Abstract
In this chapter we address the question of similarities and differences in students’ strategies and difficulties with graphs in the context of mathematics and physics and the question of possible transfer of knowledge between these domains. We divide mathematics into context-free mathematics and mathematics with context, but we limit contexts in this domain only to those which do not require special conceptual knowledge. The domain of physics is represented by kinematics, where graphs play an important role, but which also requires knowledge of basic kinematics concepts and relations. We review, compare, and synthesize the results from four of our studies which included high school and first-year university students from Croatia and Austria. We raise the question of how to promote transfer of knowledge between physics and mathematics and how to build stronger and more unified student knowledge of graphs. We also point to important student difficulties which may act as obstacles in that process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Araujo, I. S., Veit, E. A., & Moreira, M. A. (2008). Physics students’ performance using computational modeling activities to improve kinematics graphs interpretation. Computers in Education, 50, 1128.
Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(1), 153.
Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62, 750.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brasell, H. M., & Rowe, B. M. (1993). Graphing skills among high school physics students. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 63.
Christensen, W. M., & Thompson, J. R. (2012). Investigating graphical representations of slope and derivative without a physics context. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 8, 023101.
Cui, L. (2006). Assessing college students’ retention and transfer from calculus to physics (PhD Thesis). Kansas State University.
Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1990). On difficulties with diagrams: Theoretical issues. In G. Booker, P. Cobb, & T. N. De Mendicuti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 27–36). Oaxtepex: PME.
Forster, P. A. (2004). Graphing in physics: Processes and sources of error in tertiary entrance examinations in Western Australia. Research in Science Education, 34, 239.
Graham, T., & Sharp, J. (1999). An investigation into able students’ understanding of motion graphs. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 18, 128.
Habre, S., & Abboud, M. (2006). Students’ conceptual understanding of a function and its derivative in an experimental calculus course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 57–72.
Hadjidemetriou, C., & Williams, J. S. (2002). Children’s’ graphical conceptions. Research in Mathematics Education, 4, 69.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–120). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Ivanjek, L., Planinic, M., Hopf, M., & Susac, A. (2015). Student difficulties with graphs in different contexts. In K. Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto, & J. Lavonen (Eds.), Cognitive and affective aspects in science education research – Selected papers from the ESERA 2015 conference (pp. 167–178). Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.
Ivanjek, L., Susac, A., Planinic, M., Milin-Sipus, Z., & Andrasevic, A. (2016). Student reasoning about graphs in different contexts. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12, 010106.
Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16 (pp. 120–136). London: John Murray.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64.
Linacre, J. M. (2006). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago: Winsteps.com.
Linacre, J. M. A user’s guide to WINSTEPS. www.winsteps.com
McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503.
Michelsen, C. (2005). Expanding the domain – Variables and functions in an interdisciplinary context between mathematics and physics. In A. Beckmann, C. Michelsen, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium of Mathematics and its Connections to the Arts and Sciences. The University of Education, Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany, pp. 201–214.
Nguyen, D. H., & Rebello, N. S. (2011). Students’ understanding and application of the area under the curve concept in physics problems. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 7, 010112.
Planinic, M., Milin-Sipus, Z., Katic, H., Susac, A., & Ivanjek, L. (2012). Comparison of student understanding of line graph slope in physics and mathematics. The International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1393.
Planinic, M., Ivanjek, L., Susac, A., & Milin-Sipus, Z. (2013). Comparison of university students’ understanding of graphs in different contexts. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 9, 020103.
Potgieter, M., Harding, A., & Engelbrecht, J. (2008). Transfer of algebraic and graphical thinking between mathematics and chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 197–218.
Swatton, P., & Taylor, R. M. (1994). Pupil performance in graphical tasks and its relationship to the ability to handle variables. British Educational Research Journal, 20, 227.
Tuminaro, J. (2004). A cognitive framework for analyzing and describing introductory students’ use and understanding of mathematics in physics. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
Tuminaro, J., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 3, 020101.
Wemyss, T., & van Kampen, P. (2013). Categorization of first-year university students’ interpretations of numerical linear distance-time graphs. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 9, 010107.
Woolnough, J. (2000). How do students learn to apply their mathematical knowledge to interpret graphs in physics? Research in Science Education, 30, 259.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Planinic, M., Susac, A., Ivanjek, L., Milin Šipuš, Ž. (2019). Comparing Student Understanding of Graphs in Physics and Mathematics. In: Pospiech, G., Michelini, M., Eylon, BS. (eds) Mathematics in Physics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04626-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04627-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)