- 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

Roles of mathematics in physics education: A systematic review

Elina Palmgren1,*, Tommi Kokkonen2, and Jesper Bruun3

  • *Contact author: elina.palmgren@helsinki.fi
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020602 – Published 18 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/wwww-gwp8

Abstract

Mathematics plays many roles in physics and physics education. While these roles have previously been extensively discussed in the physics education research community, no systematic picture of the multifaceted considerations has yet been formed. To gain a comprehensive overview of the previous studies on the topic, we conducted a systematic literature review on 122 journal articles published between 2000 and 2023 that examine the role of mathematics in physics and physics learning. In the reviewed articles, we employed qualitative content analysis, coded each article for its characteristics, and used network maps for visualization. We identified eight thematic article categories, highlighting the complex integration of mathematics in, for example, physical reasoning, problem solving, modeling, and experiments. Additionally, the review examines theoretical frameworks and contexts, revealing an overemphasis on problem solving in mechanics and a limited exploration of advanced physics topics like quantum mechanics. A detailed inductive analysis further identified six overarching roles that mathematics plays in physics and physics education: (i) supporting learning and achievement, (ii) enabling mathematical manipulations, (iii) guiding reasoning and sensemaking, (iv) facilitating experiments and modeling, (v) serving as a language, and (vi) providing a structural foundation for physics as a science. Based on the analysis, we discuss how the roles assigned to mathematics have been conceptualized in the reviewed articles and provide an overall picture of the types and features of the reviewed corpus. Our findings suggest opportunities for future research, including deeper explorations of underrepresented physics contexts and targeted investigations into specific roles of mathematics in teaching and learning.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (157)

  1. T. Mäntylä and A. Hämäläinen, Obtaining laws through quantifying experiments: Justifications of pre-service physics teachers in the case of electric current, voltage and resistance, Sci. Educ. 24, 699 (2015).
  2. S. Turşucu, J. Spandaw, S. Flipse, and M. J. de Vries, Teachers’ beliefs about improving transfer of algebraic skills from mathematics into physics in senior pre-university education, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 39, 587 (2017).
  3. R. Karam and O. Krey, Quod erat demonstrandum: Understanding and explaining equations in physics teacher education, Sci. Educ. 24, 661 (2015).
  4. I. Basson, Physics and mathematics as interrelated fields of thought development using acceleration as an example, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 33, 679 (2002).
  5. 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, Cham, 2019), pp. 37–52.
  6. Y. Gingras, What did mathematics do to physics?, Hist. Sci. 39, 383 (2001).
  7. S. G. Brush, Mathematics as an instigator of scientific revolutions, Sci. Educ. 24, 495 (2015).
  8. E. P. Wigner, The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the sciences, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 13, 1 (1960).
  9. T. H. Kjeldsen and J. Lützen, Interactions between mathematics and physics: The history of the concept of function—Teaching with and about nature of mathematics, Sci. Educ. 24, 543 (2015).
  10. M. Pietrocola, Mathematics as structural language of physical thought, in Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education, edited by M. Vicentini and E. Sassi, Volume 2 of ICPE Book (International Commission on Physics Education, 2008), https://www.per-central.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=9881.
  11. S. M. Brahmia, Mathematization in introductory physics, Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University-Graduate School, New Brunswick, 2014.
  12. E. F. Redish and E. Kuo, Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology, Sci. Educ. 24, 561 (2015).
  13. O. Uhden, R. Karam, M. Pietrocola, and G. Pospiech, Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education, Sci. Educ. 21, 485 (2012).
  14. E. Palmgren and T. Rasa, Modelling roles of mathematics in physics, Sci. Educ. 33, 365 (2024).
  15. W. Blum and F. R. Borromeo, Mathematical modelling: Can it be taught and learnt?, J. Math. Model. Appl. 1, 45 (2009), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:56256990.
  16. M. Wawro, A. Pina, J. R. Thompson et al., Student interpretations of eigenequations in linear algebra and quantum mechanics, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 11, 314 (2025).
