Int J of Sci and Math Educ

DOI 10.1007/s10763-016-9736-8

A Teaching-Learning Sequence of Colour Informed

by History and Philosophy of Science

Paulo Maurício 1 & Bianor Valente 1 & Isabel Chagas 2

Received: 25 November 2014 / Accepted: 25 February 2016

# Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2016

Abstract In this work, we present a teaching-learning sequence on colour intended to a

pre-service elementary teacher programme informed by History and Philosophy of
Science. Working in a socio-constructivist framework, we made an excursion on the
history of colour. Our excursion through history of colour, as well as the reported
misconception on colour helps us to inform the constructions of the teaching-learning
sequence. We apply a questionnaire both before and after each of the two cycles of
action-research in order to assess students’ knowledge evolution on colour and to
evaluate our teaching-learning sequence. Finally, we present a discussion on the
persistence of deep-rooted alternative conceptions.

Keywords Colour . Conceptual change . History and philosophy of science . Pre-service

elementary teachers . Teaching-learning sequence

Introduction

For a long time now, science educators and researchers in science education have been
using History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) to promote learning about the nature of
science, positively impact student attitudes towards science, assist conceptual change

* Paulo Maurício
paulo.asterix@gmail.com

Bianor Valente
bianorv@eselx.ipl.pt
Isabel Chagas
michagas@ie.ul.pt

1
Escola Superior de Educação de Lisboa, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, Campus de Benfica do
IPL, 1549-003 Lisbon, Portugal
2
Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
 P. Maurício et al.

and promote a deeper understanding of scientific ideas (Allchin, 2013; Höttecke &
Silva, 2011; Matthews, 1989, 1994). At the same time HPS is being used to highlight
conceptual difficulties in disciplinary fields (Coelho, 2007, 2012), to develop both
theory and practice in formal and non-formal learning environments (Faria, Pereira, &
Chagas, 2012; Höttecke, Henke, & Riess, 2012) and to support research programmes in
learning theories (Nersessian, 1989; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982).
In this work, we present our findings on pre-service elementary teacher student
conception about colour from a scientific point of view after two cycles of action-
research (Carr & Kemmis, 2009). In each cycle of inquiry, a teaching-learning sequence
(Leach & Scott, 2002; Lijnse, 2004) was designed with the contribution of history of
colour. This was done in the framework of a constructivist approach to teaching and
learning (Gil-Pérez et al., 2002).

Brief Excursion in the History of Colour

The approach to colour in natural philosophy among the medieval scholastics,

renascentists, and the great majority of seventeenth century Scientific Revolution’s
natural philosophers was based on the works of Aristotle (384–322 b.C.), namely On
Sense and Sensible and Meteorology. However, the Aristotelian’s colour conception
was drawn from an earlier philosopher, Empedocles (c. 490–c. 430 b. C.), according to
whom colours were one of the main properties of bodies, the other being its shape
(Ierodiakonou, 2005). According to Empedocles, there were four primary colours—
white, black, red and yellow—corresponding to the four primordial elements: fire,
water, earth and air. In contrast, Democritus created a different tradition according to
which colours existed as mere conventions, for only space and atoms were real.
According to Aristotle, colours were properties of the surface of bodies that light
enables us to see, and could be generated by a mixture of different proportions of white
and black. Moreover, he argues, more agreeable colours would result from integer
proportions of white and black 1 similar to musical proportions. Another explanation
was developed to account for the colours of rainbows and halos and similar phenom-
ena. For these, colours arise from reflection of light.
These two approaches to the origin of colours—as either sensible properties of
bodies, suitable to explain colours in opaque bodies, or as the outcome of a modifica-
tion of sunlight, capable of explaining the colours of the rainbow and the like—were
assimilated and further developed by medieval scholastics and Arab scholars. In fact, as
Edward Grant (1996) argues, medieval and Arab scholars, in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries and later, formed a rich network of knowledge transmission through transla-
tion and appropriation, developing a fruitful scholarship based on Aristotle’s natural
philosophy. Charles Schmitt (1973) even emphasises that peripatetic influence goes
well into the seventeenth century:

Aristotelianism did not end with Copernicus, nor even with Galileo and Bacon. In
fact, it thrived throughout the sixteenth century, as it never had before, and was

1
White and Black should be perceived as clarity and darkness. At night, there exists black and when the sun
began to appear in the horizon some hues of yellow and red begun to appear; the ocean waters acquire
different hues of green and blue and the process evolves with the apparent movement of the sun.
Teaching Colour and History and Philosophy of Science

still in full bloom for most of the seventeenth century. Only gradually was
Aristotelian-based scholasticism eased out of the universities. (p. 163)

In 1704, Newton published his Optics, a major work of his that sums up work begun
30 years earlier. The New Theory of Light and Colours appeared in the proceedings of
the Royal Society in 1671 and created a great divide in the understanding of colours
among natural philosophers (Dijksterhuis, 2008; Shapiro, 1980; Westfall, 1962, 1980).
The New Theory asserted that sunlight was not pure and simple, as was believed, but
compound and heterogeneous, and colours were not the property of bodies, but instead
arose from the heterogeneity of the compound light of the sun.
For Newton, there were the primary and the secondary or compound colours. The
former were established as seven in 1704: Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet
and Red. The number of simple or primary colours (he originally proposed five primary
colours in his paper of 1672) changed after Newton’s discussions with Pardies,
Huygens, Hooke and others. He concluded upon seven for he believed in the relation
between the number of colours and their proportions to make white and the musical
proportions (Darrigol, 2012; Shapiro, 1984).
In his colour theory, Newton began by asserting that all colours were necessary to
obtain white, but as early as 1672, Huygens wrote him a letter sustaining that yellow
and blue suffice. This was later confirmed by Helmholtz in 1852, with far better
experimental conditions. But Helmholtz had a more striking finding: the result of
mixing pigments and the result of mixing coloured lights were different. The former
procedure, now known as subtractive synthesis, implies a completely different exper-
imental setup from the latter, known as additive synthesis (Colin, Chauvet, & Viennot,
2002; Darrigol, 2012; Shapiro, 1994).
Although the study of colour experienced great advances from the eighteenth
century onwards, both in the Newtonian framework and in the undulatory theory of
light, the incorporation of the phenomenological perception of colours in their expla-
nations occurred only with Goethe’s return to Aristotle in his work Zur Farbenlehre
(Theory of Colours). Published between 1808 and 1810, his colour theory was
dismissed by most of the scientific community but received a renewed support in early
twentieth century with the increased consideration of observer response to coloured
stimuli. As stated by Sepper (1988):

Goethe’s conception of colour (…) as a kind of shadow, should not be dismissed

as a personal idiosyncrasy. It fits into a long tradition of thinking of colour as
some kind of mixture, blend, or other interaction of light and darkness, a tradition
that goes back to Aristotle and frequently influenced modificationist theories of
light and colour. (p. 153)

Research on Previous Conception on Colour

There is a vast literature researching misconceptions on optics, and in particular on the

topic of colour (Pfundt & Duit, 1994). Here, we intend to present a general overview of
the main references. Interestingly, regardless of the researcher’s methodology, there is a
prevalence of an Aristotelian conception of colour.
 P. Maurício et al.

Anderson and Smith (1986) performed a 2-year-long study, with pre- and post-tests
each year, before and after fifth-grade students were taught a unit in optics. They
concluded that 72 % of students (in 125) answered No to the question: Is white light a
mixture of colours of light? with only 2 % giving the correct answer and explanation.
Moreover, the authors believed that this is an overestimate of students that hold a
scientific accepted conception. As they write, Bonly 1 of the 125 students who took the
pre-test mentioned colours in white light in response to a question that asked how white
light helps people see a green object^ (Anderson & Smith, 1986, p. 21).
This result was supported by the answers to the question when we see a blue book?,
which obtained only 8 % of correct answers, while 61 % replied that the book has blue
colour. Moreover, the assignment of light behaviour to colour, e.g., the book reflects
blue colour to our eyes, had already a great number of adherents, 22 %.
As the authors concluded, Bthe majority of students chose a distractor consistent with
the belief that colour is a property of objects rather than light^ (Anderson & Smith, 1986,
p.22). These results are supported by others. Research on previous conceptions of
applied arts students by Françoise Chauvet (1996) found that Bthe common meaning
of the word ‘colour’ is equivalent to coloured matter. Terms of colour (red, green …) are
understood by students as red pigment or green pigment^ (p. 3). Only 3 % of her
students were able to give the correct answer to the question of what colour would result
by adding red light and green light. The hypotheses presented to them were: white,
brown, green, red and yellow. Half of the student chose brown, thus presenting a great
influence of adding pigments. As a result of her research, Chauvet could assert that
Bthese students think on colour as if colour is a characteristic of matter^ (Chauvet 1996).
Bjorn Andersson and Kärrqvist (1983) research on Swedish students’ previous
conception of optics in grades 6 through 9, with 124, 205, 136 and 166 students,
respectively. Concerning colour, they consistently found that 10 % of the students refer
to a modification of the theory of light as an explanation for coloured light on a screen.
Elsa Feher and Karen Meyer (1992, 1988, 1987) developed a series of studies in a
science centre in the USA questioning children aged 8 to 13 about several optics
themes. Regarding colour, 47 % of the children held the idea that the colour of the light
source would mix with the colour of the object, thus sustaining that objects have a
property named colour.
Galili and Hazan (2000) researched the previous conception of 64 Israeli 9th grade
students before any formal instruction on optics, and 102 10th grade students, in
addition to a class of prospective teachers of technology after instruction in optics.
Concerning colour, the authors found that 58 % of students supported the idea that
colour is the result of a mixture of substances other than light.
La Rosa, Mayer, Patrizi, and Vicentini-Missoni (1984) researched on previous concep-
tions of 63 Italian college students (16–17 years old). They found that 55 students could be
distributed in three different explicative schemes, conflicting only in the explanations of
light and light behaviour but holding the conception of colour as a property of objects.
Martinez-Borreguero, Pérez-Rodríguez, Suero-López & Pardo-Fernández (2013) de-
veloped a test to probe misconceptions on colour and for 10 years applied the test to 2596
people ranging from primary students to university teachers, in Spain. Overall, 53.3 % of
the respondents held the conception that the colour of an object is the sum of its own
colour with the colour of the incident light, and 9.4 % held the conception that the colour
of an object is a property of that object.
Teaching Colour and History and Philosophy of Science

Saxena’s (1991) research on misconceptions among 181 Indian students—78 sec-

ondary students and 103 university students of science and education—found that the
maximum of correct answers and reasoning were 29 % for a group, with 15, 22 and
19 % for the other three groups.

Implications of Historical Knowledge Upon Our Teaching-Learning Approach. In

several areas of scientific knowledge, there is strong evidence for similarities between a
student’s reasoning on a certain domain of science and examples of historical theories
in that area of knowledge (Dedes, 2005; Driver & Easley, 1978; Sequeira & Leite,
1991). This well documented claim does not mean that students should go through a
recapitulation of historical development of a discipline in order to master its knowl-
edge, or that this would be desirable. It is just a statement of fact.
If mechanics in the real Earth, with friction, atmosphere, a definite volume and
irregular surface are essentially Aristotelian as Clement (1982), diSessa (1982) and
others (Pfundt & Duit, 1994) had documented, colour, as we have seen, is also
Aristotelian in a three-fold way:

(A) Most students hold the view that colours are a quality of bodies or held by some
bodily materials. Without instruction on the composite structure of white light
students cannot overcome that conception;
(B) One experimental process to generate colours, the subtractive colour mixing, on
its own and without proper instruction, is apt to reinforce that conception.
Moreover, the experimental difference between the subtractive colour mixing
and the additive colour mixing apparatus are in general overlooked by educators,
turning these fundamentally different processes into similar ones (Viennot,
Chauvet, Colin, & Rebmann, 2005), and finally
(C) In the framework of geometric optics, there is no way to experimentally demon-
strate that colours exist in the sunlight prior to any refraction. As Shapiro (1980)
said:

As Newton himself was ultimately to recognize, it is empirically impossible to

prove what may be called the strong principle of colour immutability for the
colours of the sun’s light at the first refraction, since the colours are not percep-
tible before the first refraction and so may not be compared with the colours after
that refraction to see if they have changed. Indeed, if they are compared, it seems
as if they have changed. (p. 216)

In the classroom, teachers simply assume the compound character of white light
from knowledge that derives from the nature of light and do not play fair (Coelho,
2007) in saying that Newton’s crucial experiment Bproves that colours are innate to the
sun’s direct light^ when on the contrary it shows Bthat the sun’s light consists of’ rays
of unequal degrees of refrangibility^ (Shapiro, 1980, p. 213).
To sum up, teachers can correctly infer that since colours can be obtained by
prismatic separation of sunlight, using the principle of parsimony (Nolan, 1997), all
colours have one and the same origin, that is, colours are the impression in our eyes of
 P. Maurício et al.

light with different degree of refrangibility and not properties of bodies. But educators
must keep in mind, if they are to teach colours in the framework of geometric optic,
which is and ought to be the first approach to the teaching of optics (Raftopoulos,
Kalyfommatou, & Constantinou, 2005), that this claim cannot be proven by
experiment.

Methodology

We developed this research in the framework of a socio-constructivist approach to

teaching and learning (Gil-Pérez et al., 2002; Leach & Scott, 2003) in an educational
action-research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000, 2006) and adopted the framework-
theory to account for conceptual development (Vosniadou, Vamvakoussi, &
Skopeliti, 2009; Vosniadou, 1994, 2014). For each cycle of action-research, we devel-
oped a teaching-learning sequence (TLS) (Leach & Scott, 2002; Méheut & Psillos,
2004; Psillos, Spyrtou, & Kariotoglou, 2005).
According to Leach and Scott (2002) the design of a TLS consists in stages that (1)
Bidentify the school science knowledge to be taught^; (2) Bconsider how this area of
science is conceptualised in the everyday social language of students^ and (3) Bidentify
the learning demand by appraising the nature of any differences between (1) and
(2)^ (p. 127). The resulting TLS should address each aspect of the learning demand.
The scientific knowledge on colour can be stated as follows: Colour is a sensible
perception of light after it is partially absorbed or transmitted by bodies. Moreover, all
coloured phenomena result from the separation of white light in its components and can
be obtained either by adding coloured lights or by partially subtracting light by
absorption or transmission. The former process is known as the additive colour mixing
rule, and the latter as the subtractive colour mixing rule and are represented in Fig. 1.
According to the literature of previous conceptions, and as mentioned above (§ 1.3),
colour is conceptualised in everyday social language as reported by items (A) and (B)
for students and item (C) for both students and teachers. Since according to the
framework-theory, robust previous conceptions are rooted in deep epistemological
and ontological commitments, these should be addressed by the TLSs. In the develop-
ment of both TLS, we had in mind Galili and Hazan’s (2000) Bfactors which serve as
premises for obstacles in the construction of scientific (as well as individual) knowl-
edge about optical phenomena^ (p. 58). They were seven identified premises:

Fig. 1 Usual representation of additive colour mixing (left) and subtractive colour mixing, with letters
indicating colours (G green, R red, B blue, Y yellow, C cyan, M magenta, W white and Bl black)
Teaching Colour and History and Philosophy of Science

P1: Bthe physical parameters associated with light, e.g. its speed, wavelength,
pressure and discrete nature, are all far removed from the range of perception of the
human senses, the range of an individual’s experience.^ This premise led us to
focus on geometrical optics for it is independent of the nature of light. As
Raftopoulos et al. (2005) said, Bthe constructivist conception of learning allows
students to start from simpler models of reality, which are elicited from the students
themselves, and gradually approach the full complexity of the domain under
study^ (p. 668).
P2: BOptical phenomena are commonly observed in media (air, water) which often
greatly modify the behaviour of light from that in vacuum.^ P4: BLanguage brings
problems of a psychological nature^ and
P5: BHumans spontaneously explain phenomena in terms of cause and effect^
These three premises were identified as factors that keep optical conceptions
essentially in the Aristotelian realm. They cannot be removed, but students should
become aware of them and how they can affect our senses and perceptions.
P3: BThe observer in optics is an inherent part of the optical system^, which is not
common in classical physics and P6: BOptics is essentially an interdisciplinary
subject.^ These two premises collide with reported student epistemology in
learning physics (Elby, 2001; Hammer & Elby, 2002; Kalman, 2009). We
hypothesise, in the design of the TLS, that a discussion of the vision process will
weaken the effect of these premises over student knowledge.
P7: BOptics instruction is heavily based on graphic symbolism, which is subject to
interpretation.^ This premise, studied in Viennot et al. (2005), lead us to account
for student and teacher difficulties in distinguishing the experimental apparatus
associated with the two colour mixing processes (Fig. 1) thus leading us to isolate
work with additive colour mixing from work with subtractive colour mixing,
developing them in two separate classes.

Contents and structure of the TLSs

The teaching-learning of colour cannot be isolated from other optical knowledge that
intervene in coloured phenomena. Following this, our TLSs display how students were
introduced to geometric optics and how this change from TLS1 to TLS2 with the
assessment of the former.
The elaboration of TLS1 (Table 1) derived from the identification of learning
demands that result from the identification of commonalities and differences between
how students conceptualize optics and colour and how they ought to conceptualize it so
that it might be said that they hold a scientific view.
The first aspect addressed in the TLS1 is the process of image formation (episte-
mological belief) and what is an image (ontological belief). Those are interrelated
topics in which students hold conceptions far from what is scientifically accepted
(Bendall, Goldberg, & Galili, 1993; Goldberg, 1987; Heywood, 2005). Then, we
proceed by developing a discourse with explicit reference to light as an entity (onto-
logical belief) that travels in space and takes time to do so (epistemological belief).
Moreover, when light leaves a light source it spreads in all directions, delaying the
introduction and use of rays of light as much as possible.
 P. Maurício et al.

Table 1 First teaching-learning sequence (TLS1)

Lesson (#) Content

1 –In optics the observer must be taken in account.

–Integrate Light propagation, anatomy of the eye, light refraction in the biological lens
and formation of an inverted image in the sensible part of the eye, the retina.
–Explanation of the law of refraction (qualitative).
–Ascribe to cornea plus crystalline humor the function of a convex lens.
(working out this in a diagrammatical way using Kepler’s cone).
2 –Recognize evidences of rectilinear propagation of light in the same optical medium.
–The atmosphere and influence in optical phenomena
–Illustrate the schema of the eye ball.
–Discern lens biconcave from lens biconvex.
3 –Light representation in the geometrical optics as a model that represent the direction of its
propagation and says nothing on its undulatory or corpuscular model
(use of models in science).
–light flux
–Thin lens approximation
–Explain the law of reflection
–Introduce the connection between refraction and light dispersion
–Explain the colour as a result of white light dispersion when undergone a refraction.
4 –Working out light dispersion in diverse circumstances, including with a prism.
–Classify lens and see the behaviour of light in concave and convex lens.
–Magnifying glass and its correct use;
–Identify the correct lens to use in order to obtain an image in a cardboard.
5 –Explain the phenomena of total reflection
–Interpret the myopia and farsightedness as the result of physical processes and
identify appropriate lens to correct them;
–Introduce the undulatory theory of light: Frequency, energy and wavelength.
–Electromagnetic spectrum. Utility of each zone.
–Orders of magnitude of wavelength and frequency of diverse zones of
electromagnetic spectrum
–Explain the rainbow
6 –Identify and classify mirrors;
–Generate a real image of a candle in a cardboard using concave mirrors
–Generate colours adding coloured lights.
7 –Generate colours by light subtraction (subtractive synthesis)
–Interpret the appearances of coloured shadows

The major difference between TLS2 and TLS1 (Table 2) is that we do not refer to the
undulatory nature of light and work on a strictly geometric optical approach (Galili &
Hazan, 2000; Raftopoulos et al., 2005).
Teaching-learning sequence (TLS1) was developed as a 12-h unit on optics with 4 h
45 min devoted to colour, with a similar time distribution in the TLS2. The classes
evolve in a theoretical class and a laboratory class. In the former, students are able to
perform some activities related to the subject matter.
This results from the reported idea that students hold a heavily static conception of
light as well as a corporeal one (Bendall et al., 1993; Colin et al., 2002; La Rosa et al.,
1984).
TLS1 follows with the introduction of both refraction and reflection laws at the same
time, used to understand light behaviour on surfaces between optical mediums and
Teaching Colour and History and Philosophy of Science

Table 2 Second teaching-learning sequence (TLS2)

Lesson (#) Content

1 and 2 [Colour was not addressed; any modifications do not follow from
the research presented here.]
3 –Light representation in the geometrical optics as a model that represent the
direction of its propagation and says nothing on its undulatory or corpuscular model
(use of models in science).
–Light flux
–Thin lens approximation
–Explain the law of reflection
–Introduce the connection between refraction and light dispersion
–Explain the colour as a result of white light dispersion when undergone a refraction.
4 [Colour was not addressed; any modifications do not follow from the
research presented here.]
5 –Explain the phenomena of total reflection
–Interpret the myopia and farsightedness as the result of physical
processes and identify appropriate lens to correct them;
–Explain the rainbow
–Develop the explanation of colour given in Lesson 3.
6 –Identify and classify mirrors;
–Generate a real image of a candle in a cardboard using concave mirrors
–Generate colours adding coloured lights.
7 –Generate colours by light subtraction (subtractive synthesis)
–Interpret the appearances of coloured shadows

opaque bodies (epistemic beliefs). Then we discuss mirrors and lens and their classi-
fication, after which we introduce and discuss the prism and the separation of sunlight
into its components (ontological and epistemic beliefs) (Galili & Hazan, 2000; Langley,
Ronen, & Eylon, 1997).
Before proceeding to colour, we have a lesson on the nature of light, introducing the
basic concepts of the undulatory theory of light (ontological beliefs): wavelength,
frequency, energy and their relation. Colour is developed in a teaching-learning
approach through one theoretical class and two laboratory classes.

Participants

The study was developed in a Portuguese programme of training elementary pre-

service teachers in two consecutive academic years. The TLS1 was implemented in
2012/2013 with two classes of pre-service elementary teachers (total sample size of 66),
one with the average age of 22.2 years and standard deviation of 2.8 years, and the
other with an average age of 21.1 years and standard deviation of 1.2 years.
TLS2 was developed the following year, also in two classes (total of 67 elementary
pre-service teachers), one class with an average age of 22.6 years and standard
deviation of 3.7 years and the other with an average age of 21.6 years and standard
deviation of 3.9 years. Almost all participants in both years were female.
We administered the questionnaire during the first lesson of the school year (44
students) and then in the first lesson after the school holidays (43 students), and the
 P. Maurício et al.

same procedure was developed in the application of the questionnaire before (60
students) and after TLS2 (68 students); however, we must note that the gap between
the latter questionnaires was shorter.

