PHYSICAL REVIEW SPECIAL TOPICS - PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH 9, 020118 (2013)

Using conceptual blending to describe how students use mathematical integrals in physics
Dehui Hu1,2 and N. Sanjay Rebello1,*
1
Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA
2
School of Physics and Astronomy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York 14623, USA
(Received 29 March 2013; published 12 November 2013)
Calculus is used across many physics topics from introductory to upper-division courses. The funda-
mental concepts of differentiation and integration are important tools for solving real-world problems
involving nonuniformly distributed quantities. Research in physics education has reported students’ lack of
ability to transfer their calculus knowledge to physics. In order to better understand students’ deficiencies, we
collected data from group teaching or learning interviews as students solved physics problems requiring
setting up integrals. We adapted the conceptual blending framework from cognitive science to make sense of
the ways in which students combined their knowledge from calculus and physics to set up integrals. We
found that many students were not able to blend their mathematics and physics knowledge in a productive
way though they have the required mathematics knowledge. We discussed the productive and unproductive
blends that students created when setting up integrals. The results of the study also suggested possible
strategies to shifting students’ constructing of blends to more powerful ones.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020118 PACS numbers: 01.40.
d

describe the ways in which students set up mathematical

I. INTRODUCTION
integrals in physics contexts. The conceptual blending
Developing the ability to use mathematics is necessary framework views the process of learning as selective
to understand subject matter throughout science and engi- projection and combination of knowledge from several
neering courses. Using mathematics in physics requires different mental spaces. In our study, we conducted a
more than the straightforward application of algorithms detailed analysis of students solving a physics problem
and rules that students may learn in their mathematics to investigate how they make connections among mathe-
classes. Previous work in physics education research has matical symbols and concepts, as well as concepts asso-
documented students’ difficulties with mathematical flu- ciated with the physical world. We make comparisons of
ency in physics problem solving [1–4]. In calculus-based the blends created by students and discuss the effective-
physics courses, this issue is of particular concern as ness of certain kinds of blends in facilitating students’ use
problems often require the application of sophisticated of integration in a productive way. Identifying the differ-
mathematical concepts such as differentiation and inte- ent types of blends that students create provides a way of
gration. To facilitate students’ use of mathematical inte- parsing students’ reasoning when approaching physics
gration in physics, we need to first investigate how integration problems.
students solve physics integration problems and under- Previous studies often investigated students’ difficulties
stand students’ reasoning processes. The goal of our study with particular facets of using integration, such as recog-
is to adapt the framework of conceptual blending to nizing when to use integration [3,6], finding the infinitesi-
systematically investigate how students set up mathemati- mal expression for a physical quantity [4,7], and deciding
cal integrals in physics and to get a clearer understanding the limits of an integral [3,4]. Our study describes the
of their difficulties. overall strategies students used to apply integrals in phys-
Integration problems in physics involve blending of the ics contexts through the perspective of mental space inte-
physical world with mathematical symbols and concepts. gration. This framework allows us to organize the bits of
There are often many different ways to interpret and knowledge that exist in student reasoning and connect the
apply mathematics in a given physical situation. Hence, fine-grain-sized knowledge elements to the entire picture
there are various types of blends that students might of student approach.
construct in a given problem. In this paper, we use the In the next section, we provide an overview of previous
cognitive framework of conceptual blending [5] to work on theoretical development of mathematical use in
physics. In Sec. III, we describe the conceptual blending
*srebello@phys.ksu.edu theoretical framework and how it is used in our study. In
Sec. IV, we focus on the methodology used to collect and
Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distri- analyze our data, and in Sec. V, we present the results of
bution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and our study. Finally, in Sec. VI, we discuss our results and
the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. implications for teaching and education research.

1554-9178=13=9(2)=020118(15) 020118-1 Published by the American Physical Society

DEHUI HU AND N. SANJAY REBELLO PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

II. BRIEF OVERVIEW: STUDENTS’ USE OF He interviewed nine students who were enrolled in an
MATHEMATICS IN PHYSICS introductory-level physics course which was designed pri-
marily for students in physics and engineering. All students
To characterize and understand how students use mathe- were interviewed twice in their study. In the first interview,
matics in physics, researchers have utilized several frame- students were given open-ended mathematics problems
works to analyze student behavior. In this section, we related to integrals; in the second interview, students
briefly review some of the recent work in this area. were given open-ended physics integration problems
Sherin [8] introduced symbolic forms (i.e., cognitive involving real-world objects. He identified four major
mathematical primitives) to understand student interpreta- symbolic forms associated with the integral symbol tem-
tion of mathematical equations in physics problem solving. R
plate ‘‘ ½½  ½ d½ .’’ The area symbolic form basically takes
Symbolic forms allow students to associate meanings
with certain structures of mathematical expressions. A the integral expression and interprets it as an area in the x-y
symbolic form has two components: a symbolic template plane. The adding up pieces symbolic form refers to the
(e.g., ½  ¼ ½ , ½ =½ ) and a conceptual schema. The con- evidence that students sliced the area on a graph into
ceptual schema is ‘‘a simple structure associated with infinitely small pieces and added those pieces to find the
the symbolic form that offers a conceptualization of the total amount. However, Jones argued that under this sym-
knowledge contained in the mathematical expression’’ [8]. bolic form, the limiting process occurred before the addi-
Sherin observed that students not only applied known tion process took place. Thus, this symbolic form diverged
equations or given principles, but also invented their own from the Riemann sum process. The function mapping
equations from intuition. When observing five pairs of symbolic form conceives the integral as a ‘‘pairing of
intermediate-level engineering students solve physics objects,’’ which matches the integrand with an ‘‘original
function.’’ According to the problematic add up then multi-
problems, Sherin discovered the existence of symbolic R
forms based on the fact that students ‘‘learn to associate ply symbolic form, the first box inside the integral ½½  ½ d½ 
meanings with certain structures in equations.’’ One prob- was added up over the infinitesimally small pieces and the
lem was based on the physical scenario that a person gives resultant summation was then multiplied by the quantity
a block a shove so that the block slides across a table and represented by the differential. Among the four major
then comes to rest. Students were asked to talk about the symbolic forms, Jones concluded that the adding up pieces
forces acting on the block and discuss what would happen symbolic form is a more productive way to view the
if the block was heavier. A pair of students, Mike and Karl, integral in both mathematics and physics contexts.
invented an equation
¼
1 þ Cð
2 =mÞ for the coeffi- Tuminaro and Redish [10] used the framework of epis-
cient of friction based on their understanding of the temic games to describe students’ use of mathematics in
situation ‘‘the coefficient of friction has two components: physics. Collins and Ferguson [11] introduced epistemic
one that’s a constant and one that varies inversely as the games to describe expert scientists’ approaches to scien-
weight.’’ This expression was not from the textbook; tific inquiry. Epistemic games have two structural compo-
instead, they constructed this equation from their under- nents: the entry or ending conditions and moves. The entry
standing of the physical scenario. One symbolic form and ending conditions determine when it is appropriate
identified by Sherin from this expression was ‘‘parts-of- to play that game. When solving physics problems, stu-
a-whole.’’ The symbol template that two or more terms are dents’ perceptions about physics problems determine the
separated by plus (þ) signs contains a conceptual schema entry and ending conditions. The moves are the steps that
‘‘a whole is composed of two or more parts.’’ Sherin’s can be taken in the game. Tuminaro and Redish [10]
symbolic forms were primarily based on student reasoning identified six different epistemic games that students
of algebraic equations. played while using mathematics in algebra-based physics
Meredith and Marrongelle [6] later applied symbolic problems: Mapping Meaning to Mathematics, Mapping
forms to analyze student understanding of equations in Mathematics to Meaning, Physical Mechanism game,
calculus-based physics problems. They identified several Pictorial Analysis, Recursive Plug-and-Chug, and
symbolic forms that cued students to use integration, Transliteration to Mathematics. In the Mapping Meaning
including the dependence cue and the parts-of-a-whole to Mathematics game, for example, they identified five
cue. The ‘‘dependence’’ symbolic form is associated with basic moves: develop a story about the physical situation,
the mathematical entity of function [. . .x . . . ]. The associ- translate quantities in the physical story to mathematical
ated structure of the parts-of-a-whole form is the Riemann entities, relate the mathematical entities in accordance with
sum (i.e., ½  ¼ ½  þ ½  þ    ). They categorized the sym- the physical story, manipulate symbols, and evaluate the
bolic forms that appeared at the beginning of the problem solution. A student’s decision to play a particular game is
solving process when students decided whether or not to determined by preconceived expectations about problem
use integration. solving in physics.
Jones [9] extended the symbolic forms framework to Extending Tuminaro and Redish [10], Gire et al. [12]
analyze student understanding of the integral concept. used the framework of epistemic games to characterize five

