Research in Science Education

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 259–267 | Cite as

How do students learn to apply their mathematical knowledge to interpret graphs in physics?

  • Jim Woolnough


This paper describes a laboratory-based program in physics designed to help students build effective links between the mathematical equations used to solve problems in mechanics and the real world of moving objects. Through the analysis of straight line graphs derived from their own data students have been able to achieve a considerable development towards a concept of slope, or gradient, and how it relates to the concept of proportionality, but they continue to demonstrate a great resistance to applying their mathematical knowledge to physics. A model designed to help us apply current research ideas to this problem is described. The work described in this paper was carried out at Dickson College, a government senior secondary college (Years 11 and 12) in the Australian Capital Territory, where the author taught physics and biology.


Mathematical Knowledge Laboratory Work Data Student Australian Capital Australian Capital Territory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Appleton, K., & Beasley, W.. (1994). Students' learning in science lessons: Towards understanding the learning process.Research in Science Education, 24, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cobb, P. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics education.Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Friedler, Y., & Tamir, P. (1990). Life in science laboratory classrooms at secondary level. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.),The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 337–356). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Hewitt, P. G. (1987).Conceptual physics. A high school program (Teaching guide). Sydney, NSW: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  5. McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics.Scientific American, 248(4), 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Australian Capital Territory, Board of Senior Secondary Studies. (1995).Physics course framework. Canberra, ACT: Author.Google Scholar
  7. Russell, P. (1979).The brain book. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Schollum, B., & Osborne, R. (1985). Relating the new to the familiar. In R. Osborne, & P. Freyberg (Eds.),Learning in science. The implications of children's science (p. 52). Auckland, NZ: Heinemann Education.Google Scholar
  9. Schulz, W., & McRobbie, C. (1994). A constructivist approach to secondary school science experiments.Research in Science Education, 24, 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curriculum Corporation. (1994).Statement on Science for Australian Schools. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  11. Tasker, R. (1992). Effective teaching. What can a constructivist view of learning offer?The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 38(1), 25–34.Google Scholar
  12. Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning.School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403–418.Google Scholar
  13. Woolnough, B., & Allsop, T. (1985).Practical work in science. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Woolnough, J. A., & Cameron, R. S. (1991). Girls, boys, and conceptual physics: An evaluation of a senior secondary physics course.Research in Science Education, 21, 337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dickson CollegeCanada

Personalised recommendations