- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Extending the action, process, object, schema theory to physics education: A genetic decomposition of the two-dimensional heat equation

Maria Al Dehaybes1, Johan Deprez2, Paul van Kampen3, and Mieke De Cock1

  • 1LESEC and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Faculty of Science, KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
  • 2LESEC and Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
  • 3CASTeL and School of Physical Sciences, Dublin City University, Ireland

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020132 – Published 21 October, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/1wc9-xgdj

Abstract

In this paper, we describe our extension of the action, process, object, schema (APOS) theory to capture the complex interplay of mathematics and physics. We do this in the context of the 2D heat equation. We describe a hypothetical learning trajectory of the 2D heat equation, a preliminary genetic decomposition that stresses the conceptual understanding of its mathematical formulation. In our extension of APOS to physics education, we highlight how our approach precisely captures the interplay between mathematics and physics in different mental constructions of the framework. In addition to this core focus, we consider other layers when designing the preliminary genetic decomposition: the key concepts and the necessary depth of students’ prerequisite knowledge of the chosen context, the challenges students commonly face with these concepts, and the use of multiple external representations. We conclude by giving an overview of future research to be done after the design of the preliminary genetic decomposition.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (42)

  1. G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B.-S. Eylon, Mathematics in Physics Education, 1st ed. (Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, 2019), 10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9.
  2. S. Van Den Eynde, B. P. Schermerhorn, J. Deprez, M. Goedhart, J. R. Thompson, and M. De Cock, Dynamic conceptual blending analysis to model student reasoning processes while integrating mathematics and physics: A case study in the context of the heat equation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010114 (2020).
  3. J. R. Thompson, B. R. Bucy, and D. B. Mountcastle, Assessing student understanding of partial derivatives in thermodynamics, AIP Conf. Proc. 818, 77 (2006).
  4. J. Tuminaro, A Cognitive Framework for Analyzing and Describing Introductory Students’ Use and Understanding of Mathematics in Physics (University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 2004).
  5. E. F. Redish, Problem solving and the use of math in physics courses, arXiv:physics/0608268.
  6. O. Uhden, R. Karam, M. Pietrocola, and G. Pospiech, Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education, Sci. Educ. 21, 485 (2012).
  7. G. Fauconnier and M. Turner, Conceptual integration networks, Cognit. Sci. 22, 133 (1998).
  8. E. F. Redish, A theoretical framework for physics education research: modeling student thinking, arXiv:physics/0411149.
  9. E. F. Redish and E. Kuo, Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology, Sci. Educ. 24, 561 (2015).
  10. T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020108 (2009).
  11. B. L. Sherin, How students understand physics equations, Cognit. Instr. 19, 479 (2001).
  12. L. Doughty, E. McLoughlin, and P. van Kampen, What integration cues, and what cues integration in intermediate electromagnetism, Am. J. Phys. 82, 1093 (2014).
  13. D. Tall and S. Vinner, Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity, Educ. Stud. Math. 12, 151 (1981).
  14. R. Karam, O. Uhden, and D. Höttecke, The “math as prerequisite” illusion: Historical considerations, and implications for physics teaching, in Mathematics in Physics Education, edited by G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B.-S. Eylon (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019), pp. 37–52, 10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_2.
  15. E. Dubinsky and P. Lewin, Reflective abstraction and mathematics education: The genetic decomposition of induction and compactness, J. Math. Behav. 5, 55 (1986), https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-29647-001.
  16. D. Tall, Advanced mathematical thinking, in Mathematics Education Library (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991).
  17. M. Asiala, A. Brown, D. Devries, D. Mathews, and K. Thomas, A framework for research and curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics education, in Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education. II (American Mathematical Society, Washington, DC, 1996), pp. 1–32.
  18. Van Den Eynde Sofie, Blending of mathematics and physics: Undergraduate students’ reasoning in the context of the heat equation (KU Leuven, 2021) [Online]. Available: https://kuleuven.limo.libis.be/permalink/32KUL_KUL/cro8e8/alma9993054108401488%0A.
