Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

uu.sePublications from Uppsala University
Change search
Refine search result
1234567 1 - 50 of 473
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)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest 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)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest 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.
    Adams, Jennifer
    et al.
    University of Calgary.
    Avraamidou, Lucy
    University of Gronigen.
    Bayram-Jacobs, Dury
    Radboud University.
    Boujaoude, Saouma
    Bryan, Lynn
    Christodoulou, Andri
    Couso, Digna
    Danielsson, Anna
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Dillon, Justin
    Erduran, Sibel
    Evagorou, Maria
    Goedhart, Martin
    Kang, Nam-Hwa
    Kaya, Ebru
    Kayumova, Shakhnoza
    Larsson, Johanna
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Martin, Sonya
    Martinez Chico, Maria
    Marzabal, Ainoa
    Savelsbergh, Elwin
    Siry, Christina
    van de Laar, Bart
    Wals, Arjen
    Wei, Bing
    Wilmes, Sara
    Zembal-Saul, Carla
    The Role of Science Education in a Changing World2018Report (Other academic)
  • 2.
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Ahlholm_Martin_(2013)_Fysikattityder_hos_gymnasieelever
  • 3.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Stockholm University.
    A Social Semiotic Approach to Teaching and Learning Science2018Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    A social semiotic approach to teaching and learning science.

    In this presentation I will discuss the application of social semiotics to the teaching and learning of university science. Science disciplines leverage a wide range of semiotic resources such as graphs, diagrams, mathematical representations, hands on work with apparatus, language, gestures etc. In my work I study how students learn to integrate these resources to do physics and what teachers can do to help them in this process. Over the years, a number of theoretical constructs have been developed within the Physics Education Research Group in Uppsala to help us to better understand the different roles semiotic resources play in learning university physics. In this presentation I will explain some of these terms and give examples of their usefulness for teasing out how learning is taking place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015b). Towards addressing transient learning challenges in undergraduate physics: an example from electrostatics. European Journal of Physics. 36055002. 

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015c). A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies2015 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.

    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/

    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 4.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Building on higher education research - How can we take a scholarly approach to teaching and learning2018Conference paper (Other academic)
    Download full text (pdf)
    SoTL
  • 5.
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 6.
    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)
    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 7.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    CLIL: Combining Language and Content2017In: ESP Today, ISSN 2334-9050, Vol. 5, no 2, p. 297-302Article in journal (Refereed)
    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 8.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance: Teaching the Multimodal Discourse of University Science2017Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance: Teaching the

    Multimodal Discourse of University Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

    teaching of multimodal science discourse via the concept of affordance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    different modes have different specialized affordances.

    In the presentation the interrelated concepts of disciplinary affordance and pedagogical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    disciplinary affordances of semiotic resources.

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

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

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

    make science meanings.

    References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 9.
    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)
    Download full text (pdf)
    castellon 2
  • 10.
    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, p. 41-58Chapter 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.

  • 11.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Disciplinary Literacy2016Conference paper (Other academic)
    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 12.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Stockholm University; Linneaus University.
    Disciplinary Literacy: A Research Overview2018Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The tentative title of the presentation is "Disciplinary Literacy: A Research Overview". I will be presenting in English and discussing various aspects of disciplinary literacy such as bilingual disciplinary literacy, multimodal disciplinary literacy and different visions of disciplinary literacy in terms of the different sites that disciplinary literacy is developed for (academy, workplace and society). I will also discuss the mismatch between different literacies for different disciplines and how this can play out in practice.

    References

    Airey, J. (2003). Teaching University Courses through the Medium of English: The current state of the art. In G. Fransson, Å.  Morberg, R. Nilsson, & B. Schüllerqvist(Eds.), Didaktikensmångfald(Vol. 1, pp. 11-18). Gävle, Sweden: Högskolani  Gävle.

    Airey, J. (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(pp. 97-108).   Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht University Press. 

    Airey, J. (2006). Närundervisningsspråketblirengelska[When the teaching language is changed to English]. Språkvård, 2006(4),   20-25.

    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., & Linder, C. (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(pp. 161-171). Maastricht:   Maastricht University Language Centre. 

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2008). Bilingual scientific literacy? The use of English in Swedish university scienceprogrammes. Nordic   Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 145-161.  Retrieved from http://ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/njes/issue/view/24

    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. (2009). Estimating bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International Journal of Content and Language Integrated   Learning, 1(2), 26-35. 