  17. O. A. Naranjo and S. R. Jones, How students construct sophisticated differential equations to model real-world contexts, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 22, 945 (2024).
  18. G. Pospiech, Framework of mathematization in physics from a teaching perspective, in Mathematics in Physics Education, edited by G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B.-S. Eylon (Springer, Cham, 2019), pp. 1–33.
  19. Mathematics in Physics Education, edited by G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B.-S. Eylon (Springer, Cham, 2019).
  20. O. Krey, Zur Rolle der Mathematik in der Physik: Wissenschaftstheoretische Aspekte und Vorstellungen Physiklernender, Ph.D. thesis, University of Potsdam, Logos, 2012.
  21. A. Quale, On the role of mathematics in physics: A constructivist epistemic perspective, Sci. Educ. 20, 609 (2011).
  22. D. Gough, J. Thomas, and S. Oliver, An Introduction to Systematic Reviews (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2017).
  23. S. Elo and H. Kyngäs, The qualitative content analysis process, J. Adv. Nurs. 62, 107 (2008).
  24. K. Krippendorf, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1980).
  25. J. Bennett, F. Lubben, S. Hogarth, and B. Campbell, Systematic reviews of research in science education: Rigour or rigidity?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 387 (2005).
  26. P. Mayring, Qualitative content analysis: Demarcation, varieties, developments, Forum 20 (2019).
  27. J. Saldaña, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (Sage, London, 2016).
  28. M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña, Qualitative Data Analysis: Methods Sourcebook (Sage, Los Angeles, CA, 2014).
  29. J. A. Luft, S. Jeong, R. Idsardi, and G. Gardner, Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks: An introduction for new biology education researchers, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 21, rm33 (2022).
  30. J. Bruun. Networks as integrated in research methodologies in PER, in presented at PER Conf. 2016, Sacramento, CA, 10.1119/perc.2016.plenary.002.
  31. A. L. Barabási and M. Pósfai, Network Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2016).
  32. E. Brewe, J. Bruun, and I. G. Bearden, Using module analysis for multiple choice responses: A new method applied to force concept inventory data, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020131 (2016).
  33. C. Linder, J. Bruun, A. Pohl, and B. Priemer, Relationship between semiotic representations and student performance in the context of refraction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010103 (2024).
  34. N. J. Foti, J. M. Hughes, and D. N. Rockmore, Nonparametric sparsification of complex multiscale networks, PLoS One, 6, e16431 (2011).
  35. A. Agresti, Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2002).
  36. J. Bruun and I. G. Bearden, Time development in the early history of social networks: Link stabilization, group dynamics, and segregation, PLoS One 9, e112775 (2014).
  37. J. Bruun, jbruun/roleMathInPhys: Interactive Networks: Roles of Mathematics in Physics Education (v.1.0.0). Zenodo (2025), 10.5281/zenodo.16894515.
  38. C. C. Silva, The role of models and analogies in the electromagnetic theory: A historical case study, Sci. Educ. 16, 835 (2007).
  39. G. Karakok, Making connections among representations of eigenvector: What sort of a beast is it?, ZDM Int. J. Math. Educ. 51, 1141 (2019).
  40. J.-M. G. Rodriguez, K. Bain, and M. H. Towns, Graphical forms: The adaptation of Sherin’s symbolic forms for the analysis of graphical reasoning across disciplines, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 18, 1547 (2020).
  41. D. J. Carrejo and J. Marshall, What is mathematical modelling? Exploring prospective teachers’ use of experiments to connect mathematics to the study of motion, Math. Educ. Res. J. 19, 45 (2007).
  42. A. Izsak, Inscribing the winch: Mechanisms by which students develop knowledge structures for representing the physical world with algebra, J. Learn. Sci. 9, 31 (2000).
  43. J. A. Marshall and D. J. Carrejo, Students’ mathematical modeling of motion, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 153 (2008).
