Skip to main content

COMPARISON OF STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF LINE GRAPH SLOPE IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education volume 10, pages 1393–1414 (2012)Cite this article

ABSTRACT

This study gives an insight into the differences between student understanding of line graph slope in the context of physics (kinematics) and mathematics. Two pairs of parallel physics and mathematics questions that involved estimation and interpretation of line graph slope were constructed and administered to 114 Croatian second year high school students (aged 15 to 16 years). Each pair of questions referred to the same skill in different contexts—one question in the context of mathematics and the other in the context of kinematics. A sample of Croatian physics teachers (N  =  90) was asked to rank the questions according to their expected difficulty for second year high school students. The prevalent ranking order suggests that most physics teachers expected mathematics questions to be more difficult for students than the parallel physics questions. Contrary to the prevalent teachers’ expectations, students succeeded better on mathematics than on physics questions. The analysis of student answers and explanations suggests that the lack of mathematical knowledge is not the main reason for student difficulties with graphs in kinematics. It appears that the interpretation of the meaning of line graph slope in a physics context presents the largest problem for students. However, students also showed problems with the understanding of the concept of slope in a mathematical context. Students exhibited slope/height confusion in both contexts, but much more frequently in the context of physics than in the context of mathematics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Araujo, I. S., Veit, E. A. & Moreira, M. A. (2008). Physics students’ performance using computational modeling activities to improve kinematics graphs interpretation. Computers in Education, 50, 1128–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arons, A. B. (1983). Student patterns of thinking and reasoning, part one. Physics Teacher, 21, 576–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beichner, R. J. (1990). The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a kinematics lab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 803–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62, 750–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bektasli, B. (2006). The relationships between spatial ability, logical thinking, mathematics performance and kinematics graph interpretation skills of 12th grade physics students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

  • Berg, C. A. & Phillips, D. G. (1994). An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 323–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasell, H. M. & Rowe, B. M. (1993). Graphing skills among high school physics students. School Science and Mathematics, 93(2), 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cataloglu, E. (2007). Internet-mediated assessment portal as a pedagogical learning tool: A case study on understanding kinematics graphs. European Journal of Physics, 28, 767–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, T. & Eisenberg, T. (1990). On difficulties with diagrams: Theoretical issues. In G. Booker, P. Cobb & T. N. De Mendicuti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 27–36). Oaxtepex: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, T. & Sharp, J. (1999). An investigation into able students’ understanding of motion graphs. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 18, 128–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habre, S. & Abboud, M. (2006). Students’ conceptual understanding of a function and its derivative in an experimental calculus course. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics (Vol. 11–16, pp. 120–136). London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. (1999). Students’ use of imagery in solving qualitative problems in kinematics. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from http://www.compadre.org/portal/services/detail.cfm?ID=2760.

  • Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. & Hegarty, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Sciences, 31, 549–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozhevnikov, M. & Thornton, R. (2006). Real-time data display, spatial visualization ability, and learning force and motion concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O. & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohman, D. F. (1996). Spatial Ability and G. In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and assessment (pp. 97–116). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L. & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P. & Hegarty, M. (1991). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130, 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mokros, J. R. & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potgieter, M., Harding, A. & Engelbrecht, J. (2008). Transfer of algebraic and graphical thinking between mathematics and chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M. & McGinn, M. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? Science Education, 81, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salthouse, T. A., Babcock, R. L., Mitchell, D. R. D., Palmon, R. & Skovronek, E. (1990). Sources of individual differences in spatial visualization ability. Intelligence, 14, 187–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, P. & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 125, 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swatton, P. & Taylor, R. M. (1994). Pupil performance in graphical tasks and its relationship to the ability to handle variables. British Educational Research Journal, 20, 227–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wavering, M. J. (1989). Logical reasoning necessary to make line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 373–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolnough, J. (2000). How do students learn to apply their mathematical knowledge to interpret graphs in physics? Research in Science Education, 30, 259–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Bijenicka 32, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

    Maja Planinic, Ana Susac & Lana Ivanjek

  2. Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Bijenicka 30, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

    Zeljka Milin-Sipus

  3. High school Slunj, Skolska 22, 47240, Slunj, Croatia

    Helena Katic

Authors
  1. Maja Planinic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zeljka Milin-Sipus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helena Katic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ana Susac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lana Ivanjek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helena Katic.

Additional information

This research is a part of the scientific project 119-0091361-1027 funded by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Planinic, M., Milin-Sipus, Z., Katic, H. et al. COMPARISON OF STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF LINE GRAPH SLOPE IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 10, 1393–1414 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9344-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9344-1

KEY WORDS

  • kinematics
  • line graph
  • mathematics education
  • physics education
  • slope