    Airey J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. ActaUniversitatis  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. (2010). Närundervisningsspråketändrastill engelska[When the teaching language changes to English] Omundervisning  påengelska(pp. 57-64). Stockholm: HögskoleverketRapport 2010:15R

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

    Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2010).Tvåspråkigämneskompetens? En studieavnaturvetenskapligparallellspråkighetisvenskhögre  utbildningIn L. G. Andersson, O. Josephson, I. Lindberg, & M. Thelander(Eds.), SpråkvårdochspråkpolitikSvenska  språknämndensforskningskonferensiSaltsjöbaden2008(pp. 195-212). Stockholm: Norstedts.

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

    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. (2011c). 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. (2011d). The relationship between teaching language and student learning in Swedish university physics. In B. Preisler, I.   Klitgård, & A.  Fabricius(Eds.), Language and learning in the international university: From English uniformity to diversity   and hybridity(pp. 3-18). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

    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 – teoriochpraktik

       (pp. 41-58): Gleerups.

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

    Airey, J. (2015). From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy: Summarizing ten years of research into teaching and learning in   English. In SlobodankaDimova, Anna Kristina Hultgren, & Christian Jensen (Eds.), English-Medium Instruction in European   Higher Education. English in Europe, Volume 3(pp. 157-176): De GruyterMouton.

    Airey, J. (2016). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP). In Hyland, K. &   Shaw, P. (Eds.), RoutledgeHandbook of English for Academic Purposes. (pp. 71-83) London: Routledge.

    Airey, J. (2017). CLIL: Combining Language and Content. ESP Today, 5(2), 297-302. 

    Airey, J., & Larsson, J. (2018). Developing Students’ Disciplinary Literacy? The Case of University Physics. In K.-S. Tang & K.   Danielsson(Eds.), Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education: Springer.

    Airey, J., Lauridsen, K., Raisanen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (in press). The Expansion of English-medium Instruction in the Nordic   Countries. Can Top-down University Language Policies Encourage Bottom-up Disciplinary Literacy Goals? Higher Education.   doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9950-2

    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 scienceprogrammes. 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.

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

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

    Klaassen, R. (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.

    Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary Differences in the Use of English in Higher Education: Reflections on Recent Policy   Developments  Higher Education, 67(5), 533-549. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9660-6

    Lehtonen, T., & Lönnfors, P. (2001). Teaching through English: A blessing or a damnation? Conference papers in the new millenium.    Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/kksc/verkkojulkaisu/2_2001_8.html

    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

    Neville-Barton, P., & Barton, B. (2005). The relationship between English language and mathematics learning for non-native   speakers.   Retrieved from http://www.tlri.org.nz/pdfs/9211_finalreport.pdf

    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. 

    Vinke, A. 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.

    Vinke, A. A., Snippe, J., & Jochems, W. (1998). English-medium content courses in Non-English higher education: A study of   lecturer experiences and teaching behaviours. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(3), 383-394.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 13.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Disciplinary Literacy: Theorising the Specialized Use of Language and other Modes in University Teaching and Learning2018Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Disciplinary Literacy: Theorising the Specialized Use of Language and other Modes in University Teaching and Learning

    Abstract

    In this presentation I use the work of Basil Bernstein (Bernstein, 1990, 1999, 2000)to discuss the role of disciplinary differences in university teaching and learning.  Drawing from my own work on the theme of disciplinary literacy (Airey, 2012, 2013; Airey & Linder, 2008, 2011)I argue that all university lecturers are teachers of disciplinary literacy—even in monolingual settings. 

    I define disciplinary literacy as appropriate participation in the communicative practices of the discipline(Airey, 2011a, 2011b)and suggest that disciplinary literacy is developed for three specific sites (academy, workplace and society).  I will illustrate the multilingual and multimodal nature of disciplinary literacy with empirical evidence from a comparative study of the disciplinary literacy goals of Swedish and South African physics lecturers (Linder, Airey, Mayaba, & Webb, 2014). 

    Finally, I will conclude by demonstrating how two of Bernstein’s dichotomies: disciplinary knowledge structures (hierarchical vs horizontal) and disciplinary classification (singular vs region) can be used together with the disciplinary literacy triangle to better understand the literacy goals of particular disciplines 

    References

    Airey, J. (2009). Estimating bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International Journal of Content and Language Integrated   Learning, 1(2), 26-35. 

    Airey J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. ActaUniversitatis  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. (2010a). The ability of students to explain science concepts in two languages. Hermes - Journal of Language and   Communication Studies, 45, 35-49. 

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

    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. (2011c). 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. (2011d). The relationship between teaching language and student learning in Swedish university physics. In B. Preisler, I.   Klitgård, & A.  Fabricius(Eds.), Language and learning in the international university: From English uniformity to diversity   and hybridity(pp. 3-18). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 

    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 – teoriochpraktik

       (pp. 41-58): Gleerups. 

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

    Airey, J. (2015). From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy: Summarizing ten years of research into teaching and learning in   English. In SlobodankaDimova, Anna Kristina Hultgren, & Christian Jensen (Eds.), English-Medium Instruction in European   Higher Education. English in Europe, Volume 3(pp. 157-176): De GruyterMouton. 

    Airey, J. (2016). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP). In Hyland, K. &   Shaw, P. (Eds.), RoutledgeHandbook of English for Academic Purposes. (pp. 71-83) London: Routledge.

    Airey, J. (2017). CLIL: Combining Language and Content. ESP Today, 5(2), 297-302. 

    Airey, J., & Larsson, J. (2018). Developing Students’ Disciplinary Literacy? The Case of University Physics. In K.-S. Tang & K.   Danielsson(Eds.), Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education: Springer.

    Airey, J., Lauridsen, K., Raisanen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2017). The Expansion of English-medium Instruction in the Nordic   Countries. Can Top-down University Language Policies Encourage Bottom-up Disciplinary Literacy Goals? Higher Education.   doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9950-2

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

    Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of   English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(5), 429-447. 

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

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

    Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary Differences in the Use of English in Higher Education: Reflections on Recent Policy   Developments  Higher Education, 67(5), 533-549. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9660-6

    Lea, Mary R., & Street, Brian V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher   Education, 23(2), 157-172. 

    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:10.1080/10288457.2014.95329

    Lindström, C. (2011). Analysingknowledge and teaching practices in physics. Presentation 21 November 2011 Invited speaker:   Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Sweden. 

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

    Norris, Stephen P., & Phillips, Linda M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science  Education, 87(2), 224-240. 

    Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy: Threats and opportunities. In S. K. Abell& N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook  of research on science education(pp. 729-780). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Salö, L. (2010). Engelskaellersvenska? En kartläggning av språksituationen inom högre utbildning och forskning [English or Swedish? A survey of the language situation in higher education and research]. Stockholm: Språkrådet. 

    Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2004). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 14.
    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, p. 71-83Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 15.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    EMI, CLIL, EAP:What’s the difference?2018Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    EMI, CLIL, EAP: What’s the difference?

    Abstract

    In this presentation I will examine the differences between the terms EMI (English Medium Instruction, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning and EAP (English for Academic Purposes). I will also discuss what it means to become disciplinary literate in a first, second and third language.

    References

    Airey, J. (2009). Estimating bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International Journal of Content and Language Integrated   Learning, 1(2), 26-35. 

    Airey J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. ActaUniversitatis  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. (2010). Närundervisningsspråketändrastill engelska[When the teaching language changes to English] Omundervisning  påengelska(pp. 57-64). Stockholm: HögskoleverketRapport 2010:15R

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

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

    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. (2011c). 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. (2011d). The relationship between teaching language and student learning in Swedish university physics. In B. Preisler, I.   Klitgård, & A.  Fabricius(Eds.), Language and learning in the international university: From English uniformity to diversity   and hybridity(pp. 3-18). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

    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. (2015). From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy: Summarizing ten years of research into teaching and learning in   English. In SlobodankaDimova, Anna Kristina Hultgren, & Christian Jensen (Eds.), English-Medium Instruction in European   Higher Education. English in Europe, Volume 3(pp. 157-176): De GruyterMouton.

    Airey, J. (2016). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP). In Hyland, K. &   Shaw, P. (Eds.), RoutledgeHandbook of English for Academic Purposes. (pp. 71-83) London: Routledge.

    Airey, J. (2017). CLIL: Combining Language and Content. ESP Today, 5(2), 297-302. 

    Airey, J., & Larsson, J. (2018). Developing Students’ Disciplinary Literacy? The Case of University Physics. In K.-S. Tang & K.   Danielsson(Eds.), Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education: Springer.

    Airey, J., Lauridsen, K., Raisanen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2017). The Expansion of English-medium Instruction in the Nordic   Countries. Can Top-down University Language Policies Encourage Bottom-up Disciplinary Literacy Goals? Higher Education.   doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9950-2

    Duff, P.A. (1997). Immersion in Hungary: an ELF experiment. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education:   International perspectives(pp. 19-43). Cambridge, UK: CUP.

    European Commission. (2003). Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004 – 2006.   http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0449:FIN:EN:PDF

    Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary Differences in the Use of English in Higher Education: Reflections on Recent Policy   Developments  Higher Education, 67(5), 533-549. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9660-6

    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

    Marsh, Herbert. W., Hau, Kit-Tai., & Kong, Chit-Kwong. (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(3),   302-346. 

    Met, M., & Lorenz, E. B. (1997). Lessons from U.S. immersion programs: Two decades of experience. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain   (Eds.),Immersion education: International perspectives(pp. 243-264). Cambridge, UK: CUP.

    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 16.
    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, p. 157-176Chapter 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.

  • 17.
    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, p. 64-79Article 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.

  • 18.
    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, p. 57-65Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 19.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University.
    Learning and Sharing Disciplinary Knowledge: The Role of Representations2017Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Learning and Sharing Disciplinary Knowledge: The Role of Representations.

    Abstract

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

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

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

    References 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

     

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 20.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Lecturing in English2012Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 21.
    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.

  • 22.
    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, p. 57-64Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 23.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Physics Education Research2020Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Abstract

    In this presentation I will briefly describe the history of physics education research (PER), explain my own research interests and suggest the alternative discipline-based education research as an alternative to pedagogy or didactics when dealing with training courses for univerity lecturers.

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

      https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_5

    Airey, J., & Eriksson, U. (2019). Unpacking the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram: A Social Semiotic Analysis of the Disciplinary and   Pedagogical Affordances of a Central Resource in Astronomy, Designs for Learning, 11(1), 99–107. DOI:   https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.137

    Airey, J., Grundström Lindqvist, J. & Lippmann Kung, R. (2019). What does it mean to understand a physics equation? A study of   undergraduate answers in three countries. In McLoughlin, E., Finlayson, O., Erduran, S., & Childs, P. (eds.), Bridging   Research and Practice in Science Education: Selected Papers from the ESERA 2017 Conference.. Pp. 225–239.   Contributions from Science Education Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing.                  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17219-0_14

    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. (2015). 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.

    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.

    Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158’

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

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

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

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

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

    Download full text (pdf)
    Physics Education Research
  • 24.
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    docent
  • 25.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Research on physics teaching and learning, physics teacher education, and physics culture at Uppsala University2017Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

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

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 26.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University.
    Semiotic Resources and Disciplinary Literacy2017Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Semiotic Resources and Disciplinary Literacy

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

    Type of funding: Four-year position as Research Assistant

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

     

    Abstract

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

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

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

    Selected publications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Download full text (zip)
    fulltext
  • 27.
    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, p. 103-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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 28.
    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, E-ISSN 2340-2784, Vol. 22, p. 35-54Article 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.

  • 29.
    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)
    Download full text (pdf)
    Castellon 1
  • 30.
    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)
  • 31.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    The ability of students to explain science concepts in two languages2010In: Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication Studies, ISSN 0904-1699, E-ISSN 1903-1785, Vol. 45, p. 35-49Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 32.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    The Concept of Affordance in the Teaching and Learning of Undergraduate Science2018Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The Concept of Affordance in Teaching and Learning Undergraduate Science 

     

    John Airey 

    Physics Education Research Group

    Department of Physics and Astronomy

    Uppsala University

    Sweden

     

    And   

     

    Department of Mathematics and Science Education

    Stockholm University

    Sweden

    Since its introduction by Gibson (1979)the concept of affordance has been debated by a number of researchers. Most famous, perhaps is the disagreement between Gibson and Norman(1988)about whether affordances are inherent properties of objects or are only present when perceived by an organism. More recently, affordance has been drawn on in the educational arena, particularly with respect to multimodality (see Fredlund, 2015 for a recent example). 

    In the presentation the interrelated concepts of disciplinary affordance and pedagogical affordance will be presented. Both concepts make a radical break with the views of both Gibson and Norman in that rather than focusing on the perception of an individual, they refer to the disciplinary community as a whole. Disciplinary affordance is "the agreed meaning making functions that a semiotic resource fulfills for a disciplinary community". Similarly, pedagogical affordance is "the aptness of a semiotic resource for the teaching and learning of some particular educational content" (Airey, 2015). As such, in a teaching situation the question of whether these affordances are inherent or perceived becomes moot. Rather, the issue is the process through which students come to use semiotic resources in a way that is accepted within the discipline. In this characterization then, learning can be framed in terms of coming to perceive and leverage the disciplinary affordances of semiotic resources. 

    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. ActaUniversitatis  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) resresentationsin Undergraduate Physics. Docent lecture,ÅngströmLaboratory, 9th June 2014 From   http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-226598

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

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

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

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

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

    Airey, J., Eriksson, U., Fredlund, T., and Linder, C. (2014). "The concept of disciplinary affordance"The5th International 360   conference: Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge. City: Aarhus University: Aarhus, Denmark, pp. 20.

    Eriksson, U. (2015) Reading the Sky: From Starspotsto Spotting Stars Uppsala:ActaUniversitatisUpsaliensis.

    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. 36055002. 

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015c). A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects. International Journal for   Lesson and Learning Studies2015 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 appresentationin the teaching and learning of science. European  Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(2), 43-49.

    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/

    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 33.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Stockholm Univ, Dept Math & Sci Educ, Stockholm, Sweden..
    The content lecturer and English-medium instruction (EMI): epilogue to the special issue on EMI in higher education2020In: International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, ISSN 1367-0050, E-ISSN 1747-7522, Vol. 23, no 3, p. 340-346Article in journal (Refereed)
    Download full text (pdf)
    FULLTEXT01
  • 34.
    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, E-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.

  • 35.
    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)
  • 36.
    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, p. 3-18Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 37.
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 38.
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 39.
    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.

  • 40.
    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.))
  • 41.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Stockholm University.
    Using variation and unpacking to help students decode disciplinary-specific semiotic resources2018In: 9ICOM - Complete book of abstracts, Odense, Denmark.: Syddansk Universitet, 2018Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In this presentation I will describe a social semiotic approach (Halliday 1978; van Leeuwen 2005) to the multimodal teaching and learning of a discipline that takes variation theory (Marton & Booth 1997; Runesson 2005) as its theoretical framing. Following Airey and Linder (2017:95) I define social semiotics as “the study of the development and reproduction of specialized systems of meaning making in particular sections of society”

     

    Learning at university level involves coming to understand the ways in which disciplinary-specific semiotic resources can be coordinated to make appropriate disciplinary meanings (Airey & Linder 2009). Nowhere is this more true than in undergraduate physics where a particularly wide range of semiotic resources such as graphs, diagrams, mathematics and language are essential for meaning making.  In order to learn to make these disciplinary meanings, students need to discover the disciplinary affordances(Fredlund et al. 2012, 2014; Airey & Linder 2017) of the semiotic resources used in their discipline. 

     

    Fredlund et al. (2015) propose a three-stage process that lecturers can use to help their students:  

     

    1. Identify the disciplinary relevant aspects needed for a particular task. 

    2. Select semiotic resources that showcase these aspects. 

    3. Create structured variation within these semiotic resources to help students notice the disciplinary relevant aspects and their relationships to each other.

     

    However, many disciplinary specific semiotic resources have been rationalized to create a kind of disciplinary shorthand(Airey 2009). In such cases the disciplinary relevant aspects needed may no longer be present in resources used, but are rather implied. In such cases the resources will need to be unpacked for students (Fredlund et al. 2014).  Such unpacking increases the pedagogical affordance of semiotic resources but simultaneously decreases their disciplinary affordance. 

    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. ActaUniversitatis  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, ÅngströmLaboratory, 9th June 2014 From   http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-226598

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

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

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

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

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

    Airey, J., Eriksson, U., Fredlund, T., and Linder, C. (2014). "The concept of disciplinary affordance”The5th International 360   conference: Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge. City: Aarhus University: Aarhus, Denmark, pp. 20.

    Eriksson, U. (2015) Reading the Sky: From Starspotsto Spotting Stars Uppsala:ActaUniversitatisUpsaliensis.

    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. 

    Fredlund2015 Using a Social Semiotic Perspective to Inform the Teaching and Learning of Physics. ActaUniversitatisUpsaliensis.

    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. 36055002. 

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015c). A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects. International Journal for   Lesson and Learning Studies2015 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 appresentationin the teaching and learning of science. European  Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(2), 43-49.

    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/

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

    Volkwyn, T., Airey, J., Gregorčič, B., & Heijkenskjöld, F. (in press). Learning Science through Transduction: Multimodal disciplinary   meaning-making in the physics laboratory. Designs for Learning.

    Volkwyn, T., Airey, J., Gregorčič, B., & Heijkenskjöld, F. (2016). Multimodal transduction in secondary school physics 8th International Conference on Multimodality, 7th-9th December 2016. Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-316982.

    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Presentation
  • 42.
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Music/physics slides
  • 43.
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    pdf of conference slides
  • 44.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. epartment of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SE .
    Eriksson, Urban
    National Resource Centre for Physics Education, Department of Physics, Lund University, Lund; Department of Science Education, Faculty of Education, Kristianstad, University, Kristianstad, SE .
    Unpacking the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram: A Social Semiotic Analysis of the Disciplinary and Pedagogical Affordances of a Central Resource in Astronomy2019In: Designs for Learning, ISSN 1654-7608, Vol. 11, no 1, p. 99-107Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper we are interested in the relationship between disciplinary knowledge and its representation. We carry out a social semiotic analysis of a central tool used in astronomy—the Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram—in order to highlight its disciplinary and pedagogical affordances. The H-R diagram that we know today combines many layers of astronomical knowledge, whilst still retaining some rather quirky traces of its historical roots. Our analysis shows how these ‘layers of knowledge’ and ‘historical anomalies’ have resulted in a number of counterintuitive aspects within the diagram that have successively lowered its pedagogical affordance. We claim that these counterintuitive aspects give rise to potential barriers to student disciplinary learning. Using our analysis as a case study, we generalise our findings, suggesting four types of barrier to understanding that are potentially at work when students meet disciplinary-specific semiotic resources for the first time. We finish the paper by making some general suggestions about the wider use of our analysis method and ways of dealing with any barriers to learning identified. In the specific case of the H-R diagram, we suggest that lecturers should explicitly tease out its disciplinary affordances by the use of ‘unpacked’ resources that have a higher pedagogical affordance. 

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 45.
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Airey et al 2014
  • 46.
    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.

     

     

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 47.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University Sweden.
    Grundström Lindqvist, Josefine
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Kung, Rebecca
    Independent Researcher.
    What does it mean to understand a physics equation?: A study of undergraduate answers In three countries2019In: Bridging Research and Practice in Science Education: Selected Papers from the ESERA 2017 Conference, Dublin: ESERA, 2019, p. 225-239Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

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

    John Airey1,2 Josefine Grundström Lindqvist1 Rebecca Kung3

    1Department of Physics, Uppsala University, Sweden

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

    3Independent researcher, Grosse Ile, MI, USA.        

                                                    

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

    Keywords: International Studies in Education, Physics, Higher Education

    Background

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

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

    Method

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

    How do you know when you understand a physics equation?

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

    Analysis and Results

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

    1      Significance: Why, when, where

    Do you know why the equation is needed?

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

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

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

    2      Origin

    Do you know the historical roots of the equation?

    Can you derive the equation?

    3      Describe/visualize

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

    Can you describe an experiment that the equation models?

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

    4      Predict

    Can you use the equation to predict?

    5      Parts

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

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

    Can you manipulate/rearrange the equation?

    6      Other equations

    Can you relate this equation to other equations you know?

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

    7      Calculate

    Can you use the equation to solve a physics problem?

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

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

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

    8      Explain

    Can you explain the equation to someone else?

    Discussion and conclusion

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

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

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

    Acknowledgements

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

    REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 48.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Grundström Lindqvist, Josefine
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Physics Didactics.
    Lippman Kung, Rebecca
    Independent researcher, Grosse Ile, USA.
    What does it mean to understand a physics equation?: A study of undergraduate answers in three countries2019In: Bridging Research and Practice in Science Education: Selected Papers from the ESERA 2017 Conference / [ed] Eilish McLoughlin, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019, p. 225-239Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this chapter we are interested in how undergraduate physics students in three countries experience the equations they meet in their education. We asked over 350 students in the US, Australia and Sweden the same simple question: How do you know when you understand a physics equation? Students wrote free-text answers to this question and these were transcribed and coded. The similarity of the answers we received across the three countries surprised us and led to us treating all the answers as a single “pool of meaning”. Qualitative analysis resulted in eight distinct themes: significance, origin, description, prediction, parts, relationships, calculation and explanation. Drawing on diSessa’s theory of knowledge in pieces, we argue that each theme represents a different disciplinary aspect of student understanding of physics equations. Educationally, we wondered how best to highlight the more holistic view of equations that analysis of the combined datasets revealed. This prompted us to write a set of questions that reflect the original data with respect to the eight themes. We suggest that when students meet a new physics equation they may ask themselves these questions in order to check their holistic understanding of what the equation represents. In continuing work we are asking our same original question to a cohort of physics lecturers in order to consolidate the themes we have already identified and to look for further themes. We are also trialling the themes and related questions that we generated in teaching situations. Here, we are interested in whether students perceive the questions as helpful in their learning. 

    References

    Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25, 64–79. doi:10/1075/aila.25.05air

    Airey, J., & Larsson, J. (2018).  Developing Students’ Disciplinary Literacy? The Case of University Physics. In: Tang K-S, Danielsson K. (eds) Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp 357-376. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_21

    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. doi:10.1002/tea.20265

    Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research and critique. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham

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

    Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in Science: A Comparison of Deep and Surface Approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<109::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-7

    diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105-226. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1002&3_2

    diSessa, A. A. (2018). A Friendly Introduction to “Knowledge in Pieces”: Modeling Types of Knowledge and Their Roles in Learning. In: Kaiser G., Forgasz, H., Graven, M., Kuzniak, A., Simmt, E., & Xu B. (eds) Invited Lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education. ICME-13 Monographs. Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-72170-5_5

     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(1), 15-28

    Eichenlaub, M., & Redish, E. F. (2018). Blending physical knowledge with mathematical form in physics problem solving. In: Pospiech, G., Michelini, M., &Eylon, B. (eds) Mathematics in Physics Education Research. Springer. arXiv:1804.01639

    Hechter, R. P. (2010). What does 'I understand the equation' really mean? Physics Education, 45 132-133. doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/45/2/F01

    Hegde, B., & Meera, B. N. (2012). How do they solve it? An insight into the learner's approach to the mechanism of physics problem solving. Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research, 8:010109. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010109

    Hsu, L., Brewe, E., Foster, T. M., & Harper, K. A. (2004). Resource Letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving. American Journal of Physics,72(9), 1147-1156. doi: 10.1119/1.1763175

    Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355

    Lising, L., & Elby, A. (2005). The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics. American Journal of Physics,73, 372-382.doi:10.1119/1.1848115

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

    Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. II - outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology,  46, 115-127. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x

    May, D. B., & Etkina, E. (2002). College physics students’ epistemological self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning. American Journal of Physics, 70(12),1249-1258. doi: 10.1119/1.1503377

    Nordling, C., & Österman, J. (2006). Physics Handbook. 8 edn. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden

    Redish, E. (1994). Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. American Journal of Physics, 62(9), 796-803. doi: 10.1119/1.17461

    Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognitive Instruction, 19, 479-541. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1904_3

    Swedish Research Council (2017) Good Research Practice. Swedish Research Council, Stockholm

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

  • 49.
    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.
    Developing Students’ Disciplinary Literacy?: The Case of University Physics2018In: Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education / [ed] Kok-Sing Tang, Kristina Danielsson, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018, p. 357-376Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The main data set used in this chapter comes from a comparative study of physics

    lecturers in Sweden and South Africa. (Airey 2012; 2013: Linder et al 2014). Semistructured

    interviews were carried out using a disciplinary literacy discussion matrix

    (Airey 2011b), which enabled us to probe the lecturers’ disciplinary literacy goals in the

    various semiotic resource systems used in undergraduate physics (i.e. graphs, diagrams,

    mathematics, language, etc.).

    The findings suggest that whilst physics lecturers have strikingly similar

    disciplinary literacy goals for their students, regardless of setting; they have very different

    ideas about whether they themselves should teach students to handle these disciplinaryspecific

    semiotic resources. It is suggested that the similarity in physics

    lecturers’disciplinary literacy goals across highly disparate settings may be related to the

    hierarchical, singular nature of the discipline of physics (Bernstein 1999; 2000).

    In the final section of the chapter some preliminary evidence about the disciplinary

    literacy goals of those involved in physics teacher training is presented. Using Bernstein’s

    constructs, a potential conflict between the hierarchical singular of physics and the

    horizontal region of teacher training is noticeable.

    Going forward it would be interesting to apply the concept of disciplinary literacy

    to the analysis of other disciplines—particularly those with different combinations of

    Bernstein’s classifications of hierarchical/horizontal and singular/region.

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

    Airey, J., & Larsson, J. (2014). What Knowledge Do Trainee Physics Teachers Need to Learn? Differences in the Views of Training Staff. International Science Education Conference ISEC 2014, National Institute of Education, Singapore. 25-27 November 2014.

    Airey, J., Lauridsen, K., Raisanen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2016). The Expansion of English medium Instruction in the Nordic Countries. Can Top-down University Language Policies Encourage Bottom-up Disciplinary Literacy Goals? Higher Education. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-015-9950-2

    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. (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.

    Airey, J. & Linder, C. (in press) Social Semiotics in University Physics Education. In D. Treagust, R. Duit, R. & H. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Physics Education Springer.

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

    Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

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

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

    Bernstein, B. (2000). pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research and critique. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Björk, L., & Räisänen, C. A. (2003). Academic Writing: A university writing course (3 ed.). Lund: studentlitteratur.

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

    CHE-SAIP. (2013).  Review of undergraduate physics education in public higher education institutions. http://www.saip.org.za/images/stories/documents/documents/Undergrad_Physics_Report_Final.pdf

    Duff, P. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(March 2010), 169-192.

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

    Forsman, J. (2015). Complexity Theory and Physics Education Research: The Case of Student Retention in Physics and Related Degree Programmes. Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A846064&dswid=-4668

    Fortanet-Gomez, I. (2013). CLIL in Higher Education. Towards a Multilingual Language Policy. Bristol UK: Multilingual Matters.

    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. (2014). Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 10(020128 (2014)).

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

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

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

    Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). The analysis of scientific texts in English and Chinese. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 124-132). London: Falmer Press.

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

    Hurd, P. d. H. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13-16.

    Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

    Johannsen, B. F. (2013). Attrition and retention in university physics: A longitudinal qualitative study of the interaction between first year students and the study of physics (Doctoral dissertation, University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Science, Department of Science Education).

    Josephson, O. (2005). Parallellspråkighet [parallel language use]. Språkvård, 2005(1), 3.

    Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education. Science Education, 81, 515-532.

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

    Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary Differences in the Use of English in Higher Education: Reflections on Recent Policy Developments  Higher Education 67(5), 533-549.

    Larsson, J., & Airey, J. (2014). Searching for stories: The training environment as a constituting factor in the professional identity work of future physics teachers. British Educational Research Association Conference BERA 2014, London, September 2014.

    Larsson, J., & Airey, J. (2015). The "physics expert" discourse model – counterproductive for trainee physics teachers' professional identity building? Paper presented at the 11th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Helsinki, August 31 to September 4, 2015.

    Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84:, 71–94.

    Lea, M. R., & Street, B.V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.

    Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions  Retrieved September 16, 2005, from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm

    Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(4), 5–32.

    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

    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.

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

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

    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.

    Nordic Educational Research Association. (2009). Literacy as worldmaking. Congress of the Nordic Educational Research Association: Available from http://www.neracongress2009.com.

    Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.

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

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

    Phillipson, R. (2006). English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of languages. European Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 13–32.

    Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy: Threats and opportunities. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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

    Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18.

    Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2004). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Tang, K. S. K., Ho, C., & Putra, G. B. S. (2016). Developing Multimodal Communication Competencies: A Case of Disciplinary Literacy Focus in Singapore. In Using Multimodal Representations to Support Learning in the Science Classroom (pp. 135-158). Springer International Publishing.

    UNESCO. (2004). The Plurality of Literacy and its Implications for Policies and Programmes. Paris: UNESCO.

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

  • 50.
    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, p. 62-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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Airey Larsson ISEC 2014
1234567 1 - 50 of 473
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