  44. J. Woolnough, How do students learn to apply their mathematical knowledge to interpret graphs in physics?, Res. Sci. Educ. 30, 259 (2000).
  45. C. Angell, P. M. Kind, E. K. Henriksen, and Ø. Guttersrud, An empirical-mathematical modelling approach to upper secondary physics, Phys. Educ. 43, 256 (2008).
  46. J. C. P. Campuzano, K. E. Matthews, and P. Adams, On the use of history of mathematics: an introduction to Galileo’s study of free fall motion, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 49, 517 (2018).
  47. L. Hansson, Ö. Hansson, K. Juter, and A. Redfors, Reality–theoretical models–mathematics: A ternary perspective on physics lessons in upper-secondary school, Sci. Educ. 24, 615 (2015).
  48. 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).
  49. I. Lyublinskaya and E. Petrova, Mathematics learning in physics classrooms of Russian schools: A changing landscape from the Soviet period to the present, ZDM Int. J. Math. Educ. 53, 1485 (2021).
  50. C. A. Manogue, K. Browne, T. Dray, and B. Edwards, Why is Ampère’s law so hard? A look at middle-division physics, Am. J. Phys. 74, 344 (2006).
  51. T. Orton and T. Roper, Science and mathematics: A relationship in need of counselling?, Stud. Sci. Educ. 35, 123 (2000).
  52. C. Radtka, Negotiating the boundaries between mathematics and physics: The case of late 1950s French textbooks for middle schools, Sci. Educ. 24, 725 (2015).
  53. V. Albe, P. Venturini, and J. Lascours, Electromagnetic concepts in mathematical representation of physics, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 10, 197 (2001).
  54. S. Ceuppens, J. Deprez, W. Dehaene, and M. De Cock, Design and validation of a test for representational fluency of 9th grade students in physics and mathematics: The case of linear functions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020105 (2018).
  55. S. R. De Lozano and M. Cardenas, Some learning problems concerning the use of symbolic language in physics, Sci. Educ. 11, 589 (2002).
  56. E. Gire and E. Price, Arrows as anchors: An analysis of the material features of electric field vector arrows, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020112 (2014).
  57. E. Gire and E. Price, Structural features of algebraic quantum notations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020109 (2015).
  58. A. Lichtenberger, C. Wagner, S. I. Hofer, E. Stern, and A. Vaterlaus, Validation and structural analysis of the kinematics concept test, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010115 (2017).
  59. B. L. Sherin, A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn. 6, 1 (2001).
  60. J. Von Korff and N. S. Rebello, Teaching integration with layers and representations: A case study, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010125 (2012).
  61. N. Amos and A. F. Heckler, Mediating relationship of differential products in understanding integration in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010105 (2018).
  62. L. Bollen, P. van Kampen, and M. De Cock, Students’ difficulties with vector calculus in electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020129 (2015).
  63. 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).
  64. 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).
  65. L. Doughty, E. McLoughlin, and P. van Kampen, What integration cues, and what cues integration in intermediate electromagnetism, Am. J. Phys. 82, 1093 (2014).
  66. L. C. Hadfield and C. E. Wieman, Student interpretations of equations related to the first law of thermodynamics, J. Chem. Educ. 87, 750 (2010).
  67. 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).
  68. R. E. Pepper, S. V. Chasteen, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, Observations on student difficulties with mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010111 (2012).
  69. M. Planinic, Z. Milin-Sipus, H. Katic, A. Susac, and L. Ivanjek, Comparison of student understanding of line graph slope in physics and mathematics, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10, 1393 (2012).
  70. O. Badmus and L. Jita, Does further-mathematics performance predict student’s achievement in physics? A correlational diagnosis in senior secondary schools, J. Technol. Sci. Educ. 13, 381 (2023).
  71. E. W. Burkholder, G. Murillo-Gonzalez, and C. Wieman, Importance of math prerequisites for performance in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010108 (2021).
  72. M. C. Capizzo, S. Nuzzo, and M. Zarcone, The impact of the pre-instructional cognitive profile on learning gain and final exam of physics courses: A case study, Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 31, 717 (2006).
  73. P. Hästö, R. Palkki, D. Tuomela, and J. R. Star, Relationship between mathematical flexibility and success in national examinations, Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 7, 1 (2019).
  74. L. Ma and X. Ma, Estimating correlates of growth between mathematics and science achievement via a multivariate multilevel design with latent variables, Stud. Educ. Eval. 31, 79 (2005).
  75. D. E. Meltzer, The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1259 (2002).
  76. Y. Nakakoji and R. Wilson, First-year mathematics and its application to science: Evidence of transfer of learning to physics and engineering, Educ. Sci. 8, 8 (2018).
  77. T. Nilsen, C. Angell, and L. S. Grønmo, Mathematical competencies and the role of mathematics in physics education: A trend analysis of TIMSS Advanced 1995 and 2008, Acta Didact. Norden 7 (2013).
  78. R. A. Olatoye, Effect of further mathematics on students’ achievement in mathematics, biology, chemistry and physics, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2, 48 (2007), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ901266.
  79. J. M. P. Sanchez and M. A. Ponce, Physics-mathematics associations: Evidence from TIMSS student achievements, Sci. Educ. Int. 31, 229 (2020).
  80. J. Wang, Relationship between mathematics and science achievement at the 8th grade, Int. J. Sci. Math Educ. 5, 1 (2005), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED490042.
  81. W. Al-Omari and R. Miqdadi, The epistemological perceptions of the relationship between physics and mathematics and its effect on problem-solving among pre-service teachers at Yarmouk University in Jordan, Int. Educ. Stud. 7, 39 (2014).
  82. 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).
  83. 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).
  84. V. Dini and D. Hammer, Case study of a successful learner’s epistemological framings of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010124 (2017).
  85. D. Domert, J. Airey, C. Linder, and R. L. Kung, An exploration of university physics students’ epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations, Nordic Stud. Sci. Educ. 3, 15 (2007).
  86. A. Gupta and A. Elby, Beyond epistemological deficits: Dynamic explanations of engineering students’ difficulties with mathematical sense-making, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 2463 (2011).
  87. M. Holmberg (née González Sampayo) and J. Bernhard, University teachers’ perspectives on the role of the Laplace transform in engineering education, Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 42, 413 (2017).
  88. S. Kapucu, University students’ conceptions of the relationship between mathematics and physics and the relationship between mathematics and physics learning, J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 13, 622 (2014).
  89. S. Kapucu, M. F. Öçal, and M. Simsek, Evaluating high school students’ conceptions of the relationship between mathematics and physics: Development of a questionnaire, Sci. Educ. Int. 27, 253 (2016), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1104662.
  90. P.-H. Liu, A structuralist view for interpreting the role of mathematics in physics, ZDM Int. J. Math. Educ. 54, 1657 (2022).
  91. P.-H. Liu and S.-Y. Liu, A cross-subject investigation of college students’ epistemological beliefs of physics and mathematics, Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 20, 336 (2011), https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=4123.
  92. P. Mulhall and R. Gunstone, Views about physics held by physics teachers with differing approaches to teaching physics, Res. Sci. Educ. 38, 435 (2008).
  93. A. Sokolowski, Unpacking structural domain of mathematics to aid inquiry in physics: A pilot study, Phys. Educ. 56, 015009 (2020).
  94. L. Branchetti, A. Cattabriga, and O. Levrini, Interplay between mathematics and physics to catch the nature of a scientific breakthrough: The case of the blackbody, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020130 (2019).
  95. K. Forinash, W. Rumsey, and C. Lang, Galileo’s mathematical language of nature, Sci. Educ. 9, 449 (2000).
  96. I. Galili, Physics and mathematics as interwoven disciplines in science education, Sci. Educ. 27, 7 (2018).
  97. Y. Gingras, The creative power of formal analogies in physics: The case of Albert Einstein, Sci. Educ. 24, 529 (2015).
