- Open Access
Students’ experience of cultural differences between mathematics and physics
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010128 – Published 6 March, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/nn43-nstx
Abstract
How students use mathematics in their physics classes has been studied extensively in the physics education literature. In addition to specific mathematical methods in specific physics contexts, possible effects of more general “cultural” differences between the two disciplines have also been explored. However, there has been little examination of students’ own awareness and interpretations of these differences. We explore the undergraduate student experience of these cultural contrasts, and how students think they affect their learning. Through a qualitative exploratory study, including surveys and interviews with students double majoring in mathematics and physics (or majoring in one and minoring in the other), we investigate students’ awareness of distinct pedagogical approaches, mathematical justifications, and organization of concepts in mathematics versus physics classes. We find that students do recognize and navigate these cultural differences, often employing specific coping strategies. We identify specific themes from our data and comment on how students feel that these themes impact their learning. We suggest that increased faculty and student awareness of the identified differences in educational practice could facilitate knowledge transfer between mathematics and physics.
Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)
Article Text
References (20)
- M. D. Caballero, B. R. Wilcox, L. Doughty, and S. J. Pollock, Unpacking students’ use of mathematics in upper-division physics: Where do we go from here?, Eur. J. Phys. 36, 065004 (2015).
- L. Doughty, E. McLoughlin, and P. van Kampen, What integration cues, and what cues integration in intermediate electromagnetism, Am. J. Phys. 82, 1093 (2014).
- M. B. Kustusch, D. Roundy, T. Dray, and C. A. Manogue, Partial derivative games in thermodynamics: A cognitive task analysis, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010101 (2014).
- K. Serbin and M. Wawro, The inextricability of students’ mathematical and physical reasoning in quantum mechanics problems, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 10, 57 (2024).
- E. Redish and E. Kuo, Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology, Sci. Educ. 24, 561 (2015).
- T. Dray and C. Manogue, Vector calculus bridge project website, Available at http://www.math.oregonstate.edu/bridge/ideas/functions (2002) [accessed February 15, 2018].
- E. F. Redish, Using math in physics: Overview, Phys. Teach. 59, 314 (2021).
- 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 (Springer Nature, Switzerland, 2019), Chap. 2, pp. 37–52.
- R. López-Gay, J. Martínez Sáez, and J. Martínez Torregrosa, Obstacles to mathematization in physics: The case of the differential, Sci. Educ. 24, 591 (2015).
- O. Uhden, R. Karam, M. Pietrocola, and G. Pospiech, Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education, Sci. Educ. 21, 485 (2012).
- E. Palmgren and T. Rasa, Modelling roles of mathematics in physics, Sci. Educ. 33, 365 (2024).
- A. Ataíde and I. 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 (2012).
- J. de Winter and J. Airey, Pre-service physics teachers’ developing views on the role of mathematics in the teaching and learning of physics, Phys. Educ. 57, 065007 (2022).
- S. Kapucu, University students’ conceptions of the relationship between mathematics and physics and the relationship between mathematics and physics learning, J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 13, 622 (2014).
- B. P. Schermerhorn, A. Villasenor, D. D. Agunos, H. Sadaghiani, G. Passante, and S. Pollock, Student perceptions of math-physics interactions throughout spins-first quantum mechanics, presented at PER Conf. 2019, Provo, UT, 10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Schermerhorn.
- J. M. Rabin, A. Burgasser, T. J. Bussey, J. Eggers, S. M. Lo, S. Seethaler, L. Stevens, and H. Weizman, Interdisciplinary conversations in STEM education: Can faculty understand each other better than their students do?, Int. J. STEM Educ. 8, 11 (2021).
- D. L. Reinholz, R. L. Matz, R. Cole, and N. Apkarian, STEM is not a monolith: A preliminary analysis of variations in STEM disciplinary cultures and implications for change, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, 12 (2019).
- E. Knott, A. H. Rao, K. Summers, and C. Teeger, Interviews in the social sciences, Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2, 73 (2022).
- G. Terry, N. Hayfield, V. Clarke, and V. Braun, Thematic analysis, in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, edited by C. Willig and W. Rogers (SAGE Publications Ltd, London, 2017), Chap. 2.
- P. Galison, Trading with the enemy, in Trading Zones and International Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration, edited by M. E. Gorman (The MIT Press, Cambridge, England, 2010), Vol. 3, pp. 25–52.
