uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
Refine search result
1234567 1 - 50 of 553
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the 'Create feeds' function.
  • 1. Aartsen, M. G.
    et al.
    Ackermann, M.
    Adams, J.
    Aguilar, J. A.
    Ahlers, M.
    Ahrens, M.
    Altmann, D.
    Anderson, T.
    Arguelles, C.
    Arlen, T. C.
    Auffenberg, J.
    Bai, X.
    Barwick, S. W.
    Baum, V.
    Bay, R.
    Beatty, J. J.
    Tjus, J. Becker
    Becker, K. -H
    BenZvi, S.
    Berghaus, P.
    Berley, D.
    Bernardini, E.
    Bernhard, A.
    Besson, D. Z.
    Binder, G.
    Bindig, D.
    Bissok, M.
    Blaufuss, E.
    Blumenthal, J.
    Boersma, David J.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Bohm, C.
    Bos, F.
    Bose, D.
    Boeser, S.
    Botner, Olga
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Brayeur, L.
    Bretz, H. -P
    Brown, A. M.
    Buzinsky, N.
    Casey, J.
    Casier, M.
    Cheung, E.
    Chirkin, D.
    Christov, A.
    Christy, B.
    Clark, K.
    Classen, L.
    Clevermann, F.
    Coenders, S.
    Cowen, D. F.
    Silva, A. H. Cruz
    Danninger, M.
    Daughhetee, J.
    Davis, J. C.
    Day, M.
    De Andre, J. P. A. M.
    De Clercq, C.
    De Ridder, S.
    Desiati, P.
    De Vries, K. D.
    De With, M.
    DeYoung, T.
    Diaz-Velez, J. C.
    Dunkman, M.
    Eagan, R.
    Eberhardt, B.
    Eichmann, B.
    Eisch, J.
    Euler, Sebastian
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Evenson, P. A.
    Fadiran, O.
    Fazely, A. R.
    Fedynitch, A.
    Feintzeig, J.
    Felde, J.
    Feusels, T.
    Filimonov, K.
    Finley, C.
    Fischer-Wasels, T.
    Flis, S.
    Franckowiak, A.
    Frantzen, K.
    Fuchs, T.
    Gaisser, T. K.
    Gaior, R.
    Gallagher, J.
    Gerhardt, L.
    Gier, D.
    Gladstone, L.
    Gluesenkamp, T.
    Goldschmidt, A.
    Golup, G.
    Gonzalez, J. G.
    Goodman, J. A.
    Gora, D.
    Grant, D.
    Gretskov, P.
    Groh, J. C.
    Gross, A.
    Ha, C.
    Haack, C.
    Ismail, A. Haj
    Hallen, P.
    Hallgren, Allan
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Halzen, F.
    Hanson, K.
    Hebecker, D.
    Heereman, D.
    Heinen, D.
    Helbing, K.
    Hellauer, R.
    Hellwig, D.
    Hickford, S.
    Hill, G. C.
    Hoffman, K. D.
    Hoffmann, R.
    Homeier, A.
    Hoshina, K.
    Huang, F.
    Huelsnitz, W.
    Hulth, P. O.
    Hultqvist, K.
    Hussain, S.
    Ishihara, A.
    Jacobi, E.
    Jacobsen, J.
    Jagielski, K.
    Japaridze, G. S.
    Jero, K.
    Jlelati, O.
    Jurkovic, M.
    Kaminsky, B.
    Kappes, A.
    Karg, T.
    Karle, A.
    Kauer, M.
    Keivani, A.
    Kelley, J. L.
    Kheirandish, A.
    Kiryluk, J.
    Klaes, J.
    Klein, S. R.
    Koehne, J. -H
    Kohnen, G.
    Kolanoski, H.
    Koob, A.
    Koepke, L.
    Kopper, C.
    Kopper, S.
    Koskinen, D. J.
    Kowalski, M.
    Kriesten, A.
    Krings, K.
    Kroll, G.
    Kroll, M.
    Kunnen, J.
    Kurahashi, N.
    Kuwabara, T.
    Labare, M.
    Larsen, D. T.
    Larson, M. J.
    Lesiak-Bzdak, M.
    Leuermann, M.
    Leute, J.
    Luenemann, J.
    Madsen, J.
    Maggi, G.
    Maruyama, R.
    Mase, K.
    Matis, H. S.
    Maunu, R.
    McNally, F.
    Meagher, K.
    Medici, M.
    Meli, A.
    Meures, T.
    Miarecki, S.
    Middell, E.
    Middlemas, E.
    Milke, N.
    Miller, J.
    Mohrmann, L.
    Montaruli, T.
    Morse, R.
    Nahnhauer, R.
    Naumann, U.
    Niederhausen, H.
    Nowicki, S. C.
    Nygren, D. R.
    Obertacke, A.
    Odrowski, S.
    Olivas, A.
    Omairat, A.
    O'Murchadha, A.
    Palczewski, T.
    Paul, L.
    Penek, OE.
    Pepper, J. A.
    Heros, Carlos Perez de los
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Pfendner, C.
    Pieloth, D.
    Pinat, E.
    Posselt, J.
    Price, P. B.
    Przybylski, G. T.
    Puetz, J.
    Quinnan, M.
    Raedel, L.
    Rameez, M.
    Rawlins, K.
    Redl, P.
    Rees, I.
    Reimann, R.
    Relich, M.
    Resconi, E.
    Rhode, W.
    Richman, M.
    Riedel, B.
    Robertson, S.
    Rodrigues, J. P.
    Rongen, M.
    Rott, C.
    Ruhe, T.
    Ruzybayev, B.
    Ryckbosch, D.
    Saba, S. M.
    Sander, H. -G
    Sandroos, J.
    Santander, M.
    Sarkar, S.
    Schatto, K.
    Scheriau, F.
    Schmidt, T.
    Schmitz, M.
    Schoenen, S.
    Schoeneberg, S.
    Schoenwald, A.
    Schukraft, A.
    Schulte, L.
    Schulz, O.
    Seckel, D.
    Sestayo, Y.
    Seunarine, S.
    Shanidze, R.
    Smith, M. W. E.
    Soldin, D.
    Spiczak, G. M.
    Spiering, C.
    Stamatikos, M.
    Stanev, T.
    Stanisha, N. A.
    Stasik, A.
    Stezelberger, T.
    Stokstad, R. G.
    Stoessl, A.
    Strahler, E. A.
    Ström, Rickard
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Strotjohann, N. L.
    Sullivan, G. W.
    Taavola, Henric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Taboada, I.
    Tamburro, A.
    Tepe, A.
    Ter-Antonyan, S.
    Terliuk, A.
    Tesic, G.
    Tilav, S.
    Toale, P. A.
    Tobin, M. N.
    Tosi, D.
    Tselengidou, M.
    Unger, Eva
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Usner, M.
    Vallecorsa, S.
    van Eijndhoven, N.
    Vandenbroucke, J.
    van Santen, J.
    Vehring, M.
    Voge, M.
    Vraeghe, M.
    Walck, C.
    Wallraff, M.
    Weaver, Ch.
    Wellons, M.
    Wendt, C.
    Westerhoff, S.
    Whelan, B. J.
    Whitehorn, N.
    Wichary, C.
    Wiebe, K.
    Wiebusch, C. H.
    Williams, D. R.
    Wissing, H.
    Wolf, M.
    Wood, T. R.
    Woschnagg, K.
    Xu, D. L.
    Xu, X. W.
    Yanez, J. P.
    Yodh, G.
    Yoshida, S.
    Zarzhitsky, P.
    Ziemann, J.
    Zierke, S.
    Zoll, M.
    Atmospheric and astrophysical neutrinos above 1 TeV interacting in IceCube2015In: Physical Review D, ISSN 1550-7998, E-ISSN 1550-2368, Vol. 91, no 2, 022001- p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The IceCube Neutrino Observatory was designed primarily to search for high-energy (TeV-PeV) neutLrinos produced in distant astrophysical objects. A search for. greater than or similar to 100 TeV neutrinos interacting inside the instrumented volume has recently provided evidence for an isotropic flux of such neutrinos. At lower energies, IceCube collects large numbers of neutrinos from the weak decays of mesons in cosmic-ray air showers. Here we present the results of a search for neutrino interactions inside IceCube's instrumented volume between 1 TeV and 1 PeV in 641 days of data taken from 2010-2012, lowering the energy threshold for neutrinos from the southern sky below 10 TeV for the first time, far below the threshold of the previous high-energy analysis. Astrophysical neutrinos remain the dominant component in the southern sky down to a deposited energy of 10 TeV. From these data we derive new constraints on the diffuse astrophysical neutrino spectrum, Phi(v) = 2.06(-0.3)(+0.4) x 10(-18) (E-v = 10(5) GeV)-2.46 +/- 0.12GeV-1 cm(-2) sr(-1) s(-1) for 25 TeV < E-v < 1.4 PeV, as well as the strongest upper limit yet on the flux of neutrinos from charmed-meson decay in the atmosphere, 1.52 times the benchmark theoretical prediction used in previous IceCube results at 90% confidence.

  • 2. Aartsen, M. G.
    et al.
    Ackermann, M.
    Adams, J.
    Aguilar, J. A.
    Ahlers, M.
    Ahrens, M.
    Altmann, D.
    Anderson, T.
    Arguelles, C.
    Arlen, T. C.
    Auffenberg, J.
    Bai, X.
    Barwick, S. W.
    Baum, V.
    Beatty, J. J.
    Tjus, J. Becker
    Becker, K. -H
    BenZvi, S.
    Berghaus, P.
    Berley, D.
    Bernardini, E.
    Bernhard, A.
    Besson, D. Z.
    Binder, G.
    Bindig, D.
    Bissok, M.
    Blaufuss, E.
    Blumenthal, J.
    Boersma, David J.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Bohm, C.
    Bos, F.
    Bose, D.
    Boeser, S.
    Botner, Olga
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Brayeur, L.
    Bretz, H. -P
    Brown, A. M.
    Casey, J.
    Casier, M.
    Chirkin, D.
    Christov, A.
    Christy, B.
    Clark, K.
    Classen, L.
    Clevermann, F.
    Coenders, S.
    Cowen, D. F.
    Silva, A. H. Cruz
    Danninger, M.
    Daughhetee, J.
    Davis, J. C.
    Day, M.
    de Andre, J. P. A. M.
    De Clercq, C.
    De Ridder, S.
    Desiati, P.
    de Vries, K. D.
    de With, M.
    DeYoung, T.
    Diaz-Velez, J. C.
    Dunkman, M.
    Eagan, R.
    Eberhardt, B.
    Eichmann, B.
    Eisch, J.
    Euler, Sebastian
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Evenson, P. A.
    Fadiran, O.
    Fazely, A. R.
    Fedynitch, A.
    Feintzeig, J.
    Felde, J.
    Feusels, T.
    Filimonov, K.
    Finley, C.
    Fischer-Wasels, T.
    Flis, S.
    Franckowiak, A.
    Frantzen, K.
    Fuchs, T.
    Gaisser, T. K.
    Gallagher, J.
    Gerhardt, L.
    Gier, D.
    Gladstone, L.
    Gluesenkamp, T.
    Goldschmidt, A.
    Golup, G.
    Gonzalez, J. G.
    Goodman, J. A.
    Gora, D.
    Grandmont, D. T.
    Grant, D.
    Gretskov, P.
    Groh, J. C.
    Gross, A.
    Ha, C.
    Haack, C.
    Ismail, A. Haj
    Hallen, P.
    Hallgren, Allan
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Halzen, F.
    Hanson, K.
    Hebecker, D.
    Heereman, D.
    Heinen, D.
    Helbing, K.
    Hellauer, R.
    Hellwig, D.
    Hickford, S.
    Hill, G. C.
    Hoffman, K. D.
    Hoffmann, R.
    Homeier, A.
    Hoshina, K.
    Huang, F.
    Huelsnitz, W.
    Hulth, P. O.
    Hultqvist, K.
    Hussain, S.
    Ishihara, A.
    Jacobi, E.
    Jacobsen, J.
    Jagielski, K.
    Japaridze, G. S.
    Jero, K.
    Jlelati, O.
    Jurkovic, M.
    Kaminsky, B.
    Kappes, A.
    Karg, T.
    Karle, A.
    Kauer, M.
    Kelley, J. L.
    Kheirandish, A.
    Kiryluk, J.
    Klaes, J.
    Klein, S. R.
    Koehne, J. -H
    Kohnen, G.
    Kolanoski, H.
    Koob, A.
    Koepke, L.
    Kopper, C.
    Kopper, S.
    Koskinen, D. J.
    Kowalski, M.
    Kriesten, A.
    Krings, K.
    Kroll, G.
    Kroll, M.
    Kunnen, J.
    Kurahashi, N.
    Kuwabara, T.
    Labare, M.
    Larsen, D. T.
    Larson, M. J.
    Lesiak-Bzdak, M.
    Leuermann, M.
    Leute, J.
    Luenemann, J.
    Macias, O.
    Madsen, J.
    Maggi, G.
    Maruyama, R.
    Mase, K.
    Matis, H. S.
    McNally, F.
    Meagher, K.
    Medici, M.
    Meli, A.
    Meures, T.
    Miarecki, S.
    Middell, E.
    Middlemas, E.
    Milke, N.
    Miller, J.
    Mohrmann, L.
    Montaruli, T.
    Morse, R.
    Nahnhauer, R.
    Naumann, U.
    Niederhausen, H.
    Nowicki, S. C.
    Nygren, D. R.
    Obertacke, A.
    Odrowski, S.
    Olivas, A.
    Omairat, A.
    O'Murchadha, A.
    Palczewski, T.
    Paul, L.
    Penek, Oe.
    Pepper, J. A.
    Heros, Carlos Perez de los
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Pfendner, C.
    Pieloth, D.
    Pinat, E.
    Posselt, J.
    Price, P. B.
    Przybylski, G. T.
    Puetz, J.
    Quinnan, M.
    Raedel, L.
    Rameez, M.
    Rawlins, K.
    Redl, P.
    Rees, I.
    Reimann, R.
    Resconi, E.
    Rhode, W.
    Richman, M.
    Riedel, B.
    Robertson, S.
    Rodrigues, J. P.
    Rongen, M.
    Rott, C.
    Ruhe, T.
    Ruzybayev, B.
    Ryckbosch, D.
    Saba, S. M.
    Sander, H. -G
    Sandroos, J.
    Santander, M.
    Sarkar, S.
    Schatto, K.
    Scheriau, F.
    Schmidt, T.
    Schmitz, M.
    Schoenen, S.
    Schoeneberg, S.
    Schnoewald, A.
    Schukraft, A.
    Schulte, L.
    Schulz, O.
    Seckel, D.
    Sestayo, Y.
    Seunarine, S.
    Shanidze, R.
    Sheremata, C.
    Smith, M. W. E.
    Soldin, D.
    Spiczak, G. M.
    Spiering, C.
    Stamatikos, M.
    Stanev, T.
    Stanisha, N. A.
    Stasik, A.
    Stezelberger, T.
    Stokstad, R. G.
    Stoessl, A.
    Strahler, E. A.
    Ström, Rickard
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Strotjohann, N. L.
    Sullivan, G. W.
    Taavola, Henric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Taboada, I.
    Tamburro, A.
    Tepe, A.
    Ter-Antonyan, S.
    Terliuk, A.
    Tesic, G.
    Tilav, S.
    Toale, P. A.
    Tobin, M. N.
    Tosi, D.
    Tselengidou, M.
    Unger, E.
    Usner, M.
    Vallecorsa, S.
    van Eijndhoven, N.
    Vandenbroucke, J.
    van Santen, J.
    Vehring, M.
    Voge, M.
    Vraeghe, M.
    Walck, C.
    Wallraff, M.
    Weaver, Ch.
    Wellons, M.
    Wendt, C.
    Westerhoff, S.
    Whelan, B. J.
    Whitehorn, N.
    Wichary, C.
    Wiebe, K.
    Wiebusch, C. H.
    Williams, D. R.
    Wissing, H.
    Wolf, M.
    Wood, T. R.
    Woschnagg, K.
    Xu, D. L.
    Xu, X. W.
    Yanez, J. P.
    Yodh, G.
    Yoshida, S.
    Zarzhitsky, P.
    Ziemann, J.
    Zierke, S.
    Zoll, M.
    Multipole analysis of IceCube data to search for dark matter accumulated in the Galactic halo2015In: European Physical Journal C, ISSN 1434-6044, E-ISSN 1434-6052, Vol. 75, no 1, 20Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Dark matter which is bound in the Galactic halo might self-annihilate and produce a flux of stable final state particles, e. g. high energy neutrinos. These neutrinos can be detected with IceCube, a cubic-kilometer sized Cherenkov detector. Given IceCube's large field of view, a characteristic anisotropy of the additional neutrino flux is expected. In this paper we describe a multipole method to search for such a large-scale anisotropy in IceCube data. This method uses the expansion coefficients of a multipole expansion of neutrino arrival directions and incorporates signal-specific weights for each expansion coefficient. We apply the technique to a high-purity muon neutrino sample from the Northern Hemisphere. The final result is compatible with the null-hypothesis. As no signal was observed, we present limits on the self-annihilation cross-section averaged over the relative velocity distribution <sigma(A)v > down to 1.9x10(-23) cm(3) s(-1) for a dark matter particle mass of 700-1,000 GeV and direct annihilation into nu(nu) over bar. The resulting exclusion limits come close to exclusion limits from gamma-ray experiments, that focus on the outer Galactic halo, for high dark matter masses of a few TeV and hard annihilation channels.

  • 3. Abazov, V. M.
    et al.
    Abbott, B.
    Acharya, B. S.
    Adams, M.
    Adams, T.
    Agnew, J. P.
    Alexeev, G. D.
    Alkhazov, G.
    Alton, A.
    Askew, A.
    Atkins, S.
    Augsten, K.
    Avila, C.
    Badaud, F.
    Bagby, L.
    Baldin, B.
    Bandurin, D. V.
    Banerjee, S.
    Barberis, E.
    Baringer, P.
    Bartlett, J. F.
    Bassler, U.
    Bazterra, V.
    Bean, A.
    Begalli, M.
    Bellantoni, L.
    Beri, S. B.
    Bernardi, G.
    Bernhard, R.
    Bertram, I.
    Besancon, M.
    Beuselinck, R.
    Bhat, P. C.
    Bhatia, S.
    Bhatnagar, V.
    Blazey, G.
    Blessing, S.
    Bloom, K.
    Boehnlein, A.
    Boline, D.
    Boos, E. E.
    Borissov, G.
    Borysova, M.
    Brandt, A.
    Brandt, O.
    Brock, R.
    Bross, A.
    Brown, D.
    Bu, X. B.
    Buehler, M.
    Buescher, V.
    Bunichev, V.
    Burdin, S.
    Buszello, Claus P.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics.
    Camacho-Perez, E.
    Casey, B. C. K.
    Castilla-Valdez, H.
    Caughron, S.
    Chakrabarti, S.
    Chan, K. M.
    Chandra, A.
    Chapon, E.
    Chen, G.
    Cho, S. W.
    Choi, S.
    Choudhary, B.
    Cihangir, S.
    Claes, D.
    Clutter, J.
    Cooke, M.
    Cooper, W. E.
    Corcoran, M.
    Couderc, F.
    Cousinou, M. -C
    Cutts, D.
    Das, A.
    Davies, G.
    de Jong, S. J.
    De la Cruz-Burelo, E.
    Deliot, F.
    Demina, R.
    Denisov, D.
    Denisov, S. P.
    Desai, S.
    Deterre, C.
    DeVaughan, K.
    Diehl, H. T.
    Diesburg, M.
    Ding, P. F.
    Dominguez, A.
    Dubey, A.
    Dudko, L. V.
    Duperrin, A.
    Dutt, S.
    Eads, M.
    Edmunds, D.
    Ellison, J.
    Elvira, V. D.
    Enari, Y.
    Evans, H.
    Evdokimov, V. N.
    Faure, A.
    Feng, L.
    Ferbel, T.
    Fiedler, F.
    Filthaut, F.
    Fisher, W.
    Fisk, H. E.
    Fortner, M.
    Fox, H.
    Fuess, S.
    Garbincius, P. H.
    Garcia-Bellido, A.
    Garcia-Gonzalez, J. A.
    Gavrilov, V.
    Geng, W.
    Gerber, C. E.
    Gershtein, Y.
    Ginther, G.
    Gogota, O.
    Golovanov, G.
    Grannis, P. D.
    Greder, S.
    Greenlee, H.
    Grenier, G.
    Gris, Ph.
    Grivaz, J. -F
    Grohsjean, A.
    Gruenendahl, S.
    Gruenewald, M. W.
    Guillemin, T.
    Gutierrez, G.
    Gutierrez, P.
    Haley, J.
    Han, L.
    Harder, K.
    Harel, A.
    Hauptman, J. M.
    Hays, J.
    Head, T.
    Hebbeker, T.
    Hedin, D.
    Hegab, H.
    Heinson, A. P.
    Heintz, U.
    Hensel, C.
    Heredia-De la Cruz, I.
    Herner, K.
    Hesketh, G.
    Hildreth, M. D.
    Hirosky, R.
    Hoang, T.
    Hobbs, J. D.
    Hoeneisen, B.
    Hogan, J.
    Hohlfeld, M.
    Holzbauer, J. L.
    Howley, I.
    Hubacek, Z.
    Hynek, V.
    Iashvili, I.
    Ilchenko, Y.
    Illingworth, R.
    Ito, A. S.
    Jabeen, S.
    Jaffre, M.
    Jayasinghe, A.
    Jeong, M. S.
    Jesik, R.
    Jiang, P.
    Johns, K.
    Johnson, E.
    Johnson, M.
    Jonckheere, A.
    Jonsson, P.
    Joshi, J.
    Jung, A. W.
    Juste, A.
    Kajfasz, E.
    Karmanov, D.
    Katsanos, I.
    Kaur, M.
    Kehoe, R.
    Kermiche, S.
    Khalatyan, N.
    Khanov, A.
    Kharchilava, A.
    Kharzheev, Y. N.
    Kiselevich, I.
    Kohli, J. M.
    Kozelov, A. V.
    Kraus, J.
    Kumar, A.
    Kupco, A.
    Kurca, T.
    Kuzmin, V. A.
    Lammers, S.
    Lebrun, P.
    Lee, H. S.
    Lee, S. W.
    Lee, W. M.
    Lei, X.
    Lellouch, J.
    Li, D.
    Li, H.
    Li, L.
    Li, Q. Z.
    Lim, J. K.
    Lincoln, D.
    Linnemann, J.
    Lipaev, V. V.
    Lipton, R.
    Liu, H.
    Liu, Y.
    Lobodenko, A.
    Lokajicek, M.
    de Sa, R. Lopes
    Luna-Garcia, R.
    Lyon, A. L.
    Maciel, A. K. A.
    Madar, R.
    Magana-Villalba, R.
    Malik, S.
    Malyshev, V. L.
    Mansour, J.
    Martinez-Ortega, J.
    McCarthy, R.
    McGivern, C. L.
    Meijer, M. M.
    Melnitchouk, A.
    Menezes, D.
    Mercadante, P. G.
    Merkin, M.
    Meyer, A.
    Meyer, J.
    Miconi, F.
    Mondal, N. K.
    Mulhearn, M.
    Nagy, E.
    Narain, M.
    Nayyar, R.
    Neal, H. A.
    Negret, J. P.
    Neustroev, P.
    Nguyen, H. T.
    Nunnemann, T.
    Orduna, J.
    Osman, N.
    Osta, J.
    Pal, A.
    Parashar, N.
    Parihar, V.
    Park, S. K.
    Partridge, R.
    Parua, N.
    Patwa, A.
    Penning, B.
    Perfilov, M.
    Peters, Y.
    Petridis, K.
    Petrillo, G.
    Petroff, P.
    Pleier, M. -A
    Podstavkov, V. M.
    Popov, A. V.
    Prewitt, M.
    Price, D.
    Prokopenko, N.
    Qian, J.
    Quadt, A.
    Quinn, B.
    Ratoff, P. N.
    Razumov, I.
    Ripp-Baudot, I.
    Rizatdinova, F.
    Rominsky, M.
    Ross, A.
    Royon, C.
    Rubinov, P.
    Ruchti, R.
    Sajot, G.
    Sanchez-Hernandez, A.
    Sanders, M. P.
    Santos, A. S.
    Savage, G.
    Savitskyi, M.
    Sawyer, L.
    Scanlon, T.
    Schamberger, R. D.
    Scheglov, Y.
    Schellman, H.
    Schwanenberger, C.
    Schwienhorst, R.
    Sekaric, J.
    Severini, H.
    Shabalina, E.
    Shary, V.
    Shaw, S.
    Shchukin, A. A.
    Simak, V.
    Skubic, P.
    Slattery, P.
    Smirnov, D.
    Snow, G. R.
    Snow, J.
    Snyder, S.
    Soeldner-Rembold, S.
    Sonnenschein, L.
    Soustruznik, K.
    Stark, J.
    Stoyanova, D. A.
    Strauss, M.
    Suter, L.
    Svoisky, P.
    Titov, M.
    Tokmenin, V. V.
    Tsai, Y. -T
    Tsybychev, D.
    Tuchming, B.
    Tully, C.
    Uvarov, L.
    Uvarov, S.
    Uzunyan, S.
    Van Kooten, R.
    van Leeuwen, W. M.
    Varelas, N.
    Varnes, E. W.
    Vasilyev, I. A.
    Verkheev, A. Y.
    Vertogradov, L. S.
    Verzocchi, M.
    Vesterinen, M.
    Vilanova, D.
    Vokac, P.
    Wahl, H. D.
    Wang, M. H. L. S.
    Warchol, J.
    Watts, G.
    Wayne, M.
    Weichert, J.
    Welty-Rieger, L.
    Williams, M. R. J.
    Wilson, G. W.
    Wobisch, M.
    Wood, D. R.
    Wyatt, T. R.
    Xie, Y.
    Yamada, R.
    Yang, S.
    Yasuda, T.
    Yatsunenko, Y. A.
    Ye, W.
    Ye, Z.
    Yin, H.
    Yip, K.
    Youn, S. W.
    Yu, J. M.
    Zennamo, J.
    Zhao, T. G.
    Zhou, B.
    Zhu, J.
    Zielinski, M.
    Zieminska, D.
    Zivkovic, L.
    Measurement of the Forward-Backward Asymmetry in the Production lof B-+/- Mesons in p(p)over-bar Collisions at root s=1.96 TeV2015In: Physical Review Letters, ISSN 0031-9007, E-ISSN 1079-7114, Vol. 114, no 5Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    We present a measurement of the forward-backward asymmetry in the production of B-+/- mesons, A(FB)(B-+/-) using B-+/- -> J/ Psi K-+/- decays in 10.4 fb(-1) of p (p) over bar collisions at root s = 1.96 TeV collected by the D0 experiment during Run II of the Tevatron collider. A nonzero asymmetry would indicate a preference for a particular flavor, i.e., b quark or (b) over bar antiquark, to be produced in the direction of the proton beam. We extract A(FB) (B-+/-) from a maximum likelihood fit to the difference between the numbers of forward-and backward-produced B-+/- mesons. We measure an asymmetry consistent with zero: A(FB) (B-+/-) = [-0.24 +/- 0.41 (stat) +/- 0.19 (syst)] %.

  • 4. Ablikim, M.
    et al.
    Achasov, M. N.
    Ai, X. C.
    Albayrak, O.
    Albrecht, M.
    Ambrose, D. J.
    Amoroso, A.
    An, F. F.
    An, Q.
    Bai, J. Z.
    Ferroli, R. Baldini
    Ban, Y.
    Bennett, D. W.
    Bennett, J. V.
    Bertani, M.
    Bettoni, D.
    Bian, J. M.
    Bianchi, F.
    Boger, E.
    Bondarenko, O.
    Boyko, I.
    Briere, R. A.
    Cai, H.
    Cai, X.
    Cakir, O.
    Calcaterra, A.
    Cao, G. F.
    Cetin, S. A.
    Chang, J. F.
    Chelkov, G.
    Chen, G.
    Chen, H. S.
    Chen, H. Y.
    Chen, J. C.
    Chen, M. L.
    Chen, S. J.
    Chen, X.
    Chen, X. R.
    Chen, Y. B.
    Cheng, H. P.
    Chu, X. K.
    Cibinetto, G.
    Cronin-Hennessy, D.
    Dai, H. L.
    Dai, J. P.
    Dbeyssi, A.
    Dedovich, D.
    Deng, Z. Y.
    Denig, A.
    Denysenko, I.
    Destefanis, M.
    De Mori, F.
    Ding, Y.
    Dong, C.
    Dong, J.
    Dong, L. Y.
    Dong, M. Y.
    Du, S. X.
    Duan, P. F.
    Fan, J. Z.
    Fang, J.
    Fang, S. S.
    Fang, X.
    Fang, Y.
    Fava, L.
    Feldbauer, F.
    Felici, G.
    Feng, C. Q.
    Fioravanti, E.
    Fritsch, M.
    Fu, C. D.
    Gao, Q.
    Gao, Y.
    Garzia, I.
    Goetzen, K.
    Gong, W. X.
    Gradl, W.
    Greco, M.
    Gu, M. H.
    Gu, Y. T.
    Guan, Y. H.
    Guo, A. Q.
    Guo, L. B.
    Guo, T.
    Guo, Y.
    Guo, Y. P.
    Haddadi, Z.
    Hafner, A.
    Han, S.
    Han, Y. L.
    Harris, F. A.
    He, K. L.
    He, Z. Y.
    Held, T.
    Heng, Y. K.
    Hou, Z. L.
    Hu, C.
    Hu, H. M.
    Hu, J. F.
    Hu, T.
    Hu, Y.
    Huang, G. M.
    Huang, G. S.
    Huang, H. P.
    Huang, J. S.
    Huang, X. T.
    Huang, Y.
    Hussain, T.
    Ji, Q.
    Ji, Q. P.
    Ji, X. B.
    Ji, X. L.
    Jiang, L. L.
    Jiang, L. W.
    Jiang, X. S.
    Jiao, J. B.
    Jiao, Z.
    Jin, D. P.
    Jin, S.
    Johansson, Tord
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics.
    Julin, A.
    Kalantar-Nayestanaki, N.
    Kang, X. L.
    Kang, X. S.
    Kavatsyuk, M.
    Ke, B. C.
    Kliemt, R.
    Kloss, B.
    Kolcu, O. B.
    Kopf, B.
    Kornicer, M.
    Kuehn, W.
    Kupsc, Andrzej
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics.
    Lai, W.
    Lange, J. S.
    Lara, M.
    Larin, P.
    Li, C. H.
    Li, Cheng
    Li, D. M.
    Li, F.
    Li, G.
    Li, H. B.
    Li, J. C.
    Li, Jin
    Li, K.
    Li, P. R.
    Li, T.
    Li, W. D.
    Li, W. G.
    Li, X. L.
    Li, X. M.
    Li, X. N.
    Li, X. Q.
    Li, Z. B.
    Liang, H.
    Liang, Y. F.
    Liang, Y. T.
    Liao, G. R.
    Lin, D. X.
    Liu, B. J.
    Liu, C. L.
    Liu, C. X.
    Liu, F. H.
    Liu, Fang
    Liu, Feng
    Liu, H. B.
    Liu, H. H.
    Liu, H. M.
    Liu, J.
    Liu, J. P.
    Liu, J. Y.
    Liu, K.
    Liu, K. Y.
    Liu, L. D.
    Liu, P. L.
    Liu, Q.
    Liu, S. B.
    Liu, X.
    Liu, X. X.
    Liu, Y. B.
    Liu, Z. A.
    Liu, Zhiqiang
    Liu, Zhiqing
    Loehner, H.
    Lou, X. C.
    Lu, H. J.
    Lu, J. G.
    Lu, R. Q.
    Lu, Y.
    Lu, Y. P.
    Luo, C. L.
    Luo, M. X.
    Luo, T.
    Luo, X. L.
    Lv, M.
    Lyu, X. R.
    Ma, F. C.
    Ma, H. L.
    Ma, L. L.
    Ma, Q. M.
    Ma, S.
    Ma, T.
    Ma, X. N.
    Ma, X. Y.
    Maas, F. E.
    Maggiora, M.
    Malik, Q. A.
    Mao, Y. J.
    Mao, Z. P.
    Marcello, S.
    Messchendorp, J. G.
    Min, J.
    Min, T. J.
    Mitchell, R. E.
    Mo, X. H.
    Mo, Y. J.
    Morales, C. Morales
    Moriya, K.
    Muchnoi, N. Yu.
    Muramatsu, H.
    Nefedov, Y.
    Nerling, F.
    Nikolaev, I. B.
    Ning, Z.
    Nisar, S.
    Niu, S. L.
    Niu, X. Y.
    Olsen, S. L.
    Ouyang, Q.
    Pacetti, S.
    Patteri, P.
    Pelizaeus, M.
    Peng, H. P.
    Peters, K.
    Ping, J. L.
    Ping, R. G.
    Poling, R.
    Pu, Y. N.
    Qi, M.
    Qian, S.
    Qiao, C. F.
    Qin, L. Q.
    Qin, N.
    Qin, X. S.
    Qin, Y.
    Qin, Z. H.
    Qiu, J. F.
    Rashid, K. H.
    Redmer, C. F.
    Ren, H. L.
    Ripka, M.
    Rong, G.
    Ruan, X. D.
    Santoro, V.
    Sarantsev, A.
    Savrie, M.
    Schönning, Karin
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics.
    Schumann, S.
    Shan, W.
    Shao, M.
    Shen, C. P.
    Shen, P. X.
    Shen, X. Y.
    Sheng, H. Y.
    Shepherd, M. R.
    Song, W. M.
    Song, X. Y.
    Sosio, S.
    Spataro, S.
    Spruck, B.
    Sun, G. X.
    Sun, J. F.
    Sun, S. S.
    Sun, Y. J.
    Sun, Y. Z.
    Sun, Z. J.
    Sun, Z. T.
    Tang, C. J.
    Tang, X.
    Tapan, I.
    Thorndike, E. H.
    Tiemens, M.
    Toth, D.
    Ullrich, M.
    Uman, I.
    Varner, G. S.
    Wang, B.
    Wang, B. L.
    Wang, D.
    Wang, D. Y.
    Wang, K.
    Wang, L. L.
    Wang, L. S.
    Wang, M.
    Wang, P.
    Wang, P. L.
    Wang, Q. J.
    Wang, S. G.
    Wang, W.
    Wang, X. F.
    Wang, Y. D.
    Wang, Y. F.
    Wang, Y. Q.
    Wang, Z.
    Wang, Z. G.
    Wang, Z. H.
    Wang, Z. Y.
    Weber, T.
    Wei, D. H.
    Wei, J. B.
    Weidenkaff, P.
    Wen, S. P.
    Wiedner, U.
    Wolke, Magnus
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics.
    Wu, L. H.
    Wu, Z.
    Xia, L. G.
    Xia, Y.
    Xiao, D.
    Xiao, Z. J.
    Xie, Y. G.
    Xu, G. F.
    Xu, L.
    Xu, Q. J.
    Xu, Q. N.
    Xu, X. P.
    Yan, L.
    Yan, W. B.
    Yan, W. C.
    Yan, Y. H.
    Yang, H. X.
    Yang, L.
    Yang, Y.
    Yang, Y. X.
    Ye, H.
    Ye, M.
    Ye, M. H.
    Yin, J. H.
    Yu, B. X.
    Yu, C. X.
    Yu, H. W.
    Yu, J. S.
    Yuan, C. Z.
    Yuan, W. L.
    Yuan, Y.
    Yuncu, A.
    Zafar, A. A.
    Zallo, A.
    Zeng, Y.
    Zhang, B. X.
    Zhang, B. Y.
    Zhang, C.
    Zhang, C. C.
    Zhang, D. H.
    Zhang, H. H.
    Zhang, H. Y.
    Zhang, J. J.
    Zhang, J. L.
    Zhang, J. Q.
    Zhang, J. W.
    Zhang, J. Y.
    Zhang, J. Z.
    Zhang, K.
    Zhang, L.
    Zhang, S. H.
    Zhang, X. J.
    Zhang, X. Y.
    Zhang, Y.
    Zhang, Y. H.
    Zhang, Z. H.
    Zhang, Z. P.
    Zhang, Z. Y.
    Zhao, G.
    Zhao, J. W.
    Zhao, J. Y.
    Zhao, J. Z.
    Zhao, Lei
    Zhao, Ling
    Zhao, M. G.
    Zhao, Q.
    Zhao, Q. W.
    Zhao, S. J.
    Zhao, T. C.
    Zhao, Y. B.
    Zhao, Z. G.
    Zhemchugov, A.
    Zheng, B.
    Zheng, J. P.
    Zheng, W. J.
    Zheng, Y. H.
    Zhong, B.
    Zhou, L.
    Zhou, Li
    Zhou, X.
    Zhou, X. K.
    Zhou, X. R.
    Zhou, X. Y.
    Zhu, K.
    Zhu, K. J.
    Zhu, S.
    Zhu, X. L.
    Zhu, Y. C.
    Zhu, Y. S.
    Zhu, Z. A.
    Zhuang, J.
    Zou, B. S.
    Zou, J. H.
    Precision measurement of the D*(0) decay branching fractions2015In: Physical Review D, ISSN 1550-7998, E-ISSN 1550-2368, Vol. 91, no 3, 031101Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Using 482 pb(-1) of data taken at root s = 4.009 GeV, we measure the branching fractions of the decays of D*(0) into D-0 pi(0) and D-0 gamma to be B(D*(0) -> D-0 pi(0)) = (65.5 +/- 0.8 +/- 0.5)% and B(D*(0) -> D0 gamma) = (34.5 +/- 0.8 +/- 0.5)%, respectively, by assuming that the D*(0) decays only into these two modes. The ratio of the two branching fractions is B(D*(0) -> D-0 pi(0))/B(D*(0) -> D-0 gamma) = 1.90 +/- 0.07 +/- 0.05, which is independent of the assumption made above. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second ones systematic. The precision is improved by a factor of 3 compared to the present world average values.

  • 5.
    Adlmann, Franz A.
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Materials Physics.
    Gutfreund, P.
    Ankner, J. F.
    Browning, J. F.
    Parizzi, A.
    Vacaliuc, B.
    Halbert, C. E.
    Rich, J. P.
    Dennison, A. J. C.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Materials Physics.
    Wolff, Max
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Materials Physics.
    Towards neutron scattering experiments with sub-millisecond time resolution2015In: Journal of applied crystallography, ISSN 0021-8898, E-ISSN 1600-5767, Vol. 48, 220-226 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Neutron scattering techniques offer several unique opportunities in materials research. However, most neutron scattering experiments suffer from the limited flux available at current facilities. This limitation becomes even more severe if time-resolved or kinetic experiments are performed. A new method has been developed which overcomes these limitations when a reversible process is studied, without any compromise on resolution or beam intensity. It is demonstrated that, by recording in absolute time the neutron detector events linked to an excitation, information can be resolved on sub-millisecond timescales. Specifically, the concept of the method is demonstrated by neutron reflectivity measurements in time-of-flight mode at the Liquids Reflectometer located at the Spallation Neutron Source, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, USA, combined with in situ rheometry. The opportunities and limitations of this new technique are evaluated by investigations of a micellar polymer solution offering excellent scattering contrast combined with high sensitivity to shear.

  • 6.
    Adlmann, Franz A.
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Materials Physics.
    Pálsson, Gunnar Karl
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Materials Physics.
    Bilheux, J. C.
    Oak Ridge Natl Lab, Spallat Neutron Source, Oak Ridge, TN USA..
    Ankner, J. F.
    Oak Ridge Natl Lab, Spallat Neutron Source, Oak Ridge, TN USA..
    Gutfreund, P.
    Inst Laue Langevin, BP 156, F-38042 Grenoble, France..
    Kawecki, M.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Materials Physics.
    Wolff, Max
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Materials Physics.
    Överlåtaren: a fast way to transfer and orthogonalize two-dimensional off-specular reflectivity data2016In: Journal of applied crystallography, ISSN 0021-8898, E-ISSN 1600-5767, Vol. 49, 2091-2099 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Reflectivity measurements offer unique opportunities for the study of surfaces and interfaces, and specular reflectometry has become a standard tool in materials science to resolve structures normal to the surface of a thin film. Off-specular scattering, which probes lateral structures, is more difficult to analyse, because the Fourier space being probed is highly anisotropic and the scattering pattern is truncated by the interface. As a result, scattering patterns collected with (especially time-of-flight) neutron reflectometers are difficult to transform into reciprocal space for comparison with model calculations. A program package is presented for a generic two-dimensional transformation of reflectometry data into q space and back. The data are represented on an orthogonal grid, allowing cuts along directions relevant for theoretical modelling. This treatment includes background subtraction as well as a full characterization of the resolution function. The method is optimized for computational performance using repeatable operations and standardized instrument settings.

  • 7. Adoo, N.A.
    et al.
    Nyarko, B.J.B.
    Akaho, E.H.K.
    Alhassan, Erwin
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Applied Nuclear Physics.
    Agbodemegbe, V.Y.
    Bansah, C.Y.
    Della, R.
    Determination of thermal hydraulic data of GHARR-1 under reactivity insertion transients using the PARET/ANL code2011In: Nuclear Engineering and Design, ISSN 0029-5493, E-ISSN 1872-759X, Vol. 241, 5303-5210 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The PARET/ANL code has been adapted by the IAEA for testing transient behaviour in research reactors since it provides a coupled thermal hydrodynamic and point kinetics capability for estimating thermalhydraulic margins. A two-channel power peaking profile of the Ghana Research Reactor-1 (GHARR-1) has been developed for the PARET/ANL (Version 7.3; 2007) using the Monte Carlo N-Particle code (MCNP) to determine the thermal hydraulic data for reactivity insertion transients in the range of 2.0×10^−3k/k to 5.5×10^−3k/k. Peak clad and coolant temperatures ranged from 59.18 ◦C to 112.36 ◦C and 42.95 ◦C to 79.42 ◦C respectively. Calculated safety margins (DNBR) satisfied the MNSR thermal hydraulic design criteria for which no boiling occurs in the reactor core. The generated thermal hydraulic data demonstrated a high inherent safety feature of GHARR-1 for which the high negative reactivity feedback of the moderator limits power excursion and consequently the escalation of the clad temperature.

  • 8.
    Ahmad, Noor Azlinda
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Technology, Department of Engineering Sciences, Electricity.
    Broadband and HF Radiation from Cloud Flashes and Narrow Bipolar Pulses2011Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Remote measurement of electric field generated by lightning has played a major role in understanding the lightning phenomenon. Even though other measurements such as photographic and channel base current have contributed to this research field, due to practical reasons remote measurements of electric field is considered as the most useful tool in lightning research.

    This thesis discusses the remotely measured radiation field component of electric field generated by cloud flashes (ICs) and narrow bipolar pulses (NBPs). The associated HF radiation of these events at 3 MHz and 30 MHz are also discussed. To understand the initiation process of these discharges, a comparative study of the initial pulse of cloud flashes against the initial pulse of cloud to ground flashes was conducted. The result suggests that both discharges might have been initiated by similar physical processes inside the thunderclouds. Comparing the features of initial pulse of cloud and ground flashes with that of pulses that appeared in the later stages of cloud flashes suggests that the initiation process involved in both flashes are not very much different from the initiation of cloud flashes at the later stage. The average spectral amplitudes of electric field of full duration cloud flashes (180 ms) showed -1 frequency dependence within the interval of 10 kHz to approximately 10 MHz. This is in contrast to the standard -2 decrement (or even steeper ) at high frequency region for other lightning processes such as return strokes. It was suggested that small pulses which repeatedly appeared at the later stage of cloud flashes might have contributed to enhance the spectral amplitude at higher frequencies.

    Electric fields generated by Narrow Bipolar Pulses (NBPs), which are considered as one of the strongest sources of HF radiation, were measured in the tropics of Malaysia and Sri Lanka.  Their features were also studied and show a good agreement with previously published observations of NBPs from other geographical regions. Thorough analyses and observations of these pulses found previously unreported sharp, fine peaks embedded in the rising and decaying edge of the electric field change of NBPs. Therefore it was suggested that these fine peaks are mostly responsible for the intense HF radiation at 30 MHz.

    List of papers
    1. The first electric field pulse of cloud and cloud-to-ground lightning discharges
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>The first electric field pulse of cloud and cloud-to-ground lightning discharges
    Show others...
    2010 (English)In: Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, ISSN 1364-6826, E-ISSN 1879-1824, Vol. 72, no 2-3, 143-150 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    In this study, the first electric field pulse of cloud and cloud-to-ground discharges were analyzed and compared with other pulses of cloud discharges. Thirty eight cloud discharges and 101 cloud-to-ground discharges have been studied in this analysis. Pulses in cloud discharges were classified as [`]small', [`]medium' and [`]large', depending upon the value of their relative amplitude with respect to that of the average amplitude of the five largest pulses in the flash. We found that parameters, such as pulse duration, rise time, zero crossing time and full-width at half-maximum (FWHMs) of the first pulse of cloud and cloud-to-ground discharges are similar to small pulses that appear in the later stage of cloud discharges. Hence, we suggest that the mechanism of the first pulse of cloud and cloud-to-ground discharges and the mechanism of pulses at the later stage of cloud discharges could be the same.

    Keyword
    Cloud discharges, Electromagnetic field, Lightning, Electric field pulses
    National Category
    Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences Engineering and Technology
    Research subject
    Engineering Science with specialization in Atmospheric Discharges
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-140337 (URN)10.1016/j.jastp.2009.11.001 (DOI)
    Available from: 2011-01-05 Created: 2011-01-05 Last updated: 2017-12-11
    2. Radiation Field Spectra of Long-duration Cloud Flashes
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Radiation Field Spectra of Long-duration Cloud Flashes
    (English)In: IEEE transactions on electromagnetic compatibility (Print), ISSN 0018-9375, E-ISSN 1558-187XArticle in journal (Refereed) Submitted
    Abstract [en]

    The radiation electric fields produced by long-duration cloud flashes have been Fourier analyzed to determined the frequency spectrum in the range of 10 kHz to 10 MHz. The flashes were recorded within a distance of less than 20 km. The spectrum was normalized to 50 km distance and it shows a f-1 dependence within the entire frequency range.

    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-150952 (URN)
    Available from: 2011-04-08 Created: 2011-04-08 Last updated: 2017-12-11
    3. Characteristics of narrow bipolar pulses observed in Malaysia
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Characteristics of narrow bipolar pulses observed in Malaysia
    Show others...
    2010 (English)In: Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, ISSN 1364-6826, E-ISSN 1879-1824, Vol. 72, no 5-6, 534-540 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    Narrow bipolar pulses (NBPs) are considered as isolated intracloud events with higher peak amplitude and strong high frequency emission compared to the first return strokes and other intracloud discharges. From 182 NBPs recorded in Malaysia in the tropic, 75 were narrow negative bipolar pulses (NNBPs) while 107 were narrow positive bipolar pulses (NPBPs). The mean duration of NNBPs was 24.6 +/- 17.1 mu s, while 30.2 +/- 12.3 mu s was observed for NPBPs. The mean full-width at half-maximum (FVVHM) was 2.2 +/- 0.7 and 2.4 +/- 1.4 mu s for NNBPs and NPBPs, respectively. The mean peak amplitude of NPBPs normalized to 100 km was 22.7 V/m, a factor of 1.3 higher than that of NNBPs which is 17.6 V/m. In contrast to the previous studies, it was observed that the electric field change was characterized by a bipolar pulse with a significant amount of fine structures separated by a few tens of nanoseconds intervals, embedded on it. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

    Keyword
    Narrow bipolar pulses, Lightning, Cloud discharges, Electric field
    National Category
    Engineering and Technology
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-137067 (URN)10.1016/j.jastp.2010.02.006 (DOI)000276428600020 ()
    Available from: 2010-12-15 Created: 2010-12-15 Last updated: 2017-12-11Bibliographically approved
    4. Some features of electric field waveform of Narrow Bipolar Pulses
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Some features of electric field waveform of Narrow Bipolar Pulses
    (English)In: Atmospheric research, ISSN 0169-8095, E-ISSN 1873-2895Article in journal (Refereed) Submitted
    Abstract [en]

    Narrow Bipolar Pulses (NBPs) are generated by intra-cloud discharge processes and they are of interest due to their strong broadband and high frequency (HF) emissions. In this study, we present some features of electric field waveform of NBPs which have not been reported in the literature.  The HF emission was observed to begin simultaneously with the onset of NBPs indicating no streamers or stepped-leader process was taking place before the initiation of NBPs. The electric field waveforms of NBPs were characterized by many fine peaks embedded intermittently on the rising and decaying edge of NBPs suggesting that some small scale electrical discharges were involved during the formation of NBPs.

     

    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-150953 (URN)
    Available from: 2011-04-08 Created: 2011-04-08 Last updated: 2017-12-11
  • 9. Ahrentorp, Fredrik
    et al.
    Astalan, Andrea
    Blomgren, Jakob
    Jonasson, Christian
    Wetterskog, Erik
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Technology, Department of Engineering Sciences, Solid State Physics.
    Svedlindh, Peter
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Technology, Department of Engineering Sciences, Solid State Physics.
    Lak, Aidin
    Ludwig, Frank
    Van IJzendoorn, Leo J.
    Westphal, Fritz
    Gruettner, Cordula
    Gehrke, Nicole
    Gustafsson, Stefan
    Olsson, Eva
    Johansson, Christer
    Effective particle magnetic moment of multi-core particles2015In: Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, ISSN 0304-8853, E-ISSN 1873-4766, Vol. 380, 221-226 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this study we investigate the magnetic behavior of magnetic multi-core particles and the differences in the magnetic properties of multi-core and single-core nanoparticles and correlate the results with the nanostructure of the different particles as determined from transmission electron microscopy (TEM). We also investigate how the effective particle magnetic moment is coupled to the individual moments of the single-domain nanocrystals by using different measurement techniques: DC magnetometry, AC susceptometry, dynamic light scattering and TEM. We have studied two magnetic multi-core particle systems BNF Starch from Micromod with a median particle diameter of 100 am and FeraSpin R from nanoPET with a median particle diameter of 70 nm - and one single-core particle system - SHP25 from Ocean NanoTech with a median particle core diameter of 25 nm. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

  • 10.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Changing to Teaching and Learning in English2016Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Abstract

    In this presentation I give some of the background to my work in Language choice in higher education and present research on learning in English, teaching in English and disciplinary differences in the attitudes to English language use. The presentation ends with a summary of factors involved in language choice in order to facilitate a discussion amongst faculty about language choice in training courses for university staff.

  • 11.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Linneaus University.
    Changing to Teaching and Learning in English2015Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 12.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance: Teaching the Multimodal Discourse of University Science2017Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance: Teaching the

    Multimodal Discourse of University Science

    The natural sciences have been extremely successful in modeling some specific aspects

    of the world around us. This success is in no small part due to the creation of generally

    accepted, paradigmatic ways of representing the world through a range of semiotic

    resources. The discourse of science is of necessity multimodal (see for example Lemke,

    1998) and it is therefore important for undergraduate science students to learn to

    master this multimodal discourse (Airey & Linder, 2009). In this paper, I approach the

    teaching of multimodal science discourse via the concept of affordance.

    Since its introduction by Gibson (1979) the concept of affordance has been debated by a

    number of researchers. Most famous, perhaps is the disagreement between Gibson and

    Norman (1988) about whether affordances are inherent properties of objects or are

    only present when perceived by an organism. More recently, affordance has been

    drawn on in the educational arena, particularly with respect to multimodality (see

    Fredlund, 2015 for a recent example). Here, Kress et al (2001) have claimed that

    different modes have different specialized affordances.

    In the presentation the interrelated concepts of disciplinary affordance and pedagogical

    affordance will be presented. Both concepts make a radical break with the views of both

    Gibson and Norman in that rather than focusing on the perception of an individual, they

    refer to the disciplinary community as a whole. Disciplinary affordance is "the agreed

    meaning making functions that a semiotic resource fulfills for a disciplinary community".

    Similarly, pedagogical affordance is "the aptness of a semiotic resource for the teaching

    and learning of some particular educational content" (Airey, 2015). As such, in a

    teaching situation the question of whether these affordances are inherent or perceived

    becomes moot. Rather, the issue is the process through which students come to use

    semiotic resources in a way that is accepted within the discipline. In this characterization

    then, learning can be framed in terms of coming to perceive and leverage the

    disciplinary affordances of semiotic resources.

    In this paper, I will discuss: the disciplinary affordances of individual semiotic resources,

    how these affordances can be made “visible” to students and how the disciplinary

    affordances of semiotic resources are ultimately leveraged and coordinated in order to

    make science meanings.

    References:

    Airey J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis   Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala  Retrieved 2009-04-27, from   http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=9547

    Airey, J. (2011b). The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix: A Heuristic Tool for Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education.   Across the disciplines, 8(3), unpaginated.  Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/clil/airey.cfm

    Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik (pp. 41-58): Gleerups.

    Airey, J. (2014) Representations in Undergraduate Physics. Docent lecture, Ångström Laboratory, 9th June 2014 From   http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-226598

    Airey, J. (2016). Undergraduate Teaching with Multiple Semiotic Resources: Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance.   Paper presented at 8icom. University of Cape Town, Cape Town.

    Airey, J., & Eriksson, U. (2014). A semiotic analysis of the disciplinary affordances of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in   astronomy. Paper presented at the The 5th International 360 conference: Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge,   Aarhus, Denmark.

    Airey, J., Eriksson, U., Fredlund, T., and Linder, C. (2014). "The concept of disciplinary affordance "The 5th International 360   conference: Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge. City: Aarhus University: Aarhus, Denmark, pp. 20.

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). "A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical   constellation of modes." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49.

    Airey, J. & Linder, C. (2015) Social Semiotics in Physics Education: Leveraging critical constellations of disciplinary representations   ESERA 2015 From http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ase%3Auu%3Adiva-260209

    Airey, J. & Linder, C. (2017) Social Semiotics in University Physics Education: Multiple Representations in Physics Education   Springer. pp 85-122

    Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Who needs 3D when the Universe is flat? Science Education, 98(3),   412-442.

    Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Introducing the anatomy of disciplinary discernment: an example from   astronomy. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 167‐182.

    Fredlund 2015 Using a Social Semiotic Perspective to Inform the Teaching and Learning of Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

    Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students   sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33, 657-666.

    Fredlund, T, Airey, J, & Linder, C. (2015a). Enhancing the possibilities for learning: Variation of disciplinary-relevant aspects in   physics representations. European Journal of Physics.

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015b). Towards addressing transient learning challenges in undergraduate physics: an   example from electrostatics. European Journal of Physics. 36 055002.

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015c). A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects. International Journal for   Lesson and Learning Studies 2015 4:3 , 302-316.

    Fredlund, T., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Linder, A. (2014). Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary   affordance. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 10(020128).

    Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127-143). Boston: Houghton   Miffin.

    Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London: Arnold.

    Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1988). Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Linder, A., Airey, J., Mayaba, N., & Webb, P. (2014). Fostering Disciplinary Literacy? South African Physics Lecturers’ Educational Responses to their Students’ Lack of Representational Competence. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3), 242-252. doi:10.1080/10288457.2014.953294

    Lo, M. L. (2012). Variation theory and the improvement of teaching and learning (Vol. 323). Gothenburg: Göteborgs Universitet.

    Marton, F. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. New York: Routledge.

    Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Mavers, D. Glossary of multimodal terms  Retrieved 6 May, 2014, from http://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/affordance/

    Thibault, P. (1991). Social semiotics as praxis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.

    Wu, H-K, & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Pedagogical Affordances of Multiple External Representations in Scientific Processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 754-767.

  • 13.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Disciplinary literacy2013In: Scientific literacy: teori och praktik / [ed] E. Lundqvist, R. Säljö & L. Östman, Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups Utbildning AB, 2013, 41-58 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [sv]

    I detta kapitel läggs fram ett nytt begrepp, disciplinary literacy, som ett alternativ till scientific literacy. För varje ämne, disciplinary literacy inriktar sig mot kommunikativa praktiker inom tre miljöer: akademin, arbetsplatsen och samhället och definieras som förmågan att delta i dessa ämnesrelaterade kommunikativa praktiker på ett lämpligt sätt. Frågeställningen för kapitlet är om det kan vara givande att betrakta främjandet av studenters disciplinary literacy som ett av de huvudsakliga målen med universitetsstudier. Tillämpningen av begreppet illustreras genom material hämtat från ett forskningsprojekt där högskolelärare i fysik från Sverige och Sydafrika diskuterar de lärandemål de har för sina studenter.

  • 14.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Materials Science, Physics Didactics.
    Language and Engineering: Towards Bilingual Scientific Literacy2008In: Paper presented at the Engineering Education Development Conference, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 26-27 November., 2008Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 15.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University.
    Learning and Sharing Disciplinary Knowledge: The Role of Representations2017Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Learning and Sharing Disciplinary Knowledge: The Role of Representations.

    Abstract

    In recent years there has been a large amount of interest in the roles that different representations (graphs, algebra, diagrams, sketches, physical models, gesture, etc.) play in student learning. In the literature two distinct but interrelated ways of thinking about such representations can be identified. The first tradition draws on the principles of constructivism emphasizing that students need to build knowledge for themselves. Here students are encouraged to create their own representations by working with materials of various kinds and it is in this hands-on representational process that students come to develop their understanding.

    The second tradition holds that there are a number of paradigmatic ways of representing disciplinary knowledge that have been created and refined over time. These paradigmatic disciplinary representations need to be mastered in order for students to be able to both understand and effectively communicate knowledge within a given discipline.

    In this session I would like to open up a discussion about how these two ways of viewing representations might be brought together. To do this I will first present some of the theoretical and empirical work we have been doing in Sweden over the last fifteen years. In particular there are three concepts that I would like to introduce for our discussion: critical constellations of representations, the disciplinary affordance of representations and the pedagogical affordance of representations.

    References 

    Airey, J. (2006). Physics Students' Experiences of the Disciplinary Discourse Encountered in Lectures in English and Swedish.   Licentiate Thesis. Uppsala, Sweden: Department of Physics, Uppsala University.,

    Airey J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis   Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala  Retrieved 2009-04-27, from   http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=9547

    Airey, J. (2014) Representations in Undergraduate Physics. Docent lecture, Ångström Laboratory, 9th June 2014 From   http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-226598

    Airey, J. (2015). Social Semiotics in Higher Education: Examples from teaching and learning in undergraduate physics In: SACF   Singapore-Sweden Excellence Seminars, Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research in Higher   Education (STINT) , 2015 (pp. 103). urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-266049.

    Airey, J. & Linder, C. (2015) Social Semiotics in Physics Education: Leveraging critical constellations of disciplinary representations   ESERA 2015 From http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ase%3Auu%3Adiva-260209

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). "A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical   constellation of modes." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49.

    Airey, J. & Linder, C. (2017) Social Semiotics in Physics Education : Multiple Representations in Physics Education   Springer

    Airey, J., & Eriksson, U. (2014). A semiotic analysis of the disciplinary affordances of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in   astronomy. Paper presented at the The 5th International 360 conference: Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge,   Aarhus, Denmark.

    Airey, J., Eriksson, U., Fredlund, T., and Linder, C. (2014). "The concept of disciplinary affordance"The 5th International 360   conference: Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge. City: Aarhus University: Aarhus, Denmark, pp. 20.

    Eriksson, U. (2015) Reading the Sky: From Starspots to Spotting Stars Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

    Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Who needs 3D when the Universe is flat? Science Education, 98(3),   412-442.

    Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Introducing the anatomy of disciplinary discernment: an example from   astronomy. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 167‐182.

    Fredlund 2015 Using a Social Semiotic Perspective to Inform the Teaching and Learning of Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

    Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students   sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33, 657-666.

    Fredlund, T, Airey, J, & Linder, C. (2015a). Enhancing the possibilities for learning: Variation of disciplinary-relevant aspects in   physics representations. European Journal of Physics.

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015b). Towards addressing transient learning challenges in undergraduate physics: an   example from electrostatics. European Journal of Physics. 36 055002.

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015c). A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects. International Journal for   Lesson and Learning Studies 2015 4:3 , 302-316

    Fredlund, T., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Linder, A. (2014). Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary   affordance. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 10(020128).

    Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127-143). Boston: Houghton   Miffin.

    Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London: Arnold.

    Linder, C. (2013). Disciplinary discourse, representation, and appresentation in the teaching and learning of science. European   Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(2), 43-49.

    National Research Council. (2012). Discipline Based Education Research. Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Mavers, D. Glossary of multimodal terms  Retrieved 6 May, 2014, from http://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/affordance/

    van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.

    Wu, H-K, & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Pedagogical Affordances of Multiple External Representations in Scientific Processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 754-767.

     

     

  • 16.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics, Physics Didactics. Physics Education Research.
    När undervisningsspråket blir engelska2006In: Språkvård, ISSN 0038-8440, no 4, 20-25 p.Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Engelska blir vanligare och vanligare som undervisningsspråk i högre utbildning. Vad händer med ämnesinlärningen när undervisningsspråket blir engelska? John Airey har undersökt svenska fysikstudenter. Det behövs många goda råd för att undervisningen ska fungera.

  • 17.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics, Physics Didactics.
    Physics Students' Experiences of the Disciplinary Discourse Encountered in Lectures in English and Swedish2006Licentiate thesis, monograph (Other scientific)
  • 18.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Representations in Undergraduate Physics2014Other (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Representations in undergraduate physics

    Problem solving is one of the most important parts of undergraduate physics education, yet a huge body of international research has clearly shown that simply being able to solve a set of physics problems correctly is not a good indicator of students having attained appropriate physics understanding. Grounded in a comparison of the way experts and novices solve problems, the research focus has gradually shifted towards the importance of representational competence in solving physics problems.Physicists use a wide range of representations to communicate physics knowledge (e.g. mathematics,  graphs, diagrams, and spoken and written language, etc.). Many of these representations are highly specialized and have been developed and refined into their present form over time. It is the appropriate coordination of these different representations that allows complex physics meanings to be made and shared. Experienced physicists naturally maintain coherence as they move from one representation to the next in order to solve a physics problem. For students, however, learning to appropriately use physics representations in this way is a challenging task. This lecture addresses the critical role that representations play in undergraduate physics education. The research that has been carried out in this area will be summarized and a number of theoretical constructs that have been developed in the Division of Physics Education Research will be presented and illustrated using empirical data. The consequences of this research work for the teaching and learning of undergraduate physics will be discussed.

  • 19.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Research on physics teaching and learning, physics teacher education, and physics culture at Uppsala University2017Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This project compares the affordances and constraints for physics teachers’ professional identity building across four countries. The results of the study will be related to the potential consequences of this identity building for pupils’ science performance in school. The training of future physics teachers typically occurs across three environments, the physics department, the education department and school (during teaching practice). As they move through these three environments, trainees are in the process of building their professional identity. However, what is signalled as valuable for a future physics teacher differs considerably in different parts of the education. In educational research, professional identity has been used in a variety of ways (See for example overviews of the concept in Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; and Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004). In this project we draw on the work of Sfard and Pruzak (2005) who have defined identity as an analytical category for use in educational research. The project leverages this concept of identity as an analytical tool to understand how the value-systems present in teacher training environments and society as a whole potentially affect the future practice of trainee physics teachers. For identities to be recognized as professional they must fit into accepted discourses. Thus the project endeavours to identify discourse models that tacitly steer the professional identity formation of future physics teachers. Interviews will be carried out with trainee physics teachers and the various training staff that they meet during their education (physics lecturers, education lecturers, school mentors). It has been suggested that the perceived status of the teaching profession in society has a major bearing on the type of professional identity teachers can enact. Thus, in this project research interviews will be carried out in parallel across four countries with varying teacher status and PISA science scores: Sweden, Finland, Singapore and England. These interviews will be analysed following the design developed in a pilot study that has already carried out by the project group in Sweden. The research questions for the project are as follows: In four countries where the societal status of the teaching profession differs widely: What discourse models are enacted in the educational environments trainee physics teachers meet? What are the potential affordances and constraints of these discourse models for the constitution of physics teacher professional identities? In what ways do perceptions of the status assigned by society to the teaching profession potentially affect this professional identity building? What are the potential consequences of the answers to the above questions for the view of science communicated to pupils in school? In an extensive Swedish pilot study, four potentially competing discourse models were identified: these are: the critically reflective teacher, the practically well-equipped teacher, the syllabus implementer and the physics expert. Of these, the physics expert discourse model was found to dominate in both the physics department and amongst mentors in schools. In the physics expert discourse model the values of the discipline of physics dominate. Thus, the overarching goal of physics teaching is to create future physicists. In this model, the latest research in physics is seen as interesting and motivating, whereas secondary school subject matter is viewed as inherently unsophisticated and boring—something that needs to be made interesting. The model co-exists with the three other discourse models, which were more likely to be enacted in the education department. These other models value quite different goals such as the development of practical skills, reflective practice, critical thinking and citizenship. We claim that knowledge of the different discourse models at work in four countries with quite different outcomes on PISA science will useful in a number of ways. For teacher trainers, a better understanding of these models would allow informed decisions to be taken about the coordination of teacher education. For prospective teachers, knowledge of the discourse models at work during their education empowers them to question the kind of teacher they want to become.

  • 20.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University.
    Semiotic Resources and Disciplinary Literacy2017Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Semiotic Resources and Disciplinary Literacy

    Project leader: John Airey, Reader in Physics Education Research, Uppsala University

    Type of funding: Four-year position as Research Assistant

    Contact details: john.airey@physics.uu.se

     

    Abstract

    In this research project we focused on the different semiotic resources used in physics (e.g. graphs, diagrams, language, mathematics, apparatus, etc.). We were interested in the ways in which undergraduate physics students learn to combine the different resources used in physics in order to become “disciplinary literate” and what university lecturers do to help their students in this process. Comparative data on the disciplinary literacy goals of physics lecturers for their students was collected at five universities in South Africa and four universities in Sweden.

    One of the main contributions of the project concerned what we termed the disciplinary affordance of a semiotic resource, that is, the specific meaning-making functions a particular resource plays for the discipline. We contrasted these meaning-making functions with the way that students initially viewed the same resource.

    We proposed two ways that lecturers can direct their students’ attention towards the disciplinary affordances of a given resource. The first involves unpacking the disciplinary affordance in order to create a new resource with higher pedagogical affordance. Our second proposal involved the use of systematic variation in order to help students notice the disciplinary relevant aspects of a given resource. A total of 19 articles/book chapters were published as a direct result of this funding.

    Selected publications

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2017). Social Semiotics in University Physics Education. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. H. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Physics Education (pp. 95-122). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman & R. Säljö (Eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik (pp. 41-58). Lund: Gleerups.

    Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Introducing the Anatomy of Disciplinary Discernment An example for Astronomy. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 167-182. 

    Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Who needs 3D when the Universe is flat? Science Education 98(3), 412-442.

    Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2015). Enhancing the possibilities for learning: variation of disciplinary-relevant aspects in physics representations. European Journal of Physics. 36, (5), 055001.

    Fredlund, T., Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015). A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies. 4 (3), 302-316

    Fredlund, T., Linder, C. Airey, J., & Linder, A.  (2014) Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance. Physical Review: Special Topics Physics Education Research 10, 020129

    Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33, 657-666.

    Linder, A., Airey, J., Mayaba, N., & Webb, P. (2014). Fostering Disciplinary Literacy? South African Physics Lecturers’ Responses to their Students’ Lack of Representational Competence. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18, (3), 242-252.  

     

  • 21.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Social Semiotics in Higher Education: Examples from teaching and learning in undergraduate physics2015In: SACF Singapore-Sweden Excellence Seminars, Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research in Higher Education (STINT) , 2015, 103- p.Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Social semiotics is a broad construct where all communication in a particular social group is viewed as being realized by the use of semiotic resources. In social semiotics the particular meaning assigned to these semiotic resources is negotiated within the group itself and has often developed over an extended period of time. In the discipline of physics, examples of such semiotic resources are; graphs, diagrams, mathematics, language, etc. 

    In this presentation, social semiotics is used to build theory with respect to the construction and sharing of disciplinary knowledge in the teaching and learning of university physics. Based on empirical studies of physics students, a number of theoretical constructs have been developed in our research group. These constructs are: disciplinary affordance, disciplinary discourse, discursive fluency, discourse imitation and critical constellations. I will present these constructs and examine their usefulness for problematizing teaching and learning with multiple representations in higher education.

  • 22.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Materials Science, Physics Didactics.
    Teaching in English: The effects of language choice on student learning in Swedish university science2008In: Paper presented at the International Research Conference on Language Planning and Language Policy, Saltsjöbaden, Stockholm, 9-10 June., 2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 23.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    The ability of students to explain science concepts in two languages2010In: Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication Studies, ISSN 0904-1699, E-ISSN 1903-1785, Vol. 45, 35-49 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 24.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    The relationship between teaching language and student learning in Swedish university physics2011In: Language and learning in the international university: From English uniformity to diversity and hybridity / [ed] B. Preisler, I. Klitgård & A. Fabricius, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2011, 3-18 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 25.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Undergraduate Teaching and Learning in English2016Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In this presentation I discuss the use of English in the teaching and learning of undergraduate physics. Research is presented on what happens when students change to learning in English and what happens when university lecturers change to teaching in English. The presentation concludes by suggesting that the use of English in any given course or programme should be pedagogically motvated and that this should be set out in the learning outcomes of the syllabus. This suggests that physics courses taught in the meduim of English should have language learning outcomes. This in turn suggests that these outcomes should be both taught and tested as part of the course.

  • 26.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. School of Languages and Literature Linnæus University, Sweden.
    Undergraduate Teaching with Multiple Semiotic Resources: Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance2016Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Since its introduction by Gibson (1979) the concept of affordance has been discussed at length by a number of researchers. Most famous, perhaps is the disagreement between Gibson and Norman (1988) about whether affordances are inherent properties of objects or are only present when perceived by an organism. More recently, affordance has been drawn on in the educational arena, particularly with respect to multimodality (see Fredlund et al 2015 for a recent example). Here, Kress et al (2001) have claimed that different modes have different specialized affordances. In this paper the interrelated concepts of disciplinary affordance and pedagogical affordance are discussed. Both concepts make a radical break with the views of both Gibson and Norman in that rather than focusing on the perception of an individual, they refer to the disciplinary community as a whole. Disciplinary affordance is "the agreed meaning making functions that a semiotic resource fulfils for a disciplinary community". Similarly, pedagogical affordance is "the aptness of a semiotic resource for the teaching and learning of some particular educational content" (Airey 2015). As such, the question of whether these affordances are inherent or perceived becomes moot. Rather, the issue is the process through which students can come to see semiotic resources in a way that corresponds to the disciplinary affordance accepted within the discipline. The power of the term, then, is that learning can now be framed as coming to perceive the disciplinary affordances of semiotic resources. In this paper I will briefly discuss the history of the term affordance, define the terms disciplinary affordance and pedagogical affordance and illustrate their usefulness in a number of educational settings.

    References

    Airey J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis   Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala  Retrieved 2009-04-27, from   http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=9547

    Airey, J. (2011b). The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix: A Heuristic Tool for Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education.   Across the disciplines, 8(3), unpaginated.  Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/clil/airey.cfm

    Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik

       (pp. 41-58): Gleerups.

    Airey, J. (2014) Representations in Undergraduate Physics. Docent lecture, Ångström Laboratory, 9th June 2014 From   http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-226598

    Airey, J. (2016). Undergraduate Teaching with Multiple Semiotic Resources: Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance.   Paper presented at 8icom. University of Cape Town, Cape Town.

    Airey, J., & Eriksson, U. (2014). A semiotic analysis of the disciplinary affordances of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in   astronomy. Paper presented at the The 5th International 360 conference: Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge,   Aarhus, Denmark.

    Airey, J., Eriksson, U., Fredlund, T., and Linder, C. (2014). "The concept of disciplinary affordance "The 5th International 360   conference: Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge. City: Aarhus University: Aarhus, Denmark, pp. 20.

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). "A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical   constellation of modes." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49.

    Airey, J. & Linder, C. (2015) Social Semiotics in Physics Education: Leveraging critical constellations of disciplinary representations   ESERA 2015 From http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ase%3Auu%3Adiva-260209

    Airey, J. & Linder, C. (in press) Social Semiotics in University Physics Education: Multiple Representations in Physics Education   Springer.

    Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Who needs 3D when the Universe is flat? Science Education, 98(3),   412-442.

    Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Introducing the anatomy of disciplinary discernment: an example from   astronomy. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 167‐182. 

    Fredlund 2015 Using a Social Semiotic Perspective to Inform the Teaching and Learning of Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

    Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students   sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33, 657-666.

    Fredlund, T, Airey, J, & Linder, C. (2015a). Enhancing the possibilities for learning: Variation of disciplinary-relevant aspects in   physics representations. European Journal of Physics.

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015b). Towards addressing transient learning challenges in undergraduate physics: an   example from electrostatics. European Journal of Physics. 36 055002.

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015c). A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects. International Journal for   Lesson and Learning Studies 2015 4:3 , 302-316.

    Fredlund, T., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Linder, A. (2014). Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary   affordance. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 10(020128).

    Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127-143). Boston: Houghton   Miffin.

    Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London: Arnold.

               Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1988). Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Linder, A., Airey, J., Mayaba, N., & Webb, P. (2014). Fostering Disciplinary Literacy? South African Physics Lecturers’ Educational Responses to their Students’ Lack of Representational Competence. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3), 242-252. doi:10.1080/10288457.2014.953294

    Lo, M. L. (2012). Variation theory and the improvement of teaching and learning (Vol. 323). Gothenburg: Göteborgs Universitet.

    Marton, F. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. New York: Routledge.

    Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Mavers, D. Glossary of multimodal terms  Retrieved 6 May, 2014, from http://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/affordance/

               Thibault, P. (1991). Social semiotics as praxis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.

    Wu, H-K, & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Pedagogical Affordances of Multiple External Representations in Scientific Processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 754-767.

  • 27.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Undervisning på engelska oftare i Norden än i Europa2009Other (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 28.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Linneuniversitet.
    Berge, Maria
    Umeå.
    That's Funny!: The humorous effect of misappropriating  disciplinary-specific semiotic resources2014Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The socialization of disciplinary outsiders into an academic discipline has been described both in terms of becoming fluent in a disciplinary discourse (Airey, 2009; Airey & Linder, 2009; Northedge, 2002) and achieving disciplinary literacy (Airey, 2011, 2013; Geisler, 1994). In this paper we investigate disciplinary boundaries by documenting the responses of academics to a semiotic disciplinary hybrid. The hybrid we use is the Physikalisches Lied, a bogus piece of sheet music into which disciplinary-specific semiotic resources from the realm of physics have been incorporated to humorous effect.

    The piece is presented to three distinct disciplinary focus groups: physicists, musicians and a group of academics who have had little contact with either discipline. In order to elicit disciplinary responses that are free from researcher prompts, each focus group is first asked the simple, open-ended question What do you see here? Once discussion of this question is exhausted the focus groups are asked to identify as many puns as they can—essentially all the disciplinary items that they feel have been misappropriated—and to attempt to explain what this means from a disciplinary standpoint. The differences in the responses of the three groups are presented and analysed.

    We argue that semiotic material focused on by each of the three groups and the nature of the explanation offered, provide evidence of the degree of integration into the disciplines of physics and music. Our findings shed light on the process of becoming a disciplinary insider and the semiotic work involved in this process.

  • 29.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Eriksson, Urban
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    On the Disciplinary Affordances of Semiotic Resources2014Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In the late 70’s Gibson (1979) introduced the concept of affordance. Initially framed around the needs of an organism in its environment, over the years the term has been appropriated and debated at length by a number of researchers in various fields. Most famous, perhaps is the disagreement between Gibson and Norman (1988) about whether affordances are inherent properties of objects or are only present when they are perceived by an organism. More recently, affordance has been drawn on in the educational arena, particularly with respect to multimodality (see Linder (2013) for a recent example). Here, Kress et al. (2001) have claimed that different modes have different specialized affordances. Then, building on this idea, Airey and Linder (2009) suggested that there is a critical constellation of modes that students need to achieve fluency in before they can experience a concept in an appropriate disciplinary manner. Later, Airey (2009) nuanced this claim, shifting the focus from the modes themselves to a critical constellation of semiotic resources, thus acknowledging that different semiotic resources within a mode often have different affordances (e.g. two or more diagrams may form the critical constellation).

    In this theoretical paper the concept of disciplinary affordance (Fredlund et al., 2012) is suggested as a useful analytical tool for use in education. The concept makes a radical break with the views of both Gibson and Norman in that rather than focusing on the discernment of one individual, it refers to the disciplinary community as a whole. Put simply, the disciplinary affordances of a given semiotic resource are determined by those functions that the resource is expected to fulfil by the disciplinary community. Disciplinary affordances have thus been negotiated and developed within the discipline over time. As such, the question of whether these affordances are inherent or discerned becomes moot. Rather, from an educational perspective the issue is whether the meaning that a semiotic resource affords to an individual matches the disciplinary affordance assigned by the community. The power of the term for educational work is that learning can now be framed as coming to discern the disciplinary affordances of semiotic resources.

    In this paper we will briefly discuss the history of the term affordance, define the term disciplinary affordance and illustrate its usefulness in a number of educational settings.

  • 30.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University Sweden.
    Grundström Lindqvist, Josefine
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Kung, Rebecca
    Independent Researcher.
    What does it mean to understand a physics equation?: A study of undergraduate answers In three countries2017Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    What does it mean to understand a physics Equation?   A study of Undergraduate answers In Three countries.

    John Airey1,2 Josefine Grundström Lindqvist1 Rebecca Kung3

    1Department of Physics, Uppsala University, Sweden

    2Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Sweden

    3Independent researcher, Grosse Ile, MI, USA.        

                                                    

    In this paper we are interested in how undergraduate students in the US, Australia and Sweden experience the physics equations they meet in their education. We asked over 350 students the same simple question: How do you know when you understand a physics equation? Students wrote free-text answers to this question and these were transcribed and coded. The analysis resulted in eight themes (significance, origin, describe, predict, parts, relationships, calculate and explain). Each of these themes represents a different disciplinary aspect of student understanding of physics equations. We argue that together the different aspects we find represent a more holistic view of physics equations that we would like all our students to experience. Based on this work we wondered how best to highlight this more holistic view of equations. This prompted us to write a set of questions that reflect the original data with respect to the eight themes. We suggest that when students are working with problem solving they may ask themselves these questions in order to check their holistic understanding of what the physics equations they are using represent. In continuing work we are asking the same question to a cohort of physics lecturers. We are also trialling the themes and related questions that we generated in teaching situations. Here we are interested in whether students perceive the questions as helpful in their learning.

    Keywords: International Studies in Education, Physics, Higher Education

    Background

    As a discipline, physics is concerned with describing the world by constructing models, the end product of this modelling process often being an equation. Despite their importance in the representation of physics knowledge, physics equations have received surprisingly little attention in the literature. The work that has been done has tended to focus on the use of equations in problem solving (see Hsu, Brewe, Foster, & Harper, 2004 for an overview and Hegde & Meera, 2012 for a more recent example). One significant study is that of Sherin (2001) who examined students ability to construct equations. The majority of work suggests that many students in calculus-based physics courses focus their attention exclusively on selecting an equation and substituting in known values—so called “plug and chug” (see Tuminaro 2004). This behaviour—what Redish (1994) has termed the “Dead Leaves” approach to physics equations—has been framed as a major hurdle to students’ ability to see the bigger picture of physics. However, very little work has examined what students think it means to understand a physics equation, the only work we could locate was that of Domert et al, 2007 and Hechter, 2010. Building on these two sources this study examines student understanding of physics equations in three countries. Our research questions are:

    1. How do students in three countries say they know that they have understood a physics equation?
    2. What different disciplinary aspects of equations can be seen in an analysis of the complete set of answers to research question 1?
    3. How might a more holistic view of the understanding of equations be communicated to students?

    Method

    This qualitative study uses a research design based on minimum input and maximised output. We asked students in the US (n=83), Australia (n=168) and Sweden (n=105) the same simple question:

    How do you know when you understand a physics equation?

    Students wrote free-text answers to this question and these were transcribed and coded. Using qualitative analysis techniques drawn from the phenomenographic tradition, the whole dataset was then treated as a “pool of meaning” (See Airey, 2012 for an example of this type of analysis).

    Analysis and Results

    In our analysis we initially looked for differences across countries, however it quickly became apparent that there was a range of answers that repeated across countries. This led us to treat the data as a single set. This first analysis resulted in 15 preliminary categories. These categories were later broken up and reconstructed to form eight themes: Significance, Origin, Describe, Predict, Parts, Relationships, Calculate and Explain. We suggest that each of these eight themes represents a different disciplinary aspect of the expressed student understanding of physics equations. We argue that together the different aspects we find represent a more holistic view of physics equations that we would like all our students to experience. Based on this work we wondered how best to highlight this more holistic view of equations. This prompted us to write a set of questions that reflect the original data with respect to the eight themes:

    1      Significance: Why, when, where

    Do you know why the equation is needed?

    Do you know where the equation can and cannot be used? (boundary conditions/areas of physics).

    Do you understand what the equation means for its area of physics?

    What status does this equation have in physics? (fundamental law, empirical approximation, mathematical conversion, etc.).

    2      Origin

    Do you know the historical roots of the equation?

    Can you derive the equation?

    3      Describe/visualize

    Can you use the equation to describe a real-life situation?

    Can you describe an experiment that the equation models?

    Can you visualize the equation by drawing diagrams, graphs etc.

    4      Predict

    Can you use the equation to predict?

    5      Parts

    Can you describe the physical meaning of each of the components of the equation?

    How does a change in one component affect other components in the equation?

    Can you manipulate/rearrange the equation?

    6      Other equations

    Can you relate this equation to other equations you know?

    Can you construct the equation from other equations that you know?

    7      Calculate

    Can you use the equation to solve a physics problem?

    Can you use the equation to solve a physics problem in a different context than the one in which it was presented?

    When you use the equation to calculate an answer do you know:

    • How your answer relates to the original variables?
    • The physical meaning of this answer?
    • Whether your answer is reasonable?

    8      Explain

    Can you explain the equation to someone else?

    Discussion and conclusion

    The motivation for this study came from an experience the first author had a number of years ago. In an interview situation, students were asked in passing about whether they understood a certain equation. They replied “yes” and that the equation was “trivial”. However when questioned about what one of the terms in the equation meant and the students did not know! The students clearly meant that the equation was trivial from a mathematical point of view—they knew they could easily use the equation to “calculate stuff” so they said that they understood it. In Redish’s (1994) terms they were using the “Dead Leaves” approach to physics equations.

    We believe the questions we have generated in this study have the potential to help physics students who think they understand a physics equation to check whether there might be other aspects that they may not yet have considered.

    Our questions are based on student-generated data. Potentially physics lecturers could experience physics equations in even more complex ways. In continuing work we are therefore asking the same question to a cohort of physics lecturers. We are also trialling the themes and related questions that we generated in various teaching situations. Here we are interested in whether students perceive the questions as helpful in their learning.

    Acknowledgements

    Support from the Swedish Research Council, VR project no. 2016-04113, is gratefully acknowledged.

    REFERENCES

    Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79.

    Domert, D., Airey, J., Linder, C., & Kung, R. (2007). An exploration of university physics students' epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations. NorDiNa,Nordic Studies in Science Education(3), 15-28.

    Hechter, R. P. (2010). What does it understand the equation' really mean? Physics Education, 45(132).

    Hegde, B. & Meera, B. N. (2012). How do they solve it? An insight into the learner's approach to the mechanism of physics problem solving. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010109

    Hsu, L., Brewe, E., Foster, T. M., & Harper, K. A. (2004). Resource Letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 72(9), 1147-1156.

    Redish, E. (1994). The implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. American Journal of Physics, 62(6), 796-803.

    Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognitive Instruction, 19, 479-541.

    Tuminaro, J. (2004). A Cognitive framework for analyzing and describing introductory students' use of mathematics in physics. PhD Thesis. University of Maryland, Physics Department.

     

  • 31.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Larsson, Johanna
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    What Knowledge Do Trainee Physics Teachers Need to Learn?: Differences in the Views of Training Staff2014In: International Science Education Conference 2014 Programme, Singapore: Ministry of Education, National Institute of Education , 2014, 62- p.Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Although the impact of disciplinary differences on teaching and learning has been extensively discussed in the literature (e.g. Becher 1989; Becher and Trowler 2001; Lindblom-Ylännea et al. 2006; Neumann 2001; Neumann and Becher 2002), little research has explored this issue in relation to teacher training. In particular, we know of no work that examines differing views about the knowledge that trainee teachers need to learn across different settings. In this paper we analyse differences in the expressed views of staff involved in the training of prospective physics teachers in three environments: the education department, the physics department and schools. We analyse these differences in terms of two constructs: disciplinary literacy goals (Airey 2011, 2013) and disciplinary knowledge structures (Bernstein 1999).

    In terms of disciplinary literacy we find a stronger emphasis on learning goals for the academy expressed by informants from the physics and education departments. This can be contrasted with the view that the needs of the workplace are paramount expressed by school practitioners.

    Then, using Bernstein’s knowledge structures, we also identify clear differences in views about the nature of knowledge itself with a more hierarchical view of knowledge prevalent in the physics department and the more horizontal view of knowledge prevalent in the education department.

    The study highlights the often-conflicting signals about what constitutes useful knowledge that prospective physics teachers need to negotiate during their training. We tentatively suggest that more attention should be paid to both the theory/practice divide and potential epistemological differences in the training of prospective teachers.

  • 32.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University.
    Larsson, Johanna
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Linder, Anne
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Investigating Undergraduate Physics Lecturers’ Disciplinary Literacy Goals For Their Students2017Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Investigating Undergraduate Physics Lecturers’ disciplinary literacy Goals for their students.

    Abstract

     In this presentation we use the concept of disciplinary literacy (Airey, 2011a; 2013) to analyse the expressed learning goals of university physics lecturers for their students. We define disciplinary literacy in terms of learning to control a particular set of multimodal communicative practices. We believe it is important to document the expressed intentions of lecturers in this way, since it has previously been suggested that the development of such disciplinary literacy may be seen as one of the primary goals of university studies (Airey, 2011a).

    The main data set used in this presentation comes from a comparative study of 30 physics lecturers from Sweden and South Africa. (Airey, 2012, 2013; Linder et al, 2014). Semi-structured interviews were carried out using a disciplinary literacy discussion matrix (Airey, 2011b), which enabled us to probe the lecturers’ disciplinary literacy goals in the various semiotic resource systems used in undergraduate physics (e.g. graphs, diagrams, mathematics, spoken and written languages, etc.).

    The findings suggest that physics lecturers in both countries have strikingly similar disciplinary literacy goals for their students and hold similar beliefs about disciplinary semiotic resources. The lecturers also agree that teaching disciplinary literacy ought not to be their job. Here though, there were differences in whether the lecturers teach students to handle disciplinary-specific semiotic resources. These differences appear to be based on individual decisions, rather than being specific to a particular country or institution.

    Keywords: Higher education, Scientific literacy, Representations.

    Introduction: disciplinary literacy

    In this presentation we examine the notion of disciplinary literacy in university physics (see Airey, 2011a, 2011b, 2013 and the extensive overview in Moje, 2007). Drawing on the work of Gee (1991), Airey (2001a) has broadened the definition of literacy to include semiotic resource systems other than language, defining disciplinary literacy as:

    The ability to appropriately participate in the communicative practices of a discipline.

    He goes on to suggest that the development of disciplinary literacy may be seen as one of the primary goals of university studies. In this study we use this disciplinary literacy concept to compare and problematize the goals of undergraduate physics lecturers in Sweden and South Africa.

    Research questions

    Our research questions for this study are:

    1. What do physics lecturers at universities in Sweden and South Africa say about disciplinary literacy in terms of the range of semiotic resources they want their students to learn to master?
    2. To what extent do these physics lecturers say that they themselves take responsibility for the development of this disciplinary literacy in their students?

    Data Collection

    The data set used for this presentation is taken from a comparative research project where 30 university physics lecturers from a total of nine universities in Sweden (4) and South Africa (5) described the disciplinary literacy goals they have for their students (Airey, 2012, 2013; Linder et al, 2014). A disciplinary literacy discussion matrix (Airey, 2011b) was used as the basis for in-depth, semi-structured interviews.

    These were conducted in English and lasted approximately 60 minutes each. In the interviews the lecturers were encouraged to talk about the semiotic resources they think their students need to learn to control.

    Analysis

    The analysis drew on ideas from the phenomenographic research tradition by treating the interview transcripts as a single data set or “pool of meaning” (Marton & Booth, 1997: 133). The aim was to understand the expressed disciplinary literacy goals of the physics lecturers interviewed. Following the approach to qualitative data analysis advocated by Bogdan and Biklen (1992), iterative cycles were made through the data looking for patterns and key statements. Each cycle resulted in loosely labeled categories that were often split up, renamed or amalgamated in the next iteration. More background and details of the approach used can be found in Airey (2012).

    Results and Discussion

    Analysis of the 30 interviews resulted in the identification of four themes with respect to the lecturers’ disciplinary literacy goals:

    1. Teaching physics is not the same thing as developing students’ disciplinary literacy.

    All the lecturers expressed a strong commitment that physics is independent of the semiotic resources used to construct it. For them, developing disciplinary literacy and teaching physics were quite separate things.

    These are tools, physics is something else. Physics is more than the sum of these tools it’s the way physicists think about things—a shared reference of how to analyse things around you.

    This theme challenges contemporary thinking in education and linguistics. Halliday and Martin (1993, p. 9) for example insist that communicative practices are not some sort of passive reflection of a priori disciplinary knowledge, but rather are actively engaged in bringing knowledge into being. In science education, an even more radical stance has been taken by Wickman and Östman (2002), who insist that disciplinary learning itself should be viewed as a form of discourse change.

    1. Disciplinary literacy in a range of semiotic resources is necessary for learning physics.

    All the lecturers in the study felt it was desirable that students develop disciplinary literacy in a range of semiotic resources in order to cope with their studies. In many ways this finding is unremarkable, with a number of researchers having commented on the wide range of semiotic systems needed for appropriate knowledge construction and communication in physics (e.g. Airey, 2009; Lemke, 1998; McDermott, 1990; Parodi, 2012).

    1. Developing disciplinary literacy is not really the job of a physics teacher.

    All physics lecturers expressed frustration at the low levels of disciplinary literacy in their students, feeling that they really should not have to work with the development of these skills, e.g.:

    I cannot say that I test them or train them in English. Of course they can always come and ask me, but I don’t think that I take responsibility for training them in English

    Northedge (2002) holds that the role of a university lecturer should be one of a discourse guide leading “excursions” into disciplinary discourse. However, although some lecturers actually did in fact work in this way (see category 4) the none of physics lecturers interviewed in this study felt comfortable with this role.

    1. Some teachers were prepared to take responsibility for the development of certain aspects of students’ disciplinary literacy.

    Nonetheless, some physics lecturers did say that the development of students’ disciplinary literacy would be something that they would work with. In these cases, lecturers (somewhat grudgingly) took on Northedge’s (2002) role of a discourse guide. This position was most common for mathematics, which was seen as essential for an understanding of physics (see Airey, 2012. p. 75 for further discussion of this theme).

    To be able to express it in a precise enough way you need mathematics. Language is more limited than mathematics in this case. So they need to use mathematics to see physics rather than language.

     

    Conclusion

    In this presentation we have applied the concept of disciplinary literacy to the goals of university physics lecturers. Lecturers reported their belief that disciplinary literacy in a wide range of semiotic resources is a necessary condition for physics learning. However, the same lecturers do not feel the development of this disciplinary literacy is their job. Although some lecturers were prepared to help students develop specific aspects of disciplinary literacy, all the lecturers interviewed believed that teaching physics is something that is separate from teaching disciplinary literacy. Here, Airey has argued that:

    Until lecturers see their role as one of socialising students into the discourse of their discipline…[they] will continue to insist that they are not [teachers of disciplinary literacy] and that this should be a job for someone else.                                                                                                                        (Airey, 2011b, p. 50)

    References

    Airey, J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala, Sweden.: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A173193&dswid=-4725.

    Airey, J. (2011a). The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix: A Heuristic Tool for Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education. Across the disciplines, 8(3), unpaginated.

    Airey, J. (2011b). Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education: Disciplinary Literacy and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: theory, research, and reflections (pp. 57-65). Cape Town, South Africa: Cape Peninsula University of Technology.

    Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79.

    Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik (pp. 41-58): Gleerups.

    Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. R. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. (2 ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

    Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3-11). New York: Bergin & Garvey.

    Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.

    Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm.

    Linder, A., Airey, J., Mayaba, N., & Webb, P. (2014). Fostering Disciplinary Literacy? South African Physics Lecturers’ Educational Responses to their Students’ Lack of Representational Competence. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3), 242-252. doi:10.1080/10288457.2014.953294

    Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    McDermott, L. (1990). A view from physics. In M. Gardner, J. G. Greeno, F. Reif, A. H. Schoenfeld, A. A. diSessa, & E. Stage (Eds.), Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing Socially Just Subject-Matter Instruction: A Review of the Literature on Disciplinary Literacy Teaching. Review of Research in Education 31 (March 2007), 1–44.

    Northedge, A. (2002). Organizing excursions into specialist discourse communities: A sociocultural account of university teaching. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century. Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 252-264). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Parodi, G. (2012) University Genres and Multisemiotic Features: Accessing Specialized Knowledge Through Disciplinarity. Fórum Linguístico. 9:4, 259-282.

    Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86(5), 601-623.

  • 33.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Linder, Anne
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Mayaba, Nokhanyo
    Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
    Webb, Paul
    Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
    Problematising Disciplinary Literacy in a Multilingual Society: The Case of University Physics in South Africa.2013Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Problematising Disciplinary Literacy in a Multilingual Society:The Case of University Physics in South Africa

     

    John Airey1,3 Anne Linder1, Nokhanyo Mayaba 2 & Paul Webb2

    1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Sweden.

    2 Centre for Educational Research, Technology and Innovation, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa.

    3 School of Languages and Literature, Linnæus University, Sweden

    john.airey@physics.uu.se, anne.linder@physics.uu.se, nokhanyo.mayaba@nmmu.ac.za, paul.webb@nmmu.ac.za

    Abstract

    Over a decade has passed since Northedge (2002) convincingly argued that the role of the university lecturer should be viewed as one of leading students on excursions into the specialist discourse of their field. In his view, disciplinary discourses have come into being in order to create and share disciplinary knowledge that could not otherwise be appropriately construed in everyday discourse. Thus, Northedge’s conclusion is that in order for disciplinary learning to occur, students will need explicit guidance in accessing and using the specialist discourse of their chosen field. Building on this work, Airey (in press) argues that all university lecturers are, at least to some extent, teachers of language—even in monolingual settings. A radical approach to this claim has been suggested by Wickman and Östman (2002) who insist that learning itself be treated as a form of discourse change.

    In an attempt to operationalise Wickman and Östman’s assertion, Airey (2011b) suggests that the goals of any undergraduate degree programme may be framed in terms of the development of disciplinary literacy. Here, disciplinary literacy is defined as the ability to appropriately participate in the communicative practices of a discipline. Further, in his subsequent work, Airey (2011a) claims that all disciplines attempt to meet the needs of three specific sites: the academy, the workplace and society. He argues that the relative emphasis placed on teaching for these three sites will be different from discipline to discipline and will indeed vary within a discipline depending on the setting. In the South African setting two questions arise from this assertion. The first is: For any given discipline, what particular balance between teaching for the academy, the workplace and society is desirable and/or practicable? The second question follows on from the first: Having pragmatically decided on the teaching balance between the academy, workplace and society, what consequences does the decision have for the language(s) that lecturers should be helping their students to interpret and use? In order to address these two questions we conducted an interview-based case study of the disciplinary literacy goals of South African university lecturers in one particular discipline (physics). Thus, our overarching research question is as follows: How do South African physics lecturers problematise the development of disciplinary literacy in their students?

    The data collected forms part of a larger international comparative study of the disciplinary literacy goals of physics lecturers in Sweden and South Africa. A disciplinary literacy discussion matrix (Airey, 2011a) was employed as the starting point for conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 20 physics lecturers from five South African universities. The choice of these five universities was purposeful—their student cohorts encompassing a range of different first languages and cultural backgrounds. The interviews were conducted in English, lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, and were later transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were then analysed qualitatively. This involved “working with data, organizing it, breaking it into manageable units, synthesizing it, searching for patterns, discovering what is important and what is to be learned, and deciding what you will tell others” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992:145).

    The main finding of this study is that all the lecturers mentioned language as being problematic in some way. However, there were a number of important differences in the ways the lecturers problematise the development of disciplinary literacy both across and within the different university physics departments. These differences can be seen to involve on the one hand, the lecturers’ own self-image in terms of whether they are comfortable with viewing themselves as language teachers/literacy developers, and on the other hand, their recognition of the diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds of their students. The differences will be illustrated and discussed using transcript excerpts. These findings are in contrast to parallel data collected in Sweden. In that particular (bilingual) setting, language was viewed as unproblematic, and the most striking characteristic was the very similarity of the responses of physics lecturers (Airey, in press). It is thus suggested that the differences in findings between Sweden and South Africa are a product of the latter’s diverse multilingual and multicultural environment. One pedagogical conclusion is that, given the differences in approach we find, inter- and intra faculty discussions about undergraduate disciplinary literacy goals would appear to have the distinct potential for reforming undergraduate physics. Similarly, an administrative conclusion is that a one-size-fits-all language policy for universities does not appear to be meaningful in such a diverse multilingual/multicultural environment.

    Finally, it should be mentioned that our choice of physics as an exemplar in this study has important implications for the interpretation of the findings. Drawing on Bernstein (1999), Martin (2011) suggests that disciplines have predominantly horizontal or hierarchical knowledge structures. Here it is claimed that physics has the most hierarchical knowledge structure of all disciplines. Thus, the findings presented here should be taken as illustrative of the situation in disciplines with more hierarchical knowledge structures (such as the natural and applied sciences). Kuteeva and Airey (in review) find that the issue of the language of instruction in such disciplines is viewed as much less problematic than in disciplines with more horizontal knowledge structures (such as the arts, humanities and, to some extent, social sciences). See Bennett (2010) for a provocative discussion of language use in such disciplines.

    Funding from the Swedish National Research Council and the South African National Research Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

    References:

    Airey, J. (2011a). The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix: A Heuristic Tool for Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education. Across the disciplines, 8(3).

    Airey, J. (2011b). Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education: Disciplinary Literacy and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: theory, research, and reflections (pp. 57-65). Cape Town, South Africa: Cape Peninsula University of Technology.

    Airey, J. (in press). I Don’t Teach Language. The Linguistic Attitudes of Physics Lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), xx-xx.

    Bennett, K. (2010). Academic discourse in Portugal: A whole different ballgame? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 21-32.

    Bernstein, M. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology Education, 20(2), 157-173.

    Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. R. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. (2 ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

    Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (in review). Disciplinary Differences in the Use of English in Swedish Higher Education: Reflections on Recent Policy Developments  Studies in Higher Education.

    Martin, J. R. (2011). Bridging troubled waters: Interdisciplinarity and what makes it stick. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity (pp. 35-61). London: Continuum International Publishing.

    Northedge, A. (2002). Organizing excursions into specialist discourse communities: A sociocultural account of university teaching. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century. Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 252-264). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86(5), 601-623.

     

  • 34.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Materials Science, Physics Didactics.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    A Disciplinary Discourse Perspective on University Science Learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes2008In: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, ISSN 0022-4308, E-ISSN 1098-2736, Vol. 46, no 1, 27-49 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this theoretical article we use an interpretative study with physics undergraduates to exemplify a proposed characterization of student learning in university science in terms of fluency in disciplinary discourse. Drawing on ideas from a number of different sources in the literature, we characterize what we call “disciplinary discourse” as the complex of representations, tools and activities of a discipline, describing how it can be seen as being made up of various “modes”. For university science, examples of these modes are: spoken and written language, mathematics, gesture, images (including pictures, graphs and diagrams), tools (such as experimental apparatus and measurement equipment) and activities (such as ways of working—both practice and praxis, analytical routines, actions, etc.). Using physics as an illustrative example, we discuss the relationship between the ways of knowing that constitute a discipline and the modes of disciplinary discourse used to represent this knowing. The data comes from stimulated recall interviews where physics undergraduates discuss their learning experiences during lectures. These interviews are used to anecdotally illustrate our proposed characterization of learning and its associated theoretical constructs. Students describe a repetitive practice aspect to their learning, which we suggest is necessary for achieving fluency in the various modes of disciplinary discourse. Here we found instances of discourse imitation, where students are seemingly fluent in one or more modes of disciplinary discourse without having related this to a teacher-intended disciplinary way of knowing. The examples lead to the suggestion that fluency in a critical constellation of modes of disciplinary discourse may be a necessary (though not always sufficient) condition for gaining meaningful holistic access to disciplinary ways of knowing. One implication is that in order to be effective, science teachers need to know which modes are critical for an understanding of the material they wish to teach.

  • 35.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Materials Science, Physics Didactics.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Materials Science, Physics Didactics.
    Bilingual Scientific Literacy2008In: Paper presented at the Beyond Borders of Scientific Literacy: International Perspectives on New Directions for Policy and Practice Symposium at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education Congress Conference, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, May 31 - June 8., 2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 36.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy. Kalmar University College.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Materials Science, Physics Didactics.
    Bilingual Scientific Literacy?: The Use of English in Swedish University Science Courses2008In: Nordic Journal of English Studies, ISSN 1654-6970, E-ISSN 1654-6970, Vol. 7, no 3, 145-161 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A direct consequence of the Bologna declaration on harmonisation of Europeaneducation has been an increase in the number of courses taught in English at Swedishuniversities. A worrying aspect of this development is the lack of research into the effectson disciplinary learning that may be related to changing the teaching language to Englishin this way. In fact, little is known at all about the complex inter-relationship betweenlanguage and learning. In this article we attempt to map out the types of parameters thatour research indicates would determine an appropriate language mix in one section ofSwedish higher education—natural science degree courses. We do this from theperspective of the overall goal of science education, which we suggest is the productionof scientifically literate graduates. Here we introduce a new term, bilingual scientificliteracy to describe the particular set of language-specific science skills that we hope tofoster within a given degree course. As an illustration of our constructs, we carry out asimple language audit of thirty Swedish undergraduate physics syllabuses, listing thetypes of input provided for students and the types of production expected from students inboth languages. We use this information to map out an ‘implied student’ for the courseswith respect to bilingual scientific literacy. The article finishes by identifying issues forfurther research in this area.

  • 37.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics, Physics Didactics. Department of Human Sciences, University of Kalmar.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics, Physics Didactics. Department of Physics, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa..
    Disciplinary learning in a second language: A case study from university physics2007In: Researching Content and Language Integration in Higher Education / [ed] Wilkinson, Robert and Zegers, Vera, Maastricht: Maastricht University Language Centre , 2007, 161-171 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    There is a popular movement within Swedish universities and university colleges towards delivery of courses and degree programmes through the medium of English. This is particularly true in natural science, engineering and medicine where such teaching has been commonplace for some time. However, the rationale for using English as the language of instruction appears to be more a pragmatic response to outside pressures rather than a conscious educational decision. This situation has recently been challenged with the publication of the report of the Parliamentary Committee for the Swedish Language, Mål i Mun, which discusses the effects of so called domain losses to English.

     

    This paper gives an overview of the continuing debate surrounding teaching through the medium of English, and examines some of the research carried out in this area. In contrast to the wealth of studies carried out in the pre-university school world, very few studies have been identified at university level. One conclusion is that little appears to be known about what goes on when Swedish university students are taught in English by Swedish lecturers. The paper concludes by suggesting a number of research questions that need to be addressed in order to better understand this area. This paper will be of interest to anyone who teaches, or plans to teach, university subjects through the medium of English.

  • 38.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics, Physics Didactics.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics, Physics Didactics.
    Language and the Experience of Learning University Physics in Sweden2006In: European journal of physics, ISSN 0143-0807, E-ISSN 1361-6404, Vol. 27, no 3, 553-560 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This qualitative study explores the relationship between the lecturing language (English or Swedish) and the related learning experiences of 22 undergraduate physics students at two Swedish universities. Students attended lectures in both English and Swedish as part of their regular undergraduate programme. These lectures were videotaped and students were then interviewed about their learning experiences using selected excerpts of the video in a process of stimulated recall. The study finds that although the students initially report no difference in their experience of learning physics when taught in Swedish or English, there are in fact some important differences which become apparent during stimulated recall. The pedagogical implications of these differences are discussed.

  • 39.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Materials Science, Physics Didactics.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Materials Science, Physics Didactics.
    Learning through English: further insights from a case study in Swedish university physics2008In: Paper presented at the Nätverk och Utveckling 2008 Lärande i en ny tid - samtal om undervisning i högre utbildning Conference, Kalmar, Sweden, 7-9 May., 2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 40.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Social Semiotics in University Physics Education2017In: Multiple Representations in Physics Education / [ed] Treagust, Duit and Fischer, Cham: Springer, 2017, 95-122 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 41.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Social semiotics in university physics education: Leveraging critical constellations of disciplinary representations2015Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Social semiotics is a broad construct where all communication is viewed as being realized through signs and their signification. In physics education we usually refer to these signs as disciplinary representations. These disciplinary representations are the semiotic resources used in physics communication, such as written and oral languages, diagrams, graphs, mathematics, apparatus and simulations. This alternative depiction of representations is used to build theory with respect to the construction and sharing of disciplinary knowledge in the teaching and learning of university physics. Based on empirical studies of physics students cooperating to explain the refraction of light, a number of theoretical constructs were developed. In this presentation we describe these constructs and examine their usefulness for problematizing teaching and learning in university physics. The theoretical constructs are: fluency in semiotic resources, disciplinary affordance and critical constellations.

    The conclusion formulates a proposal that has these constructs provide university physics teachers with a new set of meaningfully and practical tools, which will enable them to re-conceptualize their practice in ways that have the distinct potential to optimally enhance student learning.

     

     

    Purpose

    This aim of this theoretical paper is to present representations as semiotic resources in order to make a case for three related constructs that we see as being central to learning with multiple representations in university physics; fluency in semiotic resources, disciplinary affordance and critical constellations. We suggest that an understanding of these constructs is a necessary part of a physics lecturer’s educational toolbox.

     

    Why semiotics?

    The construct of representations as it is presently used in science education can, in our opinion, be unintentionally limiting since it explicitly excludes important aspects such as physical objects, (e.g. physics apparatus) and actions (e.g. measuring a value). Clearly, such aspects play a central role in sharing physics meaning and they are explicitly included as semiotic resources in a social semiotic approach. Van Leeuwen (2005:1) explains the preference for the term semiotic resource instead of other terms such as representation claiming that “[…] it avoids the impression that what a [representation] stands for is somehow pre-given, and not affected by its use”. Thus, the term semiotic resource encompasses other channels of meaning making, as well as everything that is generally termed external representations (Ainsworth, 2006).

     

    Why social semiotics?

    The reason for adopting social semiotics is that different groups develop their own systems of meaning making. This is often achieved either by the creation of new specialized semiotic resources or by assigning specific specialized meaning to more general semiotic resources. Nowhere is this more salient than in physics where the discipline draws on a wide variety of specialized resources in order to share physics knowledge. In our work in undergraduate physics education we have introduced three separate constructs that we believe are important for learning in physics: fluency in semiotic resources, disciplinary affordance and critical constellations.

     

    Fluency in semiotic resources

    The relationship between learning and representations has received much attention in the literature. The focus has often been how students can achieve “representational competence” (For a recent example see Linder et al 2014). In this respect, different semiotic resources have been investigated, including mathematics, graphs, gestures, diagrams and language. Considering just one of these resources, spoken language, it is clear that in order to share meaning using this resource one first needs to attain some sort of fluency in the language in question. We have argued by extension that the same holds for all the semiotic resources that we use in physics (Airey & Linder, 2009). It is impossible to make meaning with a disciplinary semiotic resource without first becoming fluent in its use. By fluency we mean a process through which handling a particular semiotic resource with respect to a given piece of physics content becomes unproblematic, almost second-nature. Thus, in our social semiotic characterization, if a person is said to be fluent in a particular semiotic resource, then they have come to understand the ways in which the discipline generally uses that resource to share physics knowledge. Clearly, such fluency is educationally critical for understanding the ways that students learn to combine semiotic resources, which is the interest of this symposium. However, there is more to learning physics than achieving fluency. For example:

     

    MIT undergraduates, when asked to comment about their high school physics, almost universally declared they could “solve all the problems” (and essentially all had received A's) but still felt they “really didn't understand at all what was going on”. diSessa (1993, p. 152)

     

    Clearly, these students had acquired excellent fluency in disciplinary semiotic resources, yet still lacked a qualitative conceptual understanding.

     

    The disciplinary affordance of semiotic resources

    Thus, we argue that becoming fluent in the use of a particular semiotic resource, though necessary, is not sufficient for an appropriate physics understanding. For an appropriate understanding we argue that students need to come to appreciate the disciplinary affordance of the semiotic resource (Fredlund, Airey, & Linder, 2012; Fredlund, Linder, Airey, & Linder, 2015). We define disciplinary affordance as the potential of a given semiotic resource to provide access to disciplinary knowledge. Thus we argue that combining fluency with an appreciation of the disciplinary affordance of a given semiotic resource leads to appropriate disciplinary meaning making. However, in practice the majority of physics phenomena cannot be adequately represented by one a single semiotic resource. This leads us to the theme of this symposium—the combination of multiple representations.

     

    Critical constellations – the significance of this work for the symposium theme

    The significance of the social semiotic approach we have outlined for work on multiple representations lies in the concept of critical constellations.

    Building on the work of Airey & Linder (2009), Airey (2009) suggests there is a critical constellation of disciplinary semiotic resources that are necessary for appropriate holistic experience of any given disciplinary concept. Using our earlier constructs we can see that students will first need to become fluent in each of the semiotic resources that make up this critical constellation. Next, they need to come to appreciate the disciplinary affordance of each separate semiotic resource. Then, finally, they can attempt to grasp the concept in an appropriate, disciplinary manner. In this respect, Linder (2013) suggests that disciplinary learning entails coming to appreciate the collective disciplinary affordance of a critical constellation of semiotic resources.

     

    Recommendations

    There are a number of consequences of this work for the teaching and learning of physics. First, we claim that teachers need to provide opportunities for their students to achieve fluency in a range of semiotic resources. Next teachers need to know more about the disciplinary affordances of the individual semiotic resources they use in their teaching (see Fredlund et al 2012 for a good example of this type of work).

    Finally, teachers need to contemplate which critical constellations of semiotic resources are necessary for making which physics knowledge available to their students. In this respect physics teachers need to appreciate that knowing their students as learners includes having a deep appreciation of the kinds of critical constellations that their particular students need in order to effectively learn physics

     

    References

    Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.

    Airey, J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala  Retrieved 2009-04-27, from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A173193&dswid=-4725

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49.

    diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an Epistemology of Physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105-225.

    Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33, 657-666.

    Fredlund, T., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Linder, A. (2015). Unpacking physics representations: towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 10( 020128 (2014)).

    Linder, A., Airey, J., Mayaba, N., & Webb, P. (2014). Fostering Disciplinary Literacy? South African Physics Lecturers’ Educational Responses to their Students’ Lack of Representational Competence. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3). doi: 10.1080/10288457.2014.953294

    Linder, C. (2013). Disciplinary discourse, representation, and appresentation in the teaching and learning of science. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(2), 43-49.

    van leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.

     

  • 42.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. School of Languages and Literature, Linnæus University, Sweden.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Teaching and Learning in University Physics: A Social Semiotic Approach2016Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Social semiotics is a broad construct where all communication is viewed as being realized through semiotic resources. In undergraduate physics we use a wide range of these semiotic resources, such as written and oral languages, diagrams, graphs, mathematics, apparatus and simulations. Based on empirical studies of undergraduate physics students a number of theoretical constructs have been developed in our research group (see for example Airey & Linder 2009; Fredlund et al 2012, 2014; Eriksson 2015). In this presentation we describe these constructs and examine their usefulness for problematizing teaching and learning in university physics. The theoretical constructs are: discursive fluency, discourse imitation, unpacking and critical constellations of semiotic resources.

    We suggest that these constructs provide university physics teachers with a new set of practical tools with which to view their own practice in order to enhance student 

    References

    Airey, J. (2006). Physics Students' Experiences of the Disciplinary Discourse Encountered in Lectures in English and Swedish.   Licentiate Thesis. Uppsala, Sweden: Department of Physics, Uppsala University.,

    Airey J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis   Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala  Retrieved 2009-04-27, from   http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=9547

    Airey, J. (2014) Representations in Undergraduate Physics. Docent lecture, Ångström Laboratory, 9th June 2014 From   http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-226598

    Airey, J. & Linder, C. (2015) Social Semiotics in Physics Education: Leveraging critical constellations of disciplinary representations   ESERA 2015 From http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ase%3Auu%3Adiva-260209

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). "A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical   constellation of modes." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49.

    Airey, J. & Linder, C. (in press) Social Semiotics in Physics Education : Multiple Representations in Physics Education   Springer

    Airey, J., & Eriksson, U. (2014). A semiotic analysis of the disciplinary affordances of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in   astronomy. Paper presented at the The 5th International 360 conference: Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge,   Aarhus, Denmark.

    Airey, J., Eriksson, U., Fredlund, T., and Linder, C. (2014). "The concept of disciplinary affordance"The 5th International 360   conference: Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge. City: Aarhus University: Aarhus, Denmark, pp. 20.

    Eriksson, U. (2015) Reading the Sky: From Starspots to Spotting Stars Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

    Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Who needs 3D when the Universe is flat? Science Education, 98(3),   412-442.

    Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Introducing the anatomy of disciplinary discernment: an example from   astronomy. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 167‐182.

    Fredlund 2015 Using a Social Semiotic Perspective to Inform the Teaching and Learning of Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

    Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students   sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33, 657-666.

    Fredlund, T, Airey, J, & Linder, C. (2015a). Enhancing the possibilities for learning: Variation of disciplinary-relevant aspects in   physics representations. European Journal of Physics.

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015b). Towards addressing transient learning challenges in undergraduate physics: an   example from electrostatics. European Journal of Physics. 36 055002.

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015c). A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects. International Journal for   Lesson and Learning Studies 2015 4:3 , 302-316

    Fredlund, T., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Linder, A. (2014). Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary   affordance. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 10(020128).

    Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127-143). Boston: Houghton   Miffin.

    Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London: Arnold.

    Linder, C. (2013). Disciplinary discourse, representation, and appresentation in the teaching and learning of science. European   Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(2), 43-49.

    Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Mavers, D. Glossary of multimodal terms  Retrieved 6 May, 2014, from http://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/affordance/

    van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.

    Wu, H-K, & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Pedagogical Affordances of Multiple External Representations in Scientific Processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 754-767.

  • 43.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Tvåspråkig ämneskompetens? En studie av naturvetenskaplig parallellspråkighet i svensk högreutbildning.2010In: Språkvård och språkpolitik / [ed] Lars-Gunnar Andersson, Olle Josephson, Inger Lindberg, and Mats Thelander, Stockholm: Språkrådet/Norstedts , 2010, 195-212 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 44.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Urban, Eriksson
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Högskolan i Kristianstad.
    What do you see here?: Using an analysis of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in astronomy to create a survey of disciplinary discernment.2014Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Becoming part of a discipline involves learning to interpret and use a range of disciplinary-specific semiotic resources (Airey, 2009). These resources have been developed and assigned particular specialist meanings over time. Nowhere is this truer than in the sciences, where it is the norm that disciplinary-specific representations have been introduced and then refined by a number of different actors in order to reconcile them with subsequent empirical and theoretical advances. As a consequence, many of the semiotic resources used in the sciences today still retain some (potentially confusing) traces of their historical roots. However, it has been repeatedly shown that university lecturers underestimate the challenges such disciplinary specific semiotic resources may present to undergraduates (Northedge, 2002; Tobias, 1986).

    In this paper we analyse one such disciplinary-specific semiotic resource from the field of Astronomy—the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. First, we audit the potential of this semiotic resource to provide access to disciplinary knowledge—what Fredlund et al (2012) have termed its disciplinary affordances. Our analysis includes consideration of the use of scales, labels, symbols, sizes and colour. We show how, for historical reasons, the use of these aspects in the resource may differ from what might be expected by a newcomer to the discipline. Using the results of our analysis we then created an online questionnaire to probe what is discerned (Eriksson, Linder, Airey, & Redfors, in press) with respect to each of these aspects by astronomers and physicists ranging from first year undergraduates to university professors.

    Our findings suggest that some of the issues we highlight in our analysis may, in fact, be contributors to the alternative conceptions of undergraduate students and we therefore propose that lecturers pay particular attention to the disambiguation of these features for their students.

  • 45.
    Aksér, Marielle
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Laborera i fysik, en självklarhet, men när?2014Independent thesis Advanced level (professional degree), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
    Abstract [en]

    The theoretical background in this essay made clear that the students’ knowledge about physics improve, and they express a more positive attitude towards physics as a subject, when they have access to a more laboratory-based learning style. The aim of this study is to research how the placement of the lab relative to the lecture affects the students’ experiences and level of knowledge. The study involved students in year eight and was carried out during four weeks. A total of four lectures were held in addition to a total of eight labs devided on four lab-lessons. The students were divided into two different groups, one where the students were given lectures before they preformed the labs and one where the students had the labs prior to the corresponding lectures. Tests were given at the beginning and end of the study to evaluate any difference in knowledge and in addition to this the students answered surveys regarding their attitudes and experiences. The data belonging to each group was then compared. The result showed that the two groups improved their knowledge by nearly the same amount and any differences found regarding qualitative or quantitative knowledge between the two groups was minor. The one difference that could be found dealt with the students’ attitudes towards their education. The students in the group that had their lab-lesson before the corresponding lecture perceived the lecture as easier to understand than the other group. The perceived difficulty of the labs could not be connected to whether the students had the lab or the lecture first.

  • 46.
    Albrecht, Felix
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy.
    Numerical modeling and simulation of the deformation of wood under an applied indentation load2014Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
  • 47.
    Albrecht, Felix
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Technology, Department of Engineering Sciences, Applied Mechanics.
    Numerical modeling and simulation of the deformation of wood under an applied indentation load2014Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
  • 48.
    Aldahan, Filip
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Applied Nuclear Physics.
    Svensson Grape, Joakim
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Applied Nuclear Physics.
    Beräkning av kostnader för lågaktiv kärnavfallshantering2016Independent thesis Basic level (professional degree), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
    Abstract [en]

    The surtax in Sweden, which exclusively applies for nuclear power plants, in conjunction with low electricity prices, has forced Swedish nuclear power plants to minimize their expenses.

    At Oskarshamn power plant, estimation of cost, associated with low-level nuclear waste management has been conducted several years ago, but with lacking knowledge about how the calculations were performed. Therefore, the purpose of this project was to establish an independent cost estimation for compactible and non-compactible, low level and medium level nuclear waste. Cost estimates for free released low-level nuclear waste was also performed.

    By analyzing average economic figures from year 2014-2015 and visits on-site, an excel-based calculation template was accomplished. During the on-site studies, several visits to the low-level nuclear waste management facilities at Oskarshamn power plant were made, in order to get an overview of how the handling process works.

    By following the staff around, it was possible to estimate some of the time durations for the different parts in the handling process for compactible lowlevel nuclear waste, that were used in the calculations.

    The price for compactible low-level nuclear waste was calculated to 6,72 - 6,97 kr/kg, depending on the activity level. The non-compactible low-level nuclear waste price was found to vary between 4 – 48 kr/kg.

    The large fluctuations are due to different activity levels and associated additional costs in handling, measuring, final deposition etc.

    For both compactible and non-compactible nuclear waste, the storage cost is a factor that dominates the total cost and that could be minimized. Based on the analysis presented in this work, the cost can be decreased by reducing the storage time and/or store the nuclear waste in a more space efficient way.

    The cost estimate for free released material is low (5,94 – 8,74 kr/kg), which concludes that Oskarshamn power plant may profit from free releasing as much material as possible, due to the fact that it is highly profitable to recycle metals.

  • 49.
    Alhassan, Erwin
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Applied Nuclear Physics.
    Nuclear data uncertainty propagation for a lead-cooled fast reactor: Combining TMC with criticality benchmarks for improved accuracy2014Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    For the successful deployment of advanced nuclear systems and for optimization of current reactor designs, high quality and accurate nuclear data are required. Before nuclear data can be used in applications, they are first evaluated, benchmarked against integral experiments and then converted into formats usable for applications. The evaluation process in the past was usually done by using differential experimental data which was then complimented with nuclear model calculations. This trend is fast changing because of increase in computational power and tremendous improvements in nuclear reaction theories over the last decade. Since these model codes are not perfect, they are usually validated against a large set of experimental data. However, since these experiments are themselves not exact, the calculated quantities of model codes such as cross sections, angular distributions etc., contain uncertainties. A major source of uncertainty being the input parameters to these model codes. Since nuclear data are used in reactor transport codes asinput for simulations, the output of transport codes ultimately contain uncertainties due to these data. Quantifying these uncertainties is therefore important for reactor safety assessment and also for deciding where additional efforts could be taken to reduce further, these uncertainties.

    Until recently, these uncertainties were mostly propagated using the generalized perturbation theory. With the increase in computational power however, more exact methods based on Monte Carlo are now possible. In the Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group (NRG), Petten, the Netherlands, a new method called ’Total Monte carlo (TMC)’ has been developed for nuclear data evaluation and uncertainty propagation. An advantage of this approach is that, it eliminates the use of covariances and the assumption of linearity that is used in the perturbation approach.

    In this work, we have applied the TMC methodology for assessing the impact of nuclear data uncertainties on reactor macroscopic parameters of the European Lead Cooled Training Reactor (ELECTRA). ELECTRA has been proposed within the GEN-IV initiative within Sweden. As part of the work, the uncertainties of plutonium isotopes and americium within the fuel, uncertainties of the lead isotopes within the coolant and some structural materials of importance have been investigated at the beginning of life. For the actinides, large uncertainties were observed in the k-eff due to Pu-238, 239, 240 nuclear data while for the lead coolant, the uncertainty in the k-eff for all the lead isotopes except for Pb-204 were large with significant contribution coming from Pb-208. The dominant contributions to the uncertainty in the k-eff came from uncertainties in the resonance parameters for Pb-208.

    Also, before the final product of an evaluation is released, evaluated data are tested against a large set of integral benchmark experiments. Since these benchmarks differ in geometry, type, material composition and neutron spectrum, their selection for specific applications is normally tedious and not straight forward. As a further objective in this thesis, methodologies for benchmark selection based the TMC method have been developed. This method has also been applied for nuclear data uncertainty reduction using integral benchmarks. From the results obtained, it was observed that by including criticality benchmark experiment information using a binary accept/reject method, a 40% and 20% reduction in nuclear data uncertainty in the k-eff was achieved for Pu-239 and Pu-240 respectively for ELECTRA.

    List of papers
    1. Combining Total Monte Carlo and Benchmarks for Nuclear Data Uncertainty Propagation on a Lead Fast Reactor's Safety Parameters
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Combining Total Monte Carlo and Benchmarks for Nuclear Data Uncertainty Propagation on a Lead Fast Reactor's Safety Parameters
    Show others...
    2014 (English)In: Nuclear Data Sheets, ISSN 0090-3752, E-ISSN 1095-9904, Vol. 118, 542-544 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    Analyses are carried out to assess the impact of nuclear data uncertainties on some reactor safety parameters for the European Lead Cooled Training Reactor (ELECTRA) using the Total Monte Carlo method. A large number of Pu-239 random ENDF-format libraries, generated using the TALYS based system were processed into ACE format with NJOY99.336 code and used as input into the Serpent Monte Carlo code to obtain distribution in reactor safety parameters. The distribution in keff obtained was compared with the latest major nuclear data libraries – JEFF-3.1.2, ENDF/B-VII.1 and JENDL-4.0. A method is proposed for the selection of benchmarks for specific applications using the Total Monte Carlo approach based on a correlation observed between the keff of a given system and the benchmark. Finally, an accept/reject criteria was investigated based on chi squared values obtained using the Pu-239 Jezebel criticality benchmark. It was observed that nuclear data uncertainties were reduced considerably from 748 to 443 pcm.

    Keyword
    GENIV, reactor safety parameters, ELECTRA, nuclear data uncertainty, TMC
    National Category
    Other Physics Topics
    Research subject
    Applied Nuclear Physics
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-197305 (URN)10.1016/j.nds.2014.04.129 (DOI)000347704400128 ()
    Conference
    International conference on nuclear data for science and technology, 4-8 March, 2013, New York USA
    Projects
    Total Monte Carlo
    Available from: 2013-03-22 Created: 2013-03-21 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved
    2. Uncertainty and correlation analysis of lead nuclear data on reactor parameters for the European Lead Cooled Training Reactor
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Uncertainty and correlation analysis of lead nuclear data on reactor parameters for the European Lead Cooled Training Reactor
    Show others...
    2015 (English)In: Annals of Nuclear Energy, ISSN 0306-4549, E-ISSN 1873-2100, Vol. 75, 26-37 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    The Total Monte Carlo (TMC) method was used in this study to assess the impact of Pb-204, 206, 207, 208 nuclear data uncertainties on reactor safety parameters for the ELECTRA reactor. Relatively large uncertainties were observed in the k-eff and the coolant void worth (CVW) for all isotopes except for Pb-204 with signicant contribution coming from Pb-208 nuclear data; the dominant eectcame from uncertainties in the resonance parameters; however, elastic scattering cross section and the angular distributions also had signicant impact. It was also observed that the k-eff distribution for Pb-206, 207, 208 deviates from a Gaussian distribution with tails in the high k-eff region. An uncertainty of 0.9% on the k-eff and 3.3% for the CVW due to lead nuclear data were obtained. As part of the work, cross section-reactor parameter correlations were also studied using a Monte Carlo sensitivity method. Strong correlations were observed between the k-eff and (n,el) cross section for all the lead isotopes. The correlation between the (n,inl) and the k-eff was also found to be signicant.

    Keyword
    TMC, nuclear data uncertainty, lead isotopes, safety parameters, ELECTRA, fuel cycle
    National Category
    Subatomic Physics
    Research subject
    Applied Nuclear Physics
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-224524 (URN)10.1016/j.anucene.2014.07.043 (DOI)000347493400004 ()
    Projects
    GENIUS project
    Available from: 2014-05-13 Created: 2014-05-13 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved
    3. Selecting benchmarks for reactor calculations
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Selecting benchmarks for reactor calculations
    Show others...
    2014 (English)In: PHYSOR 2014 - The Role of Reactor Physics toward a Sustainable Future, 2014Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Criticality, reactor physics, fusion and shielding benchmarks are expected to play important roles in GENIV design, safety analysis and in the validation of analytical tools used to design these reactors. For existing reactor technology, benchmarks are used to validate computer codes and test nuclear data libraries. However the selection of these benchmarks are usually done by visual inspection which is dependent on the expertise and the experience of the user and there by resulting in a user bias in the process. In this paper we present a method for the selection of these benchmarks for reactor applications based on Total Monte Carlo (TMC). Similarities betweenan application case and one or several benchmarks are quantified using the correlation coefficient. Based on the method, we also propose an approach for reducing nuclear data uncertainty using integral benchmark experiments as an additional constrain on nuclear reaction models: a binary accept/reject criterion. Finally, the method was applied to a full Lead Fast Reactor core and a set of criticality benchmarks.

    Keyword
    Criticality benchmarks, ELECTRA, TMC, nuclear data, GENIV, reactor calculations
    National Category
    Subatomic Physics
    Research subject
    Physics with specialization in Applied Nuclear Physics
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-216828 (URN)
    Conference
    PHYSOR 2014 International Conference; Kyoto, Japan; 28 Sep. - 3 Oct., 2014
    Available from: 2014-01-26 Created: 2014-01-26 Last updated: 2017-01-25Bibliographically approved
  • 50.
    Alhassan, Erwin
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Applied Nuclear Physics.
    Sjöstrand, Henrik
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Applied Nuclear Physics.
    Duan, Junfeng
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Applied Nuclear Physics.
    Gustavsson, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Applied Nuclear Physics.
    Koning, Arjan
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Applied Nuclear Physics.
    Pomp, Stephan
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Applied Nuclear Physics.
    Rochman, Dimitri
    Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group.
    Österlund, Michael
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Applied Nuclear Physics.
    Combining Total Monte Carlo and Benchmarks for Nuclear Data Uncertainty Propagation on a Lead Fast Reactor's Safety Parameters2014In: Nuclear Data Sheets, ISSN 0090-3752, E-ISSN 1095-9904, Vol. 118, 542-544 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Analyses are carried out to assess the impact of nuclear data uncertainties on some reactor safety parameters for the European Lead Cooled Training Reactor (ELECTRA) using the Total Monte Carlo method. A large number of Pu-239 random ENDF-format libraries, generated using the TALYS based system were processed into ACE format with NJOY99.336 code and used as input into the Serpent Monte Carlo code to obtain distribution in reactor safety parameters. The distribution in keff obtained was compared with the latest major nuclear data libraries – JEFF-3.1.2, ENDF/B-VII.1 and JENDL-4.0. A method is proposed for the selection of benchmarks for specific applications using the Total Monte Carlo approach based on a correlation observed between the keff of a given system and the benchmark. Finally, an accept/reject criteria was investigated based on chi squared values obtained using the Pu-239 Jezebel criticality benchmark. It was observed that nuclear data uncertainties were reduced considerably from 748 to 443 pcm.

1234567 1 - 50 of 553
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf