Sci & Educ (2013) 22:14051421

DOI 10.1007/s11191-012-9492-2

Epistemic Views of the Relationship Between Physics

and Mathematics: Its Influence on the Approach
of Undergraduate Students to Problem Solving
Ana Raquel Pereira de Atade Ileana Maria Greca

Published online: 6 June 2012

 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract The relationship between physics and mathematics is hardly ever presented
with sufficient clarity to satisfy either physicists or mathematicians. It is a situation that
often leads to misunderstandings that may spread quickly from teacher to student, such as
the idea that mathematics is a mere instrument for the physicist. In this paper, we examine
the historical construction of this relationship, with reference to the French philosopher
Michel Paty, and we look briefly at its presence in the construction of thermodynamics. We
then present the results of an empirical study on the way these relations are perceived
among undergraduate students, in their last year of a university course on physics, in the
discipline of Thermodynamics. The study points to significant relations between the students performance in terms of problem solving and the epistemic view they hold.

1 Introduction
The most frequent complaints voiced by physics teachers, at all levels, is that their students
fail to understand physics owing to weak mathematical skills (Pietrocola 2010; Redish
2005), which is seen as one of the principal causes for academic failure. Nevertheless,
although mathematical skills are necessary for a fuller understanding of physicsand
certainly to produce good physics, they are not enough in themselves to guarantee success
at physics (Hudson and McIntiry 1977). Moreover, some students that appear to know very
little mathematics in the physics classrooms are successful in their mathematics classes
(Redish 2005). Several researchers have tackled this problem. Romer (1993) considers that
it is necessary to teach high school students how to read physics equations, because they will
otherwise see them as a heap of mathematical formulae that makes little or no sense. The
A. R. P. de Atade (&)
Department of Physics, Universidade Estadual da Paraba, Campina Grande, Brazil
e-mail: arpataide@yahoo.com.br
I. M. Greca
Department of Specific Didactics, Area of Experimental Didactics,
Faculty of Humanity and Education, Universidad de Burgos, Burgos, Spain
e-mail: ilegreca@hotmail.com

123

1406

A. R. P. de Atade, I. M. Greca

most frequent answer identified by Martinez Torregrosa et al. (2006), when studying the
difficulties of undergraduate students with differential calculus, was: I know how to calculate them, but I dont know what they mean. Students appear to believe that mathematics
implies only specific operations with meaningless symbols, learning it in a mechanical way.
So, in a similar proposal to Romers, they considered that it was necessary, first of all, to
explain conceptual aspects of differential calculus when used in physics.
Lozano and Cardenas (2002) discussed undergraduate student problems relating to the
interpretation of the symbolic language used in physics; for example, the relationship
between concepts and magnitudes that are explicit in the equal sign: in physics, equality
has different meanings depending on its context, although students tend to transfer the
properties of equality learnt in their maths class to the realm of physics and formulae.
Redish (2005) reinforced this idea, stressing that, even though mathematics may be the
language of science, maths-in-physics is a distinct dialect of that language. Physicists
tend to blend conceptual physics with mathematical symbols in a way that has a profound
effect on the use and interpretation of equations. Hestenes (1987) proposed mathematical
modelling as the central activity in undergraduate physics, because students should be able
to identify the physical properties used to describe the phenomena in the modelling process
and relate these to the quantitative variables that represent them, thereby improving their
understanding of physics and mathematics.
These studies suggest that there is no simple answer such as organizing further mathematics classes to ensure that students will do well at physics, which is quite a common
solution among physics teachers. This solution may reflect, as Pietrocola (2002) has
suggested, a naive epistemological position that considers mathematics as an instrument
for physics. Although physics and mathematics are intrinsically related, their relationship
is often not presented with sufficient clarity for either physicists or mathematicians. This
leads to misunderstandings at times, which spread widely, such as seeing mathematics as a
mere instrument for physics (as the teachers themselves described it), or, seeing physics as
a science that has to use maths to make itself understood. If, these relationships are unclear
for teachers, it is quite likely that students will also fail to grasp their true nature and will
assume a naive attitude; believing that they need know no more than the equation and its
solution to solve problems in physics. These faulty premises could be a factor behind a
typical result detected in physics problem solving among undergraduate and graduate
students: the use of equations without any direct association with the principles of physics,
which do not have to be understood in the context of physics before being applied.1
The influence of epistemic scientific views on student performance has been postulated
and studied in various contexts. For example, Ryder and Leach (1999) studied the way in
which student activities, during project work at university level, were influenced by their
views on the purpose of science, the nature of scientific knowledge and the role of social
processes in scientific activity. Lising and Elby (2005) have shown how the epistemological attitude of a fresher college student studying physicsher ideas about knowledge
and learningmight have had a direct, causal influence on her learning of physics. In the
case of modelling tasks, several authors have argued that epistemological understanding
has an effect on cognitive processing (Hofer 2001; Schwarz 2002). Sins et al. (2009) found
significant correlations between epistemological understanding and deep processing
(positive), and between epistemological understanding and surface processes (negative).
So, the epistemological understanding of models and the modelling process among students appears to be related to how they approach the material and to what they learn.
1

See Redish et al. (1998), Adams et al. (2006), Sherin (2006), Mason and Singh (2010).

