- 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
  • Open Access

Assessing physics quantitative literacy development in algebra-based physics

Charlotte Zimmerman1, Alexis Olsho2, Trevor I. Smith3, Philip Eaton4, and Suzanne White Brahmia1

  • 1Department of Physics, University of Washington, Box 351560, Seattle, Washington 98195-1560, USA
  • 2Department of Physics and Meteorology, United States Air Force Academy, 2354 Fairchild Drive, USAF Academy, Colorado 80840 USA
  • 3Department of Physics and Astronomy and Department of STEAM Education, Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, New Jersey 08028, USA
  • 4School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Stockton University, Galloway, New Jersey 08205, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020108 – Published 18 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/lnd6-pxyt

Abstract

Quantitative reasoning is an essential learning objective of physics instruction. The Physics Inventory for Quantitative Literacy (PIQL) is a published assessment tool that has been developed for calculus-based physics courses to help instructors evaluate whether their students learn to reason this way. However, the PIQL is not appropriate for the large population of students taking physics who are not enrolled in, or have not completed, calculus. To address this need, we have developed the General Equation-based Reasoning inventory of QuaNtity (GERQN). The GERQN is an algebra-based version of the PIQL and is appropriate for most physics students; the only requirement is that students have taken algebra, so they are familiar with the use of variables, negative quantities, and linear functions. In this paper, we present the development and validation of the GERQN, and a short discussion on how the GERQN can be used by instructors to help their students learn.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (60)

