uu.seUppsala universitets publikationer
Ändra sökning
Avgränsa sökresultatet
123 51 - 100 av 132
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Träffar per sida
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sortering
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
Markera
Maxantalet träffar du kan exportera från sökgränssnittet är 250. Vid större uttag använd dig av utsökningar.
  • 51.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University Sweden.
    Grundström Lindqvist, Josefine
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Kung, Rebecca
    Independent Researcher.
    What does it mean to understand a physics equation?: A study of undergraduate answers In three countries2017Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    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.

     

  • 52.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Larsson, Johanna
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Developing Students’ Disciplinary Literacy?: The Case of University Physics2018Ingår i: Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education / [ed] Kok-Sing Tang, Kristina Danielsson, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018, s. 357-376Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
    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. 

  • 53.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Larsson, Johanna
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    What Knowledge Do Trainee Physics Teachers Need to Learn?: Differences in the Views of Training Staff2014Ingår i: International Science Education Conference 2014 Programme, Singapore: Ministry of Education, National Institute of Education , 2014, s. 62-Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    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.

  • 54.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University.
    Larsson, Johanna
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Anne
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Investigating Undergraduate Physics Lecturers’ Disciplinary Literacy Goals For Their Students2017Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

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

    Abstract

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

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

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

    Keywords: Higher education, Scientific literacy, Representations.

    Introduction: disciplinary literacy

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

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

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

    Research questions

    Our research questions for this study are:

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

    Data Collection

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

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

    Analysis

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

    Results and Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Conclusion

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

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

    References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 55.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Linnaeus Univ, Dept Languages, Kalmar, Sweden.
    Lauridsen, Karen M.
    Aarhus Univ, Sch Business & Social Sci, Ctr Teaching & Learning, Aarhus, Denmark.
    Rasanen, Anne
    Univ Jyvaskyla, Language Ctr, Jyvaskyla, Finland.
    Salo, Linus
    Stockholm Univ, Ctr Res Bilingualism, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Schwach, Vera
    Nord Inst Studies Innovat Res & Educ, Oslo, Norway.
    The expansion of English-medium instruction in the Nordic countries: Can top-down university language policies encourage bottom-up disciplinary literacy goals?2017Ingår i: Higher Education, ISSN 0018-1560, E-ISSN 1573-174X, Vol. 73, nr 4, s. 561-576Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Recently, in the wake of the Bologna Declaration and similar international initiatives, there has been a rapid increase in the number of university courses and programmes taught through the medium of English. Surveys have consistently shown the Nordic countries to be at the forefront of this trend towards English-medium instruction (EMI). In this paper, we discuss the introduction of EMI in four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden). We present the educational setting and the EMI debate in each of these countries and summarize relevant research findings. We then make some tentative suggestions for the introduction of EMI in higher education in other countries. In particular, we are interested in university language policies and their relevance for the day-to-day work of faculty. We problematize one-size-fits-all university language policies, suggesting that in order for policies to be seen as relevant they need to be flexible enough to take into account disciplinary differences. In this respect, we make some specific suggestions about the content of university language policies and EMI course syllabuses. Here we recommend that university language policies should encourage the discussion of disciplinary literacy goals and require course syllabuses to detail disciplinary-specific language-learning outcomes.

  • 56.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Anne
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Mayaba, Nokhanyo
    Webb, Paul
    Dealing with Contemporary Challenges in University Education: Response Strategies of South African Physics Lecturers to Students’ Lack of Representational Competence2013Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

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

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

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

    References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 57.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Anne
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Mayaba, Nokhanyo
    Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
    Webb, Paul
    Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
    Problematising Disciplinary Literacy in a Multilingual Society: The Case of University Physics in South Africa.2013Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

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

     

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

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

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

    3 School of Languages and Literature, Linnæus University, Sweden

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

    Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

    References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • 58.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och materialvetenskap, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    A Disciplinary Discourse Perspective on University Science Learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes2008Ingår i: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, ISSN 0022-4308, E-ISSN 1098-2736, Vol. 46, nr 1, s. 27-49Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

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

  • 59.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Bilingual Scientific Literacy2011Ingår i: Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy / [ed] Cedric Linder, Leif Östman, Douglas Roberts, Per-Olof Wickman, Gaalen Erickson, Allan MacKinnon, New York: Routledge , 2011, s. 106-124Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 60.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och materialvetenskap, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och materialvetenskap, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Bilingual Scientific Literacy2008Ingår i: Paper presented at the Beyond Borders of Scientific Literacy: International Perspectives on New Directions for Policy and Practice Symposium at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education Congress Conference, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, May 31 - June 8., 2008Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 61.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi. Kalmar University College.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och materialvetenskap, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Bilingual Scientific Literacy?: The Use of English in Swedish University Science Courses2008Ingår i: Nordic Journal of English Studies, ISSN 1654-6970, E-ISSN 1654-6970, Vol. 7, nr 3, s. 145-161Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

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

  • 62.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Fysikens didaktik. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Fysikens didaktik. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Disciplinary learning in a second language: A case study from university physics.2007Ingår i: 12th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary, 2007Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 63.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik. Department of Human Sciences, University of Kalmar.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik. Department of Physics, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa..
    Disciplinary learning in a second language: A case study from university physics2007Ingår i: Researching Content and Language Integration in Higher Education / [ed] Wilkinson, Robert and Zegers, Vera, Maastricht: Maastricht University Language Centre , 2007, s. 161-171Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

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

     

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

  • 64.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Language and the Experience of Learning University Physics in Sweden2006Ingår i: European journal of physics, ISSN 0143-0807, E-ISSN 1361-6404, Vol. 27, nr 3, s. 553-560Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

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

  • 65.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Language, Bandwidth and the Shared Space of Learning2004Ingår i: EARLI SIG 9 Conference, Phenomenography and Variation Theory Go to School, Göteborg, Sweden, 2004Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 66.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Fysikens didaktik. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Fysikens didaktik. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Languages, Modality and Disciplinary Knowledge.2006Ingår i: 2nd International Conference on Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education. University of Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands., 2006Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 67.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Fysikens didaktik. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Fysikens didaktik. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Learning in a Second Language. Two Case Studies from University Physics.2006Ingår i: 2nd International Conference on Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education. University of Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands., 2006Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 68.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och materialvetenskap, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och materialvetenskap, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Learning through English: further insights from a case study in Swedish university physics2008Ingår i: Paper presented at the Nätverk och Utveckling 2008 Lärande i en ny tid - samtal om undervisning i högre utbildning Conference, Kalmar, Sweden, 7-9 May., 2008Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 69.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Fysikundervisningen didaktik. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen. Fysikundervisningen didaktik. Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Looking for Links between Learning and the Discursive Practices of University Science.2005Ingår i: 11th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus., 2005Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 70.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Social Semiotics in University Physics Education2017Ingår i: Multiple Representations in Physics Education / [ed] Treagust, Duit and Fischer, Cham: Springer, 2017, s. 95-122Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    In this chapter we discuss the application of social semiotics (Halliday 1978; van Leeuwen 2005) in the teaching and learning of university physics. For our purposes we define social semiotics as the study of the development and reproduction of spe- cialized systems of meaning making in particular sections of society. In our work we have used social semiotics as a lens to understand teaching and learning in undergraduate physics. There are many similarities between our social semiotic approach and the other representational work presented in the chapters of this vol- ume. The fundamental aim of this chapter is to introduce the supplementary and complementary aspects that a social semiotic perspective offers physics education and research in the area. Thus, in what follows, we describe our motivations for adopting a social semiotic approach and map out the similarities and differences to the extant body of work on multiple representations in physics education research. We then present a number of theoretical constructs that we have developed in our research group, and discuss their usefulness for understanding the processes of teaching and learning in undergraduate physics.

  • 71.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Social semiotics in university physics education: Leveraging critical constellations of disciplinary representations2015Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

     

     

    Purpose

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

     

    Why semiotics?

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

     

    Why social semiotics?

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

     

    Fluency in semiotic resources

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

     

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

     

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

     

    The disciplinary affordance of semiotic resources

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

     

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

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

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

     

    Recommendations

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

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

     

    References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • 72.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. School of Languages and Literature, Linnæus University, Sweden.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Teaching and Learning in University Physics: A Social Semiotic Approach2016Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

    References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 73.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Tvåspråkig ämneskompetens? En studie av naturvetenskaplig parallellspråkighet i svensk högreutbildning.2010Ingår i: Språkvård och språkpolitik / [ed] Lars-Gunnar Andersson, Olle Josephson, Inger Lindberg, and Mats Thelander, Stockholm: Språkrådet/Norstedts , 2010, s. 195-212Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 74.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University.
    Simpson, Zachary
    University of Johannesburg.
    Multimodal Science and Engineering Teaching: Perspectives from 8ICOM2018Ingår i: 9ICOM - Complete Book Of Abstracts, Odense, Denmark.: Syddansk Universitet, 2018Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Multimodal Science and Engineering Teaching: Perspectives from 8ICOM

    The previous international conference on multimodality – 8ICOM – featured two sessions devoted to multimodal, social semiotic approaches to science teaching and learning (c.f. Halliday1978; van Leeuwen 2005, Airey & Linder 2017). What the papers in these sessions shared was the argument that such perspectives on science, and science teaching, can, at least in part, respond to calls to ‘democratize’ science education by recognising diverse sets of semiotic resources and, in so doing, seeking to address impediments to equal participation (Burke et al., 2017). 