123

Epistemic Views of the Relationship Between Physics and Mathematics

1407

Several studies have shown that a weak epistemological understanding constrains student
performance, general inquiries and learning about physics concepts.2
Nevertheless, few studies have considered the epistemological views of undergraduate
students on the relationship between mathematics and physics and the influence of these views
on student understanding or performance in physics. Quale (2011) examined the association
between observable physical world and the mathematical models of theoretical physics. Pietrocola (2002, 2010), based on philosophy and history of science, discussed the complexity of
this relationship and how it might influence the teaching/learning of physics. One of the few
empirical studies that has tackled this issue with undergraduate physics students is by Dormert
et al. (2007). It describes the epistemological components of students mindsets in their
understanding of physics equations. These researchers found that the most frequently occurring
components were how to use an equation to solve problems and how to recognize what the
symbols in an equation represent. They associated this result with the traditional method used by
many physics departments to present and to assess student knowledge, reducing physics
equations to little more than mathematical tools. These results are similar to the ones found by
Redish et al. (1998) about introductory physics students expectations of equations, who
seemed to use mathematics only as a way to calculate numbers.
As important as this topic seems to be, more research is needed, and our work is
intended to add some new results. Thus, the objective of this work is to answer the
following question. How does the understanding of such a relationship influence our
understanding of physics-related concepts and more specifically concepts of thermodynamics, such as heat, work, and internal energy? In order to answer this question, we first
briefly examine the historical construction of this relationship drawing from the ideas of
the French philosopher, Michel Paty. We then present the results of an empirical study, on
the way in which undergraduate students, on their last year of their physics course, perceived that relationship, and how their epistemic views influenced their conceptual learning
and their attitudes, when asked to solve problems of thermodynamics.

2 The Historical Construction of the Relationship Between Physics and Mathematics

Although mathematical tools have been developed since the origins of human civilization and
axiomatic mathematical methods, which are usually ascribed to classical Greece (Quale
2011), mathematics was not applied to gain a better understanding of natural phenomena until
the advent of modern science. Before that, the laws of the natural world had been expressed in
very different ways. One example is Aristotelian physics, based on the idea of natural place,
which left no role for mathematics (Kuhn 1957). The systematic expression of natural phenomena in mathematical terms that began in the 17th century and was further consolidated in
the 18th century is now an imperative in modern physics. These methods ranged from the
development and use of differential and integral calculus, suitable for the treatment of continuous magnitudes, to differential equations, developed in response to fluid mechanics,
which became the language of physics for continuous media and fields (Paty 2006).
Over these four centuries, mathematicians and physicists have held divergent ideas on the
role of mathematics in the development of physics. The French philosopher, Michel Paty
(1995), has highlighted three forms of mathematics that are used in the construction of
physical knowledge. The first form is the analogue view that was inherited from the Scholastics tradition. This construed Physics as all about real facts and objects explainable in
2

See Driver et al. (1996), Hammer (1994), Schwarz and White (2005), van Driel and Verloop (1999).

123

1408

A. R. P. de Atade, I. M. Greca

geometric termsthe language of realityby means of analogies that refer to forms or ideal
structures (op. cit., p. 234) taken from the Pythagorean heritage. It can be exemplified by the
origins of kinematics developed by the scholars of Merton college in Oxford (Dias 2006).
The second form is the understanding of mathematics as a language that reflects reality,
recognizable in the writings of Galilei, who referred to the idea that the book of nature is
written in the language of figures and numbers (Paty 2001).
Philosophy [i.e. physics] is written in this grand book I mean the universe which stands
continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the
language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is
humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a
dark labyrinth. (Galilei 1973 [1623]).

For Galilei, magnitudes and laws in physics spoke in the mathematical language of
geometry (Paty 2001), which continued to be Natures preferential language. It was more
than just a way to look for analogies between real facts and ideal geometric forms, but a
resource to build a theoretical form, in order to explain physical facts. In his Principia,
Newton expressed the laws of mechanics and gravitation in geometric terms, the famous
principles related to a synthetic geometry (Paty 2001). Nevertheless, the differential
calculus developed by Newton and Leibniz, although tributary of geometry, led to the
construction of new concepts, such as force (Paty 1994).
The third form, which emerged in the 18th century as a consequence of this development, was mathematics understood as a language that is intrinsically linked to the construction of conceptual physics:
The progressive formation of mathematical physics replaces the mathematical translation of nature
by what is strictly speaking a mediation in terms of physics, that is, the explicit construction of
concepts in physics that are mathematically thought out: mathematization being conceived as
inherent to the concepts and a constitutive part, which serves to construct them. (Paty 1995, p. 234).

Euler, Clairaut, DAlembert were the first to use this new form of legitimate mathematization in the construction of theories. As the best example, Paty highlighted the
mathematical analysis of the correlation between electric current, magnetic field and
movement made by Ampe`re, because in this work he had to choose the most radical
conceptual approach in view of the mathematization (of experimental knowledge) in
order to shorten the distance to a minimum between mathematical discourse and the
concrete data that it is meant to elucidate and clarify. (Merleau-Ponty 1974, in Paty ibid.).
This process peaked with the theories of modern physics in the 20th century, in which an
abstract construction modelled the real world in mathematical reasoning, in such a way that it
was not even possible to think empirically without sophisticated mathematical symbols. In its
current use in physics, mathematics can be conceived of as an instrument that builds or
isolates structures, that defines physical magnitudes; rather than a language that translates
itself, its strength is that it is a thought in itself (Paty 1995). In this relationship, it is also
possible to develop a specific mathematical structure from physical problems, as in group
theory applied to spacetime transformations taken from such problems (Paty 2001).
A somewhat loosely formulated summing-up of how one might choose to think about
these three viewpoints, with respect to the relation between mathematics and physics,
might be as follows:
First stage:

123

Mathematics (in particular, geometry) is used to describe analogies

between physical objects in the real world, explainable in geometric

Epistemic Views of the Relationship Between Physics and Mathematics

Second stage:

Third stage:

1409

terms, and structures belonging to an ideal world, disjoint from physical

reality.
Physics plays a primary role; it determines how the real world operates,
and mathematics is just a very convenient language in which to describe
this reality.
Mathematics plays a primary role; it is indispensable in the process that
leads to physical knowledge, and dictates how to construct good
physical concepts and laws.

These different relationships may be found in the development of thermodynamics,

which is the focus of our empirical study. The first ideas associated with the measurement
of temperature, pressure, and specific heats, which began during the 17th century, were
presented in the Galilean translation sense (Vargas 1996). The history of thermodynamics
is full of experiments and practical experiencesand is not, as Sichau (2000) stressed, a
history of ideas. So, mathematics as a language that expressed reality, continued to play a
very important role until the 19th century. This use of mathematics can be seen in the
quantitative measurements made by Joule, Mayer, and others, that established a clear
relationship between heat, work, and energy (Holton and Brush 1984).
Mathematization also took hold of the debate over the nature of heat, which has a double
origin. Firstly, inspired by positivist thought, Fourier built differential equations of heat flow
from facts verified beyond all doubt in the positivist view, by observation. His Theorie
analytique de la chaleur (1822), followed the analytical tradition developed in mechanics,
using mathematics to structure physics theories. The other origin in the mathematization of
thermodynamics begin with research conducted by Carnot on the technological nature of the
motive power of heat, which led him to propose the basis of the two principles that we now call
Thermodynamics (Vargas 1996). Twenty years later, Carnots ideas were translated into the
symbolism of calculus, in 1834, by Clapeyron (Kerker 1991, Nobrega 2009) that allowed him
to express the general principle in just one equation.
These studies were later developed by Clausius and Lord Kelvin. Clausius, introducing
a state function which would later be called internal energy (U) (Tarsitani 1991), was able
to show that the Carnots principle and the equivalence of heat and work found by Joule,
were not incompatible, but both were necessary for a dynamic theory of heat (Klein 1974).
This led to the mathematization of heat energy transformation in other species, based on
the two above-mentioned principles: the conservation of energy and the second law of
thermodynamics, which was finally expressed mathematically, in 1851, by Lord Kelvin.
Owing to these developments, mathematics gave thermodynamics a new appearance; no
longer was it just a phenomenological science that used mathematics as an instrument. It
started to express a narrow relationship between formal conceptualization and mathematization, particularly by using calculus, mathematical analysis, and elements of statistical
mechanics in its own phenomenological constructions and explanations. Nevertheless, only
at the turn of the century, in 1909, the Greek mathematician Caratheodory presented a
logical formalization of thermodynamics. Other proposals for the axiomatization of thermodynamics were also made, such as that developed by the physicist Laszlo Tiszo.
It is interesting to note that when the mathematization of heat was completed, the physical
meanings of heat energy and entropy were still without a formal explanation (Vargas 1996).
This fact was due to the widespread acceptance of caloric theory at that time, which among its
other consequences, strongly delayed the advance of the kinetic theory of gases and its
consolidation, which can be regarded as the first step in the construction of statistical
mechanics. To some extent, this dispute between the mechanical theory of heat and caloric

123

1410

A. R. P. de Atade, I. M. Greca

theory was influenced by the relationship between physics and mathematics, because, even
though caloric theory had held sway for a long time, it almost did not allow to obtain
quantitative results. Although the decline of the caloric theory may not be exclusively
associated with this factor (see, for example, Brush 1976, 1983), the mechanical theory of
heat was consolidated by the emergence of statistical concepts, with appropriate mathematical methods to process the collective behaviour of large numbers of particles.

3 Science Teaching and the Role of Mathematics in Physics

With regard to the implications for teaching in the relationship between mathematics and
physics, Pietrocola (2002) proposes to adopt the idea of mathematics as a language for
physics teaching. If mathematics is treated as a language, thereby emphasizing its interpretative nature, it may help differentiate between scientific knowledge and common sense.
Science usually makes use of mathematics as a way of expressing itself and the language it
uses is an important form of differentiation. Nevertheless, mathematics, like any other
language, presents both descriptive and interpretive features, [I]ts greatest importance
lies in the structural role it can play in the process of producing objects that will form the
interpretations of the physical world (Pietrocola 2002, p. 100). In this sense, as a language, mathematics lends structure to scientific thought so that scientists can construct
physical models of the world. Its strong points for that role reside in its accuracy, universality and deductive logic (ibid). It is worth stressing that this position corresponds to
the third mathematical form presented by Paty, because the idea of it as a language in
Pietrocola, is not that of translation, but is rather part of the construction of the knowledge
that it expresses. This idea is also similar to the Feynmans statement: Mathematics is not
just another language. Mathematics is a language plus reasoning; it is like a language plus
logic. Mathematics is a tool for reasoning. (Feynman 1989, p. 40). Silva and Pietrocola
(2003) presented an analysis of the history of electromagnetic theory, in which mathematical treatment is construed as an integral step in the construction of the theory, rather
than the mere translation of theory into mathematical language, as we have described here
in the case of thermodynamics.
Thus, if mathematics is taken as the language of physical knowledge, it should play as
important a role in the learning of physics, as it has in the process of building such
knowledge. However, physics teachers betray a nave epistemological attitude, if they
consider that weak mathematical skills represent the main obstacle to learning their discipline. Usually, they present maths as a tool for the physicist to solve certain problems and
this view is propagated among students, leaving them with the impression that knowledge
of mathematical expressions and how to resolve equations is sufficient to do well in
physics. This position shares the characteristics of the forms that Paty expounded: the
analogue view and the view of mathematics as a translator of physical phenomena, the
latter being more evident. These views may constitute pedagogical obstacles (Pietrocola
2002) for the learning of physics concepts, because they stimulate the interest of students
in the equation and its solution, but fail to cultivate an understanding of the underlying
concepts. The nave view is partly fuelled by textbooks, since they rarely present a display
of content, activities and problems escaping from the mathematical instrumentalism
already consolidated in physics teaching. It may therefore be that the instrumentalism
observed in many students during problem solving might not only be due to cognitive
difficulties, but also to an epistemological perspective, as we have stressed in the introduction to this work.

123

Epistemic Views of the Relationship Between Physics and Mathematics

1411

4 Empirical Study
4.1 Methods
Some previous studies address the relationship between students epistemological views of
the relationship between physics and mathematics and their implications for learning and
physical activity specifically in problem solving (Lising L. and Elby A. 2005; Dormet D.
et al. 2007). Thus, our empirical research has the objective of studying whether the views
that students hold are related to their understanding of physics concepts and their performance during problem solving. We investigated how these relationships were perceived
by two consecutive groups of undergraduate students in a Physics degree to train high
school teachers at the State University of Paraiba (N = 22) and how their understanding
was reflected in their conceptual learning and attitudes towards problem solving in the area
of thermodynamics. These students were in their final academic year.
We chose this subject and level, because of the following reasons: several researchers
have shown that students experience difficulties with the scientific formalization of key
concepts of thermodynamics (e.g., Carlton 2000; Goedhart and Kaper 2002; Cotignola
et al. 2002); the mathematical treatment of the first law of thermodynamics at this level is
different from general physics; it involves concepts of the differential and total and partial
derivatives, key mathematical concepts for understanding any area in the physics of
continuous matter and advanced students of physics should express clearly defined views
on the role of mathematics in the construction of physics concepts.
A qualitative study was performed, in which one of the authors of this paper attended
Thermodynamics classes as a non-participant observer over two semesters. We used four
different types of materials to conduct our research. Field notes were taken on the difficulties
and questions put to the teacher by students during the presentation of theoretical content and the
sessions of problem solving. A written questionnaire was prepared with direct questions
referring to the epistemic view on the role of mathematics in physics. We also analysed the two
written evaluation activities (tests given to the students, to be evaluated by the teacher)
answered by the students, consisting of theoretical questions and problems from the first
teaching unit (introductory study of thermodynamics, temperature, thermodynamic systems,
heat and first law of thermodynamics). The evaluation activities were proposed by the teacher of
the course and are the typical physical problems proposed for this level. The written questionnaire and the evaluation activities proposed to the students appear in Appendix 1. Finally,
we individually interviewed each student at the end of the course. These face-to-face interviews
lasted approximately 1 h and were done after a first analysis of their work during the lessons and
their written material. In these interviews we intended to engage students in an in-depth discussion about their understanding of the concepts underlying the first law of thermodynamics,
their comprehension of the mathematical techniques needed in this area, the strategies in use
and the difficulties detected in problem solving, as well as the answers given in the questionnaire. In particular, we tried to find out whether the students understood the microscopic and
macroscopic variables; whether they understand the relationships between these variables and
their understanding of what temperature, heat and internal energy actually are.
In relation to this mathematical understanding, we analyzed the performance of these
students in the calculus study modules that they had followed in previous semesters
through their academic grades obtained in partial and final exams, and the appraisal of their
understanding during classroom discussions and written evaluations. We then verified this
previous analysis during the interview stage. The concepts on which we focused were those
of partial and total derivatives and exact and inexact differentials, all of which in the

123

A. R. P. de Atade, I. M. Greca

1412

context of calculus and thermodynamics. For example, we tried to understand how students
related the concepts of differential in the context of calculus with the concepts involved in
the first law of thermodynamics (the ideas of heat and work, and magnitudes relating to
quantity and not to variation). After discussing their approach in their exams, we tried to
establish whether, having understood the physical situation of each problem, they were
capable of applying the relevant mathematical concepts appropriately.
With this analysis, the students were rated according to their skills in mathematical
understanding of basic differential calculus and understanding of the concept of differential calculus and problem applications in physics, with the code Y for yes, he/she
understands it and the code T for he/she shows technical skills only. A Y-rated
student with regard to his/her skills in mathematical understanding of basic differential
calculus means that he/she appears to understand the calculus concepts. T-rated students
mean that although they may correctly apply the concepts of calculus that they have
studied, they do not appear to understand what these concepts actually mean. Similarly,
each students understanding of the concept of differential calculus and problem applications in physics was classified. It is interesting to note that we found one student that
only understood the concepts of calculus when he had to use them in physics problems
that is, the mathematical concepts studied in the context of calculus appeared too
abstract to him outside the concrete world of physics.
During the interviews, we also asked students to describe the procedures that they used
to solve the set problems and these answers plus our appraisal of their solutions (in the
classroom, from our field notes, and their written evaluations) were used to categorize the
students. Although the detailed analysis has previously been described (Atade and Greca
2011), in Appendix 2 we show a summary of the analysis performed for one student.
5 Results and Discussion
In this paper, we will focus on the results of the students problem solving strategies and
the epistemic views they held. Our classifications of the students is based on the analysis of
the different materials. We will illustrate the categories with shorts excerpts from the
written questionnaires and interviews.
Key feature of the strategies used in problem solving:
Operational Mathematics (OM)Students that use mathematics as a technique and
tend to solve problems by trial and error.
Conceptualization (C)Students that prefer conceptual understanding and try, not
always successfully, to link the concepts with the mathematics used for problem
solving.
Mathematical Reasoning (MR)Students that use mathematical reasoning that is
coherent with the situation outlined in the problem solution, although they might not
apply the mathematical techniques correctly.
It is worth stressing that, in general, students did not show a monolithic approach to
problem solving; our categorizationindependently drawn up by each author, with interrating scores of 90 %reflects their most frequent approach to the problem-based activities
(class, test, interview).
(b)

The students epistemic view on the role of mathematics in the construction of a

physical theory, adapted from the classification proposed by Karam (2007), was as
follows:

123

Epistemic Views of the Relationship Between Physics and Mathematics

1413

The categorization of the role of mathematics in physics was made from the responses
to the initial questionnaire, which were ratified during the interviews.
Tool: mathematics is used by the physicist to facilitate numerical calculations.
Mathematics is an abstract instrument necessary for the verification of concept in physics.
Mathematics is a fundamental tool. (E7).
The calculation was initially created by Newton to solve problems in physics. Thus, mathematics
is used as a means of facilitating the solution to the proposed problem. (E8).

Translator: mathematics is a translator of physical thought, a mere manifestation of

physics, with the task of representing it in an understandable way.
Mathematics, in physics, plays the role of a language that is used to model and describe physical
phenomena. (E1).
Mathematics is essential, but it is not everything for physics, it serves to translate it into numbers. (E2).

Structure: mathematics appears to structure physical thought:

Mathematics has a fundamental function in physics; it is the structural basis, akin to the skeleton of
the body. (E5).
Physics and mathematics walk together, maths forms the basis for concepts in physics, and many
times, math arises from the need to explain physics concepts. (E19).

The results of the categorizations are shown in Table 1.

Five students (E4, E5, E6, E14, E15) showed the mathematical knowledge required for this
area and very good conceptual understanding of the physics concepts, successfully making
the connection between these ideas and their mathematical formalization. In the category of
mathematical reasoning for problem solving, these students appear to relate physics and
mathematics closely, the latter assuming a structural role in physics; nevertheless their perception of this relationship or, at least, the way that they express it is somewhat vague. These
students are among those that had minor difficulties in learning and showed better performance in the area under study. We are using the global grades obtained in this area as a
performance indicator; the better ones being above 70 % and the poorer ones, below 50 %.
In contrast, students with poorer performance in this area (E7, E8, E9, E10, E11, E20,
E21, and E22), dominate the mathematical techniques, but have neither a proper
understanding of physical concepts, nor of the relationship between mathematics and the
construction of these concepts. Their main approach to problem-solving is operational
mathematics, i.e. they use a trial and error strategy for problem solvingtrying some
equations and seeing which provide the best solution. These students are able to solve some
problems, but in a seemingly random way. It is interesting that all these students have a
view of mathematics as a tool for the study of physics, but instead of finding a close
relationship between physics and mathematics, they explicitly stated during the interviews
that mathematics functioned as an instrument of physics. It seems that this view of
mathematics as a tool, in all probability built up during their own lessons and reinforced by
teachers and textbooks, hindered their learning processes.
The performance of the eight remaining students, (E1, E2, E3, E13, E16, E17, E18 and
E19) and their mathematical skills for this area were average. However, although a majority
of them (five students) seemed to show, during the interview, a strong link with conceptualizationunderstanding that conceptualization was of great theoretical valuetheir average
understanding of physics concepts left mathematization in the background, which appears to
manifest itself as a learning difficulty. The other three students showed the characteristic of
operational mathematics and a regular understanding of physics concepts. As for the view of
the relationship between mathematics and physics, for three of the students, mathematics
permitted the translation of physical phenomena, as we defined it in our category. Two of

123

A. R. P. de Atade, I. M. Greca

1414
Table 1 Summary of student categorization
Student Mathematical
understanding of
basic differential
calculus

Understanding of the concept of Most remarkable

differential calculus and problem characteristic in
problem solving
applications in physics

Epistemic view of
the role of
mathematics in
physics

E1

Translator

E2

Translator

E3

Structure

E4

MR

Structure

E5

MR

Structure

E6

MR

Structure

E7

OM

Tool

E8

OM

Tool

E9

OM

Tool

E10

OM

Tool

E11

OM

Tool

E12

OM

Tool

E13

Tool

E14

MR

Structure

E15

MR

Structure

E16

OM

Structure

E17

OM

Tool

E18

Translator

E19

OM

Structure

E20

OM

Tool

E21

OM

Tool

E22

OM

Tool

Codes: Yyes; Ttechnical skills only; Cconceptualization; MRmathematical reasoning; MO

mathematical operation

them considered that the only function of mathematics is to be a tool for physics, while the
remaining five considered mathematics as the structure of physics. Nevertheless, although
these students claim to have this view, it appears not to contribute to a differentiated attitude
during problem solving. For example, two of them applied operational mathematics as their
main strategy. This might well indicate a lack of coherence between their epistemological
view of mathematics and physics and the way in which they apply that view to problem
solving, which could hamper the effective learning of physics concepts.
The data in Table 1 was transformed into nominal qualitative variables: mathematical
understanding of basic differential calculus; understanding of the concept of differential as
applied in physics and its appropriate application to problems; most remarkable characteristic
in problem solving, and epistemic view of the role of mathematics in physics. Given the
characteristic of our variables and the low number of subjects, we performed a contingency
analysis3 (work from the authors, submitted, removed in compliance with the rules of submission): in order to study their relevant associations. All the variables had significant
coefficients (p B 0.05), with values ranging from 0.47 to 0.72, thereby confirming an
3

The analysis was performed with PASW Statistics 18.

123

Epistemic Views of the Relationship Between Physics and Mathematics

1415

association. The ones that had the highest coefficient (0.72, p B 0.0001) were the two
described in this paperthe most striking characteristic in problem solving and the epistemic
view of the role of mathematics in physics, which points to quite a close relationship between
successful problem solving and the epistemic view that the student holds.

6 Final Remarks
In this paper, we have raised the question of the importance that epistemic views on the
role of mathematics in physics may have for student performance, which in our opinion is a
contributory factor, among others previously considered in the literature on science education, to successful learning in this discipline. It can be seen, from the historical development of the relationship between these two disciplines, that many teachers hold onto and
convey nave epistemological views to their students, which may influence their approach
to the understanding and use of mathematics.
The concepts that the students presented in the empirical study failed, in general, to
reflect the scientific concept fully, even though they may have learnt about them
throughout their formal high school education and mastered the mathematical techniques.
The difficulties, which also emerged from the observation and evaluation activities, and
which were confirmed in the interviews, arose from a misunderstanding of the problems.
This was mainly a question of how to relate the mathematical models and equations to the
situation described in the physics problem, which supports the observation made by Karam
and Pietrocola (2009) that technical skills are not enough to know how to solve problems.
Considering the more successful students, it is important for them to understand not only
the physical and mathematical concepts separately, but the mathematical formalization
related to the construction of the physics concepts, so that learning is more effective.
The main finding of this study is that a close relationship appears to exist between the way
students solve the problems and the epistemic view that students hold of the role played by
mathematics in physics (and, by extension, the learning and understanding of physical concepts,
since problem solving is the main activity in the physics classroom). Although these views or
their influence on the learning of physics do not, at present, constitute a much-discussed topic in
science teaching, it seems that they can influence how students face the learning and specifically
the problem solving tasks, which are presented as obstacles to be overcome, in order to attain an
appropriate level of scientific understanding in this field. It is worth pointing out that the subjects
of this study are in their final year of teacher training to become high school physics teachers.
Their views on the relationship between physics and mathematics that have been observed in
this paper will probably dominate their teaching of the discipline.
Our study has two main limitations. The first one is the number of subjects studied;
studies on a larger scale are needed to confirm our results. The other is that although
problem solving strategies were determined for each student using several instrumentsamong which, close monitoring during the classes-their epistemological views were
determined through the written answers of the students to direct questions and their verbal
narratives. It will be necessary, in future studies, to design new instruments, such as
different types of questionnaires, to overcome this limitation.
Finally, we would like to stress the importance that we attach to discussion of the changing
historical relationships between physics and mathematics with students, not only as a way to
form a more appropriate view of these relationships, but also for better understanding, and
teaching, of physical concepts. We are now developing a teaching learning sequence, in the
area of Thermodynamics, which specifically discusses the historical process of

123

A. R. P. de Atade, I. M. Greca

1416

mathematization, as outlined in the final paragraphs of section two of this paper. We intend
to study whether this kind of didactical approach may overcome some of the difficulties
detected in this area and/or affect the epistemological views of students.

Appendix 1
Questionnaire Used to Identify the Students Difficulties During the Teaching Unit
and Specifically in the RP, and the Vision They Have About the Role of Mathematics
in Solving Physics Problems
1. What are the main difficulties you have experienced in the learning of Thermodynamics, and more specifically in this first thematic unit?
2. Using your own words, try to explain what you mean about the physical concepts
listed below:
Temperature:
Work:
Internal Energy:
3. How do you understand the First Law of Thermodynamics? Formalize the expression
that represents it. What does the equal sign in this expression imply?
4. What are microscopic and macroscopic variables? How are they related to the universe
of Thermodynamics?
5. Which basic concepts of mathematics (calculus) are needed to understand the concepts
of thermodynamics? Do you think you understand them? Justify your answer.
6. What is the physical meaning of the concept of differential?
7. Do you experience difficulty in applying the concept of differential in problems of
Thermodynamics?
8. During the problem solving process, do you prioritize the conceptual or the
mathematical elements? How do you use mathematics in this activity?
9. In your point of view, what is the role of mathematics in physics?
Evaluation Activities
First Activity
1. Describe the kinetic temperature of a system from a microscopic point of view and
from a macroscopic point of view. What is the relationship between these two views of
kinetic temperature?
2. Define and explain:
(a) Open system, closed system and isolated system. (b) Quasi-static process.
3. When the conditions for any of the three types of equilibrium that define
thermodynamic equilibrium are not met, the system is said to be in a non-equilibrium
state. How is possible to find coordinates to give a thermodynamic description of the
system?
4. The equilibrium states of superheated steam are represented by the Callendar equation:
mb

123

rT
a

P Tm

Epistemic Views of the Relationship Between Physics and Mathematics

1417

where b, r, a and m are constants. Express the volumetric expansion coefficient, b, as a

function of T and P
5. Calculate the work of 1 mol of gas during a quasi-static isothermal expansion from an
initial volume v1 to a final volume v2 when the state equation is:
a
P 2 m  b RT
m
where a and b are van der Waals constants.
6. (a) The tension of a metallic wire increases isothermally, in a quasi-static process from
s1 to s2. If the length, the cross-sectional area and the isothermal Youngs modulus of
the metallic wire remain almost constant:
(a) Determine the work that is done
(b) The tension of a 1 m length of wire, with a cross section of 0.001 cm2, is
increased quasi-statically and isothermally at 20 C, from 10 to 100 N. What is the
work done, if the isothermal Youngs modulus at 20 C is 1.23 9 1011 N/m2?
Second Activity
1. A liquid is irregularly agitated in an insulated container, so that its temperature increases.
Consider the liquid as a system. Does heat transfer occur? Will work be done in this
process? Is it relevant that the agitation of the liquid is irregular? What is the sign of the
change in the internal energy of the system? Justify each of your answers.
2. (a) Enunciate the First Law of Thermodynamics.
(b) Define heat capacity.
(c) Describe Ruchhardts method for measuring c.
3. The space between two thin concentric spherical shells, with radius of 5 and 15 cm,
respectively, is fully occupied with charcoal. When energy is supplied to a heater
located in the center in a steady state of 10.8 W, a temperature difference of 50 C is
established between the spheres. Find the thermal conductivity of the charcoal.
4. Considering the internal energy of an hydrostatic system as a function of T and P,
derive the following equations:
(a)
dQ

  
  
 
 
oU
oV
oU
oV
dT
dP
P
P
oT P
oT P
oP T
oP T

(b)
 
oU
Cp  PVb
oT P

5. (a) From the first law of thermodynamics and the definitions of cp and cv, show that:
   

oU
oV
cp  cv p
oV T oT P
where cp and cv is the specific heat capacity per mol of pressure and constant volume,
respectively, and U and V are the power and volume of a mole.

123

1418

A. R. P. de Atade, I. M. Greca

 


op
5. (b) Use the results found above and the expression p oU

T
oT V to find cp - cv
oV T


for the van der Waals equation of a gas p Va2 V  b RT.
Appendix 2: Brief summary of the analysis of the student E5
In Classroom Activities
The most remarkable feature during the classes of student E5 was his tendency to ask about
everything he didnt understand. He tried to understand every detail; during problem
resolution he first tried to understand the complete physical situation and what was being
asked, before stating the equations.
Example of Student E5s Solution of a Problem from the Evaluation Activity (Problem
4, First Activity)

123

Epistemic Views of the Relationship Between Physics and Mathematics

1419

During the Interview

When asked about the concepts of internal energy, work and heat and the first law, he gave
consistent answers; he also gave correct explanations in response to the questions in the
evaluation activities, showing a good theoretical understanding of these concepts. His
conceptualization of physical problems was therefore considered acceptable.
His mathematical understanding of calculus concepts and his understanding of the
concept of differential calculus and problem applications in physics were verified through
his performance in class, the resolution of the problems in the tests and his performance in
previous calculus disciplines. We observed that he knew how to solve calculus problems
related to partial and total derivatives. When asked about what he understood as differential, he answered consistently, although he said that many times, when I solve a
problem, I lose a lot of time thinking what the differential means in the problem and, some
times, although understanding that this is important, I leave it and go directly to the
equations.
Looking at his tests, it was possible to observe that he tried to describe the situation with
words, and where possible, to draw a picture of the situation. When asked why he worked
in that way, he said: When I read a problem, I imagine myself talking to someone and
explaining the problem to him; so I try to write what I should say during my explanation,
and in this way, the problem becomes clear for me.
His answer to the last question of the questionnaire, where we inquired about the role of
mathematics in physics, he answered: mathematics has a fundamental function in physics;
it is the structural basis, akin to the skeleton of the body. During the interview he
reaffirmed his position, which was also consistent with his attitudes during the classes and
problem solving.
He also said that he had difficulty joining concepts of physics with the relevant
mathematical ones: I had difficulties because I tried to make that junction and I know it is
not easy; if I were not aware of this need, I would not even try, I should put only the
equations
After this analysis, student E5 was classified in the Key feature of the strategies used in
problem solving in the category of Mathematical Reasoning and in the category of
Structure for his epistemic view on the role of mathematics in the construction of a
physical theory.

References
Adams, W., Perkins, K., Podolefsky, N., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., & Wieman, C. (2006). New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado learning attitudes
about science survey. Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research, 2, 010101.
Atade, A. R. P., & Greca, I. M. (2011) Relacoes entre conhecimento conceitual, domnio de tecnicas
matematicas e visoes do papel da Matematica na Fsica e na resolucao de problemas sobre a Primeira
Lei da Termodinamica. Submitted.
Brush, S. G. (1976). The kind of motion we call heat. A history of the kinetic theories of gases in the 19th
century, volumes I and II. In E. W. Montroll & J. L. Lebowitz (Eds.), Studies in statistical mechanics
(vol. VI). Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Brush, S. G. (1983). Statistical physics and the atomic theory of matter. From Boyle and Newton to Landau
and Onsager (Vol. Princeton Series in Physics). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Carlton, K. (2000). Teaching about heat and temperature. Physics Education, 35(2), 101105.

123

1420

A. R. P. de Atade, I. M. Greca

Cotignola, M. I., Bordogna, C., Punte, G., & Cappannini, O. (2002). Difficulties in learning thermodynamic
concepts: Are they linked to the historical development of this field? Science & Education, 11,
279291.
Dias, P. M. C. (2006). O nascimento da lei dinamica. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Fsica, 28(2),
205234.
Domert, D., Airey, J., Linder, C., & Kung, R. L. (2007). An exploration of university physics students
epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations. NorDiNa Nordic Studies in
Science Education, 3(1), 1528.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples images of science. Buckingham,
UK: Open University Press.
Feynman, R. P. (1989). O que e uma lei fsica?. Lisboa: Editora Gradiva.
Galilei, G. (1973) [1623]. O ensaiador. Sao Paulo: Abril Cultural. (Colecao Os Pensadores, Vol. 12).
Goedhart, M. J. & Kaper, W. (2002). From chemical energetics to chemical thermodynamics. In J.
K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. Van driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards
research-based practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2),
151183.
Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5),
440454.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational
Psychology Review, 13, 353382.
Holton, G., & Brush, S. (1984). Introduccion a los Conceptos y Teoras de las Ciencias Fsicas (2nd ed.).
Barcelona: Editorial Reverte.
Hudson, H. T., & McIntiry, W. R. (1977). Correlation between mathematical skills and success in physics.
American Journal of Physics, 45(5), 470471.
Karam, R. A. S. (2007). Matematica como estruturante e fsica como motivacao: uma analise de concepcoes
sobre as relacoes entre matematica e fsica. In: VI Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Educacao em
Ciencias, Florianopolis. Anais do VI ENPEC.
Karam, R. A. S., & Pietrocola, M. (2009). Habilidades Tecnicas Versus Habilidades Estruturantes:
Resolucao de Problemas e o Papel da Matematica como Estruturante do Pensamento Fsico. ALEXANDRIA Revista de Educacao em Ciencia e Tecnologia, 2(2), 181205.
Kerker, M., & Clapeyron, B. P. E. (1991) In: Gillespie (Eds.), Dictionary of Scientific Biography (pp.
286-287). New York.
Klein, M. J. (1974). Carnots contributions to thermodynamics. Physics Today, 2328, augost.
Kuhn, T. S. (1957). The Copernican revolution: planetary astronomy. In the development of western
thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lising, L. & Elby, A. (2005). The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory
physics. American Journal of Physics, 73(4), 372.
Lozano, S. R., & Cardenas, S. (2002). Some learning problems concerning the use of symbolic language in
physics. Science & Education, 11, 589599.
Martinez Torregrosa, J., Lopez-Gay, R., & Gras-Marti, A. (2006). Mathematics in physics education:
Scanning the historical evolution of the differential to find a more appropriate model for teaching
differential calculus in physics. Science & Education, 15, 47462.
Mason, A. & Singh, C. (2010) Surveying graduate students attitudes and approaches to problem solving
Physical Review Special TopicsPhysics Education Research 6, 020124.
Merleau-ponty, J. (1974). Lecons sur la gene`se des theories physiques. Paris, Vrin: Galilee, Ampe`re,
Einstein.
Nobrega, M. L. (2009) Segunda lei da termodinamica: os caminhos percorridos por William Thomson.
Dissertacao de mestrado. Universidade Federal da Bahia. Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana.
Paty, M. (1994). Le caractere historique de ladequation des mathematiques a` La physique. In S. Garma,
D. Flament & V. Navarro (Eds.), Contra los titanes de la rutina.- Contre les titans de la routine.
Comunidad de Madrid/C.S.I.C., Madrid.
Paty, M. (1995). A materia roubada. Sao Paulo: Edusp.
Paty, M. (2001). La notion de grandeur et la legitimite de la mathematisation en physique. In Miguel.
Espinoza (Ed.), De la science a` la philosophie : Hommage a` Jean Largeault (pp. 247286). Paris:
LHarmattan.
Paty, M. (2006) Os conceitos da fsica: Conteudos racionais e construcoes na historia. Artigo publicado
originalmente em frances em Principia (Florianopolis), 5(12, 2001), 20940. (Traduzido por Silvia
Waisse Priven).

123

Epistemic Views of the Relationship Between Physics and Mathematics

1421

Pietrocola, M. (2002). A Matematica Como Estruturante Do Conhecimento Fsico. Caderno Brasileiro De

Ensino De Fsica, 19(1), 88108.
Pietrocola, M. (2010) Mathematics strucutural language of physics thought. In: M. Vicentini & E. Sassi
(Eds.), Connecting research in physics education with teacher education (2 edn., Vol. 2, pp 3548).
New Delhi: Angus & Grapher Publishers.
Quale, A. (2011). On the role of mathematics in physics. Science & Education, 20, 359372.
Redish E. (2005). Problem solving and the use of math in physics courses. Invited talk presented at the
conference, World view on physics education, In 2005: Focusing on change, Delhi, August 2126,
2005. To be published in the proceedings. Web acess: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ericdocs2/
content_storage_01/0000000b/80/33/E7/Bf.pdf, in October, 2011.
Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American
Journal of Physics, 66, 212.
Romer, R. H. (1993). Reading the equations and confronting the phenomens: The delights and dilemas of
physics teaching. American Journal of Physics, 61(2).
Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (1999). University science students experiences of investigative project work and
their images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 945956.
Schwarz, C. V. (2002). The role of epistemic forms and games: Perspectives on the role of metamodelling
knowledge in learning with models. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning
complex: The proceedings of the fifth international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS)
(pp. 414420). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodelling knowledge: Developing students understanding of
scientific modelling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165205.
Sherin, B. (2006). Common sense clarified: The role of intuitive knowledge in physics problem solving.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(6), 535555.
Sichau, C. (2000). Practising helps: Thermodynamics, history and experiments. Science & Education, 9,
389398.
Silva, C. C. & Pietrocola, M. (2003). O papel estruturante da matematica na teoria eletromagnetica: um
estudo historico e suas implicacoes didaticas. In: Anais do IV Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em
Educacao em Ciencias. Bauru: ABRAPEC.
Sins, P. H. M., van Savelsbergh, E. R., Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. (2009). The relation
between students epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing
on a modelling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 12051229.
Tarsitani, C. (1991). La Storia della Seconda Legge della Termodinamica. In C. Tarsitani & M. Vicentini
(Eds.), Calore, Energa, Entropia (pp. 274301). Milan: Franco Angeli s.r.l.
van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 11411153.
Vargas, M. (1996). Historia da matematizacao da natureza. Estudos Avancados, 10(28).

123