Research Questions

In this paper, we intend to answer the following two research questions.

1. To what extent our classes compare to what is referred in the literature as previous
knowledge on colour?
2. To what extent do our TLSs accomplish to close the gap between the knowledge as
it is conceptualised in everyday language and the scientific one?

The first research question aims to increase the degree of generality of our study, and
contribute to the academic knowledge of misconceptions in the domain of colour by
Portuguese elementary pre-service teachers. Moreover, as we intend to improve the
TLS we need to understand the prior domain knowledge of our students’, according to
the constructivist framework. Additionally, with the second research question we intend
to address the validity of the TLSs (Méheut & Psillos, 2004, p. 528).

Instruments and Data Collection

Instruments

We used a questionnaire (see BAppendix^) constructed to elicit the domain knowledge

of colour with two open-ended questions.
The validity of the questionnaire was addressed both by the systematic use of questions
from the literature (Chauvet, 1996; Olivieri, Torosantucci, & Vicentini, 1988; Viennot &
Hosson, 2012) and by experts validation. Expert validation was most useful in the second
question. Questions on reliability were evaluated by its use in two different populations.

Data Collection and Analysis

As the same TLSs were applied to both classes at just about the same time, and we were
interested in the overall domain knowledge evolution, the main trends, we pooled all
questionnaires, not distinguishing each class.
We performed a content analysis (Bardin, 2007; Bogdan & Bilken, 1992) and found
six categories that describe student knowledge: (a) Colour is a property of the material,
(b) Light is an enabler of vision and colour perception, (c) Colour shares some of the
properties of light, (d) Colour in art, (e) Colour is due to characteristics of vision or
eyes, and (f) An explanation of colour close to what is scientifically accepted.
Our unit of analysis was a sentence within an answer, and they were divided into
themes (sentences with meaning). Ours categories, described in Table 3, emerged from
the data and were mutually exclusive.
For instance, the answer BBecause our eyes detain structures that identify and
discriminate colours^ Q-i20 was codified as belonging to category E: BColour is due
to characteristics of vision or eyes.^ However, the answer BDue to the incidence of
Teaching Colour and History and Philosophy of Science

Table 3 Name and description of the categories that describe the domain knowledge on colour of our
students

# Category Description

A Colour is a property of the material When colour is related to special properties of boxes, such as
B Light is an enabler of vision
and colour perception
C Colour shares some of the
properties of light
D Colour in art
E Colour is due to characteristics
of vision or eyes
F Explanation of colour close to
what is scientifically accepted
pigments, dyes or chemical composition. Even when light is
referred but is secondary in the text, we ascribe the unit of
analysis to this category. Examples: [I see the boxes with
different colours] because they have different dyes Q-i07; Each
box has its colour. Q-i30
When light is referred as necessary to identify colours previously
existent in the materials. Example: The incidence of light on the
boxes allows us to identify the colour of the boxes. Q-i07
When it is referred that colour can be absorbed, transmitted, or
reflected. Even when light is referred but is secondary in the
text, we ascribe the unit of analysis to this category. Examples.
[Because] the boxes absorb all the colours. Q-i08
When colour is related to an artistic framework, like the mention of
degrees of grey, and brighter and darker colours. Even when
light is referred but is secondary in the text, we ascribe the unit
of analysis to this category. Example. We see a neutral colour
Q-i12; [I] would see them in grey tones Q-i06
When colour is related to some physiological characteristic of the
eye. Even when light is secondary in the text, we ascribe the
unit of analysis to this category. Examples: we have nerves and
connections in the eyes that enable us to perceive diverse
colours. Q-i36
When if referred selective absorption and reflection of light, with
emphasis on white light. We also consider references to the
colour as not being a property of an object without mentioning
light. Example: [we see colours] due to the reflection and
refraction of light. Q-f11; Colour is not a property of the object.
Q-f21

white light in the boxes, each box reflects the colour of the spectrum that was not
absorbed^ Q-f28 was separated into two themes: BDue to the incidence of white light in
the boxes^ was assigned to category F BExplanation of colour close to the scientific
accepted^; and BEach box reflects the colour of the spectrum that wasn’t absorbed^ was
assigned to the category C, BColour shares some of the properties of light.^
In Table 4, results are presented as abundance of each category, before and after
instruction.

Findings and Interpretation

Before the TLS1 student knowledge of colour prior to instruction spanned all six
categories. BColour in art^ was most abundant prior to instruction (32.7 %), far
surpassing other categories (all equal or inferior to 20 %). This category was the second
highest before TLS2, with 23 %, that is 10 % lower than before TLS1. Notwithstand-
ing, it remains with a higher level of abundance and resistance to change—always
higher than 23 %.
 P. Maurício et al.

Table 4 Frequency of the categories before instruction (Qi) and after instruction (Qf)

# Category TLS1 TLS2

Qi % Qf % Qi % Qf %

A Colour is a property of the material 14.3 10.2 8.2 3.4

B Light is an enabler of vision and colour perception 20.4 22.0 29.5 16.5
C Colour share some of the properties of light 10.2 18.6 4.9 22.2
D Colour in art 32.7 28.8 23.0 26.5
E Colour is due to characteristics of the vision or eyes 14.3 0.0 19.7 0.9
F Explanation of colour close to the scientific accepted 8.2 20.3 14.8 30.8

Although we cannot explain the initial differences before each TLSs for category D,
we can advance some plausible hypotheses. The class subject to the first action-
research cycle could be attending a curricular unit of arts at the same time, and so
found in pigments a powerful explanatory resource. The class subject to the second
action-research did not rely so heavily on pigment reasoning for they could have
attended at art class during an earlier stage of their formal learning, namely in
secondary school. However, the fact that category D suffers a variation of abundance
of the order of 4 % with each TLS is evidence that it resists instruction to a high degree.
From this, we can infer that colour as pigment, and more generally, colour as a
substance (Reiner, Slotta, Chi, & Resnick, 2000) is a powerful explanatory resource
and an ontological commitment to which students adhere.
Category E, BColour is due to characteristics of the vision or eyes^, can be ascribed
to a different reasoning strategy built upon different student disciplinary knowledge,
that is, Biology. While it was somewhat abundant at the beginning of the TLSs (14.3
and 19.7 %), it disappeared with instruction. In both TLSs, we did not enter into
explanations of vision beyond the idea that a point-image is located in the retina and
has a one-to-one correspondence with a point-object. There were no references to the
structure of the sensible part of the eye, the retina. This lack of reference to biological
structures in the retina could induce the students who mentioned cones and rods to shift
their explanation. We are not implying that those students acquired a correct under-
standing of colour and colour perception, but that they felt that biological structures did
not fit the answer the teacher was seeking.
Category A, BColour is a property of the material^, refers to those units which
explicitly related colour to the existence of special properties of the boxes, such as
pigments, dyes or chemical composition. The low abundance of this category in both
TLSs is somewhat surprising. At the beginning of TLS1 and TLS2, category A had
14.3 and 8.2 % respectively, and decreased by roughly 4 % in both TLS. We do not
think that those students who held knowledge ascribed to this category shifted to the
correct perspective, that is, category F. Although that might have happened, it seems
very unlikely. The major reason for this inference is twofold. On the one hand, category
C, BColour shares some of the properties of light^, increases with instruction in both
TLSs. This increase, of roughly 8 and 15 % respectively, sets this category, as we
suppose, as the target category for those who maintained a substance-based ontology
Teaching Colour and History and Philosophy of Science

for colour. For those students that shifted from category A to C, colour was able of
being reflected, refracted and absorbed, thus maintained the same ontological category.
Finally, category B, BLight is an enabler of vision and colour perception^, which
includes units of analysis that mention light as necessary to identify colours previously
existent in the materials, decreases by almost 15 % in the second TLS, but is stable in
TLS1. We must emphasise that in TLS2 we had more time and resources to explain the
decisive importance of light in colour formation and perception, since we did not spend
time instructing on the undulatory and corpuscular theory of light. As can be seen from
the category description, although the importance of light is part of this category, the
idea that colour is a property of the bodies remains central to category B.
In order to proceed, we pooled categories A, B, C and D, those that express domain
knowledge on colour that belongs to a Colour–Pigment Scheme (Galili & Hazan, 2000)
or, meaning the same, to the substance scheme (Reiner et al., 2000). In this scheme,
colour is some substance that belongs to bodies or some special materials like pig-
ments. Light enables us to see colour, but the absence of light implies only the
impossibility of seeing a property of the bodies that remains present. The abundance
of these four categories is 77.6 and 65.6 % before each TLS, and 79.6 and 68.6 % after
instruction. This means that the substance-based ontology was heavily present at the
beginning of each TLS and did not diminish with instruction. As we explicitly address
in our excursion into the history of colour and later in addressing student misconcep-
tions on the subject, this result was expected. In the narrow time dedicated to light,
vision and colour we could only expect slight improvements in the increase of
scientifically accepted conceptions.
Finally, although limited, the TLSs achieved some positive progress in student
conceptions of colour with a gain of 12.1 % in the TLS1 and 16 % in the TLS2.
With these results, we can say that our first research question—how do our classes
compare with what the literature refers as previous knowledge on colour?—received a
positive answer, that is, as we expected our students have the essential same ontological
commitment to understanding colour as the literature reports. Moreover, even when
they change their minds, most of them change to categories that hold an Aristotelian
conception of colour, thus confirming that this subject is firmly rooted.
Regarding the second research question—Do our TLSs close the gap between the
knowledge as it is conceptualised in everyday language and in science ?—we do detect
an increase in category F associated with scientifically accepted conceptions. However,
it is very limited and most probably not resistant to time.

Identified Flaws in the Didactic Sequence and HPS Informed Improvements

We agree with Raftopoulos et al. (2005) in considering that Newton’s approach in

Opticks (Newton, 1704), which does not explicitly commit to a wave or a corpuscular
nature of light, does not introduce unnecessary obstacles for a teaching and learning
didactic sequence on optics framed for elementary pre-service teachers. Thus, it
becomes more suitable for teaching and learning informed by constructivism, that is,
the simpler approach to the phenomena first and only then the necessary details.
In teaching-learning about colour there is no need to consider the wave-like aspects
of light, either to set the foundations for subsequent learning, or for students to acquire
a firm command for explaining basic colour phenomena. Although some fundamental
 P. Maurício et al.