  19. S. Van den Eynde, M. Goedhart, J. Deprez, and M. De Cock, Role of graphs in blending physical and mathematical meaning of partial derivatives in the context of the heat equation, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 21, 25 (2023).
  20. L. Bollen, P. van Kampen, C. Baily, and M. De Cock, Qualitative investigation into students’ use of divergence and curl in electromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020134 (2016).
  21. S. Ainsworth, DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations, Learn. Instr. 16, 183 (2006).
  22. I. Arnon et al., APOS Theory: A Framework for Research and Curriculum Development in Mathematics Education (Springer Science + Business Media, New York, 2014).
  23. M. Zandieh, A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative, in CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, edited by E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, and J. KAput (American Mathematical Society, 2000), Vol. 8, pp. 103–127, 10.1090/cbmath/008.
  24. R. Martínez-Planell and M. Trigueros, Using cycles of research in APOS: The case of functions of two variables, J. Math. Behav. 55, 100687 (2019).
  25. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/1wc9-xgdj for the complete PGD of the 2D heat equation and its prerequisite concepts.
  26. F. B. Kneubil and M. R. Robilotta, Physics teaching: Mathematics as an epistemological tool, Sci. Educ. 24, 645 (2015).
  27. M. Al Dehaybes, J. Deprez, P. van Kampen, and M. De Cock, Students’ understanding of two-variable calculus concepts in mathematics, and physics contexts. II. The gradient and the Laplacian, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010132 (2025).
  28. S. Van den Eynde, J. Deprez, M. Goedhart, and M. De Cock, Undergraduate students’ difficulties with boundary conditions for the diffusion equation, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 53, 2176 (2022).
  29. K. Carlton, Teaching about heat and temperature, Phys. Educ. 35, 101 (2000).
  30. F. N. Nabilah, J. Maknun, M. Muslim, A. Samsudin, L. Hasanah, and A. Suhandi, Eleventh-grade student’s conceptions about temperature and heat, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1280, 052067 (2019).
  31. J. Yeo, E. Lim, K. C. D. Tan, and Y. S. Ong, The efficacy of an image-to-writing approach to learning abstract scientific concepts: Temperature and heat, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 19, 21 (2021).
  32. D. T. Brookes and E. Etkina, The importance of language in students’ reasoning about heat in thermodynamic processes, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 759 (2015).
  33. S. M. Brahmia, Mathematization in introductory physics, Ph.D. thesis, The State University of New Jersey, 2014.
  34. M. Al Dehaybes, J. Deprez, P. van Kampen, and M. De Cock, Students’ understanding of Laplacian, and gradient in mathematics, and physics context, in The Learning, and Teaching of Calculus Across Disciplines, edited by T. Dreyfus, A. S. Gonzalez-Marin, J. Monaghan, E. Nardi, and P. W. Thompson (The Centre for Research, Innovation and Coordination of Mathematics Teaching at the University of Agder, Bergen, 2023), pp. 85–88 [Online]. Available: https://matriccalcconf2.sciencesconf.org/.
  35. M. Al Dehaybes, J. Deprez, P. Van Kampen, and M. De Cock, Students’ understanding of two-variable calculus concepts in mathematics and physics contexts. II. The gradient and the Laplacian, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010132 (2025).
  36. M. Trigueros and R. Martínez-Planell, Geometrical representations in the learning of two-variable functions, Educ. Stud. Math. 73, 3 (2010).
  37. R. Martínez-Planell and M. Trigueros Gaisman, Students’ understanding of the general notion of a function of two variables, Educ. Stud. Math. 81, 365 (2012).
  38. R. Martínez-Planell and M. T. Gaisman, Graphs of functions of two variables: Results from the design of instruction, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 44, 663 (2013).
  39. M. De Cock, Representation use and strategy choice in physics problem solving, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020117 (2012).
  40. C. M. Rebello and N. S. Rebello, Adapting a theoretical framework for characterizing students’ use of equations in physics problem solving, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 311 (2012).
  41. E. D. Dubinsky, Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking, in Advanced Mathematical Thinking (Springer, Dordrecht, 1991), pp. 95–126.
  42. A. Oktaç, What’s new with APOS theory? A look into levels and totality, Av. Invest. Educ. Mat. 21, 9 (2022).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020132– Published 21 October, 2025
  • Received 11 February 2025
  • Accepted 3 October 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation