Employing simulation led optical design assessments (SLODAs) in an upper division optics course provides students with a deeper understanding of optical design, interactions, and devices, while reinforcing their understanding of computational methods. The upper division optics course discussed here did not have a required lab component as would be typical at many institutions. Therefore, the practical and expanded experiences students gained via SLODA in lieu of a laboratory experience were particularly crucial in developing advanced student understanding and skills in both optical design and computational applications. SLODA can also supplement a laboratory-based course with computational skill development. After introducing students to various computational methods during the early part of the course via scaffolding in-class preliminary computational activities, students were then assigned more complicated application based SLODA. This paper details each of the preliminary computational activities and SLODA, including their implementation and both the optical and computational considerations these activities and assessments were designed to introduce. An example SLODA is detailed. A reflection on the implementation of SLODA is provided for those interested in adopting the curriculum. A list of online resources is given in the Appendix for faculty wishing to implement SLODA. Finally, a sample of the student work submitted is presented and discussed in the journal's supplementary material. While success was specifically found via the implementation of SLODA in an upper division optics course, the potential exists for adaptation of the simulation led design assessment approach to other practical, design-based courses such as electronics or those within the engineering disciplines.

1.
How People Learn: Mind, Brain, Experience and School, Expanded Edition
, edited by
J. D.
Bransford
,
A.
Brown
, and
R.
Cocking
(
National Academy
,
Washington, DC
,
2000
).
2.
M. D.
Svinicki
,
Learning and Motivation in the Post-Secondary Classroom
(
Anker Publishing Company, Inc
.,
Boston
,
2004
).
3.
M. S.
Sabella
and
E. F.
Redish
, “
Knowledge organization and activation in physics problem solving
,”
Am. J. Phys
75
(
11
),
1017
1029
(
2007
).
4.
S.
Freeman
,
S. L.
Eddy
,
M.
McDonough
,
M. K.
Smith
,
N.
Okoroafor
,
H.
Jordt
, and
M. P.
Wenderoth
, “
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics
,”
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
111
(
23
),
8410
8415
(
2014
).
5.
N.
Lasry
and
M. W.
Aulls
, “
The effect of multiple internal representations on context-rich instruction
,”
Am. J. Phys
75
(
11
),
1030
1037
(
2007
).
6.
AAPT Undergraduate Curriculum Task Force
,
AAPT Recommendations for Computational Physics in the Undergraduate Physics Curriculum
(
American Association of Physics Teachers
,
2016
); available at https://www.aapt.org/resources/upload/aapt_uctf_compphysreport_final_b.pdf
7.
F.
Reif
,
Applying Cognitive Science to Education: Thinking and Learning in Scientific and Other Complex Domains
(
The MIT
,
Cambridge, MA
,
2008
).
8.
J. M.
Wilson
and
E. F.
Redish
, “
Using computers in teaching physics
,”
Phys. Today
42
(
1
),
34
41
(
1989
).
9.
P. M.
Greenfield
, “
Technology and informal education: What is taught, what is learned
,”
Science
323
,
69
71
(
2009
).
10.
Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs
,
Phys 21: Preparing Physics Students for 21st-Century Careers
(
American Physical Society
,
2016
), available at <https://www.compadre.org/JTUPP/docs/J-Tupp_Report.pdf>
11.
Subcommittee of the AAPT Committee on Laboratories
,
AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum
(
American Association of Physics Teachers
,
2014
); available at https://www.aapt.org/resources/upload/labguidlinesdocument_ebendorsed_nov10.pdf
12.
E.
Hecht
,
Optics
, 5th ed. (
Pearson
,
Boston
,
2017
).
13.
V.
Rossi
, “
Simulation Led Optical Design Assessments
,” Published in the PICUP Collection for <https://www.compadre.org/PICUP/exercises/exercise.cfm?I=505&A=SLODA>, September
2021
.
15.
See supplementary material at https://www.scitation.org/doi/suppl/10.1119/5.0064138 for Simulation Led Optical Design Assessment Resources.
16.
For details about the software package used for simulation led optical design assessments, see the GNU Octave website, <https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/>
17.
A. M.
Price
,
C. J.
Kim
,
E. W.
Burkholder
,
A. V.
Fritz
, and
C. E.
Wieman
, “
A detailed characterization of the expert problem-solving process in science and engineering: Guidance for teaching and assessment
,”
CBE—Life Sci. Educ.
20
(
3
),
ar43
(
2021
).
18.
N. G.
Holmes
,
B.
Keep
, and
C. E.
Wieman
, “
Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency
,”
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
16
,
010109
(
2020
).
19.
Background information on darkfield imaging was provided to students via the Nikon MicroscopyU website, <https://www.microscopyu.com/techniques/stereomicroscopy/darkfield-illumination>

Supplementary Material

AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.