uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
Refine search result
1234567 1 - 50 of 316
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.
    Ahlholm, Martin
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Fysikattityder hos gymnasieelever?: Trender bland intresse för fysik och fysikattityder bland svenska gymnasieelever2013Independent thesis Advanced level (professional degree), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
    Abstract [en]

    Empirical research has shown that there are clear links between the interests, attitudes, and studentsuccess. The aim of the survey, which is the foundation of this report, was to measure how theinterest in physics and attitudes towards physics and physics education differs between the differentyears in upper secondary school. Maryland Physics Expectations (MPEX) Survey has been used tomeasure the attitudes. The questionnaire was answered by 605 respondents from technology andnatural science program from two upper secondary schools in central Sweden. Interest in physics islow on the investigated schools and it tends to become lower through the ages. Overall, there aremore unfavorable responses of the different attitude dimensions in third grade than in first grade. Concept is the dimension that has the most unfavorable response in both the second and third grade.In order to increase the conceptual understanding of upper secondary school students, shouldconceptual understanding be offered a greater part of the teaching. Examining conceptualunderstanding in homework assignments and tests are also preferable.

  • 2.
    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)
  • 3.
    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.

  • 4.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Disciplinary differences in the use of English2014Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 5.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Disciplinary Literacy2016Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 6.
    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.

  • 7.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    EAP, EMI or CLIL?: (English for Academic Purposes, English Medium Instruction or Content and Language Integrated Learning)2016In: Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes / [ed] Hyland, K. & Shaw, P., Milton Park: Routledge, 2016, 71-83 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 8.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy: Summarizing ten years of research into teaching and learning in English2015In: English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education / [ed] Dimova, S. Hultgren, A-K. Jensen, C., Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton , 2015, 157-176 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Abstract

    This chapter summarizes my research work in Swedish higher education in the area of teaching and learning in English. Sweden makes for a particularly interesting case study since there are high levels of English competence in the general population and a large percentage of university courses have traditionally been taught through the medium of English.

    The work I have done falls into three broad categories:  University learning in English, University teaching in English and Disciplinary differences in attitudes to English language use.

    Over the years I have used a range of data collection techniques including video recordings of lectures, semi-structured interviews, questionnaires and stimulated recall. The research work is almost exclusively qualitative in nature adopting a case study approach.

    References

    Airey, John. 2004. Can you teach it in English? Aspects of the language choice debate in Swedish higher education. In Robert Wilkinson (ed.), Integrating Content and Language: Meeting the Challenge of a Multilingual Higher Education, 97–108. Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht University Press.

    Airey, John. 2009a. Estimating bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning 1. 26–35.

    Airey, John. 2009b. 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.

    Airey, John. 2010a. The ability of students to explain science concepts in two languages. Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication Studies 45. 35–49.

    Airey, John. 2010b. När undervisningsspråket ändras till engelska [When the teaching language changes to English]. Om undervisning på engelska[On teaching in English], Rapport 2010:15R. 57–64. Stockholm: Högskoleverket.

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

    Airey, John. 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, 57–65. Cape Town, South Africa: Cape Peninsula University of Technology.

    Airey, John. 2011c. Talking about Teaching in English. Swedish university lecturers' experiences of changing their teaching language. Ibérica 22. 35–54.

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

    Airey, John. 2013. Disciplinary Literacy. In Eva Lundqvist, Leif Östman & Roger Säljö (eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik. 41–58. Stockholm: Gleerups.

    Airey, John & Cedric Linder. 2006. Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden. European Journal of Physics 27. 553–60.

    Airey, John & Cedric Linder. 2007. Disciplinary learning in a second language: A case study from university physics. In Robert Wilkinson & Vera Zegers (eds.), Researching Content and Language Integration in Higher Education, 161–71. Maastricht: Maastricht University Language Centre.

    Ball, Phil & Diana Lindsay. 2013. Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education: Learning from a specific context. In Aintzane Doiz, David Lasagabaster & Juan Manuel Sierra (eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges, 44–61. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

    Barton, Bill & Pip Neville-Barton. 2003. Language Issues in Undergraduate Mathematics: A Report of Two Studies. New Zealand Journal of Mathematics, 32, 19–28.

    Barton, Bill & Pip Neville-Barton. 2004. Undergraduate mathematics learning in English by speakers of other languages. Paper presented to Topic Study Group 25 at the 10th International Congress on Mathematics Education, July, 2004.

    Bernstein, Basil. 1999. Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology Education 20. 157–73.

    Bloom, B. S. 1953. Thought processes in lectures and discussions. Journal of General Education 7. 160–69.

    Bergmann, Jonathan, & Aaron Sams. 2012. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. Moorabbin, Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.

    Calderhead, J. 1981. Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology 51. 211–17.

    Chambers, Francine. 1997. What do we mean by fluency? System 25. 535–44.

    Cots, Josep Maria. 2013. Introducing English-medium instruction at the University of Lleida, Spain: Intervention, beliefs and practices. In Aintzane Doiz, David Lasagabaster & Juan Manuel Sierra (eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges, 106–128. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

    Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge University Press. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf (accessed 16 June 2014).

    Duff, Patricia. 1997. Immersion in Hungary: an ELF experiment. In Robert K. Johnson & Merrill Swain (eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives, 19–43. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Doiz, Aintzane, David Lasagabaster & Juan Manuel Sierra. 2011. Internationalisation, multilingualism and English-medium instruction. World Englishes 30. 345–359.

    Educational Testing Service. 2004. Mapping TOEFL, TSE, TWE, and TOEIC on the Common European Framework. (2004). http://www.besig.org/events/iateflpce2005/ets/CEFsummaryMarch04.pdf (accessed 7 May 2008).

    Flowerdew, John (ed.). 1994. Academic listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Garrison, D. Randy & Heather Kanuka. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 7(2), 95–105.

    Gerber, Ans., Johann Engelbrecht, Ansie Harding & John Rogan. 2005. The influence of second language teaching on undergraduate mathematics performance. Mathematics Education Research Journal 17. 3–21.

    Haglund, Björn. 2003. Stimulated recall. Några anteckningar om en metod att genererar data [Stimulated recall. Notes on a method of data generation]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige 8. 145–57.

    Hincks, Rebecca. 2005. Computer support for learners of spoken English: Doctoral Thesis. School of Computer Science and Communication. KTH. Stockholm. Sweden.

    Hincks, Rebecca. 2010. Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca oral presentations. English for Specific Purposes 29. 4–18.

    Jensen, Christian, & Jacob Thøgersen. 2011. Danish university Lecturers’ attitudes towards English as the medium of instruction. Ibérica 22. 13–34.

    Klaassen, Renate. 2001. The international university curriculum: Challenges in English-medium engineering education: Doctoral Thesis. Department of Communication and Education, Delft University of Technology. Delft. The Netherlands.

    Kormos, Judit & Mariann Dénes.2004. Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System 32. 145–164

    Kuteeva, Maria & John Airey. 2014. Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: Reflections on recent language policy developments. Higher Education 67(5). 553–549.[CJ1] 

    Lehtonen, Tuula & Pearl Lönnfors. 2001. Teaching through English: A blessing or a damnation? Conference papers in the new millenium. University of Helsinki Language Centre.

    Liebscher, Grit & Jennifer Dailey-O'Caine. 2005. Learner code-switching in the content-based foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 89. 234–47.

    Linder, Anne, John Airey, Nokhanyo Mayaba & Paul Webb. Forthcoming. Fostering Disciplinary Literacy? South African Physics Lecturers’ Responses to their Students’ Lack of Representational Competence. African Journal of Research in Mathematics Science and Techmology Education.

    Maiworm, Friedhelm & Bernd Wächter (eds.). 2002. English-language-taught degree programmes in European higher education, Trends and success factors. (ACA papers on International Cooperation in Education.) Bonn: Lemmens Verlags & Mediengesellschaft.

    Marsh, Herbert. W., Kit-Tai Hau & Chit-Kwong Kong. 2000. Late immersion and language of instruction (English vs. Chinese) in Hong Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and non-language subjects. Harvard Educational Review 70. 302–46.

    Marsh, Herbert. W., Kit -Tai Hau & Chit-Kwong Kong. 2002. Multilevel causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: Influence of language of instruction (English compared with Chinese) for Hong Kong students. American Educational Research Journal 39. 727–63.