aspects of light behaviour (e.g., interference, polarization, quantification of coloured

spectra) do demand a wave-like approach to the nature of light, its introduction while
fundamental concepts (rectilinear propagation of light in the same medium, laws of
refraction and reflection, imagery and compound nature of white light) are being
worked out in the TLS introduce additional complications.
We can therefore exclude the first premise pointed out by Galili and Hazan (2000)
that looms as a complicating factor to a teaching-learning of optics, namely the physical
parameters associated with light. It is not necessary to introduce wavelength or light
discreteness in order to conceive diverse lights: lights with different refrangibility.
However, this became one of the main shortfalls in TLS1, for some basic aspects of
wave-like theory of light were introduced before developing the subtractive synthesis.
This structure was chosen for several reasons, in part because it is routine, but also
because we had not yet completed the above reflections.
Newton’s accomplish in the conceptual change on the nature of light can illuminate
the path that we can follow in the next step of our action-research. When the
heterogeneity of white light was discarded by Goethe, he adopted a modification theory
of light. The scientific community of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries function as
a power source that boost Newton’s theory of colours and gave fully support to the
heterogeneity of light. Although the heterogeneity of light cannot be experimentally
demonstrated in the framework of geometrical optics, we can do Newton’s basic
experiment and appeal to the principle of parsimony.
Nonetheless, the scientific community is a community of peers that works in the
same framework and supports prior achievements. On the contrary, in teaching and
learning, the students’ achievements are constrained by the brief time of formal
instruction, compared with daily, diverse life experiences, with no integrated account
of the same phenomena, due to divisions among disciplines. This later hindrance upon
the conceptual change has a huge importance regarding colour: arts and physics, with
additional contribution from physiology, contribute to the formal teaching of colour.

Conclusions

In this work, we present an approach to the teaching and learning of colour to

prospective teachers in Portugal in which History and Philosophy of Science plays
a major role. Applying a constructivist approach to teaching and learning, we
inquired previous conceptions of colour and tried to build new knowledge upon
them. This was done in an action-research on two classes, during consecutive
years, through the design and implementation of a teaching-learning sequence.
Due to the limited time of the teaching-learning sequence, a factor beyond our
control, we did not expect a great change in the student’s knowledge on the
subject. Moreover, HPS indicates that the commitment to an Aristotelian concep-
tion prevails among students of various ages and countries, so we did not expect a
different result to our pre-service teachers.
These hypotheses were confirmed, with some positive increase in the category
ascribed to scientifically accepted conceptions, but also with a great prevalence and
maintenance of a substance-based ontology related to colour. Finally, we identify some
flaws in the teaching-learning-sequence and indicate possible improvements.
Teaching Colour and History and Philosophy of Science

Appendix

Questionnaire

1. Marta had bought the four boxes represented in the image. Say why we perceive
them with different colours.
2. The boxes are placed in a room where light does not enter nor is there any light
source. If Marta could see the boxes, would see them with which colour? Explain
your reasoning.

(In the original image, each box is perceived as red, green, blue and yellow (from
left to right).)

References

Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: perspectives & resources. Saint Paul, MN: SHiPS
Education Press.
Anderson, C. & Smith, E. (1986). Children's conceptions of light and color: Understanding the role of unseen
rays. Report Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching, Research Series no.166, 1–31.
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED270318).
Andersson, B. & Kärrqvist, C. (1983). How Swedish pupils, aged 12–15 years, understand light and its
properties. European Journal of Science Education, 5(4), 387–402. doi:10.1080/0140528830050403.
Bardin, L. (2007). Análise de conteúdo [Content analysis]. Lisboa, Portugal: Edições 70.
Bendall, S., Goldberg, F. & Galili, I. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ prior knowledge about light.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1169–1187.
Bogdan, R. C. & Bilken, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (2009). Educational action research: A critical approach. In S. Noffke & B. Somek
(Eds.), The sage handbook of educational action research (pp. 74–84). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Chauvet, F. (1996). Teaching colour: Designing and evaluation of a sequence. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 19(2), 121–136. doi:10.1080/0261976960190204.
Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1),
66–70.
Coelho, R. L. (2007). The Law of Inertia: How understanding its history can improve physics teaching.
Science & Education, 16(1), 955–974.
Coelho, R. L. (2012). Conceptual problems in the foundations of mechanics. Science & Education, 21(1),
1337–1356. doi:10.1007/s11191-010-9336-x.
Colin, P., Chauvet, F. & Viennot, L. (2002). Reading images in optics: Students’ difficulties and teachers’
views. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 313–332. doi:10.1080/09500690110078923.
 P. Maurício et al.

Darrigol, O. (2012). A history of optics from Greek antiquity to the nineteenth century. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Dedes, C. (2005). The mechanism of vision: conceptual similarities between historical models and children’s
representations. Science & Education, 14(1), 699–712. doi:10.1007/s11191-005-1928-5.
Dijksterhuis, F. (2008). Reading up on the Opticks. Refashioning Newton’s theories of light and colors in
eighteenth-century textbooks. Perspectives on Science, 16(4), 309–327.
diSessa, A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science,
6(1), 37–75. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0601_2.
Driver, R. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in
adolescent science studies. Studies in Science Education, 63(1), 221–230. doi:10.1080/
03057267808559857.
Elby, A. (2001). Helping physics students learn how to learn. American Journal of Physics, 69(S54), S54–
S64. doi:10.1119/1.1377283.
Faria, C., Pereira, G. & Chagas, I. (2012). D. Carlos de Bragança, a pioneer of experimental marine
oceanography: Filling the Gap between formal and informal science education. Science & Education,
21(6), 813–826. doi:10.1007/s11191-010-9239-x.
Feher, E. & Meyer, K. R. (1992). Children’s conceptions of color. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
29(5), 505–220.
Feher, E. & Rice, K. (1988). Shadows and anti-Images: Children’s conceptions of light and vision II. Science
Education, 72(5), 637–649.
Galili, I. & Hazan, A. (2000). Learner’s knowledge in optics: Interpretation, structure and analysis.
International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 57–88. doi:10.1080/095006900290000.
Gil-Pérez, D., Guisasola, J., Moreno, A., Cachapuz, A., Carvalho, A., Torregrosa, J., … Gallego, R. (2002).
Defending constructivism in science education. Science & Education, 11(6), 557–571. doi:10.1023/
A:1019639319987
Goldberg, F. M. (1987). Using an interactive video disc as a tool for an investigation and facilitating student
understanding in geometric optics. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Misconceptions and educational strategies in
science and mathematics (pp. 364–375). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Grant, E. (1996). The foundations of modern science in the middle ages: Their religious, institutional and
intellectual contexts. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hammer, D. & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich
(Eds.), Personal epistemolgy: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heywood, D. S. (2005). Primary trainee teachers’ learning and teaching about light: Some pedagogic
implications for initial teacher training. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1447–
1475. doi:10.1080/09500690500153741.
Höttecke, D., Henke, A. & Riess, F. (2012). Implementing history and philosophy in science teaching:
Strategies, methods, results and experiences from the European HIPST project. Science & Education,
21(9), 1233–1261. doi:10.1007/s11191-010-9330-3.
Höttecke, D. & Silva, C. C. (2011). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a
challenge: An analysis of obstacles. Science & Education, 20(3-4), 293–316. doi:10.1007/s11191-010-
9285-4.
Ierodiakonou, K. (2005). Empedocles on colour and colour vision. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 29,
1–37.
Kalman, C. (2009). The need to emphasize epistemology in teaching and research. Science & Education,
18(1), 325–347. doi:10.1007/s11191-007-9135-1.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567–605). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2006). Participatory action research: Comunicative action and the public
sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp.
559–603). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
La Rosa, C., Mayer, M., Patrizi, P. & Vicentini-Missoni, M. (1984). Commonsense knowledge in optics:
Preliminary results of an investigation into the properties of light. European Journal of Science
Education, 6(4), 387–397.
Langley, D., Ronen, M. & Eylon, B.-S. (1997). Light propagation and visual patterns: Preinstruction learners’
conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 399–424. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2736(199704)34:4<399::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-M.
Teaching Colour and History and Philosophy of Science

Leach, J. & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon
the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science
Education, 38(1), 115–142. doi:10.1080/03057260208560189.
Leach, J. & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science &
Education, 12(1), 91–113. doi:10.1023/A:1022665519862.
Lijnse, P. L. (2004). Didactical structures as an outcome of research on teaching–learning sequences?
International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 537–554. doi:10.1080/09500690310001614753.
Martinez-Borreguero, G., Pérez-Rodríguez, A. L., Suero-López, M. I. & Pardo-Fernández, P. J. (2013).
Detection of misconceptions about colour and an experimentally tested proposal to combat them.
International Journal of Science Education, 35(8), 1299–1324. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.770936.
Matthews, M. R. (1989). History, philosophy, and science teaching: A brief review. Synthese, 80(1), 1–7. doi:
10.1007/BF00869945.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Méheut, M. & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching–learning sequences: Aims and tools for science education
research. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 515–535. doi:10.1080/
09500690310001614762.
Nersessian, N. J. (1989). Conceptual change in science and in science education. Synthese, 80, 163–183.
Newton, I. (1704). Opticks: Or a treatise of the reflexions, refractions, inflexions and colours of light. London,
England: Royal Society. Retrieved from http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3362k/f1.item.zoom.
Nolan, D. (1997). Quantitative parsimony. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48(3), 329–343.
Olivieri, G., Torosantucci, G. & Vicentini, M. (1988). Coloured shadows. International Journal of Science
Education, 10(5), 561–569. doi:10.1080/0950069880100509.
Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (1994). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education (4th ed.).
Kiel, Germany: Institut fur die Padagogik de Naturwissenschaften.
Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception:
Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Psillos, D., Spyrtou, A. & Kariotoglou, P. (2005). Science teacher education: issues and proposals. In K.
Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education
(pp. 119–128). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Raftopoulos, A., Kalyfommatou, N. & Constantinou, C. P. (2005). The properties and the nature of light: The
study of Newton’s work and the teaching of optics. Science & Education, 14(7-8), 649–673. doi:10.1007/
s11191-004-5609-6.
Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H. & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to
substance- based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1–34. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1801.
Rice, K. & Feher, E. (1987). Pinholes and images: Children’s conceptions of light and vision I. Science
Education, 71(4), 629–639.
Saxena, A. (1991). The understanding of the properties of light by students in India. International Journal of
Science Education, 13(3), 283–289.
Schmitt, C. B. (1973). Towards a reassessment of Renaissance Aristotelianism. History of Science, xi, 159–
193.
Sepper, D. (1988). Goethe contra Newton: Polemics and the project for a new science of color. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sequeira, M. & Leite, L. (1991). Alternative conceptions and history of science in physics teacher education.
Science Education, 75(1), 45–56. doi:10.1002/sce.3730750105.
Shapiro, A. E. (1980). The evolving structure of Newton’s theory of white light and color. Isis, 71(2), 211–
235.
Shapiro, A. E. (1984). Experiment and mathematics in Newton’s theory of color. Physics Today, 37(9), 34. doi:
10.1063/1.2916400.
Shapiro, A. E. D1994]. Artists’ colors and Newton’s colors. Isis, 85D4], 600–630. Retrieved from http://www.
jstor.org/stable/235280.
Viennot, L., Chauvet, F., Colin, P. & Rebmann, G. (2005). Designing strategies and tools for teacher training:
The role of critical details, examples in optics. Science Education, 89(1), 13–27. doi:10.1002/sce.20040.
Viennot, L. & Hosson, C. (2012). Beyond a dichotomic approach, the case of colour phenomena.
International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1315–1336.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction,
4(1), 45–69. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3.
 P. Maurício et al.

Vosniadou, S. (2014). Examining cognitive development from a conceptual change point of view: The
framework theory approach. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(6), 645–661. doi:10.
1080/17405629.2014.921153.
Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X. & Skopeliti, I. (2009). The framework theory approach to problem of
conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change
(pp. 3–34). London, England: Routledge.
Westfall, R. S. (1962). The development Newton’s theory of color. Isis, 53(3), 339–358.
Westfall, R. S. (1980). Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.