Abstract
A primary goal of physics is to create mathematical models that allow both predictions and explanations of physical phenomena. We weave maths extensively into our physics instruction beginning in high school, and the level and complexity of the maths we draw on grows as our students progress through a physics curriculum. Despite much research on the learning of both physics and math, the problem of how to successfully teach most of our students to use maths in physics effectively remains unsolved. A fundamental issue is that in physics, we don’t just use maths, we think about the physical world with it. As a result, we make meaning with mathematical symbology in a different way than mathematicians do. In this talk we analyse how developing the competency of mathematical modelling is more than just “learning to do math” but requires learning to blend physical meaning into mathematical representations and use that physical meaning in solving problems. Examples are drawn from across the curriculum.
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
Notes
- 1.
A “warrant” is a specific reason presented to justify a claim (Toulmin 1958).
References
AAMC/HHMI. (2009). Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians: Report of the AAMC-HHMI Committee.
AAAS. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. AAAS Press.
Baddeley, A. (1998). Human Memory: Theory and practice (revised Ed.). Allyn & Bacon. ISBN: 978-0205123124
Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2009). Analysing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020108. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020108
Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2012). Epistemic complexity and the journeyman-expert transition. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8, 010105. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010105
Bridgman, P. W. (1922). Dimensional analysis. Yale University Press, p. 2. ISBN: 978-1451002621
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an Epistemology of Physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225. http://jstor.org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/stable/3233725
Dreyfus, B., Geller, B. D., Gouvea, J., Sawtelle, V., Turpen, C., & Redish, E. F. (2014). Chemical energy in an introductory physics course for the life sciences. American Journal of Physics, 82, 403–411. doi:10.1119/1.4870391.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554–567. doi:10.1002/sce.1023
EUR-LEX. (2006). Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning [Official Journal L 394 of 30.12.2006]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Ac11090
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN: 0-8058-6014-2
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books. ISBN: 9780465087860
Geller, B., Dreyfus, B., Gouvea, J., Sawtelle, V., Turpen, C., & Redish, E. F. (2014). Entropy and spontaneity in an introductory physics course for life science students. American Journal of Physics, 82, 394–402. doi:10.1119/1.4870389.
Griffiths, D. J. (1999) Introduction to electrodynamics (3rd Ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN: 013805326X.
Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2011). Beyond epistemological deficits: Dynamic explanations of engineering students’ difficulties with mathematical sense making. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2463–2488. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.551551.
Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 68, S52–S59. doi:10.1119/1.19520
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. J. Learning Sci., 12, 53–90. http://jstor.org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/stable/1466634
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives (p. 1593111649). Information Age Publishing. ISBN: 978-1593111649
Lakoff, G., & Johnson. M. (1980/2003). Metaphors we live by. University of ChicagoPress. ISBN: 780226468013.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol 1: Theoretical perspectives. Stanford University Press. ISBN: 9780804738514
Moore, K., Gianini, J., & Losert, W. (2014). Toward better physics labs for future biologists. American Journal of Physics, 82, 387–393. doi:10.1119/1.4870388.
National Research Council. (2003). Bio 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. National Academy Press. ISBN: 978-0-309-08535-9
Redish, E. F. (2005). Problem solving and the use of math in physics courses, in Proceedings of the Conference, World View on Physics Education in 2005: Focusing on Change, Delhi. 21–26 Aug 2005. arXiv:physics/0608268 [physics.ed-ph].
Redish, E. F. (2014). Oersted lecture: How should we think about how our students think? American Journal of Physics, 82, 537–551. doi:10.1119/1.4874260.
Redish, E F., & Cooke, T. (2013). Learning each other’s ropes: Negotiating interdisciplinary authenticity, Cell Biology Education - Life Science Education, 12, 175–186. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-09-0147
Redish, E. F., & Kuo, E. (2015). Language of physics, language of math. Science and Education, 25(5–6), 561–590. doi:10.1007/s11191-015-9749-7.
Redish, E. F., Bauer, C., Carleton, K. L., Cooke, T. J., Cooper, M., & Crouch, C. H., et al. (2014). NEXUS/Physics: An interdisciplinary repurposing of physics for biologists. American Journal of Physics, 82(5), 368–377. doi: 10.1119/1.4870386
Sherin, B. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 479–541.http://jstor.org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/stable/3233857
Tannen, D. (1994). Framing in discourse. D. Tannen Oxford University Press, 14–56. ISBN: 978-0195079968
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0521092302
Watkins, J., Coffey, J. E., Redish, E. F., & Cooke T. J. (2012). Disciplinary authenticity: Enriching the reforms of introductory physics courses for life-science students. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8, 010112. 17 p. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010112
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges conversations and collaborations with the members of the NEXUS/Physics team and the University of Maryland’s Physics Education Research Group. This material is based upon work supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the US National Science Foundation under Awards No. DUE-12-39999 and DUE-15-04366. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Redish, E.F. (2017). Analysing the Competency of Mathematical Modelling in Physics. In: Greczyło, T., Dębowska, E. (eds) Key Competences in Physics Teaching and Learning. Springer Proceedings in Physics, vol 190. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44887-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44887-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44886-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44887-9
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)