education in countries along the Belt & Road (pp. xxx–xxx). Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6955-2_20
Decoriña, D. M. (n.d.). International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research. https://scispace.com/papers/international-journal-of-multidisciplinary-applied-business-1jd6x0u8
Deeba, F. (2023). Social constructivism: A new paradigm in teaching and learning environment. https://doi.org/10.52700/pjh.v2i2.86
Deeksha Learning. (n.d.). Spherical mirrors. Deeksha Learning. https://deekshalearning.com/physics/spherical-mirrors/
Ekmekci, A., & Serrano, D. M. (2022). The impact of teacher quality on student motivation, achievement, and persistence in science and mathematics. Education Sciences, 12(10), 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100649
Faridi, H., Tuli, N., Mantri, A., Singh, G., & Gargrish, S. (2021). A framework utilizing augmented reality to improve critical thinking ability and learning gain of the students in physics. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22342
Fasco, Pamba., Asiimwe, Specioza., Ssekabira, Godfrey., & Atwongire, Tushabe. (2024). Enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes: Effective strategies in institutional pedagogy. https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/pte/article-abstract/44/1/18/274167/
Fliegauf, K., Sebald, J., Veith, J. M., Spiecker, H., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2022). Improving early optics instruction using a phenomenological approach: A field study. Optics, 3(4), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.3390/opt3040035
Gormally, C., & Heil, A. (2022). A vision for university biology education for non-science majors. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(4), es5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-12-0338
Green, K., & Borgerding, L. (2022). Scientists, religious experts, and other sources of knowledge: Non-science majors' beliefs about controversial and noncontroversial questions. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 26(1), 7–22.
Griston, M., & Wilcox, B. R. (2025). Motivating reflection in problem solving: Homework corrections in upper-division physics courses. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.19170
Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C., Schubatzky, T., & Obczovsky, M. (2023). Teaching and learning optics at the secondary level. https://doi.org/10.1063/9780735425477_006
Julian Laverde, "Fundamentals of thin lenses" from the Notebook Archive (2021), https://notebookarchive.org/2021-05-blad4yn
Le, H. V., & Nguyen, L. Q. (2024). Promoting L2 learners’ critical thinking skills: The role of social constructivism in reading class. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1241973. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1241973
Levin, I., Semenov, A. L., & Gorsky, M. (2025). Smart learning in the 21st century: Advancing constructionism across three digital epochs. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.07486 https://shorturl.at/Uxemt
Lucas, K. L., & Vandergon, T. L. (2024). Science identity in undergraduates: A comparison of first-year biology majors, senior biology majors, and non-STEM majors. Education Sciences, 14(6), 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060624
Marulis, L. M. (2025). Editorial: Advances in metacognition and reflection. Frontiers in Developmental Psychology, 10, 1579553. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdpys.2025.1579553
Muklas, M. M., Desa, Z. A. M., Khalid, K. A., & Jisin, S. M. (2024). PINE-ZODIAC: Methods of mastering ray diagrams for convex lens among students of Kolej Vokasional Seri Manjung. Politeknik & Kolej Komuniti Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 9(1), 13–23. https://app.mypolycc.edu.my/journal/index.php/PMJSSH/article/view/650
Nacional, R. (2023). Gamifying education: Enhancing student engagement and motivation. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 5, 716–729.
Notebook Archive. (2021, May). Fundamentals of thin lenses. https://www.notebookarchive.org/fundamentals-of-thin-lenses--2021-05-blad4yn/
Nourrit, V. (2023). The influence of education and professional experience on misconceptions in optics in optometry. In Seventeenth Conference on Education and Training in Optics and Photonics: ETOP 2023, Technical Digest Series (Optica Publishing Group), paper 127231R. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2670794
Physics LibreTexts. (2021). 11.5: Thin Lenses. Retrieved from https://phys.libretexts.org/Courses/Muhlenberg_College/Physics_122%3A_General_Physics_II_%28Collett%29/11%3A_Geometric_Optics_and_Image_Formation/11.05%3A_Thin_Lenses
Purisima, J. K. A., & Celedonio, M. A. (2024). Knowledge and social relevance: Analyzing socio-scientific nature of learning competencies and standards in Grade 8 Science. International Journal of Multidisciplinary. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.05.10.04
Rice, S., Watt, H. M. G., Richardson, P. W., & Crebbin, S. (2024). Interest in science and mathematics teaching among non-science/mathematics initial teacher education candidates. Educational Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2024.2379418
Royani, S. N. M., Sutopo, S., Hidayat, A., & Parno, P. (2025). Research trends in physics learning strategies: A systematic literature review addressing students' conceptual understanding difficulties in kinematics. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 11(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v11i3.10047
Rusinov, A. S. (2021). Teaching students the equations of mathematical physics using educational electronic resources. RUDN Journal of Informatization in Education, 18(2), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-8631-2021-18-2-188-196
Saregar, A., Sunyono, S., Distrik, I., Nurhanurawati, N., & Sharov, S. (2024). Teaching and learning optics: A bibliometric analysis with a detailed future insight overview. Journal of Studies in Science and Engineering, 4, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.53898/josse2024420
Sebald, J., Fliegauf, K., Veith, J. M., Spiecker, H., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2022). The world through my eyes: Fostering students’ understanding of basic optics concepts related to vision and image formation. Physics, 4(4), 1117–1134. https://doi.org/10.3390/physics4040073
Suprijonoa, A., Warmansyah, E., & Riyadia (2025). Metacognition and cooperative learning based on deliberative democracy moderated by learning style… Cogent Education, 12. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2458915
Tadeo, D., & Yoo, J. (2022). Students’ recognition of concepts of reflection and refraction in multiple representational formats. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika, 10(2), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.26618/jpf.v10i2.7639
Wahyudi, W., Nurhayati, N., & Saputri, D. F. (2022). The effectiveness of problem solving-based optics module in improving higher order thinking skills of prospective physics teachers. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 8(4), 1992–2000. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v8i4.1860
Wang, C. Y., Gao, B. L., & Chen, S. J. (2024). The effects of metacognitive scaffolding in project based learning environments on students’ metacognitive ability and problem solving. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 5485–5508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12022-x
Wang, H. S., Chen, S., & Yen, M. H. (2021). Effects of metacognitive scaffolding on students’ performance and confidence judgments in simulation-based inquiry. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2), 020108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020108
Wee, D. (2022). Lenses. In K. M. Riaz, G. V. Vicente, & D. Wee (Eds.), Optics for the New Millennium (pp. 31–44). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95251-8_3
Wibowo, S., Wangid, M. N., & Firdaus, F. M. (2025). The relevance of Vygotsky’s constructivism learning theory with the differentiated learning primary schools. Journal of Education and Learning, 19(1), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v19i1.21197
Wörner, S., Becker, S., Küchemann, S., Scheiter, K., & Kuhn, J. (2022). Development and validation of the Converging Lenses Concept Inventory for middle school physics education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09861.
Winkelmann, J., & Römer, D. (2023). The ‘thin lens’ in the light of idealisations. Physics Education, 58, 065024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/acf828
Wu, S. H., Jong, M. S. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2024). Effects of teacher-developed spherical video-based virtual reality types on student learning engagement: A hierarchical linear modeling approach. Educational Technology & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13142-8
Xu, L., Prain, V., & Speldewinde, C. (2021). Challenges in designing and assessing student interdisciplinary learning of optics using a representation construction approach. International Journal of Science Education, 43(6), 844–867. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1889070
Yanti, F. A., & Thohir, M. A. (2024). Higher-order thinking skills in science learning: A systematic review from 2014–2023. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(4), 2419–2427. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i4.2808
Zhang, J., Tian, Y., Yuan, G., & Tao, D. (2022). Epistemic agency for costructuring expansive knowledge‐building practices. Science Education, 106(4), 890–923. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21717