    Martin, James R. 2011. Bridging troubled waters: Interdisciplinarity and what makes it stick.  In Frances Christie & Karl Maton (eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives, 35–61. London: Continuum International Publishing.

    Met, Miriam & Eileen B. Lorenz. 1997. Lessons from U.S. immersion programs: Two decades of experience. In Robert K. Johnson & Merrill Swain (eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives, 243–64. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Mežek, Špela. 2013. Advanced second-language reading and vocabulary learning in the parallel-language university. PhD thesis. Department of English, Stockholm University.

    Moschkovich, Judit. 2007. Using two languages when learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics 64. 121–44.

    Neville-Barton, Pip & Bill Barton. 2005. The relationship between English language and mathematics learning for non-native speakers. http://www.tlri.org.nz/pdfs/9211_finalreport.pdf (accessed 21 Sept. 2005).

    Swedish Ministry of Education and Research. 2001. Den öppna högskolan [The open university]. Utbildningsdepartementet Prop. 2001:02.

    Tatzl, Dietmar. 2011. English-medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of applied sciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10. 252–270.

    Thøgersen, Jacob & John Airey. 2011. Lecturing undergraduate science in Danish and in English: A comparison of speaking rate and rhetorical style. English for Specific Purposes 30. 209–21.

    Towell, Richard, Rodger Hawkins & Nives Bazergui. 1996. The Development of Fluency in Advanced Learners of French. Applied Linguistics 17. 84–119.

    Üstünel, Eda & Paul Seedhouse. 2005. Why that, in that language, right now? Code-switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15. 302–25.

    Vinke, Adriana A. 1995. English as the medium of instruction in Dutch engineering education Doctoral Thesis, Department of Communication and Education, Delft University of Technology. Delft, The Netherlands: Department of Communication and Education, Delft University of Technology.

    Vinke, Adriana A., Joke Snippe & Wim Jochems. 1998. English-medium content courses in Non-English higher education: A study of lecturer experiences and teaching behaviours. Teaching in Higher Education 3. 383–94.

    Wächter, Bernd & Friedhelm  Maiworm. 2008. English-taught programmes in European higher education. The picture in 2007. Bonn: Lemmens.

    Werther, Charlotte, Louise Denver, Christian Jensen & Inger M. Mees. 2014. Using English as a medium of instruction at university level in Denmark: the lecturer's perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35. 443–462.

    Wignell, Peter. 2007. Vertical and horizontal discourse and the social sciences. In Frances Christie & James R. Martin (eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School, 184–204. London: Cassell.

    Willig, Ann C. 1985. A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research 55. 269–318.

    Zonneveld, Marjolein. 1991. Studeren in Engelstalige, multiculturele situaties. Een exploratieve studie naar mogelijke effecten van integratie van MSc-en regulier onderwijs aan de Landbouwuniversiteit [Studying in English-medium, multicultural situations]: Wageningen, University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agricultural Educational Theory.

  • 9.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    "I don't teach language": The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden2012In: AILA Review, ISSN 1461-0213, Vol. 25, no 1, 64-79 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    From a disciplinary discourse perspective, all university courses can be said to involve content and language integrated learning (CLIL) even in monolingual settings. Clearly, however, things become much more complex when two or more languages are involved in teaching and learning. The aim of this paper is to introduce readers to the linguistic situation in Swedish universities, where two languages - English and Swedish - are commonly used in the teaching and learning of a number of disciplines. The paper describes the linguistic landscape of Swedish higher education and presents an illustrative case study from a single discipline (physics) with a hierarchical knowledge structure (Bernstein 1999). Semi-structured interviews were carried out with ten physics lecturers from four Swedish universities. The lecturers were asked about their disciplinary language-learning expectations for their students. These interviews were analysed using qualitative methods inspired by the phenomenographic approach. Six main themes resulting from the analysis are presented and discussed. From a CLIL perspective, one recurring theme is that none of the lecturers saw themselves as teachers of disciplinary Swedish or English. The paper concludes by discussing the generalizability of the findings to other disciplines with similar (hierarchical) knowledge structures.