  1. O. Uhden, R. Karam, M. Pietrocola, and G. Pospiech, Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education, Sci. Educ. 21, 485 (2012).
  2. S. White Brahmia, Quantification and its importance to modeling in introductory physics, Eur. J. Phys. 40, 044001 (2019).
  3. J. D. Gifford and N. D. Finkelstein, Categorical framework for mathematical sense making in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020121 (2020).
  4. J. A. Czocher and H. L. Hardison, Attending to quantities through the modelling space, in Mathematical Modelling Education in East and West, edited by F. K. S. Leung, G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, and K. L. Wong (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021), pp. 263–272.
  5. P. W. Thompson, Quantitative reasoning and mathematical modeling, in New Perspectives and Directions for Collaborative Research in Mathematical Education, edited by L. L. Hatfield, S. Chamberlain, and S. Belbase (University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 2011), Vol. 1, pp. 33–57.
  6. S. White Brahmia, A. Olsho, T. I. Smith, A. Boudreaux, P. Eaton, and C. Zimmerman, Physics inventory of quantitative literacy: A tool for assessing mathematical reasoning in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020129 (2021).
  7. B. Ojose, Mathematics literacy: Are we able to put the mathematics we learn into everyday use?, J. Math. Educ. 4, 89 (2011), https://journalofmathed.scholasticahq.com/article/90403-mathematics-literacy-are-we-able-to-put-the-mathematics-we-learn-into-everyday-use.
  8. T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, The cognitive blending of mathematics and physics knowledge, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 26 (2007).
  9. D. Hu and N. S. Rebello, Using conceptual blending to describe how students use mathematical integrals in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020118 (2013).
  10. 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).
  11. S. White Brahmia, A. Olsho, T. I. Smith, and A. Boudreaux, Framework for the natures of negativity in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010120 (2020).
  12. J. Vlassis, The role of mathematical symbols in the development of number conceptualization: The case of the minus sign, Philos. Psychol. 21, 555 (2008).
  13. R. R. Bajracharya, V. L. Sealey, and J. R. Thompson, Student understanding of the sign of negative definite integrals in mathematics and physics, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 9, 62 (2023).
  14. S. Ceuppens, L. Bollen, J. Deprez, W. Dehaene, and M. De Cock, 9th grade students’ understanding and strategies when solving x(t) problems in 1D kinematics and y(x) problems in mathematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010101 (2019).
  15. A. Olsho, S. W. Brahmia, T. Smith, and A. Boudreaux, When negative is not “less than zero”: Electric charge as a signed quantity, Phys. Teach. 59, 253 (2021).
  16. AP Physcs 1: Algebra-Based: Course and Exam Description (College Board, New York, NY, 2024), https://apstudents.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-physics-1-algebra-based/assessment.
  17. E. Mazur, Principles & Practice of Physics (Pearson, Boston, 2015).
  18. R. D. Knight, B. Jones, and S. Field, College Physics: A Strategic Approach, 4th ed. (Pearson, Boston, 2019).
  19. M. Carlson, S. Jacobs, E. Coe, S. Larsen, and E. Hsu, Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study, J. Res. Math. Educ. 33, 352 (2002).
  20. P. W. Thompson and M. P. Carlson, Variation, covariation, and functions: Foundational ways of thinking mathematically, in Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education, edited by J. Cai (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, 2017), pp. 421–456.
  21. S. R. Jones, Multivariation and students’ multivariational reasoning, J. Math. Behav. 67, 100991 (2022).
  22. A. B. Arons, Cultivating the capacity for formal reasoning: Objectives and procedures in an introductory physical science course, Am. J. Phys. 44, 834 (1976).
  23. D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension, Am. J. Phys. 49, 242 (1981).
  24. J. J. Bissell, A. Ali, and B. J. Postle, Illustrating dimensionless scaling with Hooke’s law, Phys. Educ. 57, 023008 (2022).
  25. C. Zimmerman, A. Olsho, M. Loverude, and S. White Brahmia, Expert covariational reasoning resources in physics graphing tasks, arXiv:2306.00921.
  26. P. Emigh, R. R. Siegel, J. W. Alfson, and E. Gire, Student reasoning about multivariable covariation in thermodynamics, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2019, Provo, UT (American Association of Physics Teachers, 2019).
  27. S. Van den Eynde, P. van Kampen, W. Van Dooren, and M. De Cock, Translating between graphs and equations: The influence of context, direction of translation, and function type, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020113 (2019).
  28. N. Altindis, K. A. Bowe, B. Couch, C. F. Bauer, and M. L. Aikens, Exploring the role of disciplinary knowledge in students’ covariational reasoning during graphical interpretation, Int. J. STEM Educ. 11, 32 (2024).
  29. A. Olsho, C. Zimmerman, A. Boudreaux, T. I. Smith, P. Eaton, and S. White Brahmia, Characterizing covariational reasoning in physics modeling, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2022, Grand Rapids, MI (American Association of Physics Teachers, 2022), pp. 335–340.
  30. A. H. Akatugba and J. Wallace, Mathematical dimensions of students’ use of proportional reasoning in high school physics, Sch. Sci. Math. 99, 31 (1999).
