- 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

How students can use coherence to reconstruct a partially forgotten equation

Katherine Gifford* and Gabriel S. Ehrlich

Engin Bumbacher

Eric Kuo

  • *Contact author: gifford6@illinois.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010125 – Published 26 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/yfxm-m4sw

Abstract

Introductory physics instruction emphasizes fluency with routine problem-solving procedures. However, even when applying these procedures, students frequently encounter challenges. This paper investigates how students navigate such moments when answering qualitative electricity and magnetism problems in interviews. Students frequently noted they had partially forgotten a key equation on a problem involving RC circuits. We present focal cases that show how coherence-seeking approaches were employed to overcome this problem-solving challenge. In attempts to reconstruct these equations, participants identified and chained qualitative dependencies and sought coherence between qualitative and mathematical understanding of the physical system. These moments of forgetting and reconstructing equations are a useful site for studying broader physics learning goals. While prior work investigates the use of mathematical sensemaking by examining how students respond to explicit prompts, our cases illustrate how students can spontaneously use mathematical sensemaking strategies. We reflect on these cases to consider how such adaptive reasoning can be a target for instruction and assessment.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (47)

  1. D. Hestenes, Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 55, 440 (1987).
  2. B. L. Sherin, How students understand physics equations, Cognit. Instr. 19, 479 (2001).
  3. I. M. Greca and M. A. Moreira, Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of physics, Sci. Educ. 86, 106 (2002).
  4. B. Sherin, Common sense clarified: The role of intuitive knowledge in physics problem solving, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 535 (2006).
  5. E. Brewe, Modeling theory applied: Modeling instruction in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 1155 (2008).
  6. O. Uhden, R. Karam, M. Pietrocola, and G. Pospiech, Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education, Sci. Educ. 21, 485 (2012).
  7. 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).
  8. T. O. B. Odden and R. S. Russ, Sensemaking epistemic game: A model of student sensemaking processes in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020122 (2018).
  9. K. T. Hahn, P. J. Emigh, M. Lenz, and E. Gire, Student sense-making on homework in a sophomore mechanics course, presented at PER Conf. 2018, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 160–163, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.035.
  10. T. Sikorski, G. D. White, and J. Landay, Uptake of solution checks by undergraduate physics students, presented at PER Conf. 2018, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 368–371, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.087.
  11. M. Eichenlaub and E. F. Redish, Blending physical knowledge with mathematical form in physics problem solving, in Mathematics in Physics Education, 1st ed. (Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2019), Vol. 7, pp. 127–151.
  12. J. D. Gifford and N. D. Finkelstein, Categorical framework for mathematical sense making in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020121 (2020).
  13. 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).
  14. F. F. Zhao and A. Schuchardt, Development of the sci-math sensemaking framework: Categorizing sensemaking of mathematical equations in science, Int. J. STEM Educ. 8, 10 (2010).
  15. E. Kuo Cognitive, Epistemic, and Affective Theoretical Underpinnings of Research on Physics Learning Two Perspectives on Physics Problem Solving and Their Relation to Adaptive Expertise (AIP Publishing, Melville, NY, 2023), pp. 1–26.
  16. M. Lenz, P. J. Emigh, and E. Gire, Surprise! Students don’t do special-case analysis when unaware of it, present at PER Conf. 2019, Washington, DC, pp. 231–234, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Lenz.
  17. P. Thagard, Coherence, truth, and the development of scientific knowledge, Philos. Sci. 74, 28 (2007).
  18. M. T. H. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cognit. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).
  19. F. Reif and J. I. Heller, Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics, Educ. Psychol. 17, 102 (1982).
  20. A. Van Heuvelen, Overview, case study physics, Am. J. Phys. 59, 898 (1991). 10
  21. P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 60, 627 (1992).
  22. D. Huffman, Effect of explicit problem solving instruction on high school students’ problem-solving performance and conceptual understanding of physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 551 (1997).
  23. E. Gaigher, J. M. Rogan, and M. W. H. Braun, Exploring the development of conceptual understanding through structured problem–solving in physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 29, 1089 (2007).
  24. J. L. Docktor, N. E. Strand, J. P. Mestre, and B. H. Ross, Conceptual problem solving in high school physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020106 (2015).
  25. R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, P. T. Hardiman, and J. P. Mestre, Constraining novices to perform expertlike problem analyses: Effects on schema acquisition, J. Learn. Sci. 2, 307 (1992).
  26. J. H. Larkin and F. Reif, Understanding and teaching problem– solving in physics, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 191 (1979).
  27. G. Hatano and K. Inagaki, Two courses of expertise, in Child Development and Education in Japan (W H Freeman & Co, New York, 1986), Vol. 17, pp. 262–272.
  28. 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).
  29. W. D. Riihiluoma, Z. Topdemir, and J. R. Thompson, Applying a symbolic forms lens to probability expressions in upper-division quantum mechanics, presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 383–388, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Riihiluoma.
  30. A. Kapodistrias and J. Airey, Rearranging equations to develop physics reasoning, Eur. J. Phys. 45, 035701 (2024).
  31. E. Redish, Using math in physics: 5. Functional dependence, Phys. Teach. 60, 18 (2022).
  32. R. S. Russ and P. Hutchison, It’s okay to be wrong: Recognizing mechanistic reasoning during student inquiry, in Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 2006).
  33. B. A. Lindsey, M. R. Stetzer, J. C. Speirs, W. N. Ferm, and A. van Hulten, Investigating student ability to follow reasoning chains: The role of conceptual understanding, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010128 (2023).
  34. J. C. Speirs, M. R. Stetzer, and B. A. Lindsey, Utilizing network analysis to explore student qualitative inferential reasoning chains, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010147 (2024).
  35. K. Gifford, G. S. Ehrlich, E. Bumbacher, and E. Kuo, Seeking coherence and switching reasoning after forgetting an equation, presented at PER Conf. 2021, 10.1119/perc.2021.pr.Gifford.
  36. G. S. Ehrlich, K. Gifford, E. Kuo, and E. Bumbacher, Seeking physical/mathematical coherence by recruiting and reconciling reasoning: A case study in E & M, presented at PER Conf. 2021, 10.1119/perc.2021.pr.Ehrlich.
  37. A. A. Disessa, An interactional analysis of clinical interviewing, Cognit. Instr. 25, 523 (2007).
  38. R. S. Russ, V. R. Lee, and B. L. Sherin, Framing in cognitive clinical interviews about intuitive science knowledge: Dynamic student understandings of the discourse interaction, Sci. Educ. 96, 573 (2012).
  39. A. Gupta, A. Elby, and V. Sawtelle, Bridging knowledge analysis and interaction analysis through understanding the dynamics of knowledge in use, in Knowledge and Interaction (Routledge, New York, 2015), pp. 276–307.
  40. D. Gentner and D. Gentner, Flowing Waters or Teeming Crowds: Mental Models of Electricity (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983), pp. 99–129.
  41. S. K. Carpenter, S. C. Pan, and A. C. Butler, The science of effective learning with spacing and retrieval practice, Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 496 (2022).
  42. P. K. Agarwal, L. D. Nunes, and J. R. Blunt, Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 1409 (2021).
  43. V. Gjerde, B. Holst, and S. D. Kolstø, Retrieval practice of a hierarchical principle structure in university introductory physics: Making stronger students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 013103 (2020).
  44. V. Gjerde, V. Havre Paulsen, B. Holst, and S. D. Kolstø, Problem solving in basic physics: Effective self-explanations based on four elements with support from retrieval practice, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010136 (2022).
  45. T. Zu, J. Munsell, and N. S. Rebello, Comparing retrieval-based practice and peer instruction in physics learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010105 (2019).
  46. T. L. McCaskey, Comparing and contrasting different methods For probing student epistemology and epistemological development in introductory physics, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 2009.
  47. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, How physics instruction impacts students’ beliefs about learning physics: A meta-analysis of 24 studies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010115 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010125– Published 26 February, 2026
  • Received 24 June 2025
  • Accepted 7 January 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