  • 10.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education: Disciplinary Literacy and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning2011In: Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: theory, research, and reflections / [ed] Jacobs, C., Cape Town: Cape Peninsula University of Technology , 2011, 57-65 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 11.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Lecturing in English2012Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 12.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Lecturing in English: Comparing fluency and content in L1 and L22013Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In recent years there has been a noticeable trend in many countries towards teaching university courses in English. However, from a research perspective, difficulties in obtaining comparative data have meant that little is known about what happens when lecturers change teaching language in this way.

     

    The work presented here follows eighteen lecturers of various disciplines from two Swedish universities who are in the process of changing their teaching language to English. The lecturers were all participants on a teaching in English training course (7.5 ECTS). As part of the course the lecturers gave ten-minute mini-lectures in their first language in a subject area that they usually teach. The following week, the lecturers gave the same lectures again in English.

     

    The lecture transcripts were analysed in terms of the content presented and comparative fluency. The majority of the lecturers present very similar content in both languages. However, all the lecturers speak more slowly and have shorter runs and more hesitations in their English lectures. There are a number of important differences in the ways in which lecturers dealt with this ‘slowing down’ in English, ranging from making changes to their pedagogical approach to running over time or cutting off the whole end of the lecture.

     

    In earlier studies lecturers who regularly teach in English suggest they do not notice much difference when teaching in one language or another. However, qualitative analysis of the 18 lecturers’ course reflections (approximately 60 000 words) shows that they were acutely aware of their limitations when teaching in English.

     

    This analysis provides further insights into the experiences of lecturers who are in the process of changing teaching language and a number of pedagogical recommendations are made.

     

    Keywords

    Parallel-language education, university lecturing, ESP, ELF, medium of instruction, fluency, speaking rate, mean length of runs.

  • 13.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    När undervisningsspråket ändras till engelska2010In: Om undervisning på engelska, Stockholm: Högskoleverket , 2010, 57-64 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 14.
    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.

  • 15.
    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.

  • 16.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Talking about teaching in English: Swedish university lecturers’ experiences of changing teaching language2011In: Ibérica, ISSN 1139-7241, Vol. 22, 35-54 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study documents the experiences of Swedish university lecturers when theychange from teaching in their first language to teaching in English. Eighteenlecturers from two Swedish universities took part in a training course for teacherswho need to give content courses in English. As part of the course theparticipants gave mini-lectures in their first language in a subject area that theyusually teach. The following week, the lecturers gave the same lectures again, thistime in English. The pairs of lectures were videoed and commented on by thelecturers themselves and the whole course cohort in an online discussion forum(an input of approximately 60 000 words). In addition, twelve of the lecturerswere interviewed about their experiences of changing language in this way (totalof 4 hours of recorded material). The paper presents a qualitative analysis of thethoughts and experiences expressed by the lecturers in their online discussionsand in the interviews concerning the process of changing the language ofinstruction to English. These results are presented as nine themes. Ninerecommendations for teachers changing to teaching in English are alsopresented. The findings replicate those of earlier studies with one notableexception: the lecturers in this study were acutely aware of their limitations whenteaching in English. It is suggested that this may be due to the lecturers’ relativeinexperience of English-medium instruction.

  • 17.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Teachers transitioning to teaching in English2014Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 18.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Teaching and learning in English2012Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 19.
    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, Vol. 45, 35-49 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 20.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    The disciplinary literacy discussion matrix: A heuristic tool for initiating collaboration in higher education2011In: Across the Disiplines, ISSN 1554-8244, Vol. 8, no 3Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper I address the issue of collaboration between content lecturers and language lecturers or educational researchers. Whilst such collaboration is a desirable goal for disciplinary learning in monolingual settings, I suggest it takes on extra significance when two or more languages are involved in teaching and learning a discipline. Drawing on work in the area of scientific literacy, I make a case for the concept of disciplinary literacy as a useful vehicle for such collaboration, with the Carnegie Foundation's notion of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) being used as the overarching motivation. I argue that input from peers in other disciplines can help content lecturers, make informed decisions about the particular mix of communicative practices that are needed to develop disciplinary literacy in their courses. Clearly, this mix will be different from discipline to discipline and indeed vary within a discipline depending on the local linguistic environment and the nature of the course under discussion. As an aid to collaboration, I present a simple heuristic tool for initiating inter-faculty discussion—the Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix. Using the matrix, content lecturers can discuss the disciplinary literacy goals of their teaching with other professionals, making their own decisions about the particular mix of communicative practices desired and the most appropriate methods for promoting these.

  • 21.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    The Impact of English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education2012Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 22.
    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)
  • 23.
    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.

  • 24.
    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.

  • 25.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Understanding Disciplinary Differences in Content and Language Integrated Learning: A Disciplinary Literacy Approach.2013Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Abstract

    In recent years there has been a noticeable trend in many countries towards teaching university courses in English. However, from a research perspective, difficulties in obtaining data have meant that relatively little is known about what happens to disciplinary teaching and learning when the medium of instruction changes in this way.

     

    In this presentation I have been asked to give a brief overview of the research background in the area of teaching and learning in English, and to present some of the results from my PhD and Post-doc. work. These results are divided into two types:

     

    • Research into student learning experiences when taught in English
    • Research into lecturer behaviour when changing teaching language to English

     

    A number of pedagogical issues will be raised and recommendations made.

     

    References

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2006). Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden. European Journal of Physics, 27(3), 553-560.

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2007). Disciplinary learning in a second language: A case study from university physics. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Researching Content and Language Integration in Higher Education (pp. 161-171). Maastricht: Maastricht University Language Centre.

    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  Available from http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=9547

    Airey, J. (2010). The ability of students to explain science concepts in two languages. Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 45, 35-49.

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

    Airey, J. (2011). Talking about Teaching in English. Swedish university lecturers' experiences of changing their teaching language. Ibérica, 22(Fall), 35-54.

    Thøgersen, J., & Airey, J. (2011). Lecturing undergraduate science in Danish and in English: A comparison of speaking rate and rhetorical style. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 209-221.

  • 26.
    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.))
  • 27.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Berge, Maria
    Umeå University.
    Music and physics don’t mix!: What the humorous misuse of disciplinary-specific semiotic resources can tell us about disciplinary boundaries.2014Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Becoming part of 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 the semiotic resources 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.

    References

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

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

    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., & 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.

    Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    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.

  • 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.
    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.
    The Concept of Disciplinary Affordance2014Conference 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 Linder (2013) for a recent example). Here, Kress et al (2001) claim that different modes have different specialized affordances.

     

    In this theoretical paper the concept of disciplinary affordance (Fredlund et al., 2012) is suggested as a useful analytical educational tool. The concept makes a radical break with the views of both Gibson and Norman in that rather than focusing on the perception of an individual, it focuses on the disciplinary community as a whole. Put simply, the disciplinary affordances of a given semiotic resource are determined by the functions that it is expected to fulfil for the discipline. As such, the question of whether these affordances are inherent or perceived becomes moot. Rather, the issue is what a semiotic resource affords to an individual and whether this matches the disciplinary affordance. The power of the term is that learning can now be framed as coming to perceive the disciplinary affordances of semiotic resources.

     

    In this paper we will discuss the history of the term affordance, define the term disciplinary affordance and illustrate its 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

    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.

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

    Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.

    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.

     

     

  • 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.
    Linder, Anne
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Mayaba, Nokhanyo
    Webb, Paul
    Dealing with Contemporary Challenges in University Education: Response Strategies of South African Physics Lecturers to Students’ Lack of Representational Competence2013Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Recently, both South Africa and the United States have undertaken reviews of the physics education being offered in their respective countries in higher education institutions (CHE-SAIP report, 2013; NRC report, 2013). These reviews came about as a consequence of concerns that have arisen regarding the appropriateness of curricula and the quality of the education that is currently being offered by our universities.

    In the light of these two reviews what becomes critical is how physics departments, specifically individual physics lecturers, adapt their teaching practices in response to the competencies of their students.

    Many studies have shown that in order for meaningful learning to occur in university science subjects such as physics, lecturers need to give more consideration to challenges that arise from the different communication forms such as written and oral language, diagrams, graphs, mathematics, apparatus, laboratory routines, etc. that are typical to the educational environment.

    This seminar will discuss results arising from a set of comprehensive interviews undertaken with physics lecturers from South Africa and Sweden in relation to how they deal with these challenges, which we are calling challenges of representational competence. The aim of this presentation is to contribute to a better understanding of how the development of representational competence in physics students is currently being faced and to open a discussion about appropriateness and quality in the teaching and learning of university physics.

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

    References

    Aberg-Bengtsson, L., & Ottosson, T. (2006). What lies behind graphicacy? Relating students' results on a test of graphically represented quantitative information to formal academic achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 43-62.

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

    Airey, J. (2011b). Talking about Teaching in English. Swedish university lecturers' experiences of changing their teaching language. Ibérica, 22(Fall), 35-54.

    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.

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2006). Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden. European Journal of Physics, 27(3), 553-560.

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2008). Bilingual scientific literacy? The use of English in Swedish university science programmes. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 145-161.

    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. (2011). Bilingual scientific literacy. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. Roberts, P.-O. Wickman, G. Ericksen & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 106-124). London: Routledge.

    American Association of Physics Teachers. (1996). Physics at the crossroads   Retrieved from http://www.aapt.org/Events/crossroads.cfm

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

    Brookes, D. T. (2006). The role of language in learning physics. (PhD), Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ.  

    Council on Higher Education and the South African Institute of Physics. (2013). Review of undergraduate physics education in public higher education institutions   Retrieved from http://www.saip.org.za/images/stories/documents/documents/Undergrad_Physics_Report_Final.pdf

    Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approache. Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage.

    Crotty, M. (1989). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sydney: :Allen & Unwin.

    Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031 ), 862-864.

    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.

    Dufresne, R., Gerace, W. J., & Leonard, W. (1997). Solving physics problems with multiple representations. The Physics Teacher, 35(5), 270-275.

    Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (in press). Who needs 3D when the Universe is flat? Science Education.

    European Commission Expert Group. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.

    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.

    Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Johannsen, B. F. (2007). Attrition in university physics. A narrative study of individuals reacting to a collectivist environment. (Licentiate thesis), Uppsala University, Uppsala.  

    Kohl, P. B., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2008). Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 4(010111), 1-13.

    Kohl, P. B., Rosengrant, D., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3(010108), 10.

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

    Meltzer, D. E. (2005). Relation between students' problem-solving performance and representational format. American Journal of Physics, 73(5), 463-478.

    National Research Council. (2013). Adapting to a Changing World --- Challenges and Opportunities in Undergraduate Physics Education. Committee on Undergraduate Physics Education Research and Implementation. Board on Physics and Astronomy Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    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.

    O’Connor, M. K., Netting, F. E., & Thomas, M. L. (2008). Grounded theory: Managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(1), 28-45.

    Ragout De Lozano, S., & Cardenas, M. (2002). Some Learning Problems Concerning the Use of Symbolic Language in Physics. Science and Education, 11(6), 589-599.

    Rosengrant, D., Etkina, E., & van Heuvelen, A. (2007). An overview of recent research on multiple representations. American Institute of Physics Conference proceedings January 30 2007, 883, 149-152.

    Rosengrant, D., van Heuvelen, A., & Etkina, E. (2009). Do students use and understand free-body diagrams? Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(1:010108).

    Scherr, R. E. (2008). Gesture analysis for physics education researchers. Physical Review. Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 4(010101), 1-9.

    Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

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

    Tang, K.-S., Tan, S. C., & Yeo, J. (2011). Students' multimodal construction of the work-energy concept. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1775-1804.

    Treagust, D. F., Tsui, C.-Y., & (Eds.). (Eds.). (2013). Multiple representations in biological education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing Representations to Learn in Science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59(10), 891-897.

    van Heuvelen, A., & Zou, X. (2001). Multiple representations of workenergy processes. American Journal of Physics, 69(2), 184-194.

    van Someren, M., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & de Jong, T. (Eds.). (1998). Learning with multiple representations. Amsterdam: Pergamon.

  • 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 Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Bilingual Scientific Literacy2011In: Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy / [ed] Cedric Linder, Leif Östman, Douglas Roberts, Per-Olof Wickman, Gaalen Erickson, Allan MacKinnon, New York: Routledge , 2011, 106-124 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 36.
    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)
  • 37.
    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.

     

  • 38.
    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.

  • 39.
    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)
  • 40.
    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.
    A Semiotic Analysis of the Disciplinary Affordances of the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram in Astronomy.2014Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    One of the central characteristics of disciplines is that they create their own particular ways of knowing the world through their discourse (Airey & Linder 2009). This process is facilitated by the specialization and refinement of disciplinary-specific semiotic resources 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 (Airey 2009). As a consequence, many of the semiotic resources used in the sciences today still retain some traces of their historical roots. This makes the aquisition of disciplinary literacy (Airey, 2013) particularly problematic (see Eriksson et al. 2014 for an example from astronomy).

     In this paper we analyse one such disciplinary-specific semiotic resource from the field of Astronomy—the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. 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.

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

     

    References

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

    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., & 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.

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

     

  • 41.
    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.

  • 42.
    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.

  • 43.
    Amin, Tamer G.
    et al.
    American University of Beirut, Lebanon.
    Jeppsson, Fredrik
    Linköping University.
    Haglund, Jesper
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Conceptual metaphor and embodied cognition in science education2017Book (Refereed)
  • 44.
    Amin, Tamer G.
    et al.
    American University of Beirut, Lebanon.
    Jeppsson, Fredrik
    Linköpings universitet.
    Haglund, Jesper
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Conceptual metaphor and embodied cognition in science learning: Introduction to special issue2015In: International Journal of Science Education, ISSN 0950-0693, E-ISSN 1464-5289, ISSN 0950-0693, Vol. 37, no 5-6, 745-758 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 45.
    Andersson Chronholm, Jannika
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Alternativa examinationsformer2014Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 46.
    Andersson Chronholm, Jannika
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Studievägledare och lärare har en nyckelroll2011In: Fler som Kan: Hur kan vi underlätta för ungdomar att läsa naturvetenskap och teknik? / [ed] Skolverket, Stockholm: Skolverket , 2011, 78-90 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 47.
    Andersson Chronholm, Jannika
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Andersson, Staffan
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Akademisk integration2013Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 48.
    Andersson Chronholm, Jannika
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Andersson, Staffan
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Bilder av människans inre: Förförståelse och studentaktivitet2010Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Vi har infört ett inledande undervisningsmoment på en grundläggande biologikurs med syfte att utforska studenternas förståelse av mänsklig anatomi. En central slutsats från ämnesdidaktisk forskning är att studenterna som kommer till våra kurser har med sig en förförståelse sedan tidigare. För att bidra till ett konstruktivt lärande måste vi som lärare både vara medvetna om deras uppfattningar och utforma lärandeaktiviteter som hjälper dem att utveckla sin förståelse (Scott, Asoko & Leach, 2007).

    Momentet utgick från en uppgift där grupper med två till fyra studenter under femton minuter fick rita en förklarande bild av människokroppens inre och hur olika delar hänger ihop. Därefter genomfördes diskussioner i grupp och gemen­samt kring bilderna. Vi valde att arbeta med bilder för deras användbarhet både som diagnosverktyg och som hjälpme­del för fortsatt lärande (White & Gunstone, 1994). Dessutom fanns en modell för tolkning och klassning av studenters bilder sedan tidigare (Reiss & Tunnicliffe, 2001).

    Analysen av studenternas svar visade att hälften av grupperna redovisade en förhållandevis god kunskap av den mänskliga anatomin, med minst två sammanhängande organsystem utritade. De organsystem som studenterna hade bäst förståelse för var matsmältningssystemet och andningssystemet. Samtidigt uppvisade analysen en del märklighe­ter som tydligt visar att metoden inte förbehållningslöst kan användas för att få en korrekt bild av studenters förförstå­else, vilket också har diskuterats tidigare (Prokop & Fanèovièová, 2006).

    Som lärandemoment fungerade momentet mycket väl. I diskussionerna som följde efter övningen reflekterade studenterna kring sin nuvarande förståelse av människokroppen och motiverades inför den efterföljande kursen.

    Vi kommer att presentera resultat från analyserna av studenternas bilder samt diskutera hur undervisningsmomentet fungerade i praktiken med erfarenheter från både lärare, som fick en fördjupad insikt av just dessa studenters förförstå­else i området, och studenter, som började fundera kring både styrkor och svagheter i sin egen förståelse.

    Referenser

    Scott, P., Asoko, H. & Leach, J. (2007). Students’ Conceptions and Conceptual Learning in Science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Prokop, P. & Fanèovièová, J. (2006) Student’s ideas about the human body: Do they really draw what they know? Jour­nal of Baltic Science Education 2(10): 86-95.

    Reiss, M.J. and Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2001) Students’ Understandings of Human Organs and Organ Systems Research in Science Education 31: 383–399.

    White, R. T., & Gunstone R. F. (1994) Probing understanding. London, UK: Falmer Press.

  • 49.
    Andersson Chronholm, Jannika
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Andersson, Staffan
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Erfarenheter av ett studentaktiverande kursupplägg.2010In: Att undervisa med vetenskaplig förankring – i praktiken!: Universitetspedagogisk utvecklingskonferens 8 oktober 2009 / [ed] Britt-Inger Johansson, Uppsala: Universitetstryckeriet , 2010, 92-102 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 50.
    Andersson Chronholm, Jannika
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Andersson, Staffan
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Föränderliga atomer och oklar energi - Att utforska studenters förförståelse: Poster presented at the NU2010 Dialog för Lärande Conference, Stockholm, 13-15 October.2010Other (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Som universitetslärare behöver vi utforska och förstå de uppfattningar som studenterna har om våra ämnen när de kommer till kurserna (se exempelvis Scott, Asoko & Leach, 2007) för att utforma vår undervisning och göra andra prioriteringar. Ett verktyg för detta är konceptinventeringar - enkätstudier som kartlägger studenters förförståelse.

    De första konceptinventeringarna inom naturvetenskaperna genomfördes inom fysiken, men utvecklingsarbete pågår numera även inom andra ämnesområden.

    Inom biologin tog arbetet fart i början av 2000-talet. Tidigt konstaterades att arbetet inom biologin delvis skiljer sig från det i fysik, men att det också finns likheter (Klymkowsky, Garvin-Doxas & Zeilik, 2003). Nu har olika grupper av biologer börjat samverka för att testa och utforma olika verktyg för konceptinventering (D’Avanzo, 2008).

    Som en del av utformningsarbetet av en grundläggande biologikurs, men också som en del av det internationella utvecklingsarbetet, genomför vi försök med en konceptinventering om bland annat respiration och matspjälkningen. Den konceptinventering vi utvecklat bygger på relevanta delar från Biology Concept Inventory (Klymkowsky, & Garvin-Doxas, 2008) och material från projektet Thinking lika a Biologist (www.biodqc.org). Urvalet gjordes utifrån innehållet på kursen och diskuterades med kollegor.

    Analyserna av de första försöken ger intressanta upplysningar om studenternas förförståelse, som delvis skiljer sig från den hos amerikanska studenter på vilka verktygen prövats tidigare. I vissa fall visar dock våra studenter precis samma brister i förförståelse som observerats för andra grupper. Bland annat har mer än 50 % av studenterna (som läst minst gymnasieskolans Kemi A) uppfattningen att ett atomslag enkelt kan omvandlas till ett annat. En fråga om energi visar också att de allra flesta (som läst minst gymnasieskolans Fysik A) har en oklar bild av vad energi egentligen är.

    Med denna posterpresentation vill vi öppna upp för diskussioner kring den förförståelse studenter tar med sig till våra kurser, hur vi kan utforska den förförståelsen samt hur vi som universitetslärare praktiskt kan arbeta utifrån detta.

    Referenser

    D’Avanco, C (2008) Biology Concept Inventories: Overview, Status, and Next Steps Bioscience 58(11):1079-1085.

    Klymkowsky, M.W., Garvin-Doxas, K. & Zeilik, M. (2003) Bioliteracy and Teaching Efficacy: What Biologists Can Learn from Physicists Cell Biology Education 2:155–161.

    Klymkowsky, M.W. & Garvin-Doxas, K. (2008) Recognizing Student Misconceptions through Ed’s Tool and the Biology Concept Inventory. PLoS Biology, 6:e3 (1-14).

    Scott, P., Asoko, H. & Leach, J. (2007). Student Conceptions and Conceptual Learning in Science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education. Abingdon: Routledge.

1234567 1 - 50 of 316
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