020118-2
USING CONCEPTUAL BLENDING TO DESCRIBE . . . PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

students’ use of graphs to solve physics problems and the through selective projection, taking some information from
hints given by an instructor to facilitate the students’ each input to compose a blend. The new space is called
problem solving. They introduced the Graphical Analysis the blended space. The blend often inherits partial structure
game and identified the moves students made. They found from input spaces but also has its own emergent structure
that students demonstrated facility with the interpret lex- [15]. The way a person blends several input mental spaces
ical information, readout a value, and calculate area moves together depends strongly on the cues and contexts.
within this epistemic game. The create a story move was Constructing a blend involves three operations: composi-
the most difficult move for these students, in terms of both tion, completion, and elaboration.
connecting the graph to the story situation and connecting Consider the phrase ‘‘computer virus,’’ which we use
the graph to concepts leading to a situation. frequently in our vocabulary nowadays. To understand this
These previous studies using symbolic forms and epis- phrase, one has to blend knowledge from two different
temic games frameworks have provided ways for educators mental spaces—a biological mental space and a computer
and education researchers to describe students’ ideas as mental space. A biological mental space contains elements
students use mathematics in the context of physics. like a biological system, cell, virus, and immunity mecha-
Symbolic forms provide us with a better understanding nism. A computer mental space includes elements like
of students’ conceptual schema as they deal with mathe- memory, software, and programs. In the blended space, a
matical equations and other symbolic expressions. Based computer program and virus are fused into a new, single
on the knowledge-in-pieces tradition, the symbolic forms entity ‘‘computer virus’’ through the process of ‘‘compo-
are kinds of mathematical resources that students bring sition,’’ meaning that the computer virus is composed of
from their prior learning experience. The epistemic games elements from two input spaces. The composed structure
from Tuminaro and Redish [10] and Gire et al. [12] depict often provides relations that are not available in the input
the common reasoning patterns in student use of mathe- spaces. When completing the blend, crucial elements from
matics in physics problem solving. The purpose of epis- each input (e.g., viruses attack normal body cells, software
temic games is not to describe how students solve certain gives instructions to a computer) are mapped to the third
physics problems but to help us understand how students
space to form the blend. Meanwhile, an organizing frame
perceive the use of mathematics in physics. For example, in
(i.e., the property of viruses—reproduction and attacking
the Mapping Meaning to Mathematics game, an important
the normal system) is adopted to organize the knowledge
feature of this game is that students relate a physical
elements in the blended space [16]. When the blend is
situation to mathematical entities and make sense of
complete, it can be elaborated to make inferences accord-
mathematics in the physics scenario. However, it does
ing to the rules in the blend. The process of elaboration is
not describe how a student interprets particular mathemat-
also called ‘‘running the blend.’’ By elaborating on the
ics or physics concepts. The symbolic forms framework
describes the conceptual schema associated with a certain knowledge in the computer virus blended space, a new
mathematical template and it is based on the implicit meaning emerges—a computer virus as a computer pro-
assumption that resources are created and then applied in gram that can replicate itself and spread from one com-
a situation. In our work, we are interested in how students puter to another, usually making unauthorized and
apply their mathematics knowledge to a physics situation undesirable changes to the computer. Only in the blended
to set up integrals. In the following section, we describe our space does the phrase computer virus make sense. In
theoretical framework and demonstrate that it can serve a general, composition, completion, and elaboration lead to
powerful paradigm to analyze student creation of knowl- emergent structure in the blend; the blend contains a
edge from the integration of existing knowledge in distinct structure that is not preexisting in the input spaces [17].
domains. The conceptual blending framework has also been
extended to analyze students’ mathematical and scientific
reasoning. Zandieh et al. [18] applied the theory of con-
III. CONCEPTUAL BLENDING FRAMEWORK ceptual blending to illustrate how university students con-
We use the framework of conceptual blending, also struct mathematical proofs. Bing and Redish [14] used the
called mental space integration by Fauconnier and Turner conceptual blending theory to model how students com-
[13], to describe students’ use of mathematics in physics. bine physical and mathematical knowledge to construct
Conceptual blending or integration describes how the mind solutions to physics problems. They described two repre-
combines two or more mental spaces to make sense of sentative ways in which students blend their knowledge
linguistic inputs. Mental spaces are small conceptual from physics and mathematics mental spaces. A single-
packets or knowledge elements that tend to be activated scope blend only involves unidirectional mapping of the
together [14]. According to this framework, one creates elements from one input space into the organizing frame of
new meanings from the combination of different mental the other while a double-scope blend involves an integra-
spaces that share content or structure. Blending, as a gen- tion of the organizing frames from input spaces. In the
eral cognitive process, brings two or more spaces together context of using mathematics in physics problem solving,