  98. I. M. Greca and M. A. Moreira, Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of physics, Sci. Educ. 86, 106 (2002).
  99. J. H. Jensen, M. Niss, and U. T. Jankvist, Problem solving in the borderland between mathematics and physics, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1 (2017).
  100. N. Kanderakis, The mathematics of high school physics, Sci. Educ. 25, 837 (2016).
  101. F. B. Kneubil and M. R. Robilotta, Physics teaching: Mathematics as an epistemological tool, Sci. Educ. 24, 645 (2015).
  102. H. Kragh, Mathematics and physics: The idea of a pre-established harmony, Sci. Educ. 24, 515 (2015).
  103. J. Martínez-Torregrosa, R. López-Gay, and A. Gras-Martí, Mathematics in physics education: Scanning historical evolution of the differential to find a more appropriate model for teaching differential calculus in physics, Sci. Educ. 15, 447 (2006).
  104. M. R. Matthews, Idealisation and Galileo’s pendulum discoveries: Historical, philosophical and pedagogical considerations, Sci. Educ. 13, 689 (2004).
  105. C. Pask, Mathematics and the science of analogies, Am. J. Phys. 71, 526 (2003).
  106. A. Quale, On the role of mathematics in physics, Sci. Educ. 20, 359 (2011).
  107. R. D. Tweney, Mathematical representations in science: A cognitive–historical case history, Top. Cognit. Sci. 1, 758 (2009).
  108. R. D. Tweney, Representing the electromagnetic field: How Maxwell’s mathematics empowered Faraday’s field theory, Sci. Educ. 20, 687 (2011).
  109. C. Tzanakis and Y. Thomaidis, Integrating the close historical development of mathematics and physics in mathematics education: Some methodological and epistemological remarks, For Learn. Math. 20, 44 (2000), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej607175.
  110. G. K. Vemulapalli and H. C. Byerly, Carl Hempel’s philosophy of science: How to avoid epistemic discontinuity and pedagogical pitfalls, Sci. Educ. 13, 85 (2004).
  111. A. H. Akatugba and J. Wallace, An integrative perspective on students’ proportional reasoning in high school physics in a West African context, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 1473 (2009).
  112. R. R. Bajracharya, P. J. Emigh, and C. A. Manogue, Students’ strategies for solving a multirepresentational partial derivative problem in thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020124 (2019).
  113. R. R. Bajracharya and J. R. Thompson, Analytical derivation: An epistemic game for solving mathematically based physics problems, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010124 (2016).
  114. T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, Symbolic manipulators affect mathematical mindsets, Am. J. Phys. 76, 418 (2008).
  115. 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).
  116. E. Burkholder, L. Blackmon, and C. Wieman, Characterizing the mathematical problem-solving strategies of transitioning novice physics students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020134 (2020).
  117. 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).
  118. D. N. Chari, H. D. Nguyen, D. A. Zollman, and E. C. Sayre, Student and instructor framing in upper-division physics, Am. J. Phys. 87, 875 (2019).
  119. B. W. Dreyfus, A. Elby, A. Gupta, and E. R. Sohr, Mathematical sense-making in quantum mechanics: An initial peek, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020141 (2017).
  120. J. D. Gifford and N. D. Finkelstein, Categorical framework for mathematical sense making in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020121 (2020).
  121. J. D. Gifford and N. D. Finkelstein, Applying a mathematical sense-making framework to student work and its potential for curriculum design, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010138 (2021).
  122. D. Hu and N. S. Rebello, Understanding student use of differentials in physics integration problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020108 (2013).
  123. 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).
  124. D. Hu and N. S. Rebello, Shifting college students’ epistemological framing using hypothetical debate problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010117 (2014).
  125. M. M. Hull, E. Kuo, A. Gupta, and A. Elby, Problem-solving rubrics revisited: Attending to the blending of informal conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010105 (2013).
  126. B. Ibrahim, L. Ding, A. F. Heckler, D. R. White, and R. Badeau, How students process equations in solving quantitative synthesis problems? Role of mathematical complexity in students’ mathematical performance, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020120 (2017).
  127. 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).
  128. E. Kuo, M. M. Hull, A. Elby, and A. Gupta, Assessing mathematical sensemaking in physics through calculation-concept crossover, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020109 (2020).
  129. 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).
  130. K. Meli, K. Zacharos, and D. Koliopoulos, The integration of mathematics in physics problem solving: A case study of Greek upper secondary school students, Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 16, 48 (2016).
  131. D. C. Meredith and K. A. Marrongelle, How students use mathematical resources in an electrostatics context, Am. J. Phys. 76, 570 (2008).
  132. B. Modir, J. D. Thompson, and E. C. Sayre, Students’ epistemological framing in quantum mechanics problem solving, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020108 (2017).
  133. B. Modir, J. D. Thompson, and E. C. Sayre, Framing difficulties in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020146 (2019).
  134. G. Murillo-Gonzalez and E. W. Burkholder, What decisions do experts make when doing back-of-the-envelope calculations?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010125 (2022).
  135. Y. Nakakoji and R. Wilson, Interdisciplinary learning in mathematics and science: Transfer of learning for 21st century problem solving at university, J. Intell. 8, 32 (2020).
  136. D.-H. Nguyen and N. S. Rebello, Students’ understanding and application of the area under the curve concept in physics problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010112 (2011).
  137. D.-H. Nguyen and N. S. Rebello, Students’ difficulties with integration in electricity, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010113 (2011).
  138. Q. X. Ryan and B. P. Schermerhorn, Students’ use of symbolic forms when constructing equations of boundary conditions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010122 (2020).
  139. B. L. Sherin, How students understand physics equations, Cognit. Instr. 19, 479 (2001).
  140. E. T. Torigoe and G. E. Gladding, Connecting symbolic difficulties with failure in physics, Am. J. Phys. 79, 133 (2011).
  141. T. Tu, C.-F. Li, Z.-Q. Zhou, and G.-C. Guo, Students’ difficulties with partial differential equations in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020163 (2020).
  142. J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
  143. S. Turşucu, J. Spandaw, and M. J. de Vries, Search for symbol sense behavior: Students in upper secondary education solving algebraic physics problems, Res. Sci. Educ. 50, 2131 (2020).
  144. S. Turşucu, J. Spandaw, and M. J. de Vries, The effectiveness of activation of prior mathematical knowledge during problem-solving in physics, EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 16, em1837 (2020).
  145. 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).
  146. 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).
  147. L. N. Walsh, R. G. Howard, and B. Bowe, Phenomenographic study of students’ problem solving approaches in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020108 (2007).
  148. 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).
  149. B. R. Wilcox and G. Corsiglia, Cross-context look at upper-division student difficulties with integration, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020136 (2019).
  150. B. R. Wilcox and S. J. Pollock, Upper-division student difficulties with the Dirac delta function, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010108 (2015).
  151. B. R. Wilcox and S. J. Pollock, Upper-division student difficulties with separation of variables, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020131 (2015).
  152. M. C. Wittmann and K. E. Black, Mathematical actions as procedural resources: An example from the separation of variables, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020114 (2015).
  153. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, S52 (2000).
  154. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1997), Vol. 962.
  155. S. Kanim and X. C. Cid, Demographics of physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106 (2020).
  156. G. Corsiglia, B. P. Schermerhorn, H. Sadaghiani, A. Villaseñor, S. Pollock, and G. Passante, Exploring student ideas on change of basis in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010144 (2022).
  157. B. P. Schermerhorn, H. Sadaghiani, A. E. Mansour, A. E. Mansour, S. Pollock, and G. Passante, Impact of problem context on students’ concept definition of an expectation value, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020141 (2021).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020602– Published 18 September, 2025
  • Received 23 December 2024
  • Accepted 21 July 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