- 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

Interplay between mathematics and physics: Which aspects do instructors hope to convey in a master’s program for high-school teachers?

Dan Klein*, Smadar Levy, Bat-Sheva Eylon, and Edit Yerushalmi†

  • *Contact author: dan.klein@weizmann.ac.il
  • †Contact author: edit.yerushalmi@weizmann.ac.il
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020141 – Published 2 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/n6dy-hmdz

Abstract

The interplay between mathematics and physics mutually affects both disciplines and is the subject of ongoing research. Here, we study the interplay in the empirical context of an MSc program for practicing high-school physics teachers putting strong emphasis on advanced physics courses taught by active physicists, together with pedagogical content courses taught by physics education researchers. Which aspects of the interplay between mathematics and physics do teacher instructors wish to convey to the teachers? We held semi-structured interviews with the physics instructors of the program, focusing on their goals for their courses. Thematic analysis of the interviews exposed several aspects of the interplay that instructors reported on integrating in their teaching, resulting in a characterization consisting of three families. The first strengthens established aspects in the literature: coherence, a tool for calculation, and mathematical derivation of new physics results (extraction). The second highlights new facets of existing aspects: the universality of geometry in physics, limits of approximations as invitations to explore, and simulations as virtual experiments (representations). The third comprises aspects that are less prominent in the physics education literature: concretization of abstract mathematics in physics contexts, and conflict as a mechanism for discovery (e.g., the Lorentz force’s dependence on velocity conflicting with Galilean invariance). Our findings provide a framework bridging tertiary physics and teaching across all levels—aspects of the interplay between mathematics and physics that are manifest in advanced physics could inform curricular design for high school and beyond, and for teacher education.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (65)

