lnu.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
12 1 - 50 of 99
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Assessing bilingual scientific literacy: A study of students speaking about physics in English and Swedish2009In: Paper presented at the Symposium for English for Specific Purposes University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology. 12-13 January Gothenburg, 2009Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 2.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Can you Teach it in English? Aspects of the Language Choice Debate in Swedish Higher Education2004In: Integrating Content and Language: Meeting the Challenge of a Multilingual Higher Education / [ed] Wilkinson, Robert., Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht University Press , 2004, p. 97-108Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 3.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Content and Language: Bilingual Scientific Literacy in Swedish Universities2008In: Paper presented at CLIL Fusion conference 24-25 October, 2008, Tallinn, 2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 4.
    Airey, John
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages. Uppsala University.
    Disciplinary literacy2013In: Scientific literacy: Teori och praktik / [ed] Eva Lundqvist, Roger Säljö, Leif Östman, Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups Utbildning AB, 2013, p. 41-58Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [sv]

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

  • 5.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Discourse in the Zone: Experiencing scientific concepts through the practices of science2004In: Final seminar of the course Cultural-Historical Activity Theory 24-25 November, Lund University, 2004Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 6.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Estimating undergraduate bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden2009In: International CLIL Research Journal, ISSN 1797-948X, Vol. 1, no 2, p. 26-35Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper reports ongoing research results from the first Swedish study to be carried out into the relationship between the teaching language and disciplinary learning at university level. The study explores the ability of Swedish science students to spontaneously describe and explain, in both Swedish and English, the concepts they met in their course lectures.

    The work reported here is a first attempt to evaluate a number of techniques that together may be used to estimate spoken bilingual scientific literacy. Transcripts of students using both English and Swedish to describe a science concept are analysed using three categories: fluency, involuntary codeswitching, and disciplinarity. These categories are then cross-referenced with the language in which the disciplinary concept was originally taught (Swedish, English, or both languages).

    The study finds that for some students, spoken scientific literacy in English is indeed a problem. Here, it has been suggested that these problems may be transitory, and more work is needed to ascertain whether this is indeed the case.

  • 7.
    Airey, John
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages. Uppsala University, Sweden.
    From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy: Summarizing ten years of research into teaching and learning in English2015In: English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education: English in Europe. Volume 3 / [ed] Dimova, S. Hultgren, A-K. Jensen, C., Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015, p. 157-176Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

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

  • 8.
    Airey, John
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Language and Literature. Uppsala University.
    "I don't teach language": The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden2012In: AILA Review, ISSN 1461-0213, Vol. 25, no 1, p. 64-79Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

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

  • 9.
    Airey, John
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Language and Literature.
    Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education: Disciplinary Literacy and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.2011In: Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: theory, research, and reflections / [ed] Jacobs, C., Cape Town: Cape Peninsula University of Technology , 2011, p. 57-65Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 10.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Language and Engineering: Towards Bilingual Scientific Literacy2008In: Paper presented at Engineering Education Development 2008. Royal Institute of Technology. 26-27 November 2008. Stockholm, 2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 11.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Language Aspects in Physics Education2004In: Invited Speaker. Meeting the Challenges of University Physics Education, Symposium on Physics Education June 3-4 2004, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 2004Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 12.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Learning and language: Mapping the bilingual scientific literacy of Swedish science students2008In: Paper presented at the conference Cultural and Linguistic Practices in the International University. Roskilde University, 15-17 December, Roskilde, Denmark, 2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 13.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Learning through English: Researching language environments in Scandinavian universities2008In: Symposium organized for the conference Cultural and Linguistic Practices in the International University. Roskilde University 15-17 December Roskilde Denmark, 2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 14.
    Airey, John
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Language and Literature. Uppsala University.
    Lecturing in English2012In: CALPIU '12 Higher education across borders: Transcultural interaction and linguistic diversity, Roskilde University, Denmark, 1-4 April, 2012Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 15.
    Airey, John
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages. Uppsala University.
    Lecturing in English: Comparing fluency and content in L1 and L22013In: ICLHE 2013: Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education. University of Maastricht, Netherlands, 11-13 April, 2013Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

