Skip to main content

Taking the Phys-Math Interplay from Research into Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mathematics in Physics Education

Abstract

Physics and mathematics are heavily interwoven in the context of physics education at many levels. Research in physics education indicates that insufficient knowledge of the “Phys-Math” interplay may reflect on the quality of the learners’ explanations of physical phenomena, their ability to construct mathematical models of physical processes, or on their ability to describe the physical meaning of mathematical constructs (Clement et al. 1981; Cohen et al. 1983; Rozier S, Viennot L. Int J SciEdu 13:159–170, 1991; Rebmann and Viennot 1994; Bagno E, Eylon B,Berger H. Phys Edu 43(1):75–82, 2007; Redish EF, Smith KA. J Eng Edu97(3):295–307; Baumert et al. 2010; Zuccarini and Michelini 2014).

Studies on physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) with regard to the “Phys-Math” interplay indicated that high school physics teachers employ complex two-way tracks between the two disciplines in order to support learners in constructing their knowledge and understanding of physics. These tracks construct different patterns, each of which addresses different teaching goals (Lehavi et al. 2013; Pospiech et al. 2014; Pospiech G, Eylon BS, Bagno E, Lehavi Y, Geyer MA. The role of mathematics for physics teaching and understanding. In The GIREP MPTL 2015 Conference Proceedings. Italian Physical Society. https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2015-15110-6, 2015; Lehavi Y, Amit Yosovich A, Barak S. Sch Sci Rev 97(361):9–14, 2016a, Lehavi Y, Bagno E, Eylon B, Mualem R, Pospiech G, Böhm U, Krey O, Karam R. Classroom evidence of teachers’ PCK of the interplay of physics and mathematics. In: Greczyło T, Dębowska E (eds) Selected contributions from the International Conference GIREP EPEC 2015, Wrocław Poland, 6–10 July 2015, p 95–104, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44887-9_8, 2016b).

Here we present two applications of the Phys-Math patterns used by physics teachers, which were identified as construction and application patterns. First, a strategy, which involves visual representations for explaining and predicting phenomena, was applied in the context of Newton’s laws and was shown to significantly advance JHS students’ performance in the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) test| (Mualem and Eylon 2007; Mualem R, Eylon BS. J Res Sci Teach 47(9):1094–1115. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20369). This strategy, however, was not discussed in the context of the Phys-Math interplay. Hereafter we will refer to this strategy as “Visual Mathematics” (VM), and we suggest that it will be used possibly as support for students in constructing a mathematical model for physical situations that can also assist them in solving problems. We will also reinterpret the strategy and its implications in the context of the Phys-Math interplay.

To further demonstrate the possible potential of the VM strategy, we will describe here how this strategy, which was developed and tested in the context of Newton’s laws, can be applied in a new context – teaching energy for the JHS level.

We claim that such a strategy can play an important role in teachers’ training and in fostering their Phys-Math PCK.

As a second application of the construction and the application patterns, we will demonstrate in the same teaching context (energy) how formulae can be constructed from experiments. More specifically, we will demonstrate how students can arrive from the results of experiments, similar to those conducted by Joule, to the formula for the energy change corresponding to a change in the height of an object.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Vector notation was left out due to the student’s age.

  2. 2.

    This was reported by Redish et al. for university-level students.

  3. 3.

    This adaptation was not yet tested.

  4. 4.

    The value of energy does not appear in the first law of thermodynamics – only its quantitative changes.

  5. 5.

    This order is not compulsory.

  6. 6.

    This follows Joule’s approach, according to which one can attribute a measurable quantity for different processes by the same operation: measuring the maximal change in the temperature of a standard body that each process can cause.

  7. 7.

    This means that for each change in a specific variable, the students will be able to relate to the corresponding change in the amount of energy. No formula is required at this stage.

  8. 8.

    Bear in mind that, according to the teaching approach, the value of the energy change corresponding to each process is experimentally predetermined.

  9. 9.

    Surprisingly, performing Joule-like experiments, which are crucial for quantifying energy change in different phenomena and hence for laying the ground for energy conservation, was excluded from many school physics curricula (Bécu-Robinault and Tiberghien 1998). This occurred despite the recognized importance of Joule’s experiments for teaching the subject of thermodynamics (Sichau 2000).

  10. 10.

    This equivalence between mechanical and nonmechanical processes cannot be deduced from mechanical laws (Arons 1999).

  11. 11.

    Interestingly, no one (according to our experience so far) suggested falling as one of these processes.

  12. 12.

    Of course this requires that the heated standard body be well isolated.

  13. 13.

    The heart of our device lies in using a wine bottle cork with a digital thermometer inserted in it. When the cork revolves around the thermometer, friction heats up the metallic probe of the thermometer and the sensor within it. The “standard” object is the thermometer probe (instead of a fixed amount of water in Joule’s original experiment), and the cork plays the same role as the paddles. It also serves as a very good insulator.