  31. D. P. Maloney, C. Hieggelke, and S. Kanim, nTIPERs: Tasks to help students “unpack” aspects of newtonian mechanics, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2010, PER Conference Invited Paper, Portland, OR (American Association of Physics Teachers, 2010), Vol. 1289, pp. 33–36.
  32. B. L. Sherin, How students understand physics equations, Cognit. Instr. 19, 479 (2001).
  33. A. Boudreaux, S. Kanim, A. Olsho, S. White Brahmia, C. Zimmerman, and T. I. Smith, Toward a framework for the natures of proportional reasoning in introductory physics, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2020, Virtual Conference (American Association of Physics Teachers, 2020), pp. 45–50.
  34. E. F. Redish and E. Kuo, Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology, Sci. Educ. 24, 561 (2015).
  35. A. Boudreaux, S. Kanim, and S. White Brahmia, Student facility with ratio and proportion: Mapping the reasoning space in introductory physics, arXiv:1511.08960.
  36. A. Olsho, S. White Brahmia, A. Boudreaux, and T. Smith, The physics inventory of quantitative reasoning: Assessing student reasoning about sign, in Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, edited by A. Weinberg, D. Moore-Russo, H.Soto, and M. Wawro (The Special Interest Group of the Mathematical Association of America (SIGMAA) for Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Oklahoma City, OK, 2019).
  37. S. White Brahmia, Mathematization in introductory physics, Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 2014.
  38. S. White Brahmia, A. Olsho, A. Boudreaux, T. I. Smith, and C. Zimmerman, A conceptual blend of physics quantitative literacy reasoning inventory items, in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, edited by S. Smith Karunakaran, Z. Reed, and A. Higgins (The Special Interest Group of the Mathematical Association of America (SIGMAA) for Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Boston, MA, 2020), pp. 862–867.
  39. W. K. Adams and C. E. Wieman, Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 1289 (2011).
  40. H. Zhang, A. Perry, and I. Lee, Developing and validating the artificial intelligence literacy concept inventory: An instrument to assess artificial intelligence literacy among middle school students, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 35, 398 (2024).
  41. P. H. Santoso, E. Istiyono, Haryanto, and H. Retnawati, Validating light phenomena conceptual assessment through the lens of classical test theory and item response theory frameworks, Phys. Educ. 59, 025002 (2024).
  42. E. A. Holt, J. Duke, R. Dunk, and K. Hinerman, Development of the inventory of biotic climate literacy (IBCL), Environ. Educ. Res. 30, 2210 (2024).
  43. D. McKee and G. Orlov, The economic statistics skills assessment (ESSA), Int. Rev. Econ. Educ. 44, 100272 (2023).
  44. A. J. Cetnar, A. Besemer, V. Bry, C. R. Buckey, J. Burmeister, A. Rodrigues, L. Schubert, M. Speidel, S. Sutlief, and A. S. Yu, Introduction to concept inventories for medical physics education, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 24, e14130 (2023).
  45. W. Wiersma and S. G. Jurs, Educational Measurement and Testing, 2nd ed. (Allyn & Bacon, Boston, 1990).
  46. R. L. Doran, Basic Measurement and Evaluation of Science Instruction (National Science Teachers Association, Washington, DC, 1980).
  47. L. Ding and R. Beichner, Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 20103 (2009).
  48. T. A. Brown, Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research (Guilford Publications, New York, NY, 2014).
  49. J. C. Hayton, D. G. Allen, and V. Scarpello, Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis, Organ. Res. Meth. 7, 191 (2004), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1094428104263675.
  50. otter.ai, https://otter.ai/ (2019).
  51. S. White Brahmia, A. Boudreaux, and S. E. Kanim, Obstacles to mathematization in introductory physics, arXiv:1601.01235.
  52. L. M. Hartley, J. Momsen, A. Maskiewicz, and C. D’Avanzo, Energy and matter: Differences in discourse in physical and biological sciences can be confusing for introductory biology students, BioScience 62, 488 (2012).

  53. The same analysis was conducted with version 1.6, with the same result. Version 1.6 data shown in this paper are also filtered for students who took more than 10 min and left 5 items or fewer blank.

  54. B. Terluin, D. L. Knol, C. B. Terwee, and H. C. de Vet, Understanding Ferguson’s δ: Time to say good-bye?, Health Qual. Life Outcomes 7, 38 (2009).
  55. J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. (Pearson, Harlow, 2014).
  56. P. Eaton, B. Frank, K. Johnson, and S. Willoughby, Comparing exploratory factor models of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020133 (2019).
  57. Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling, edited by R. H. Hoyle (The Guilford Press, New York, NY, 2023).
  58. T. A. Brown, Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, in Methodology in the Social Sciences 2nd ed. (The Guilford Press, New York, London, 2015).
  59. N. K. Bowen and S. Guo, Structural Equation Modeling, Pocket Guides to Social Work Research Methods (Oxford University Press, New York, 2012).
  60. S. White Brahmia and G. L. Cochran, Underprepared for physics: Reframing the narrative on readiness and instruction in calculus-based, introductory physics courses, Phys. Today (to be published).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020108– Published 18 July, 2025
  • Received 20 April 2025
  • Accepted 5 June 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