020118-3
DEHUI HU AND N. SANJAY REBELLO PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

make sense of new information. Using mathematics in

physics requires the blending of mathematical ideas with
physical situations. Experts often automatically and natu-
rally blend their knowledge in mathematics and physics in
efficient ways that they have developed through years of
learning and experience. However, novice students might
blend their knowledge in mathematics and physics in
unproductive ways that hamper their physics problem
solving ability. In this study, we use the tool of conceptual
blending to analyze how novice students bridge their
knowledge in two distinct worlds—calculus and physics.
This analysis will provide us deeper insights into (a) what
FIG. 1. Wave-ball blend from Wittmann [17]. information students perceive as relevant, i.e., which
knowledge elements of a problem do students attend to
a single-scope blend often refers to a one-way mapping of and which they ignore, when constructing a solution, and
physical quantities to an existing mathematical equation or (b) how students interpret their solution, i.e., what new
template. In a double-scope blend, students not only map meanings they create when they combine their understand-
an existing mathematical equation to a physics context, ings of mathematics and physics. The former involves the
but also translate a physical scenario to a mathematical process of selective projection of information from the
expression. They pointed out that the difficulties students mathematical and physical mental spaces, when compos-
experienced were often not from their lack of prerequisite ing a blend, and the latter involves the creation of an
knowledge but from inappropriate blending of mental emergent structure when running a blend. In the computer
spaces. virus example, when creating this blend, certain elements
More recently, Wittmann [17] used the conceptual from each space—the computer space and the biological
blending framework to describe emergent meanings in space—are selected to be projected into the blended space.
students’ understanding of wave propagation. He analyzed When running the blend, a new meaning emerges: com-
gestural, perceptual, and verbal information to describe puter virus is an entity that can replicate and spread from
how different elements were combined to create new, one computer to another.
emergent meaning. The ‘‘wave-ball’’ blend (Fig. 1) is In the last section we reviewed two other frameworks—
formed by selective projection from two different mental symbolic form and epistemic game, which also have
spaces: observed wave pulse and imagined ball thrown explanatory power in understanding student use of mathe-
in the air. Then he compared this blend with a ‘‘beaded- matics in physics. A discussion about the three theoretical
string’’ blend (Fig. 2) containing the input spaces of the constructs might be helpful for understanding why we
observed spring and falling dominoes. The blend that choose cognitive blending as our theoretical framework
students make is determined by their selective attention in this study. Symbolic forms are mathematical resources
to parts of the observed physical system as they determine associated with mathematical equations. The knowledge
which part of the system to use in the process of projection elements in the input mental spaces can be described as
from the input spaces to the blended space. resources. Thus, the formation of symbolic form can be
According to the cognitive blending theory of described using the language of conceptual blending.
Fauconnier and Turner, learners must find a way to bridge However, after years of learning and practice, learners
or blend their knowledge in different mental spaces to may often activate some symbolic forms as a unit (or a
blend), for which the input mental spaces are no longer
distinguishable and the blending process cannot be easily
retraced. In this study we use the conceptual blending
framework to describe how students organize their existing
knowledge resources in a situation that they have little or
no experience with.
Epistemic games describe students’ cognitive reasoning
patterns, and their purpose is to model the process compo-
nent of physics problem solving, i.e., the moves that
students make as they solve problems [19]. Resources are
the knowledge base of epistemic games and are considered
the ontological component for describing students’ physics
problem solving. The cognitive blending framework
FIG. 2. Beaded-string blend from Wittmann [17]. focuses on the conceptual component, describing the

020118-4
USING CONCEPTUAL BLENDING TO DESCRIBE . . . PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

ways that students combine their knowledge in different The selected participants were organized in small groups
mental spaces as well as the generation of new ideas that of three or four students each, to discuss physics problems
emerge from the combination. There appears to be a con- on a whiteboard. Each group met with the interviewer
nection between the epistemic games that students play separately over eight 75-minute long sessions that
and the type of blends that they construct. For example, occurred approximately biweekly throughout the semes-
Bing and Redish [14] described the ‘‘double-scope’’ blend ter. All participants had taken prerequisite calculus classes
when students solve the air resistance problem. From the before the physics course. Interview problems presented
perspective of epistemic game, students might have played to students were E&M problems requiring integrals.
the Mapping Meaning to Mathematics or the Mapping During the small group discussion, students discussed
Mathematics to Meaning game. However, one cannot problems in groups on a whiteboard and the interviewer
predict what specific blends students create based on the watched students work. The interviewer was a silent
epistemic games that they play. For example, we can observer for a vast majority of the time, and only inter-
imagine a student who plays the Mapping Meaning to jected to ask students to explain their thinking whenever
Mathematics game is more likely to create a double-scope necessary. When the students were unable to proceed, the
blend, but there are a number of ways for constructing a interviewer would engage in Socratic dialog in order to
double-scope blend. provide hints and cues to facilitate the participants in
In general, the three theoretical constructs serve differ- figuring out the next step in the solution process. The
ent purposes: the resources framework describes the interviewer refrained from providing any instruction or
ontological components, the epistemic game framework feedback during the session. Our data sources include the
models the process component, and the conceptual blend- video-recorded conversations of students and their work
ing framework models the creation of meaning that is completed on the whiteboard.
emergent as students’ use mathematics in the context of
physics problem solving.
B. Data analysis
IV. METHODOLOGY In this study we present a detailed analysis that focuses
on one physics problem in the context of resistance. The
A. Data collection problem (Fig. 3) was presented to students during the fifth
Data for this study were collected as part of a semester interview session. There were two main reasons for choos-
long series of teaching or learning interviews [20] during ing this problem for a detailed analysis. First, students were
an introductory-level calculus-based physics course for familiar with the resistance concept, but they had not seen
engineering majors at a U.S. Midwestern university. This any specific example nor had they received any instruction
course is the second semester of a two-semester sequence. on how to find the resistance of a resistor with nonuniform
The first semester mainly focused on mechanics topics resistivity. Students had to invent their own integral equa-
and the second semester mainly focused on electricity tion as there was no specific integral equation on resistance
and magnetism (E&M) topics. This course has two main that they could draw upon from their memory. Second,
components—two 50-minute traditional lectures with students used diverse strategies and reasoning when solv-
clicker questions and two 110-minute integrated laboratory ing this problem. This problem seemed neither too easy
and problem solving sessions (i.e., studio sessions) [21]. nor too difficult for most students. Most students were
The class has an enrollment of about 250 students who are able to invent strategies to solve this problem and explain
divided into several studio sessions with a maximum of 40 their thinking.
students each. The problem (Fig. 3) involves finding the total resistance
Thirteen students were selected from a pool of 40 due to a cylindrical resistor with nonconstant resistivity.
volunteers, depending upon scheduling convenience. When the resistivity is not a constant, one must first chop

A material with length L and cross-sectional area A lies along the x-axis between x=0
and x=L. Its resistivity varies along the rod according to x ·e . Find
the total resistance of this cylinder between two end faces.

0 L x

FIG. 3. Interview task.

020118-5
DEHUI HU AND N. SANJAY REBELLO PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

The basic physics equation for resistance with constant resistivity is given by
. The resistance of one infinite thin disk dR can be expressed as with dx
the thickness of the disk. The total resistance R is the integral of dR, that is

0 L
x

dx

FIG. 4. Partial solution to the interview task in Fig. 3.

the cylinder into infinitesimally thin disks and find the A. Blend A
resistance dR of each disk (Fig. 4). We find the total Two groups of students constructed the same blend. We
resistance by summing up, i.e., integrating over the resist- discuss one group of three students as an example. Prior to
ance dR, of each disk. Finally, we substitute the resistivity this dialog, all three students set up their own equations and
function ðxÞ provided in this equation and evaluate the they all seemed to be in agreement with each other. We
integral. show the solution from Phil in Fig. 5. The interviewer then
Our unit of analysis was a student discussion group. We prompted the students to explain their thinking, which
transcribed the video files for all five groups working on resulted in two of the students (Zad and Alan) participating
the task. First, we conducted a qualitative analysis using a in the conversation below.
phenomenographic approach [22]. An important aspect of
our approach was that we did not categorize students’ Interviewer: Can you guys sort of explain what your
descriptions based on predecided categories. Rather, the plan is for solving this problem?
categories emerged from the data. Then, we identified the Alan: Well, we set up our basic equation. And
important themes that emerged from students’ conversa- then we are using our ðxÞ that they gave
tions or written work on the board. Next, we examined us. We are going to integrate that to give
these emergent themes through the lens of the conceptual the whole area, right? That’s where we are
blending framework. For each theme, we determined the at right now.
input spaces and blended spaces by analyzing the ways in Interviewer: What do you mean by ‘‘integrate to get the
which students connected their ideas from different whole area’’? Can you talk more about that?
domains. Finally, we generated a holistic description of Alan: We are looking for total resis (pause) 
how the students blended their ideas. This holistic picture total, yeah, and this (points to the resistiv-
describes how the knowledge elements from each input ity function in the problem statement)
space are projected to the blended space and how a new gives us  at any one point, so we are
structure emerges from the blend. summing up all of its points.

Then students discussed the cross-sectional area A in the

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION integral and calculated the integral. After they were all
In this section, we present four distinct conceptual done, the interviewer continued:
blends identified from five groups of students working on
the problem (Fig. 3). We noticed that students within the
same group did not necessarily follow the same approach;
thus, there was often more than one blend created in a
group. We claim that the blending process is a dynamic
process. That is, students do not have explicit ideas in their
mind and construct the solutions spontaneously. We found
that students constructed one blend at the beginning and
later changed the blend as they proceeded. Some blends
eventually led students to solve the problem correctly
while others hampered students’ efforts in setting up the
correct integral. We will illustrate the four different blends
identified from student work. FIG. 5. Equation set up by Phil.

020118-6
USING CONCEPTUAL BLENDING TO DESCRIBE . . . PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

Symbolic Math notion space

Interviewer: So can you guys explain your solution from Physics space
the beginning? Function Resistivity
Integral ‘ ’ as a sum
Zad: Resistivity times length over area. We have ‘ ’ as the variable
Resistance
function of resistivity, pull out all the con- of integration Length

stants. Length is a constant, x ¼ L, 0 is a

constant, over A, we need to take the inte-
gral of x, which, a function of x, which is
e
x=L , from 0 to L, because you are taking
from 0 to the length L. . . (Continues to talk Resistivity varies along length

about his calculation.) substitute resistivity

Interviewer: Can you guys explain what the meaning is sum up over
for the integral part? Is there a meaning for
Blended space
that?
Zad: Um, it gets more resistive as it approaches FIG. 6. Blend A.
L. That’s a function of  but just the resist-
ance isn’t constant, I guess? So you have to
take, since it’s not constant, you have to Elements from input spaces were projected into a new
take the total integral of . . . sum all the way space—the blended space. In the blended space, the
across. expression ðxÞ, the notion of function as a nonconstant
quantity, and the cylindrical resistor were combined, gen-
When working on this problem, this group of students erating a meaning that the resistivity varies along the axis
mainly focused on mathematical manipulations and looked of cylinder. Students seemed to map the resistivity func-
for ways to relate mathematical symbols to a mathematical tion ðxÞ and the basic resistance equation (R ¼ L=A)
equation. First, the students related the resistivity function into the new space to create a new expression R [R ¼
ðxÞ to the basic resistance equation R ¼ L=A by substi- ðxÞL=A]. Then the notions of an integral as a sum
tution. In mathematics, substitution or ‘‘plugging in’’ is one (i.e., performing an integral would produce the total
of the most basic operations, often made subconsciously by quantity) and differential d½  as variable of integration
students even though the resulting equation does not have were projected into the blended space. Guided by this
any concrete meaning in this physical situation. Students notion, students integrated the expression of resistance
also demonstrated a basic knowledge of a function. Alan that they obtained earlier over the variable x. A new
explained that the resistivity function ‘‘gives us  at any one meaning seems to emerge from this blend—the total
point’’ and Zad talked about ‘‘it gets more resistive as it resistance is the sum of a varying resistance across the
approaches L.’’ In their explanation, Alan talked about length over which the resistivity varies. This new meaning
‘‘summing up all of its points’’ and Zad said ‘‘take the total is generated from the blend and it did not preexist in
integral of, sum all the way across.’’ Hence, students had the any of the input spaces. Students started out with basic
notion that ‘‘an integral represents a sum.’’ information (i.e., physical world and mathematical sym-
When setting up integrals, students’ reasoning involved bols) given in this problem and blended the information
three input spaces: symbolic space, mathematical notion with their notion of relevant mathematical concepts. The
space, and the physics space. A blending diagram is shown organizing structure was based on the notion of an inte-
in Fig. 6. The symbolic space includes abstract mathemati- gral in mathematical notion space as representing a sum.
cal symbols and notations, such as resistivity function ðxÞ The elements in the physics space were imported into the
and resistance equation R ¼ L=A. The mathematical organizing structure without considering whether or not
notion space involves students’ knowledge about mathe- the way the elements were structured was appropriate.
matical concepts and notations. In this case, the mathe- For example, when integrating the new expression R ¼
matical notion space includes students’ R ideas of the ðxÞL=A, the resistance element was mapped into the
function as being nonconstant, integral as a sum, and blended space, giving a meaning of summing up resist-
d½  as the variable of integration. The physics space ance. However, students neither talked about which re-
includes physical quantities associated with the object, sistance (i.e., the resistance of which part of the object)
such as resistivity, resistance, and length. It is not our this R represented nor talked about what it meant to ‘‘sum
purpose to make a comprehensive list of the elements in up the resistance’’ physically. In other words, it is a
each space, rather, only the most relevant elements are one-way mapping, importing elements from the physics
included for the purpose of describing students’ reasoning. space and symbolic space into the structure of math
For example, the area of the cylinder is also a feature notion space. Hence, students did not recognize that the
of the physical object in the physics space, but it is not expression R ¼ ðxÞL=A was incorrect in this physical
included as it seems less relevant in students’ reasoning situation. All students said they were confident about
process. their answer.

020118-7
DEHUI HU AND N. SANJAY REBELLO PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

B. Blend B
When solving this problem, this group of students first
constructed a blend as discussed in the last episode. At the
very beginning of their problem solving, one student (Zad)
wrote ‘‘dR’’ but he did not specify what dR meant nor had FIG. 9. Equation set up by Zad.
he found the expression for dR. In the following episode,
the interviewer asked students to explain what dR means
and they started to find the expression for dR. Students
eventually constructed another blend which was different
from the blend they had originally created. When prompted
to explain the differential term dR, students’ notion about
the differential template d½  was activated. Hence, students
shifted from one blend to another. FIG. 10. Expression for dR.

Interviewer: So here I saw you wrote dR. Can you sort

of explain what do you mean by this dR? this is the derivative. Take the derivative of
Zad: Like electric field, anything else uneven, that (Fig. 9). Would that (Fig. 10) be the
we have to define the integral of dR. We derivative of it?
have to find dR, um . . . with . . . over an Alan: It should equal dR.
area. Zad: dR . . . cause that will times dx, not equals
Alan: It’s a small R. It’s just a small part of our dR. So, instead, you have to take the de-
resistance (points to the cylinder of this rivative of something, we just plug in to dR
problem). Like, we just look at a section (sets up equation in Fig. 11).
of it. We look at . . . just on our cylinder like Interviewer: So why did you take the derivative of this
we are looking at our resistance at this one (points to Fig. 9)?
point right here (points to the dot on the Zad: Um, because we just plugged it in to . . .
central axis of the cylinder in Fig. 7). It we plugged what R was into the integral of
would be just our dR there. So we do that R basically. So, we need to take the deriva-
and then we take the integral . . . adds up tive of it. So, we can plug in to R because we
the little parts together. basically pull dx out of nowhere, because
Interviewer: How would you set up the equation for dR? the derivative of the only changing
function . . . then we require dx. We need
Then students started to set up the equation for dR and to integrate that.
talk about their thinking at the same time.
At the beginning of this conversation, when asked to
Alan: So dR would be equal to . . . (Fig. 8), but I explain what dR meant, Zad said, ‘‘like electric field . . .,
need dx, I guess. you have to define the integral of dR.’’ We noticed that Zad
Zad: We would have to take the derivative of this did not actually talk about the meaning of dR. Instead, he
one (points to the equation in Fig. 9). Um, recalled the electric field problems in which the total
electric field E~ is the integral of dE.
~ Then he argued that
the total resistance R should be the integral of dR. Hence,
his argument seemed to be based on pattern matching with
similar examples he had seen before rather than under-
standing what dR was and how it was related to the total
resistance R. Alan seemed to have a more concrete under-
standing that dR represented ‘‘a small R’’ or ‘‘a small part
of our resistance.’’ He drew a picture (Fig. 7) to explain
FIG. 7. Picture drawn by Alan. ‘‘resistance at this point.’’ When finding the expression for
dR, Alan just plugged the resistivity function into the basic

FIG. 8. Equation set up by Alan. FIG. 11. Expression for total resistance.

020118-8
USING CONCEPTUAL BLENDING TO DESCRIBE . . . PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

resistance equation (Fig. 8) and then he realized there must the notion of differentiation and integration operations,
be something wrong with this equation because he ‘‘need students created a new expression for resistance so that
[ed] dx.’’ Zad proposed a different approach. He first they could take the derivative of the resistance function and
substituted the resistivity function into the basic resistance then take the integral of the differential resistance. The new
equation to get a new expression for ‘‘R’’ (Fig. 9), then he resistance function was obtained from a direct ‘‘plug-and-
took the derivative of this new expression with respect to x chug’’—plugging in the resistivity function into the basic
to get the differential of R, which was dR (Fig. 10). Finally, resistance equation. In the blended space, a new structure
they set up a definite integral of dR to find the total emerges: the total resistance is the integral of the differen-
resistance (Fig. 11). When finding the expression for dR, tial resistance, which is the derivative of a resistance
Zad explained ‘‘that will times dx . . . you have to take the function. The organizing structure of this blend was
derivative of something.’’ We suspect that Zad realized dx recruited primarily from the mathematical notion space.
was needed in the differential equation (Fig. 8) set up by Similar to blend A, this blend was constructed under a one-
Alan and this prompted him to ‘‘take the derivative of way mapping, in which the elements in physics space and
something’’ in order to get dx. In this problem, Zad acti- symbolic space were mapped onto the R mathematical struc-
vated the mathematical operation of ‘‘taking the deriva- tures of differential d½  and integral d½ . Students did not
tive’’ to find the differential expression dR. Upon seeing map the resistance function, the differential resistance, and
Zad’s approach, Alan erased his work and seemed to the integral to the physics space. Even though the inter-
accept this approach. viewer prompted students to explain their thinking several
We noticed that Alan and Zad explained dR in different times, Zad still did not map the solution back into the
ways. However, Alan did not propose another approach for physics space and eventually Zad responded ‘‘I do not
solving this problem based on his own understanding. know how to explain it other than mathematically.’’ The
Hence, the blending diagram (Fig. 12) is primarily based solution appeared reasonable for him; however, he was
on Zad’s work. Three mental spaces were involved: sym- unable to explain the physics underlying the solution or
bolic space, mathematical notion space, and physics recognize that it was incorrect.
space. The symbolic space includes the expression of
resistivity function ðxÞ, the basic resistance equation C. Blend C
R ¼ L=A . The math notion space includes the mathe- In the episode below, two students (Jared and Lee) used
matical concept of function, differential d as the operation different approaches to solve this problem. We will discuss
of taking the derivative or differentiation, and the Jared’s approach in this example. Jared started with the
integration-differentiation relation (i.e., integration is the basic resistance equation and then converted it into an
reverse
R operation of differentiation) contained in the form integral form as shown in Fig. 13. When he completed
of d½ . The physics space includes physical quantities of this equation, the interviewer prompted him to explain his
resistivity and resistance. thinking. Below is a transcript from the conversation
The expression of ðxÞ, the notion of function as a between Jared and the interviewer.
nonconstant quantity, and the physical quantity of resistiv-
ity were projected into the blended space, and the blend Interviewer: Can you guys talk about what you are
conveyed the information of uneven resistivity. This trying to do before you continue?
uneven property further cued Zad to use integration. The Jared: Uh, I took this L and converted to this
basic resistance equationRwas mapped into the mathemati- right here which is ðxÞ. And then multiply
cal structure of d½  and d½  in the blended space. Under by d, uh, small distance x, each of the little
resistivity? It’s all those little pieces going
Symbolic space Math notion space up together. And so it’s the integral from 0
Function Physics space toL, of e
x=L dx.
‘ ’ as differentiation Resistivity Interviewer: Can you explain more about this part, the
Resistance
‘ ’ differential- integral part?
integral relation
Jared: Basically this part right here (drew a rect-
angular box on the equation as shown in

Uneven resistivity
Resistance function
Derivative of resistance function
Integral of

Blended space

FIG. 12. Blend B. FIG. 13. Equation set up by Jared.

020118-9
DEHUI HU AND N. SANJAY REBELLO PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

Fig. 5) is the , resistivity, and the dx is the small amount of quantity from the mathematical notion
length, and uh, since it’s not just multiplied space, and the length of cylinder from the physics space
by one small length, it’s from 0 to L, so you into the new space to construct the differential dx as small
get the whole length. distance or length. We speculate that the students mapped
Interviewer: Uh huh. the structure of the basic resistance equation (R ¼ L=A)
Jared: And you are also adding up all of the into the blended space, in which the expression inside the
resistivities together. box is considered as the total resistivity and dx is consid-
ered as the length.R In the blended space, Jared constructed
Jared explained that each small piece was represented an integral R ¼ L0 ðxÞdx=A which encapsulates an emer-
by ‘‘dx’’ and by using integration, ‘‘all those little pieces gent meaning—adding up resistivities and distances. Jared
going up together.’’ Jared seemed to view the use of RL
tried to separate the structure of 0 ðxÞdx into two parts—
integral in this physical situation as adding up small quan- resistivities and distances; however, the two parts are
tities. By saying ‘‘I took this L and converted to this right entangled in a way that, as you integrate, you ‘‘add up
here,’’ Jared mapped the basic resistance equation and the the resistivities’’ and ‘‘all the little pieces going up
summation idea into the structure of the basic resistance together.’’ It is only in the blended space that this ‘‘split-
equation. He interpreted the variable of integration dx as ting’’ and ‘‘entanglement’’ can coexist. Jared recruited the
‘‘little pieces’’ and the integral part in the rectangular box structure of the equation from the symbolic mental space in
(Fig. 13) as ‘‘adding up all of the little resistivities.’’ The combination of the ‘‘integral as a summation’’ idea from
expression in the rectangular box is neither a complete nor the mathematics notion space to construct the solution. In
correct expression without dx. By saying ‘‘adding up all of other words, the organizing structure of the blend results
the resistivities together’’ he seemed to have understood primarily from an integration of structural elements from
that an integral represents a sum. However, he did not seem the symbolic space and mathematical notion space. Guided
to realize that the resistivity represents the property of this by the notion of integration as adding up small quantities in
material and the resistivity at different points could not be the mathematical notion space, Jared incorrectly mapped
added up in this physical scenario. the resistivity instead of the resistance as the quantity being
The blending diagram (Fig. 14) represents how Jared added up. When making this one-way mapping, we suspect
constructed his solution. There are three mental spaces that Jared was not aware of the structure or concepts in the
involved in this blending process: symbolic space, math physics space: resistivity is an intensive physical quantity
notion space, and physics space. The symbolic space that characterizes the variation of the material in different
contains the expression of ðxÞ and the basic resistance parts of the object in terms of its ability to resist the flow of
equation.
R The math notion space contains the idea of inte- current; thus, it is inappropriate to add up resistivity physi-
gral as a sum and differential d½  as a small quantity. The cally. Unlike the previous two blends where students tended
physics space contains physical quantities associated with to map elements from both symbolic space and physics
the resistor, including the length, resistivity, and resistance. space to the structure of mathematical notion space, Jared
When composing the blend, Jared mapped elements organized his solution based on the blending of the structure
from input spaces to the blended space: the Rexpression from both symbolic and mathematical notion space.
ðxÞ and the mathematical notion of integral as a sum
was combined to construct an integral of ðxÞ, generating a
D. Blend D
new meaning of summing up little resistivities. Further,
they seemed to map the idea of the differential d½  as a In the following episode, two students, David and Alice,
used an approach which is similar to the typical approach
described in Fig. 4. They first chopped the cylindrical
Symbolic space Math notion space resistor into infinitely thin disks and then added the resist-
Physics space
ance due to each thin disk to get the total resistance. The
Integral ‘ ’ as a sum Length
Differential ‘ ’as a Resistivity
following conversation occurred as soon as they started to
small quantity Resistance solve this problem.

David: Okay, I think we need to separate this into

like, little pieces (see gesture in Fig. 15).
Alice: Yeah.
Summing up
little resistivities
David: Little disks. Disks are fun.
Interviewer: So what made you guys think you need to
Small distance
separate it into disks?
Blended space David: In this case, because the resistivity changes
as the length increases (see gesture in
FIG. 14. Blend C. Fig. 16).

020118-10
USING CONCEPTUAL BLENDING TO DESCRIBE . . . PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

FIG. 15. David’s gesture about ‘‘separating into pieces.’’ FIG. 19. Picture drawn by David.

Interviewer: Okay. Can you guys explain how you got

this equation (referring to the integral
equation in Fig. 15)?
Alice: Okay. Well, we are taking that one (the
basic resistance equation) and so. . . but
since we have to sum up a bunch of little
FIG. 16. David’s gesture about ‘‘increasing resistivity.’’ pieces, you have to get little pieces, little
piece of R, and then our function for , as
Alice: So that’s the sum , when we do that, it is just  changes with respect to x, and where x is
an integral. little pieces of length. And so we cannot
David: It is different here than it is here (see gesture use whole of it, we have to use dx, and this
in Fig. 17). So, the easiest way is to picture is just the area (points to the equations in
it as infinitesimal thing at different values Fig. 18). So, it’s our resistivity, (laughs)
and then add up all the different values. our resistance, is dependent on our
length. . .
After this short conversation, they set up the differential Interviewer: Okay. If you are going to explain your
form dR, which is the infinitesimal resistance due to a solution to your classmates, or friends,
thin section of the cylinder of thickness dx. They then set how would you explain it?
up the expression for total resistance R by taking the David: Well, I guess that would be . . . Since we
integral of dR. Their solution is shown in Fig. 18. Then have a material that has a varying density,
the interviewer prompted them to explain their thinking. we can separate it into small cylinders,
During his explanation, David also drew a picture as each one having a different density depend-
shown in Fig. 19. ing on their location x. So, starting out with
the basic equation, we would find the re-
sistance of each individual cylinder, which
is dR, and that would be our little piece of
resistance. And when you sum up those
resistances from the left side to the right
side, 0 to L, um, you would get the total
resistance.
FIG. 17. David’s gesture about ‘‘different values.’’ David started with ‘‘separate this into like, little pieces,’’
and used his hands (Fig. 15) to imitate the action of
‘‘chopping the whole cylinder into little pieces.’’ He
explained that ‘‘resistivity changes as length changes’’
and indicated the resistivity was different at different posi-
tions by sweeping his hand across using the gestures shown
in Figs. 16 and 17. The students realized that they needed
to do a ‘‘sum’’ or ‘‘integral’’ to ‘‘add up all the different
values.’’ In the above episode, the students first analyzed
the physical situation, then they developed a story about it
using words and gestures, and finally they began to apply
formal mathematics to set up an integral. When setting up
the integral expression, they first found dR, which was the
FIG. 18. Solution from David and Alice. ‘‘little piece of R’’ or ‘‘resistance of each individual

020118-11
DEHUI HU AND N. SANJAY REBELLO PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

associated together in the blended space, generating a

meaning of ‘‘resistivity changes as the length increases’’
or resistivity is different at different lengths. When David
visualized the change of resistivity as the length changes in
the physics space, it also cued him to ‘‘separate it into
small cylinders’’ and apply the concept of integration.
Then, the basic resistance equation was associated with
the small cylinders, along with the mathematical notion of
differential d½  as representing a small amount of quantity.
A new structure emerged from this blend: chopping up
total resistance R and adding up small pieces of resistance
dR. Unlike the other three blends which primarily involved
a one-way mapping, this blend involved a two-way map-
ping among the three input spaces. The solution was
organized based on the blend of the structural elements
from all three input spaces.
FIG. 20. Blend D.
E. Summary of the four blends
cylinder,’’ then they ‘‘summed up those resistances’’ using Our four blends are identified based on our observations
an integral to get the total resistance. He realized each of student work. As shown in Table I, those four blends
resistor had a certain amount of resistance and could be involve three input mental spaces as well as different
added up. We construct a blending diagram (Fig. 20) to organizing structures. The organizing structure or frame
describe how students applied their mathematics knowl- describes the way in which students organize the knowl-
edge in this physical situation to set up an integral. edge elements in the blended space. We identified three
The blending diagram (Fig. 20) includes three input input mental spaces involved in students’ construction of
mental spaces: symbolic space, math notion space, and solution. Blends A and B primarily involved a one-way
physics space. In the upper left of the blending diagram, mapping, in which the organizing structure was recruited
the symbolic space contains the expression of resistivity from the mathematical notion space. In blend A, students
function and the basic resistance equation; the math notion had the idea of an integral as adding up quantities; how-
space involves students’ knowledge about function, inte- ever, they imported elements from both symbolic and math
gral as a sum, and differential as a small quantity. In the notion spaces, without mapping back to the physics space
upper right, the physics space is the physical scenario to justify whether the symbol or equation represented the
containing a cylindrical resistor and the physical quantities appropriate quantity that they wanted to add up. The
of resistivity, resistance, and length. The three input spaces emergent structure
R from this blend is that the mathematical
were integrated to create the blend. The expression of ðxÞ, expression L0 ½ðxÞL=Adx contains the meaning of the
the mathematical notion of function as a varying quantity total resistance as the sum of a varying resistance across
depending on another quantity, and the cylinder were the length over which the resistivity varies. In blend B, the

TABLE I. Description of the four blends.

Blend Organizing frame Emergent meaning or structure Representations

RL
Integral as a sum (from math notion 0 ½ðxÞL=Adx: Total resistance is the sum
A of a varying resistance across the length Primarily algebraic
space)
over which the resistivity varies
R
dR: Total resistance is the integral of the
Differential as taking the derivative of
B differential resistance—the derivative of a Primarily algebraic
a function (from math notion space)
resistance function
RL RL
Structure of basic resistance equation 0 ðxÞdx=A: 0 ðxÞ represents adding up
C and integral as a sum (a blend of resistivities and dx as small distances being Algebraic and narrative
symbolic and math notion spaces) added up when integrating
R
Structure of basic resistance equation, dR: Chopping up total resistance R and
Algebraic, narrative,
integral as a sum, chopping a resistor adding up small pieces of resistance dR
D pictorial, and heavy
(a blend of symbolic, math notion and
use of gesturing
physics spaces)

020118-12
USING CONCEPTUAL BLENDING TO DESCRIBE . . . PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

student mainly relied on his notion of differential as taking on a one-way mapping from the symbolic and physics
the derivative of a function and integration as the reverse spaces to the mathematical notion space. Similar to
of the differentiation action. His solution was based on blend B, blend A also involved a one-way mapping from
mathematical manipulations without making connections the symbolic and physics spaces to the mathematical
to physical situations. This blend conveys
R the meaning notion space. Students had the notion of an integral as
that the mathematical expression dR represents the adding up quantities; however, they built up a resistance
total resistance, which is the integral of the differential function as the quantity being added up through mathe-
resistance—the derivative of a resistance function. matical substitution, which was an inappropriate way of
Blends A and B primarily involve algebraic representa- bending knowledge from the symbolic and physics spaces.
tions, in which students focus on computation and manipu- This too was also not a productive way for setting up
lating mathematical symbols, and seldom connect these integrals in the context of the physics problem at hand.
with the underlying physics. The reason that we assert that some of these blends, such as
When constructing blend C, Jared blended the structure blend A, are unproductive is not because they failed to lead
of the equation from the symbolic mental space and the students to correctly set up the integral. Rather, we cate-
‘‘integral as a summation’’ idea from the mathematics gorize these blends as unproductive blends because in
notion space. Then the elements in the physics space constructing this blend students created mapping from
were mapped into the blended space and organized under the symbolic and physics spaces to the mathematical
the blended structure. Jared constructed the R mathematical notion space without attending to the physical meaning
expression for the total Rresistance as L0 ðxÞdx=A, of the situation.
containing a meaning that L0 ðxÞ represents adding up
resistivities and dx as small distances being added up when VI. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
integrating. Following this blend, the students set up an
In this paper, we have illustrated how the conceptual
integral expression which was mathematically correct but
blending framework can be used to analyze students’
was based on an incorrect physical principle; i.e., the
application of the integration concept in physics problem
resistivity at different parts of an object should be added
solving. From a large set of interview data, we selected
up. In addition to algebraic representation, Jared also
data from five groups of students working on a problem
attempted to develop a story of mathematical symbols;
situation and identified four different kinds of blends that
i.e., dx is small distance and small distances are added
emerged from the data as students constructed solutions to
together when integrating. We describe this as the narrative the problem.
representation. In blend D, students did not just recruit the In blends A and B, students did not relate the mathe-
structure from one input mental space; instead, they cre- matical concepts to the specific physical scenario of the
ated a new structure based on the blending of structures problem. Rather, they mapped their mathematics knowl-
from all three input spaces. A new meaning emerges from edge to general physics concepts. Both blends involve an
this blend—chopping up the object and adding up the organizing frame which was primarily from the mathe-
resistance dR of each of the small pieces to find the total matical notion space. The organizing frame of blend A is
resistance R. Students used multiple representations, the notion of an integral as adding up quantities and the
including algebraic, narrative, pictorial presentations, as organizing frame of blend B is the notion of a differential
well as gesturing while creating this blend. as taking the derivative of a function. The third type of
Overall, blend D is the most productive one among the blend—blend C—contains an organizing frame predomi-
four blends that the students created. This blend involves a nantly from the symbolic and math notion space. In the
much higher level of blending of students’ mathematics blended space, Jared constructed the notion of adding
and physics knowledge. In the blended space, students up the resistivities but did not seem to be making any
created a new structure of chopping and adding resistance. connection to the physics concepts in order to distinguish
Blend C involves the inappropriate blending of knowledge between adding resistivities and adding resistances. Hence,
in the symbolic space and mathematical notion space. the student eventually set up an expression which made
Jared appeared to map his solution to the physics space sense to him, but the structure was not appropriate in the
when he explained dx as small distances. He set up an physics space. The last type of blend—blend D—contained
integral equation which was mathematically equivalent to an organizing frame based on the integration of knowledge
the correct answer, but the inherent physical structure was elements from all three input spaces: the notion of integral
incorrect. In blend B, the organizing structure was based as a sum in the math notion space and the cylindrical
on the notion of differential as taking the derivative of a resistor in the physical space were associated with each
function. This blend is unproductive for setting up integrals other, resulting in chopping of the physical object and
since the student tended to find the function in an effortless adding the quantity due to each small piece. Thus, the
way—simply substituting the resistivity function into the resistance equation in the symbolic space, the small piece
basic resistance equation. This blending is based primarily of cylinder, and the notion of differential as a small

020118-13
DEHUI HU AND N. SANJAY REBELLO PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

quantity were blended to find the resistance of each small shifted to blend B as the interviewer asked them to explain
cylinder. what dR meant.
Bing and Redish [14] describe two distinct ways (i.e., The results of this study also suggest that it is possible
single-scope blend and double-scope blend) in which stu- to steer students away from one blend to another when
dents blended their mathematics and physics knowledge in certain resources are provided. The construction of a
the context of problems involving air drag and time travel. blend is a dynamic process in which we observed that
Neither of these problems involved mathematical integra- students changed their thinking and created a new blend
tion. Physics problems that involve integration are mathe- when they were reflecting on their work or were asked
matical dominated problems, and the kinds of blending questions that prompted them to activate different resour-
are somewhat more complex. We illustrated four different ces. For example, one student first constructed a blend
kinds of blends that students created in one problem similar to blend A and later switched to blend D as he saw
situation—finding the total resistance of a cylindrical re- a cylinder being sliced up drawn by one of the other
sistor or varying resistivity. Transferring knowledge from students in his group.
calculus to physics is a challenging process for many Modeling student responses with the conceptual
introductory students, which is apparent from both our blending framework allows us to conduct a fine-grained
teaching experience as well as research on students’ analysis of student reasoning in our problem scenario.
work. Analysis of students’ work as they solve integration Here, we consider three mental spaces: symbol, math
problems using this framework shows that the process of notion, and physics. This classification of mental spaces
blending is complex and students blend their knowledge in is based on characteristics of our problems as well as
many different ways. The difficulties that students experi- students’ responses. We do not claim that this is the only
ence seem to be not necessarily from a lack of prerequisite way to classify students’ mental spaces’ however, it
knowledge of mathematics, but rather from inappropriate does help us to create a representation to describe
blending of the knowledge of mathematics with their student reasoning.
knowledge of physics concepts and the physical scenario We analyzed students’ application of calculus concepts
in physics problems from the perspective of conceptual
at hand. Students appeared to have the required mathe-
blending. The conceptual blending framework can be
matical knowledge and were able to construct a solution in
used to understand the creation of resources. In other words,
a physics context, but many of them were not able to blend
the development of a resource may be described as a
their mathematics and physics knowledge in a productive
blend. A blend once constructed can become a resource
way. We found that students who created three of the four
for the student to be used in the future. For example, in
observed blends had the notion of an integral as adding up
blend
RL A, students constructed a mathematical expression
quantities; however, they blended their knowledge in three
0 ½ðxÞL=Adx, which contains a meaning that the total
mental spaces in different ways. One of these observed
resistance is the sum of a varying resistance across the
blends was a more powerful blend than the other two
length over which the resistivity varies. It can also be
blends because it facilitated the combination of mathemati- described as a mathematical resource (i.e., a symbolic
cal and physical ideas in a productive way. The description R
form) in which the mathematical structure ½½  ½ d½  pro-
of students’ work under the cognitive blending framework
might help instructors better understand students’ difficul- vides a way for students to associate mathematical symbols
ties and the important features in student solutions. with their intuitive mathematical knowledge (i.e., concep-
During the interviews, we intended to have students tual schema). Jones [9] described the conceptual schema as
solve physics problems in a somewhat natural environment ‘‘add up then multiply’’—adding up one and then multi-
in which the interviewer did not provide feedback on plying the resultant summation with the quantity repre-
students’ work or facilitate their problem solving process. sented by the differential. From the resources perspective,
At times, during the interviews, the interviewer (author students applied the ‘‘add up then multiply’’ resource in this
Hu) occasionally asked questions to probe students’ think- physics context. Instead of assuming that this resource
ing, but she was always mindful of trying not to change preexists in students’ minds and becomes activated in this
the ways in which students constructed their ideas. Under context, we describe how this resource is constructed based
on more generic resources such as the notion of an integral
this environment, we found that the blends that students
as adding up quantities. The power of the conceptual blend-
constructed involved very little integration of mathematics
ing framework is that it provides a language for describing
and physics knowledge. In other words, students relied
the process by which learners activate generic resources to
heavily on their mathematical ideas but not their sense of
create new resources to solve the problem at hand.
the physical situations. Though the interviewer tried her
best not to provide guidance on student work, we found
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
that the interviewer did seem to affect students’ construc-
tion of the blends. For example, a group of students dis- This work is supported in part by the National Science
carded blend A, which they originally constructed, and Foundation Grant No. 0816207.

020118-14
USING CONCEPTUAL BLENDING TO DESCRIBE . . . PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 9, 020118 (2013)

[1] F. R. Yeatts and J. R. Hundhausen, Calculus and physics: [12] E. Gire, D.-H. Nguyen, and N. S. Rebello, in Proceedings of
Challenges at the interface, Am. J. Phys. 60, 716 (1992). the 2011 National Association for Research in Science
[2] E. F. Redish, in Proceedings of the Conference on World Teaching Annual Meeting, Orlando, 2011 (to be published).
View on Physics Education in 2005: Focusing on Change, [13] G. Fauconnier and M. Turner, The Way We Think:
Delhi, India (to be published). Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden
[3] L. Cui, N. S. Rebello, P. R. Fletcher, and A. G. Bennett, in Complexities (Perseus Books Group, New York, 2002).
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National [14] T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, The cognitive blending of
Association for Research in Science Teaching, San mathematics and physics knowledge, AIP Conf. Proc.
Francisco, 2006 (to be published). 883, 26 (2007).
[4] D. Nguyen and N. S. Rebello, Students’ difficulties with [15] G. Fauconnier and M. Turner, in Conceptual Structure,
integration in electricity, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. Discourse, and Language, edited by A. Goldberg
7, 010113 (2011). (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,
[5] G. Fauconnier and M. Turner, Conceptual integration 1996), pp. 1–23.
networks, Cogn. Sci. 22, 133 (1998). [16] S. Coulson and T. Oakley, Blending basics, Cogn. Ling.
[6] D. C. Meredith and K. A. Marrongelle, How students use 11, 175 (2001).
mathematical resources in an electrostatics context , Am. [17] M. C. Wittmann, in Proceedings of the 9th International
J. Phys. 76, 570 (2008). Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, 2010
[7] B. R. Wilcox, M. D. Caballero, R. E. Pepper, and (ICLS 2010), Vol. 1, pp. 659–666 [arXiv:1008.0216v1].
S. J. Pollock, Upper-division student understanding of [18] M. Zandieh, J. Knapp, and K. H. Roh, in Proceedings of
Coulomb’s law: Difficulties with continuous charge dis- the 11th Conference of the SIGMAA and on RUME, San
tributions , AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 418 (2013). Diego, 2008 (to be published).
[8] B. L. Sherin, How students understand physics equations, [19] J. Tuminaro, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 2004.
Cognit. Instr. 19, 479 (2001). [20] P. V Engelhardt, E. G. Corpuz, D. J. Ozimek, and N. S.
[9] S. R. Jones, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, Rebello, The teaching experiment—What it is and what it
2010. isn’t, AIP Conf. Proc. 720, 157 (2004).
[10] J. Tuminaro and E. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model [21] C. M. Sorensen, A. D. Churukian, S. Maleki, and D. A.
of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. Zollman, The new studio format for instruction of intro-
ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007). ductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 74, 1077 (2006).
[11] A. Collins and W. Ferguson, Epistemic forms and epis- [22] F. Marton, Phenomenography: A research approach to
temic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry, investigating different understandings of reality, J.
Educ. Psychol. 28, 25 (1993). Thought 21, 28 (1986).

020118-15