  1. I. Galili, Physics and mathematics as interwoven disciplines in science education, Sci. Educ. 27, 7 (2018).
  2. E. Palmgren, T. Kokkonen, and J. Bruun, Roles of mathematics in physics education: A systematic review, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020602 (2025).
  3. M. Pietrocola, Mathematics as structural language of physical thought, in Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education - Volume 2, edited by M. Vicentini and E. Sassi (International Commission of Physics Education, 2008), Vol. 2, https://web.phys.ksu.edu/icpe/Publications/teach2/index.html.
  4. F. B. Kneubil and M. R. Robilotta, Physics teaching: Mathematics as an epistemological tool, Sci. Educ. 24, 645 (2015).
  5. R. Karam, Framing the structural role of mathematics in physics lectures: A case study on electromagnetism, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010119 (2014).
  6. E. Palmgren and T. Rasa, Modelling roles of mathematics in physics: Perspectives for physics education, Sci. Educ. 33, 365 (2024).
  7. E. Koerfer, G. Polverini, M. Elmgren, L.-H. Eriksson, L. Freyhult, R. B. Herbert, F. M. Ho, A. Solders, and A. Eckerdal, Teachers’ conceptions of the role of mathematics in STEM higher education, Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 7, 15 (2025).
  8. H. Levi, A. Merzel, and Y. Lehavi, Physmatic difficulties and students’ thinking approaches, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 21, em2663 (2025).
  9. M. Carli, S. Lippiello, O. Pantano, M. Perona, and G. Tormen, Testing students ability to use derivatives, integrals, and vectors in a purely mathematical context and in a physical context, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010111 (2020).
  10. 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).
  11. A. R. Akinyemi, M. E. Loverude, and J. R. Thompson, Solution evaluation strategies used by first-year physics students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020114 (2025).
  12. E. F. Redish and E. Kuo, Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology, Sci. Educ. 24, 561 (2015).
  13. E. F. Redish and K. A. Smith, Looking beyond content: Skill development for engineers, J. Eng. Educ. 97, 295 (2008).
  14. O. Uhden, R. Karam, M. Pietrocola, and G. Pospiech, Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education, Sci. Educ. 21, 485 (2012).
  15. B. R. Wilcox, M. D. Caballero, D. A. Rehn, and S. J. Pollock, Analytic framework for students’ use of mathematics in upper-division physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020119 (2013).
  16. S. M. Brahmia, Mathematization in introductory physics (2014).
  17. E. Kuo, M. M. Hull, A. Gupta, and A. Elby, How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems, Sci. Educ. 97, 32 (2013).
  18. M. Eichenlaub and E. F. Redish, Blending physical knowledge with mathematical form in physics problem solving, in Mathematics in Physics Education, edited by G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B.-S. Eylon (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019), pp. 127–151.
  19. 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).
  20. T. O. B. Odden, How conceptual blends support sensemaking: A case study from introductory physics, Sci. Educ. 105, 989 (2021).
  21. T. Reshef-Israeli and S. Kapon, Engaging students in collaborative layered modelling of a real-world problem, Phys. Educ. 60, 055026 (2025).
  22. 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).
  23. A. R. P. de Ataíde and I. M. Greca, Epistemic views of the relationship between physics and mathematics: Its influence on the approach of undergraduate students to problem solving, Sci. Educ. 22, 1405 (2013).
  24. D. Domert, J. Airey, C. Linder, and R. L. Kung, An exploration of university physics students’ epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations, Nord. Stud. Sci. Educ. 3, 15 (2012).
  25. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, Resources, framing, and transfer, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre (Emerald Publishing Limited, 2000), 1st ed., pp. 89–120, 10.1108/978-1-60752-673-520251004.
  26. E. Yerushalmi, C. Henderson, K. Heller, P. Heller, and V. Kuo, Physics faculty beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving. I. Mapping the common core, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020109 (2007).
  27. G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B.-S. Eylon, in Mathematics in Physics Education, (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019), 10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9.
  28. R. Karam and O. Krey, Quod erat demonstrandum: Understanding and explaining equations in physics teacher education, Sci. Educ. 24, 661 (2015).
  29. L. S. Shulman, Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educ. Res. 15, 4 (1986).
  30. J. de Winter and J. Airey, What makes a good physics teacher? Views from the English stakeholder community, Phys. Educ. 55, 015017 (2020).
  31. T. Frågåt, E. K. Henriksen, and C. W. Tellefsen, Pre-service science teachers’ and in-service physics teachers’ views on the knowledge and skills of a good teacher, Nord. Stud. Sci. Educ. 17, 277 (2021).
  32. J. R. Thompson, W. M. Christensen, and M. C. Wittmann, Preparing future teachers to anticipate student difficulties in physics in a graduate-level course in physics, pedagogy, and education research, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010108 (2011).
  33. E. Etkina, Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020110 (2010).
  34. D. Loewenberg Ball, M. H. Thames, and G. Phelps, Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?, J. Teach. Educ. 59, 389 (2008).
  35. E. McLoughlin and D. Sokolowska, Physics teacher professional learning, in The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Teaching Physics, edited by M. F. Taşar and P. R. L. Heron (AIP Publishing LLC, Melville, New York, 2023), pp. 15-1–15-22.
  36. W. Ming Cheung and W. Yee Wong, Does lesson study work?: A systematic review on the effects of lesson study and learning study on teachers and students, Int. J. Lesson Learn. Stud. 3, 137 (2014).
  37. S. Levy, E. Bagno, H. Berger, and B.-S. Eylon, Professional growth of physics teacher-leaders in a professional learning communities program: The context of inquiry-based laboratories, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 20, 1813 (2022).
  38. C. E. Coburn and W. R. Penuel, Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions, Educ. Res. 45, 48 (2016).
  39. M. Cochran-Smith, J. Barnatt, A. Friedman, and G. Pine, Inquiry on inquiry: Practitioner research and student learning, Action Teach. Educ. 31, 17 (2009).
  40. J. Larsson, J. Airey, and E. Lundqvist, Swimming against the tide: Five assumptions about physics teacher education sustained by the culture of physics departments, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 32, 934 (2021).
  41. MA in Curriculum & Instruction: Math & Science track, https://www.colorado.edu/education/academics/graduate-programs/stem-education/ma-curriculum-instruction-math-science-track#accordion-2012799271-1.
  42. A. Merzel et al., The core of secondary level quantum education: A multi-stakeholder perspective, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 27 (2024).
  43. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/n6dy-hmdz for the questions from the semi-structured interview questionnaire that we used in our study with instructors.
  44. M. Milgrom, A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis, Astrophys. J. 270, 365 (1983).
  45. R. Ely and S. R. Jones, The teaching and learning of definite integrals: A special issue guest editorial, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 9, 1 (2023).
  46. S. White Brahmia and P. Thompson, Framing the fundamental theorem of calculus through physics-based quantities, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 11, 819 (2025).
  47. N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics (Saunders College Publ, Fort Worth, 1976).
  48. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. L. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, Calif., 1989).
  49. N. David Mermin, What’s wrong with this pillow?, Phys. Today 42, No. 4, 9 (1989).
  50. M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (Addison-Wesley Publ, Reading (Mass.), 1995).
  51. D. Hestenes, A unified language for mathematics and physics, in Clifford Algebras and their Applications in Mathematical Physics, edited by J. S. R. Chisholm and A. K. Common (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1986), pp. 1–23.
  52. J. W. Dunn and J. Barbanel, One model for an integrated math/physics course focusing on electricity and magnetism and related calculus topics, Am. J. Phys. 68, 749 (2000).
  53. A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, Fundamental Theories of Physics, 1st ed. (Springer, Dordrecht, 2002), Vol. 57, 10.1007/0-306-47120-5.
  54. B. M. Zwickl, D. Hu, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Model-based reasoning in the physics laboratory: Framework and initial results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020113 (2015).
  55. D. Klein and K. Michaeli, One-shot GW transport calculations: A charge-conserving solution, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 14, 897 (2023).
  56. J. Airey and C. Linder, Social semiotics in university physics education, in Multiple Representations in Physics Education, edited by D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, and H. E. Fischer (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017), Vol. 10, pp. 95–122.
  57. A. Kapodistrias and J. Airey, Multimodality and disciplinary learning: The case of purposeful transformation in the sciences, Front. Commun. 10, 1562515 (2025).
  58. I. M. Greca and M. A. Moreira, Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of physics, Sci. Educ. 86, 106 (2002).
  59. M. H. Towns, J.-M. G. Rodriguez, S. C. McAfee, and T. Dreyfus, The intersection of chemistry and calculus: A mutually beneficial crossroad, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 11, 709 (2025).
  60. B. P. Schermerhorn and J. R. Thompson, Making context explicit in equation construction and interpretation: Symbolic blending, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020149 (2023).
  61. L. E. Reichl, A Modern Course in Statistical Physics, 1st ed. (Wiley, New York, 2016).
  62. I. Tuvi-Arad and R. Blonder, Continuous symmetry and chemistry teachers: Learning advanced chemistry content through novel visualization tools, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 11, 48 (2010).
  63. R. Even and Y. Mytlis, From knowledge acquired at academic mathematics courses to significant changes in instructional practices, J. Math. Behav. 75, 101172 (2024).
  64. E. Langbeheim, A. Abrashkin, A. Steiner, H. Edri, S. Safran, and E. Yerushalmi, Shifting the learning gears: Redesigning a project-based course on soft matter through the perspective of constructionism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020147 (2020).
  65. P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, Principles of Condensed Matter Physics, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1995).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020141– Published 2 October, 2026
  • Received 22 January 2026
  • Accepted 4 August 2026
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