References

  • Arons, A. B. (1999). Development of energy concepts in introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 67(12), 1063–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagno, E., Eylon, B., & Berger, H. (2007). Meeting the challenge of students’ understanding formulas in high-school physics – A learning tool. Physics Education, 43(1), 75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevilacqua, F. (2014, June). Energy: Learning from the past. Science & Education, 23(6), 1231–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bécu-Robinault, K., & Tiberghien, A. (1998). Integrating experiments into the teaching of energy. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J., Lochhead, J., & Monk, G. (1981). Translation difficulties in learning mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 88(4), 286–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R., Eylon, B., & Ganiel, U. (1983). Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A study of students’ concepts. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), 407–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etkina, E. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.univ-reims.fr/site/evenement/girep-icpe-mptl-2010-reims-international-conference/gallery_files/site/1/90/4401/22908/29702/30688.pdf

  • Eylon, B. S., & Lehavi, Y. (2010). Position paper: Energy as the language of changes. In P. R. L. Heron, M. Michelini, B. S. Eylon, Y. Lehavi, & A. Stefanel (Co-organizers), Teaching about energy. Which concepts should be taught at which educational level? A workshop held within: GIREP – ICPE – MPTL 2010, University of Reims, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, M., Kuo, E., Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2013). Problem-solving rubrics revisited: Attending to the blending of informal conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 9(1), 010105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joule, J. P. (1850). On the mechanical equivalent of heat. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 140, 61–82. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0261-0523%281850%29140%3C61%3AOTMEOH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

  • Karplus, R. (2003). Introductory physics – A model approach. Captains Engineering Services, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, E., Hull, M. M., Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2013). How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems. Science Education, 97, 32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehavi, Y., Bagno, E., Eylon, B. S., & Cohen, E. (2013). Can math for physics teachers impact their conceptual knowledge of physics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehavi, Y., Eylon, B. S., Hazan, A., Bamberger, Y., & Weizman, A. (2014). Focusing on changes in teaching about energy. In M. F. Taşar & G. Üniversitesi (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Physics Education 2012 (pp. 491–498), Istanbul, Turkey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehavi, Y., Bagno, E., Eylon, B. S., Mualem, R., Pospiech, G., Böhm, U., et al. (2015). Towards a pck of physics and mathematics interplay. In C. Fazio & R. Sperandeo-Mineo (Eds.), The GIREP MPTL 2014 conference proceedings. Dipartimento di Fisica e Chimica, Università degli Studi di Palermo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehavi, Y., Amit Yosovich, A., & Barak, S. (2016a). Bringing Joule back to school. School Science Review, 97(361), 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehavi, Y., Bagno, E., Eylon, B., Mualem, R., Pospiech, G., Böhm, U., Krey, O., & Karam, R. (2016b). Classroom evidence of teachers’ PCK of the interplay of physics and mathematics. In T. Greczyło & E. Dębowska (Eds.), Selected contributions from the International Conference GIREP EPEC 2015, Wrocław Poland, 6–10 July 2015 (pp. 95–104). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44887-9_8

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehavi, Y., et al. (2017). Classroom evidence of teachers’ PCK of the interplay of physics and mathematics. In T. Greczyło & E. Dębowska (Eds.), Key competences in physics teaching and learning. Springer proceedings in physics (Vol. 190). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehavi, Y., & Eylon, B. S. (2018). Integrating science education research and history and philosophy of science in developing an energy curriculum. In History, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 235–260). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–133). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L. C. (1984, July). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37(7), 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minstrell, J. (1983). Getting the facts straight. Science Teacher, 50(1), 52–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R. (2014). Towards a research-informed teaching sequence for energy. In R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, & J. C. Nordine (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mualem, R., & Eylon, B. S. (2010). Junior high school physics: Using a qualitative strategy for successful problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1094–1115. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pospiech, G., Eylon, B. S., Bagno, E., Lehavi, Y., & Geyer, M. A. (2015). The role of mathematics for physics teaching and understanding. In The GIREP MPTL 2015 Conference Proceedings. Italian Physical Society. https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2015-15110-6.

  • Pugh, K. (2004). Newton’s laws beyond the classroom walls. Science Education, 88(2), 182–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, H. (2014). A physicist’s musings on teaching about energy. In R. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, J. Nordine, & A. Scheff (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 15–36). Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rebmann, G., & Viennot, L. (1994). Teaching algebraic coding: Stakes, difficulties, and suggestions. American Journal of Physics, 62(8), 723–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redish, E. F. (1999). Millikan lecture 1998: Building a science of teaching physics. American Journal of Physics, 67(7), 562–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redish, E. F., & Smith, K. A. (2008). Looking beyond content: Skill development for engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reif, F. (1965). Fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics McGraw-Hill series in fundamentals of physics. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif, F. (1967). Statistical physics: Berkeley physics course (Vol. 5). New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif, F. (1995, December). Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 261–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozier, S., & Viennot, L. (1991). Students’ reasoning in thermodynamics. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sichau, C. (2000). Practicing helps: Thermodynamics, history, and experiment. Science & Education, 9(4), 389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lehavi, Y., Mualem, R., Bagno, E., Eylon, BS., Pospiech, G. (2019). Taking the Phys-Math Interplay from Research into Practice. In: Pospiech, G., Michelini, M., Eylon, BS. (eds) Mathematics in Physics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04626-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04627-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics