Employing computation to overcome epistemic obstacles in physics education

Authors

Keywords:

computational thinking, computational physics, epistemic obstacle, fall with drag

Abstract

While the mathematization of physics has been essential to its development, the dominant focus on continuous mathematics can act as an epistemological obstacle in certain educational contexts. This limitation arises when the conceptual frameworks used in teaching physics restrict students’ access to problems that require advanced mathematical tools, particularly differential calculus. In this work, we explore how integrating computation and discrete mathematics can help overcome such barriers, enabling alternative approaches to phenomena that are otherwise analytically inaccessible. As case studies, we examine projectile motion with air resistance, a classical problem whose analytical resolution is too complex for high school students, and the motion of planets around the Sun, whose dynamics are governed by central gravitational forces and are naturally suited to numerical simulation. By implementing the Euler method in a Python program, we are able to accurately simulate the motion using basic programming skills and simple algorithms. This computational approach not only yields reliable results, but also enhances conceptual understanding through dynamic modeling, simulations, and graphical representations. We argue that computation should be regarded not as supplementary content but as a central component of physics education, serving as a bridge between current scientific practices and classroom instruction. This shift also requires updating mathematics curricula to include discrete structures and logic, which would support students’ understanding of computational approaches in physics and other sciences.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Mateo Dutra Shaw, Universidad de la República

Es Licenciado en Física por la Universidad de la República (Udelar, Uruguay) y actualmente cursa la Maestría en Física en el Programa de Desarrollo de las Ciencias Básicas (PEDECIBA), donde investiga nuevas formas de enseñanza de la física que integran pensamiento computacional y cinemática. Se desempeña como docente e en el Instituto de Física de la Facultad de Ciencias y en el de la Facultad de Ingeniería (Udelar, Uruguay), y también como profesor de Física y Ciencias de la Computación en educación secundaria.

Su trabajo combina la investigación en educación en física con el desarrollo de propuestas didácticas innovadoras que incorporan programación, sensores y videojuegos educativos. Ha participado en diversos proyectos interdisciplinarios, enfocados en el aprendizaje activo y la gamificación. Sus investigaciones también han abordado la dinámica de fluidos y la física no lineal, en el grupo de Física No Lineal del Instituto de Física de la Facultad de Ciencias. Ha publicado artículos en revistas internacionales como European Journal of Physics y The Physics Teacher, y ha sido expositor en congresos nacionales e internacionales.

References

Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., Dagienė, V., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J., Horvath, M. A., Jasutė, E., Malagoli, C., Masiulionytė-Dagienė, V., & Stupurienė, G. (2022). Reviewing computational thinking in compulsory education: State of play and practices from computing education. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/px7w

Caballero, M. D., & Merner, L. (2018). Prevalence and nature of computational instruction in undergraduate physics programs across the United States. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(2), 020129. https://doi.org/gfszxm

Cabezas, M. (2021). Pensamiento computacional, educación STEM y la educación informática: cuestiones pendientes. Revista Sudamericana de Educación, Universidad y Sociedad, 9(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/px7p

Chabay, R. W., & Sherwood, B. A. (2015). Matter and interactions (4ª ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Chonacky, N., & Winch, D. (2008). Integrating computation into the undergraduate curriculum: A vision and guidelines for future developments. American Journal of Physics, 76(4), 327-333. https://doi.org/bt943z

Denning, P. J. (2017). Computational thinking in science. American Scientist, 105(1), 13-17. https://doi.org/px7q

Denning, P. J., & Tedre, M. (2016). The long quest for computational thinking. En Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 120-129). ACM. https://doi.org/f3vbxd

Denning, P. J., & Tedre, M. (2019). Computational thinking. MIT Press.

García, R. (2000). El conocimiento en construcción: de las formulaciones de Jean Piaget a la teoría de sistemas complejos. Gedisa.

Newman, M. (2013). Computational physics. Independent Publishing Platform.

Odden, T. O. B., Lockwood, E., & Caballero, M. D. (2019). Physics computational literacy: An exploratory case study using computational essays. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 020152. https://doi.org/gr45j2

Riedel, M., Wolf, F., Kranzlmüller, D., Streit, A., & Lippert, T. (2009). Research advances by using interoperable e-science infrastructures: the infrastructure interoperability reference model applied in e-science. Cluster Computing, 12, 357-372. https://doi.org/bzb6jf

Skuse, B. (2019). The third pillar. Physics World, 32(3), 40-43. https://doi.org/px7r

Tipler, P. A., & Mosca, G. (2021). Física para la ciencia y la tecnología, Vol. 1A: Mecánica. Reverté.

Winsberg, E. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. University of Chicago Press.

Published

2025-12-30

How to Cite

Dutra Shaw, M. (2025). Employing computation to overcome epistemic obstacles in physics education. Revista IRICE, (49), e2068. Retrieved from https://ojs.rosario-conicet.gov.ar/index.php/revistairice/article/view/2068

Issue

Section

Dossier

Similar Articles

1 2 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.