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

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

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

  • 16.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    När undervisningen kräver att studenterna byter språk2009In: Invited plenary speaker. Högskoleverket Konferens om undervisning på engelska i svensk högre utbildning, 24 november 2009, 2009Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 17.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    När undervisningsspråket blir engelska2006In: Språkvård, Vol. 4, p. 20-25Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 18.
    Airey, John
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Language and Literature.
    När undervisningsspråket ändras till engelska [When the teaching language changes to English]2010In: Om undervisning på engelska / [ed] Gunnar Enequist, Aija Sadurskis, Åsa Rurling, Stockholm: Högskoleverket , 2010, p. 57-64Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 19.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Parallel Language Use2009In: Invited speaker. Paper presented at the symposium: Språkstrategier och parallellspråk vid nordiska universitet. Helsinki 26–27 mars 2009, 2009Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 20.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University, Department of Physics.
    Physics Students’ Experiences of the Disciplinary Discourse Encountered in Lectures in English and Swedish2006Licentiate thesis, monograph (Other academic)
  • 21.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Research into the relationship between learning and the language of instruction2008Other (Other academic)
  • 22.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala, Department of Physics and Materials Science.
    Science, Language and Literacy: Case studies of learning in Swedish university physics2009Doctoral thesis, monograph (Other academic)
  • 23.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Supporting Act? The Role of English Language in Swedish University Degree Programmes2003In: Developing Language and Communication in Higher Education: Trends in Teaching and Research. Chalmers Lindholmen University College, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2003Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 24.
    Airey, John
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Language and Literature.
    Talking about Teaching in English: Swedish university lecturers' experiences of changing their teaching language2011In: Ibérica, ISSN 1139-7241, Vol. 22, no fall, p. 35-54Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study documents the experiences of Swedish university lecturers when they change from teaching in their first language to teaching in English. Eighteen lecturers from two Swedish universities took part in a training course for teachers who need to give content courses in English. As part of the course the participants gave mini-lectures in their first language in a subject area that they usually teach. The following week, the lecturers gave the same lectures again, this time in English. The pairs of lectures were videoed and commented on by the lecturers themselves and the whole course cohort in an online discussion forum (an input of approximately 60 000 words). In addition, twelve of the lecturers were interviewed about their experiences of changing language in this way (total of 4 hours of recorded material).

     

    The paper presents a qualitative analysis of the thoughts and experiences expressed by the lecturers in their online discussions and in the interviews concerning the process of changing the language of instruction to English. These results are presented as nine themes. Nine recommendations for teachers changing to teaching in English are also presented. The findings replicate those of earlier studies with one notable exception: the lecturers in this study were acutely aware of their limitations when teaching in English. It is suggested that this may be due to the lecturers’ relative inexperience of English-medium instruction.

     

  • 25.
    Airey, John
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages. Stockholm University.
    Tarja Nikula, Emma Dafouz, PatMoore and Ute Smit (Eds.). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. (2016),Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 276 pp., ISBN978-1-78309-613-8 (PBK).2017In: ESP Today - Journal of English for Specific Purposes at Tertiary Level, E-ISSN 2334-9050, Vol. 5, no 2, p. 297-302Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 26.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Teaching in English: The effects of language choice on student learning in Swedish university science.2008In: Paper presented at the international conference on language planning and language policy. 9–10 June Saltjöbaden, 2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 27.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Teaching University Courses through the Medium of English: The current state of the art2003In: Didaktikens mångfald / [ed] Fransson, G., Morberg, Å., Nilsson, R. and Schüllerqvist, B., Gävle, Sweden: Högskolan i Gävle , 2003, p. 11-18Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 28.
    Airey, John
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Language and Literature.
    The ability of students to explain science concepts in two languages2010In: Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication Studies, ISSN 0904-1699, E-ISSN 1903-1785, Vol. 45, p. 35-49Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 29.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala University.
    The disciplinary literacy discussion matrix: A heuristic tool for initiating collaboration in higher education2011In: Across the Disiplines, ISSN 1554-8244, E-ISSN 1554-8244, Vol. 8, no 3Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

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

  • 30.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    The relationship between teaching language and learning in Swedish higher education2009In: Keynote Speaker. CIP SYMPOSIUM 2009 English as the medium of instruction in higher education Attitudes, challenges and quality assurance Friday 13th November 2009. Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use. Copenhagen University, 2009Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 31.
    Airey, John
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Language and Literature.
    The relationship between teaching language and student learning in Swedish university physics2011In: Language and learning in the international university: From English uniformity to diversity and hybridity / [ed] B. Preisler, I. Klitgård & A. Fabricius, Multilingual Matters, 2011, p. 3-18Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 32.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Two languages, one purpose: Parallel language use in Swedish University Science2009In: Paper presented at Languages for Specific Purposes LSP 2009 17 - 21 August 2009, Aarhus, 2009Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 33.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Utbildning på engelska – hur förbereder vi studenterna genom marknadsföring och information?2007In: Paneldebatt 31 Maj 2007 Mittuniversitet. HögskoleinformatörskonferensenArticle in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 34.
    Airey, John
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Vi blir dummare på engelska, but is there anything we can do about it?2007In: Paneldebatt 24 maj 2007 Kulturhuset Stockholm. Anordnad av Stockholms Akademiska Forum, Forskning och Framsteg, British Council och Vetenskap och AllmänhetArticle in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 35.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages. Uppsala University.
    Berge, Maria
    Umeå University.
    Music and physics don’t mix!: What the humorous misuse of disciplinary-specific semiotic resources can tell us about disciplinary boundaries.2014In: The 5th International 360 Conference. Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge, May 8-10 2014, Aarhus University, Denmark, Aarhus: Aarhus University , 2014, p. 21-Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

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

  • 36.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University.
    Berge, Maria
    Umeå University.
    That's Funny! The humorous effect of misappropriating disciplinary-specific semiotic resources2014In: The first Conference of the International Association for Cognitive Semiotics, Lund, Sweden, 25-27 Sept 2014, 2014, p. 50-51Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

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

  • 37.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Domert, Daniel
    Linder, Cedric
    Representing disciplinary knowledge? Undergraduate students' experience of the equations in physics lectures2006In: EARLI SIG-2 biennial meeting, 30 August - 1 September 2006. University of Nottingham , Nottingham, UK, 2006Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 38.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University.
    Eriksson, Urban
    Uppsala University.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    Uppsala University.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University.
    On the Disciplinary Affordances of Semiotic Resources2014In: Book of Abstracts: The First Conference of the International Association for Cognitive Semiotics (IACS-2014), September 25-27, 2014, 2014, p. 54-55Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

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

  • 39.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Uppsala University.
    Eriksson, Urban
    Uppsala University.
    Fredlund, Tobias
    Uppsala University.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University.
    The Concept of Disciplinary Affordance2014In: The 5th International 360 Conference. Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge, May 8-10 2014, Aarhus University, Denmark, 2014, p. 20-Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Since its introduction by Gibson (1979) the concept of affordance has been discussed at length by a number of researchers. Most famous, perhaps is the disagreement between Gibson and Norman (1988) about whether affordances are inherent properties of objects or are only present when perceived by an organism. More recently, affordance has been drawn on in the educational arena, particularly with respect to multimodality (see Linder (2013) for a recent example). Here, Kress et al (2001) claim that different modes have different specialized affordances.

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

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

  • 40.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Kelly, Greg
    Linder, Cedric
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Science and Engineering, School of Natural Sciences.
    Martins, Isabel
    Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy: Visions for Research and Practice: Exploring language perspectives2009In: Symposium paper presented at European Science Education Research Association ESERA 2009, 2009Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 41.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages. Uppsala University, Sweden;Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Larsson, Johanna
    Uppsala University, Sweden.
    Developing students' disciplinary literacy?: The case of university physics2018In: Global developments in literacy research for science education / [ed] Kok-Sing Tang & Kristina Danielsson, Springer, 2018, p. 357-376Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In this chapter we use the concept of disciplinary literacy (Airey, 2011a, 2013) to analyze the goals of university physics lecturers. Disciplinary literacy refers to a particular mix of disciplinary-specific communicative practices developed for three specific sites: the academy, the workplace and society. It has been suggested that the development of disciplinary literacy may be seen as one of the primary goals of university studies (Airey, 2011a). 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, Airey, Mayaba, & Webb, 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 (i.e. graphs, diagrams, mathematics, language). 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 disciplinary-specific 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.

  • 42.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages. Uppsala University.
    Larsson, Johanna
    Uppsala University.
    What Knowledge Do Trainee Physics Teachers Need to Learn?: Differences in the Views of Training Staff2014In: International Science Education Conference ISEC 2014, National Institute of Education, Singapore, 25-27 November, 2014, Singapore: Ministry of Education, National Institute of Education , 2014, p. 62-Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

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

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

  • 43.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages. Uppsala University.
    Lauridsen, Karen M.
    Aarhus University, Denmark.
    Rasanen, Anne
    University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
    Salo, Linus
    Stockholm University.
    Schwach, Vera
    Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Norway.
    The expansion of English-medium instruction in the Nordic countries: Can top-down university language policies encourage bottom-up disciplinary literacy goals?2017In: Higher Education, ISSN 0018-1560, E-ISSN 1573-174X, Vol. 73, no 4, p. 561-576Article in journal (Refereed)
    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.

  • 44.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages. Uppsala University.
    Linder, Anne
    Uppsala University.
    Mayaba, Nokhanyo
    Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa.
    Webb, Paul
    Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa.
    Problematising Disciplinary Literacy in a Multilingual Society: The Case of University Physics in South Africa2013In: 21st Annual Conference of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa, 14 - 17 January, 2013, 2013Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    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.

  • 45.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Linder, C
    Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden2006In: European journal of physics, Vol. 27, no 3, p. 553-560Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 46.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University.
    A Disciplinary Discourse Perspective on University Science Learning: Achieving Fluency in a Critical Constellation of Modes2009In: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, ISSN 0022-4308, E-ISSN 1098-2736, Vol. 46, no 1, p. 27-49Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

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

  • 47.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Language and Literature.
    Linder, Cedric
    Uppsala University ; University of the Western Cape, South Africa.
    Bilingual Scientific Literacy2011In: Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy / [ed] C. Linder, L. Östman, D. Roberts, P.-O. Wickman, G. Ericksen & A. MacKinnon, London: Routledge , 2011, p. 106-124Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 48.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Linder, Cedric
    Bilingual Scientific Literacy...2008In: Paper presented at Canadian Society for the Study of Education Conference 31 May-3 June 2008, University of British Columbia, 2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 49.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Linder, Cedric
    Bilingual Scientific Literacy? The Use of English in Swedish University Science Courses2008In: Nordic Journal of English Studies, ISSN 1654-6970, E-ISSN 1654-6970, Vol. 7, no 3, p. 145-161Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 50.
    Airey, John
    et al.
    University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences.
    Linder, Cedric
    Disciplinary learning in a second language: A case study from university physics2007In: Researching Content and Language Integration in Higher Education / [ed] Wilkinson, R. & Zegers, V., Maastricht:: Maastricht University Language Centre , 2007, p. 161-171Chapter in book (Other academic)
12 1 - 50 of 99
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf