Abstract
Current national/Finnish curriculum encourages crossing the boundaries among different school subjects. This sets interdisciplinary requirements for pre-service teacher education. Here, we discuss a case study in which the boundaries of physics and mathematics are crossed in case of pre-service physics and mathematics teachers discovering the latitude of Tampere. First, a measurement of length of object’s shadow was made on midday during the autumnal equinox. Then, this measurement result was applied in the geometrical construction of the situation. By virtue of geometry, the latitude was solved. We analysed the study reports of 21 pre-service physics and mathematics teachers according to the discussion, physical and mathematical justifications of the situation, and the process of discovering the latitude. We also analysed how pre-service teachers evaluated the value of using this kind of interdisciplinary problem in schools. The results show that despite the fact that most of them have studied both physics and mathematics, combining them fluently poses challenges to pre-service teachers. Pre-service teachers believed that they could use such problems in their teaching.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In Finland, the major subject to be taught at school is studied in minimum 120 cr, and the minor subject(s) is studied minimum 60 cr (1 cr = 1 ects = 26.7 h of studying).
- 2.
Two comments: (1) Although the mathematical justification is correct, there is also unnecessary information. (2) The student uses the term congruent, although the term similar is the appropriate one.
- 3.
Although the measurement time is explained, there is a misconception: the latitude is confused with the altitude of the Sun.
- 4.
The forming of the shadow is not explicitly connected to the straightforward path of the sunlight.
References
Applebee, A., Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (2007). Interdisciplinary curricula in middle and high school classrooms: Case studies of approaches to curriculum and instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 1002–1039.
Ataíde, R., & Greca, I. (2013). Epistemic views of the relationship between physics and mathematics: Its influence on the approach of undergraduate students to problem solving. Science & Education, 22, 1405–1421.
Ataíde, R., & Greca, I. (2019). Pre-service teachers’ theorems-in-action about problem solving and its relation with epistemic views on the relationship between physics and mathematics in understanding physics (This book).
Barton, K., & Smith, L. (2000). Themes or motifs? Aiming for coherence through interdisciplinary outlines. The Reading Teacher, 54(1), 54–63.
Bekeris, V., Bonomo, F., Bonzi, E., García, B., Mattei, G., Mazzitelli, D., Dawson, S., de la Vega, C., & Tamarit, F. (2011). Eratosthenes 2009/2010: An old experiment in modern times. Astronomy Education Review, 10, 1–9.
Božić, M., & Ducloy, M. (2008). Eratosthenes’ teachings with a globe in a school yard. Physics Education, 43(2), 165–172.
Camino, N., & Gangui, A. (2012). Diurnal astronomy: Using sticks and threads to find our latitude on Earth. The Physics Teacher, 50(1), 40–41.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
de Hosson, C., & Décamp, N. (2014). Using ancient Chinese and Greek astronomical data: A training sequence in elementary astronomy for pre-service primary school teachers. Science & Education, 23, 809–827.
Feng, L. (2012). Teacher and student responses to interdisciplinary aspects of sustainability education: What do we really know? Environmental Education Research, 18(1), 31–43.
Karam, R., & Mäntylä, T. (2015). The influence of mathematical representations on students’ conceptualizations of the electrostatic field. In F. Claudio & R. M. Sperandeo Mineo (Eds.), Teaching/learning physics: Integrating research into practice. Proceedings of the GIREP-MPTL 2014 International Conference (pp. 819–826). Palermo: Dipartimento di Fisica e Chimica, Università degli Studi di Palermo.
Karttunen, H., Kröger, P., Oja, H., & Poutanen, M. (1984). Tähtitieteen perusteet. (Introductory astronomy). Tähtitieteellinen yhdistys Ursa. Helsinki.
Mäntylä, T., & Hämäläinen, A. (2015). Obtaining laws through quantifying experiments: Justifications of pre-service physics teachers in the case of electric current, voltage and resistance. Science & Education, 24(5–6), 699–723.
Opetushallitus. (2015a). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014. (Finnish National Agency Education. (2015a). National core curriculum of basic education 2014). Juvenes Print – Suomen Yliopistopaino, Tampere.
Opetushallitus. (2015b). Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2015. (Finnish National Agency Education. (2015b). National core curriculum of general upper secondary school 2015). Next Print Oy, Helsinki.
Pietrocola, M. (2008). Mathematics as structural language of physical thought. In M. Vicentini, & E. Sassi (Eds.), Connecting research in physics education with teacher education. International Commission on Physics Education. https://web.phys.ksu.edu/icpe/Publications/teach2/index.html
Pospiech, G., Eylon, B., Bagno, E., & Lehavi, Y. (2019). Role of teachers as facilitators of the interplay Physics and Mathematics. This book.
Radtka, C. (2015). Negotiating the boundaries between mathematics and physics: The case of late 1950s French textbooks for middle schools. Science & Education, 24, 725–748.
Redish, E. (2006). Problem solving and the use of math in physics courses. In Proceedings of the Conference, World View on Physics Education in 2005: Focusing on Change. Delhi, August 21–26, 2005, arXiv:physics/0608268
Senn-Fennell, C. (2000). Oral and written communication for promoting mathematical understanding: Teaching examples from Grade 3. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice—The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 223–250). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Spelt, E., Biemans, H., Tobi, H., Luning, P., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 365–378.
Uhden, O., Karam, R., Pietrocola, M., & Pospiech, G. (2012). Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education. Science & Education, 21, 485–506.
Wagenschein, M. (2000). Teaching to understand: On the concept of the exemplary in teaching. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice—The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 161–176). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mäntylä, T., Poranen, J. (2019). Combining Physics and Mathematics Learning: Discovering the Latitude in Pre-service Subject Teacher Education. In: Pospiech, G., Michelini, M., Eylon, BS. (eds) Mathematics in Physics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04626-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04627-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)