    The 8ICOM science sessions were particularly noteworthy given the backdrop against which 8ICOM had been organised. In the months leading up to the conference, South Africa (and Cape Town, in particular) had experienced campus unrest aimed at ‘decolonizing’ higher education in that country. As part of this movement, the phrase #ScienceMustFall briefly trended on social media. This emanated from the claim that ‘science’ is a western, colonial construct that needs to be dismantled and replaced with the teaching of indigenous, African knowledge. Although the #ScienceMustFall slogan has since departed from the wider public consciousness, the questions it raises nonetheless remain: why, and how, should science be taught?  Is science more than just a western colonial construction and, if so, why? And, what can the concept of multimodality offer by way of answering these questions? 

    In this paper, we offer an overview of the multimodal science papers presented in the two sessions at 8ICOM in the light of these questions. This is done with a view to assessing where the multimodality community finds itself regarding science education, and how it might address questions of the legitimacy of western science in the future. It is thus an attempt, as the conference theme suggests, to ‘move the theory forward’.      

    References

    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, Sweden.:   http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A173193&dswid=-4725.

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

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

    Lindstrøm, C. (2011) Analysing Knowledge and Teaching Practices in Physics. Presentation 21 November 2011. Department of   Physicsand Astronomy Uppsala University, Sweden.

    Martin, J. R. (2011). Bridgingtroubled waters: Interdisciplinarityand what makes it stick, in F. Christie and K. Maton, (eds.),   Disciplinarity. London: Continuum International Publishing, pp. 35-61.

    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.

  • 75.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Urban, Eriksson
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    A Semiotic Analysis of the Disciplinary Affordances of the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram in Astronomy.2014Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    One of the central characteristics of disciplines is that they create their own particular ways of knowing the world through their discourse (Airey & Linder 2009). This process is facilitated by the specialization and refinement of disciplinary-specific semiotic resources over time. Nowhere is this truer than in the sciences, where it is the norm that disciplinary-specific representations have been introduced and then refined by a number of different actors (Airey 2009). As a consequence, many of the semiotic resources used in the sciences today still retain some traces of their historical roots. This makes the aquisition of disciplinary literacy (Airey, 2013) particularly problematic (see Eriksson et al. 2014 for an example from astronomy).

     In this paper we analyse one such disciplinary-specific semiotic resource from the field of Astronomy—the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. We audit the potential of this semiotic resource to provide access to disciplinary knowledge—what Fredlund et al (2012) have termed its disciplinary affordances. Our analysis includes consideration of the use of scales, labels, symbols, sizes and colour. We show how, for historical reasons, the use of these aspects in the resource may differ from what might be expected by a newcomer to the discipline.

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

     

    References

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • 76.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Urban, Eriksson
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Högskolan i Kristianstad.
    What do you see here?: Using an analysis of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in astronomy to create a survey of disciplinary discernment.2014Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

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

  • 77.
    de Winter, James
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Stockholm university, Sweden.
    The views of pre-service physics teachers on the role of mathematics in the teaching and learning of physics2018Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Mathematics is commonly seen as playing a fundamental role in the understanding of undergraduate physics. However, this role poses challenges for teaching physics at lower levels. In England, increased formal assessment of mathematical skills in national physics examinations has made many teachers (re)consider this issue and their classroom practice.This qualitative study explores how English physics teachers view the physics/mathematics relationship. Our data consists of questionnaires and follow up interviews with an entire cohort of pre-service teachers training at an English university (n=13). Analysis included a line of enquiry on the tension between the value of mathematics in undergraduate physics and its value for teaching physics at school level.There was considerable variation across respondents, some seeing mathematics as integral to understanding school physics, whilst others prioritised conceptual understanding over mathematical formalism. Many noted how their views had changed during training, raising questions for those involved in physics teacher preparation.

  • 78.
    de Winter, James
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    What is a ‘good’ physics teacher? Views from the English education community.2019Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 79.
    de Winter, James
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    What is a ‘good’ physics teacher?: Views from the UK education community.2017Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 80.
    de Winter, James
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Department of Mathematics, Science Education Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
    What makes a good physics teacher?: Views from the English stakeholder community2020Ingår i: Physics Education, ISSN 0031-9120, E-ISSN 1361-6552, Vol. 55, nr 1, artikel-id 015017Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    When qualifying as a secondary school physics teacher in England, the statutory guidance is generic and very little subject-specific detail is offered. There is a lack of a clear, shared understanding of the subject-specific attributes that newly-qualified physics teachers are expected to have. This exploratory study reports the findings of a questionnaire that asked various stakeholders—including physics teachers, trainees and teacher trainers—to identify what they regard as the attributes of a 'good' physics teacher. From our analysis we present a set of attributes of a good physics teacher and consider how these may be grouped into themes that could provide a way to explore these expectations. We pay particular attention to the subject-specific, and consider how our findings align with the existing literature base.

  • 81.
    Domert, Daniel
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    Lippmann Kung, Rebecca
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik.
    An exploration of university physics students' epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations2007Ingår i: NorDiNa: Nordic Studies in Science Education, ISSN 1504-4556, E-ISSN 1894-1257, Vol. 3, nr 1, s. 15-28Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning have been shown to affect learning outcomes. Thisstudy explores how university physics students think about what it means to understand physicsequations. The data comes from semi-structured interviews with students from three Swedish univer-sities. The analysis follows a data-based, inductive approach to characterise students’ descriptions ofwhat it means to understand equations in terms of epistemological mindsets (perceived critical attri-butes of a learning, application, or problem-solving situation that are grounded in epistemology). Theresults are given in terms of different components of students’ epistemological mindsets. Relationsbetween individuals and sets of components as well as differences across various stages of students’academic career are then explored. Pedagogical implications of the findings are discussed and tenta-tive suggestions for university physics teaching are made.

  • 82.
    Eriksson, Urban
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Who needs 3D when the Universe is flat?2012Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 83.
    Eriksson, Urban
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Kristianstad University College.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Redfors, Andreas
    Kristianstad University.
    Awareness of the three dimensional structure of the Universe.2013Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 84.
    Eriksson, Urban
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Kristianstad University.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Redfors, Andreas
    Kristianstad University.
    Introducing the anatomy of disciplinary discernment: an example from astronomy2014Ingår i: European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, ISSN 2301-251X, E-ISSN 2301-251X, Vol. 2, nr 3, s. 167-182Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Education is increasingly being framed by a competence mindset; the value of knowledge lies much more in competence performativity and innovation than in simply knowing. Reaching such competency in areas such as astronomy and physics has long been known to be challenging. The movement from everyday conceptions of the world around us to a disciplinary interpretation is fraught with pitfalls and problems. Thus, what underpins the characteristics of the disciplinary trajectory to competence becomes an important educational consideration. In this article we report on a study involving what students and lecturers discern from the same disciplinary semiotic resource. We use this to propose an Anatomy of Disciplinary Discernment (ADD), a hierarchy of what is focused on and how it is interpreted in an appropriate, disciplinary manner, as an overarching fundamental aspect of disciplinary learning. Students and lecturers in astronomy and physics were asked to describe what they could discern from a video simulation of travel through our Galaxy and beyond. In all, 137 people from nine countries participated. The descriptions were analysed using a hermeneutic interpretive study approach. The analysis resulted in the formulation of five qualitatively different categories of discernment; the ADD, reflecting a view of participants’ competence levels. The ADD reveals four increasing levels of disciplinary discernment: Identification, Explanation, Appreciation, and Evaluation. This facilitates the identification of a clear relationship between educational level and the level of disciplinary discernment. The analytical outcomes of the study suggest how teachers of science, after using the ADD to assess the students disciplinary knowledge, may attain new insights into how to create more effective learning environments by explicitly crafting their teaching to support the crossing of boundaries in the ADD model.  

  • 85.
    Eriksson, Urban
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Kristianstad University College.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Redfors, Andreas
    Kristianstad University.
    Who needs 3D when the Universe is flat?2014Ingår i: Science Education, ISSN 0036-8326, E-ISSN 1098-237X, Vol. 98, nr 3, s. 412-442Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    An overlooked feature in astronomy education is the need for students to learn to extrapolate three-dimensionality and the challenges that this may involve. Discerning critical features in the night sky that are embedded in dimensionality is a long-term learning process. Several articles have addressed the usefulness of three-dimensional (3D) simulations in astronomy education, but they have neither addressed what students discern nor the nature of that discernment. A Web-based questionnaire was designed using links to video clips drawn from a simulation video of travel through our galaxy and beyond. The questionnaire was completed by 137 participants from nine countries across a broad span of astronomy education. The descriptions provided by the participants were analyzed using hermeneutics in combination with a constant comparative approach to formulate six categories of discernment in relation to multidimensionality. These results are used to make the case that the ability to extrapolate three-dimensionality calls for the creation of meaningful motion parallax experiences.

  • 86.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Att välja lämpliga semiotiska resurser.2013Ingår i: Scientific literacy: teori och praktik / [ed] E. Lundqvist, R. Säljö & L. Östman, Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups Utbildning AB, 2013, s. 59-70Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
  • 87.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Choosing appropriate resources: investigating students’ scientific literacy2012Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 88.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Critical aspects of scientific phenomena -- to the fore, in the background, or not present in scientific representations2012Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 89.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Enhancing the possibilities for learning: Variation of disciplinary-relevant aspects in physics representations2015Ingår i: European journal of physics, ISSN 0143-0807, E-ISSN 1361-6404, Vol. 36, nr 5, artikel-id 055001Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    In this theoretical article we propose three factors that can enhance the possibilities for learning physics from representations, namely: (1) the identification of disciplinary-relevant aspects for a particular disciplinary task, such as solving a physics problem or explaining a phenomenon, (2) the selection of appropriate representations that showcase these disciplinary-relevant aspects, and (3) the creation of variation within the selected representations to help students notice these disciplinary-relevant aspects and the ways in which they are related to each other. An illustration of how these three factors can guide teachers in their efforts to promote physics learning is presented.

  • 90.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction2012Ingår i: European journal of physics, ISSN 0143-0807, E-ISSN 1361-6404, Vol. 33, nr 3, s. 657-666Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Research has shown that interactive engagement enhances student learning outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that the representations we use in physics are important in such learning environments. In this paper we draw on a number of sources in the literature to explore the role of representations in interactive engagement in physics. In particular we are interested in the potential for sharing disciplinary knowledge inherent in so-called persistent representations (such as equations, diagrams and graphs), which we use in physics. We use selected extracts from a case study, where a group of senior undergraduate physics students are asked to explain the phenomenon of refraction, to illustrate implications for interactive engagement. In this study the ray diagram that was initially introduced by the students did not appear to sufficiently support their interactive engagement. However, the introduction of a wavefront diagram quickly led their discussion to an agreed conclusion. From our analysis we conclude that in interactive engagement it is important to choose appropriate persistent representations to coordinate the use of other representations such as speech and gestures. Pedagogical implications and future research are proposed.

  • 91.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    A case study of the role of representations in enabling and constraining the sharing of physics knowledge in peer discussions2012Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 92.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects2015Ingår i: International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, ISSN 2046-8253, E-ISSN 2046-8261, Vol. 4, nr 3, s. 302-316Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Purpose

    This article proposes a social semiotic approach to analysing objects of learning in terms of their critical aspects.

    Design/methodology/approach

    The design for this article focuses on how the semiotic resources – including language, equations, and diagrams – that are commonly used in physics teaching realise the critical aspects of a common physics object of learning. A social semiotic approach to the analysis of a canonical text extract from optics is presented to illustrate how critical aspects can be identified. 

    Findings

    Implications for university teaching and learning of physics stemming from this social semiotic approach are suggested.

    Originality/value

    Hitherto under-explored similarities between the Variation Theory of Learning, which underpins learning studies, and a social semiotic approach to meaning-making are identified. These similarities are used to propose a new, potentially very powerful approach to identifying critical aspects of objects of learning.

    References:

    Airey, J. and 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, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 27-49.

    Bernhard, J. (2010), “Insightful learning in the laboratory: some experiences from 10 years of designing and using conceptual labs”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 271-287.

    Booth, S. (1997), “On phenomenography, learning and teaching”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 135-158. 

    Booth, S. and Hultén, M. (2003), “Opening dimensions of variation: an empirical study of learning in a web-based discussion”, Instructional Science, Vol. 31 Nos 1/2, 65-86.

    Chandler, D. (2007), Semiotics: The Basics, Routledge, New York, NY. Clerk-Maxwell, J.C. (1871), “Remarks on the mathematical classification of physical quantities”, Proceedings London Math. Soc., London, pp. 224-233.

    Cope, C. (2000), “Educationally critical aspects of the experience of learning about the concept of an information system”, PhD thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora.

    Einstein, A. (1936), “Physics and reality”, Journal of the Franklin Institute, Vol. 221 No. 3, pp. 349-382.

    Feynman, R.P., Leighton, R.P. and Sands, M. (1963), The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I, Perseus Books, Reading, available at: www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu, (accessed 9 March 2015).

    Fredlund, T., Airey, J. and Linder, C. (2012), “Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction”, Eur. J. Phys., Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 657-666.

    Fredlund, T., Airey, J. and Linder, C. (2015), “Enhancing the possibilities for learning: variation of disciplinary-relevant aspects in physics representations”, Eur. J. Phys, Vol. 36, 055001.

    Fredlund, T., Linder, C., Airey, J. and Linder, A. (2014), “Unpacking physics representations: towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance”, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., Vol. 10, 020129.

    Gurwitsch, A. (1964), The Field of Consciousness, Vol. 2, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, PA. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978), Language as Social Semiotic, Edward Arnold, London.

    Halliday, M.A.K. (1993), “On the language of physical science”, in Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R. (Eds), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, The Falmer Press, London, pp. 59-75.

    Halliday, M.A.K. (1998), “Things and relations: regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge”, in Martin, J.R. and Veel, R. (Eds), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science, Routledge, London, pp. 185-236.

    Halliday, M.A.K. (2004a), “The grammatical construction of scientific knowledge: the framing of the English clause”, in Webster, J.J. (Ed.), Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday: The Language of Science, Vol. 5, Continuum, London, pp. 102-134.

    Halliday, M.A.K. (2004b), “Language and the reshaping of human experience”, in Webster, J.J. (Ed.), Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday: The Language of Science, Vol. 5, Continuum, London, pp. 7-23.

    Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (1999), Construing Experience Through Meaning, Cassell, New York, NY.

    Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004), An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Hodder Education, London.

    Hodge, R. and Kress, G. (1988), Social Semiotics, Cornell University Press, New York, NY.

    Ingerman, Å., Linder, C. and Marshall, D. (2009), “The learners’ experience of variation: following students’ threads of learning physics in computer simulation sessions”, Instructional Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 273-292.

    Kress, G. (1997), Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy, Routledge, London.

    Kress, G. (2010), Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication, Routledge, London.

    Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2006), Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, Routledge, New York, NY. 

    Kryjevskaia, M., Stetzer, M.R. and Heron, P.R.L. (2012), “Student understanding of wave behavior at a boundary: the relationships among wavelength, propagation speed, and frequency”, Am. J. Phys., Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 339-347.

    Lemke, J.L. (1983), “Thematic analysis, systems, structures, and strategies”, Semiotic Inquiry, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 159-187.

    Lemke, J.L. (1990), Talking Science, Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ. Lemke, J.L. (1998), “Multiplying meaning: visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text”, in Martin, J.R. and Veel, R. (Eds), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science, Routledge, London, pp. 87-114.

    Lemke, J.L. (2003), “Mathematics in the middle: measure, picture, gesture, sign and word”, in Anderson M., Saenz-Ludlow A., Zellweger S. and Cifarelli V. (Eds), Educational Perspectives on Mathematics as Semiosis: From Thinking to Interpreting to Knowing, Legas, Ottawa, pp. 215-234.

    Linder, C., Fraser, D. and Pang, M.F. (2006), “Using a variation approach to enhance physics learning in a college classroom”, The Physics Teacher, Vol. 44 No. 9, pp. 589-592.

    Lo, M.L. (2012), Variation Theory and the Improvement of Teaching and Learning, Göteborgs Universitet, Gothenburg.

    Lo, M.L. and Marton, F. (2011), “Towards a science of the art of teaching: using variation theory as a guiding principle of pedagogical design”, International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-22.

    Mahoney, M.S. (1994), The Mathematical Career of Pierre de Fermat, 1601-1665, Princeton University Press, Princeton, MA.

    Marton, F. (2006), “Sameness and difference in transfer”, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 499-535.

    Marton, F. (2015), Necessary Conditions of Learning, Routledge, New York, NY.

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

    Marton, F. and Pang, M.F. (2013), “Meanings are acquired from experiencing differences against a background of sameness, rather than from experiencing sameness against a background of difference: putting a conjecture to the test by embedding it in a pedagogical tool”, Frontline Learning Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 24-41.

    Marton, F. and Tsui, A.B.M. (2004), Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London.

    Marton, F., Runesson, U. and Tsui, A.B.M. (2004), “The space of learning”, in Marton, F. and Tsui, A.B.M. (Eds), Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 3-40.

    New London Group (1996), “A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 60-93. Norris, S.P. and Phillips, L.M. (2003), “How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy”, Science Education, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 224-240.

    O’Halloran, K.L. (2005), Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images, Continuum, London.

    Pang, M.F. and Marton, F. (2013), “Interaction between the learners’ initial grasp of the object of learning and the learning resource orded”, Instructional Science, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1065-1082.

    Van Leeuwen, T. (2005), Introducing Social Semiotics, Routledge, New York, NY.

    Warrell, D. A. (1994), “Sea snake bites in the Asia-Pacific region”, in Gopalakrishnakone, P. (Ed.), Sea Snake Toxinology, Singapore University Press, Singapore, pp. 1-36. 

    Wignell, P., Martin, J.R. and Eggins, S. (1993), “The discourse of geography: ordering and explaining the experiential world”, in Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R. (Eds), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, The Falmer Press, London, pp. 151-183.

    Wood, K. (2013), “A design for teacher education based on a systematic framework of variation to link teaching with learners’ ways of experiencing the object of learning”, International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 56-71.

    Young, H.D. and Freedman, R.A. (2004), University Physics with Modern Physics, Pearson, San Francisco, CA.

  • 93.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Learning in terms of the semiotic enactment of patterns of disciplinary-relevant aspects2014Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Student learning typically takes place in a range of situational contexts. In this paper we consider “sets of situations that have certain relevant aspects in common” (Marton, 2006, p. 503) where each aspect involved is qualitatively unique. We argue that in order for students to come to holistically experience the relevant disciplinary knowledge, they need to become familiar with enacting those relevant aspects (i.e. expressing them with semiotic resources, such as spoken and written language, equations and images.).

    We suggest it is possible to construct idealized patterns of the aspects that a discipline deems to be relevant for a given field of knowledge – thus characterizing its typical situations and phenomena. We call such a pattern an “idealized pattern of disciplinary relevant aspects” (IPDRA). Each of the aspects that together constitute an IPDRA can be seen to be manifested in discourse in terms of particular configurations, partly prescribed by the “rules” governing the semiotic resource at hand (such as grammar for language). The discursive configurational patterns (cf. Lemke's, 1990, "thematic patterns"; and Tang et al.'s, 2011, "multimodal thematic patterns") that can be empirically found in student discourse can then be compared with the IPDRA to see whether the required aspects have been enacted.

    The semiotic resources that are used in a scientific discipline are often highly specialized. Any given semiotic resource may therefore be more appropriate for expressing certain (combinations of) situational aspects (what we have called its “disciplinary affordances”, see Fredlund, Airey, & Linder, 2012). We argue it is the disciplinary affordances that determine which semiotic resources that can do which work in terms of representing the knowledge captured by an IPDRA. A pedagogical implication of this is that students need to become fluent in, and learn to choose, those semiotic resources that have the most appropriate disciplinary affordances for enacting a given IPDRA.

    In this paper we demonstrate how different semiotic resources have different disciplinary affordances and thus how changing the semiotic resource can lead to the possibility to enact different aspects of disciplinary knowledge. 

    References

    Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. Eur. J. Phys., 33, 657-666. doi: 10.1088/0143-0807/33/3/657

    Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.

    Marton, F. (2006). Sameness and difference in transfer. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 499-535. 

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

  • 94.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Towards addressing transient learning challenges in undergraduate physics: An example from electrostatics2015Ingår i: European journal of physics, ISSN 0143-0807, E-ISSN 1361-6404, Vol. 36, nr 5, artikel-id 055002Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    In this article we characterize transient learning challenges as learning challenges that arise out of teaching situations rather than conflicts with prior knowledge. We propose that these learning challenges can be identified by paying careful attention to the representations that students produce. Once a transient learning challenge has been identified, teachers can create interventions to address it. By illustration, we argue that an appropriate way to design such interventions is to create variation around the disciplinary-relevant aspects associated with the transient learning challenge.

  • 95.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Variation as a method for perceiving the disciplinary affordances of physics representations2014Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    The sharing of knowledge in physics uses representations that the discipline has built a great deal of information into. In many cases, much of this information is not immediately visible because it has been “packed” in ways that can only be accessed by specific disciplinary ways of seeing. For example, consider the de Sitter space represented by a particular hyperboloid.

    This is a powerful representation for physicists working in the field of string theory because, inter alia, it can provide de Sitter space with a multiplicity of coordinate systems (Domert, 2006, p. 30). At the same time such a representation can present challenges to student learning; students would have to learn to “see” what “lies behind” the representation. In this case, for example, how R is related to the concept of a de Sitter horizon.

    While for physicists such a representation might evoke a rich awareness (or perhaps rather help constraining that awareness, cf. Ainsworth, 2006), it conceivably evokes little appropriate disciplinary meaning when first met by students. Northedge (2002) argues that physics teachers may not be aware that what they have learnt to “see” is not directly accessible to learners. That is, while physicists have developed a competency that allows them to immediately see the “disciplinary affordances” of a representation (“the inherent potential of that representation to provide access to disciplinary knowledge”, Fredlund, Airey, & Linder, 2012, p. 658) they fail to recognize that their students may not, or even cannot, see what lies behind that representation.

    Much research has shown that students often learn surprisingly little from traditional teaching resources such as talk-and-chalk followed by problem solving (Redish, 2003). To deal with this challenge several research-informed resources have been developed and empirically shown to enhance students’ learning outcomes. Widely used examples include Tutorials (McDermott & Shaffer, 2002), Active Learning (Van Heuvelen & Etkina, 2006) and Peer Instruction (Crouch & Mazur, 2001). However, these resources have not been accompanied with a theoretical framing that would enable physics teachers to develop their own teaching resources. We believe that such a theoretical framing exists: creating the explicit experience of dimensions of variation (Marton & Booth, 1997). 

    In this presentation we develop this argument and illustrate it using examples of how representations can be varied in ways that facilitate the noticing of educationally critical aspects.

    References

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

    Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. Am. J. Phys., 69(9), 970-977.

    Domert, D. (2006). Explorations of university physics in abstract contexts: from de Sitter space to learning space. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala.

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

    Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

  • 96.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Linder, Anne
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Unpacking physics representations: towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance2014Ingår i: Physical Review Special Topics : Physics Education Research, ISSN 1554-9178, E-ISSN 1554-9178, Vol. 10, nr 2, artikel-id 020129Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    This theoretical article problematizes the access to disciplinary knowledge that different physics representations have the possibility to provide; that is, their disciplinary affordances. It is argued that historically, such access has become increasingly constrained for students as physics representations have been rationalized over time. Thus, the case is made that such rationalized representations, while powerful for communication from a disciplinary point of view, manifest as learning challenges for students. The proposal is illustrated using a vignette from a student discussion in the physics laboratory about circuit connections for an experimental investigation of the charging and discharging of a capacitor. It is concluded that in order for students to come to appreciate the disciplinary affordances of representations, more attention needs to be paid to their “unpacking”. Building on this conclusion, two questions are proposed that teachers can ask themselves in order to begin to unpack the representations that they use in their teaching. The paper ends by proposing directions for future research in this area.

  • 97.
    Grundström Lindqvist, Josefine
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Förståelse av fysikekvationer: Vad säger studenter?2013Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [sv]

    Abstract

    Tidigare arbeten som undersöker hur studenter förstår ekvationer inom fysik har traditionellt sätt fokuserat på hur studenter löser problem (se Hsu m..2004). Forskning har även visat att studenter kan se på ekvationer på många olika sätt (Bing & Redish 2009; Domert m.. 2007; Sherin, 2001). Det finns studier som tyder på att vissa studenter tycker sig förstå en ekvation inom fysik för att de kan använda den rent matematiskt (Airey, 2009). Vi tror att ett sådant begränsat synsätt på förståelse kan förhindra att studenter letar efter andra sätt att förstå ekvationer på. I detta projekt är vi därför intresserade av att få en bild av vad studenter anser att förståelse för en ekvation innebär.

    Vi har ställt frågan Hur vet du att du förstår en ekvation inom fysiken? till över 300 fysikstudenter i Sverige, USA och Australien. För tillfället befinner sig projektet i analysstadiet av den svenska datan, där vi ämnar ta fram stabila kategorier som innefattar de tankar vi funnit i svaren. Ur dessa kategorier kommer vi sedan att skapa en uppsättning generiska frågor som studenter kan använda för att kontrollera sin förståelse för ekvationer inom fysiken. Tanken är att studenter kan använda dessa frågor för att uppnå en mer komplett förståelse av en viss ekvation.

    Referenser

    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

    Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2009). Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants. Phys. Rev. ST Physics Ed. Research, 5(020108).

    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.

    Grundström Lindqvist, J. (2013). "Vad innebär det att förstå en ekvation inom fysiken enligt studenter?"Uppsala Universitet Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga fakultetens Universitetspedagogiska Konferens, TUK 2013, 19 April. City: Uppsala Universitet.

    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.

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

  • 98.
    Grundström Lindqvist, Josefine
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Understanding Physics Equations: Comparing the views of students and teachers2014Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Understanding a physics equation: Comparing the views of students and teachers

    Abstract

    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. Very little work has examined what it means to understand a physics equation, the only work we could locate was that of Domert, 2007 and Hechter, 2010. Building on these two sources a study that examined how students understand an equationwas recently carried out (Airey, Grundström Lindqvist & Kung, in production Grundström Lindqvist & Airey 2013a 2013b). The result of that study was twelve questions that the authors suggest can be used by students orlecturers to develop the understanding of physics equations. These questions were generated by the answers that over 300 students in Sweden, USA and Australia gave to the question; How do you know when you understand a physics equation?

    This project builds upon this earlier study by investigating the use of the twelve questions with focus groups of students and by ascertaining the opinions of physics lecturers.

    References

    Airey, Grundström Lindqvist & Kung (in production) What does it mean to understand a physics Equation?

    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.

    Grundström Lindqvist, J., and Airey, J. (2013). "Förståelse av fysikekvationer: Vad säger studenter?"Konferens i universitetspedagogisk utveckling, Uppsala, 16 October. City: Uppsala Universitet.

    Grundström Lindqvist, J. (2013). "Vad innebär det att förstå en ekvation inom fysiken enligt studenter?"Uppsala Universitet Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga fakultetens Universitetspedagogiska Konferens, TUK 2013, 19 April. City: Uppsala Universitet.

    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.

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

     

  • 99.
    Grundström Lindqvist, Josefine
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Vad innebär det att förstå en ekvation inom fysiken enligt studenter?2013Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 100.
    Grundström Lindqvist, Josefine
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Airey, John
    What does it mean to understand a physics equation?2014Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Despite their importance in the representation of physics knowledge, physics equations have received surprisingly little attention in the literature. Very little work has examined what it means to understand a physics equation, the only work we could locate was that of Domert, 2007 and Hechter, 2010.

    Building on these two sources a study that examined how university students understand a physics equation was recently carried out (Airey, Grundström Lindqvist & Kung, in production). The result of that study was a number of questions that the authors suggest can be used by students or lecturers to develop the understanding of physics equations. These questions were generated by the answers that over a hundred students gave to the question How do you know when you understand a physics equation? In this poster we present a work in progress follow up where we will compare lecturers' opinions with our earlier findings.

123 51 - 100 av 132
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf