Optical Illusions

Noah Olmsted, Lisa Retrum, Anita Bowles, Keasa Jones

Hello from Noah Olmsted, Lisa Retrum, Anita Bowles and Keasa Jones. Here is a literal representaion of of our notes (author(s)) generated by our critique of the optical science kit ( to show group cognition/ reality of experience) tied with a briefe muse-

Scientific content

- Some had explanation, for example mixed image explained how if you look @ 2 things that they will couple ontop of each other
- the frogs had no explanation. The begining of the motion pictures
- a lot of room for misinterpretation
- C grade
- target audience? utiliized as an aid for class room rather than for one individual
- simple 3D stuff was more interesting ( supervisor)
- perhapes be more interested in magic, each individual is different.
- mixed results, some important, some trivial. Too much info on putting together.


- kind of flimsy, did'nt have good information
- too much text ( need a supervisor)
- pieces fitted
- def, multiple people
- gives a lot of experiments but each experiment use only once. Perhaps the spinning top and code in the mirror
- instructions were scattered. They needed to be attached to the correct experiment.

Aesthetic appeal/ Entertainment

- The inside is not attracive ( too much white paper). The kids might love color also distracting the experiment itself.
- only a few things zoetrope, spin top
- yes but again too much instructions making it confusing and frustrating for childeren
- more picture directions for childeren

Future development

- make some things colored
- simplify instructions
- some dynamic material
- texture, construction paper, cut out
- needs to say to do w/friends
- crayons rather than markers
- 3D glasses
- loved the mirror
- more hands on
- Name needs help ( Magic something)
- make the zoetrope motorized, light sources
- acompaning software where you touch screen to get answers- slow down on computer and explain why it works.

Over all the critique had the feel of a forgotten experience where perspective was out of phase. This is and always will be the delima of adults designing educational tools/models for childeren. The kit attempted the approch of optics as entertainment without much scientific content.The contents were percived as sterile finance data that had fallen from some leather briefecase. The identity of a coloring book was also a very strong implication. The kit did exercise the majority of optical models of perception. The scientific models these activities represent are dynamic. The creators of this kit failed to fully reveal the deft brilliance of such scientific models. The subject, if approached in a didactic way,( and usign say, embedded computation) has a profound capacity for high levels of subject awareness. Adults need to remember what it was like to be a child. Their are very complex and effective learning models hidden in this memory.