Ändra sökning
Avgränsa sökresultatet
123456 1 - 50 av 270
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • 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.
  • 1.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Stockholm University.
    A Social Semiotic Approach to Teaching and Learning Science2018Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    A social semiotic approach to teaching and learning science.

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

    References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015c). A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies2015 4:3 , 302-316 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 2.
    Airey, John
    Stockholms universitet, Naturvetenskapliga fakulteten, Institutionen för matematikämnets och naturvetenskapsämnenas didaktik. Uppsala University, Sweden.
    A Social Semiotic Approach to Teaching and Learning Science2018Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

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

  • 3.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    Assessing bilingual scientific literacy: A study of students speaking about physics in English and Swedish2009Ingår i: Paper presented at the Symposium for English for Specific Purposes University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology. 12-13 January Gothenburg, 2009Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 4.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Building on higher education research - How can we take a scholarly approach to teaching and learning2018Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 5.
    Airey, John
    Stockholms universitet, Naturvetenskapliga fakulteten, Institutionen för matematikämnets och naturvetenskapsämnenas didaktik.
    Building on higher education research - How can we take a scholarly approach to teaching and learning2018Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 6.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    Can you Teach it in English? Aspects of the Language Choice Debate in Swedish Higher Education2004Ingår i: Integrating Content and Language: Meeting the Challenge of a Multilingual Higher Education / [ed] Wilkinson, Robert., Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht University Press , 2004, s. 97-108Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 7.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik. Physics Education Research.
    Can you teach it in English? The Language Choice Debate in Swedish Higher Education.2004Ingår i: Integrating Content and Language: meeting the challenge of a multilingual higher education: proceedings of the ICL Conference, October 23-25 2003 / [ed] Robert Wilkinson, Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht , 2004, s. 97-108Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 8.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Changing to Teaching and Learning in English2016Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Abstract

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

  • 9.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Linneaus University.
    Changing to Teaching and Learning in English2015Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 10.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    CLIL: Combining Language and Content2017Ingår i: ESP Today, ISSN 2334-9050, Vol. 5, nr 2, s. 297-302Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
  • 11.
    Airey, John
    Stockholms universitet, Naturvetenskapliga fakulteten, Institutionen för matematikämnets och naturvetenskapsämnenas didaktik. Linnæus University, Sweden.
    CLIL: Combining Language and Content: Tarja Nikula, Emma Dafouz, Pat Moore and Ute Smit (Eds.). CONCEPTUALISING INTEGRATION IN CLIL AND MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION (2016), Bristol: Multilingual Matters2017Ingår i: ESP Today, ISSN 2334-9050, Vol. 5, nr 2, s. 297-302Artikel, recension (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 12.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    Content and Language: Bilingual Scientific Literacy in Swedish Universities2008Ingår i: Paper presented at CLIL Fusion conference 24-25 October, 2008, Tallinn, 2008Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 13.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance: Teaching the Multimodal Discourse of University Science2017Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance: Teaching the

    Multimodal Discourse of University Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

    teaching of multimodal science discourse via the concept of affordance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    different modes have different specialized affordances.

    In the presentation the interrelated concepts of disciplinary affordance and pedagogical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    disciplinary affordances of semiotic resources.

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

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

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

    make science meanings.

    References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 14.
    Airey, John
    Stockholms universitet, Naturvetenskapliga fakulteten, Institutionen för matematikämnets och naturvetenskapsämnenas didaktik. Uppsala University, Sweden.
    Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance: Teaching the Multimodal Discourse of University Science2017Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    The natural sciences have been extremely successful in modeling some specific aspects of the world around us. This success is in no small part due to the creation of generally accepted, paradigmatic ways of representing the world through a range of semiotic resources. The discourse of science is of necessity multimodal (see for example Lemke, 1998) and it is therefore important for undergraduate science students to learn to master this multimodal discourse (Airey & Linder, 2009). In this paper, I approach the teaching of multimodal science discourse via the concept of affordance. Since its introduction by Gibson (1979) the concept of affordance has been debated by a number of researchers. Most famous, perhaps is the disagreement between Gibson and Norman (1988) about whether affordances are inherent properties of objects or are only present when perceived by an organism. More recently, affordance has been drawn on in the educational arena, particularly with respect to multimodality (see Fredlund, 2015 for a recent example). Here, Kress et al (2001) have claimed that different modes have different specialized affordances. In the presentation the interrelated concepts of disciplinary affordance and pedagogical affordance will be presented. Both concepts make a radical break with the views of both Gibson and Norman in that rather than focusing on the perception of an individual, they refer to the disciplinary community as a whole. Disciplinary affordance is "the agreed meaning making functions that a semiotic resource fulfills for a disciplinary community". Similarly, pedagogical affordance is "the aptness of a semiotic resource for the teaching and learning of some particular educational content" (Airey, 2015). As such, in a teaching situation the question of whether these affordances are inherent or perceived becomes moot. Rather, the issue is the process through which students come to use semiotic resources in a way that is accepted within the discipline. In this characterization then, learning can be framed in terms of coming to perceive and leverage the disciplinary affordances of semiotic resources. In this paper, I will discuss: the disciplinary affordances of individual semiotic resources, how these affordances can be made “visible” to students and how the disciplinary affordances of semiotic resources are ultimately leveraged and coordinated in order to make science meanings.

  • 15.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Disciplinary differences in the use of English2014Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 16.
    Airey, John
    Linnéuniversitetet, Fakulteten för konst och humaniora (FKH), Institutionen för språk (SPR). Uppsala University.
    Disciplinary literacy2013Ingår i: Scientific literacy: Teori och praktik / [ed] Eva Lundqvist, Roger Säljö, Leif Östman, Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups Utbildning AB, 2013, s. 41-58Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
    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.

  • 17.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Disciplinary literacy2013Ingår i: Scientific literacy: teori och praktik / [ed] E. Lundqvist, R. Säljö & L. Östman, Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups Utbildning AB, 2013, s. 41-58Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
    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.

  • 18.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Disciplinary Literacy2016Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 19.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Stockholm University; Linneaus University.
    Disciplinary Literacy: A Research Overview2018Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

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

    References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Airey, J. (2010). Närundervisningsspråketändrastill engelska[When the teaching language changes to English] Omundervisning  påengelska(pp. 57-64). Stockholm: HögskoleverketRapport 2010:15R

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79. Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman, & R. Säljö(Eds.), Scientific literacy – teoriochpraktik

       (pp. 41-58): Gleerups.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 20.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Disciplinary Literacy: Theorising the Specialized Use of Language and other Modes in University Teaching and Learning2018Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

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

    Abstract

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

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

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

    References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79. Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman, & R. Säljö(Eds.), Scientific literacy – teoriochpraktik

       (pp. 41-58): Gleerups. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Linder, A., Airey, J., Mayaba, N., & Webb, P. (2014). Fostering Disciplinary Literacy? South African Physics Lecturers’ Educational   Responses to their Students’ Lack of Representational Competence. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science   and Technology Education, 18(3), 242-252. doi:10.1080/10288457.2014.95329

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 21.
    Airey, John
    Stockholms universitet, Naturvetenskapliga fakulteten, Institutionen för matematikämnets och naturvetenskapsämnenas didaktik. Uppsala University, Sweden; Linneaus University, Sweden.
    Disciplinary Literacy: Theorising the Specialized Use of Language and other Modes in University Teaching and Learning2018Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

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

  • 22.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    Discourse in the Zone: Experiencing scientific concepts through the practices of science2004Ingår i: Final seminar of the course Cultural-Historical Activity Theory 24-25 November, Lund University, 2004Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 23.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    EAP, EMI or CLIL?: (English for Academic Purposes, English Medium Instruction or Content and Language Integrated Learning)2016Ingår i: Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes / [ed] Hyland, K. & Shaw, P., Milton Park: Routledge, 2016, s. 71-83Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
  • 24.
    Airey, John
    Stockholms universitet, Naturvetenskapliga fakulteten, Institutionen för matematikämnets och naturvetenskapsämnenas didaktik. Uppsala University, Sweden.
    EMI, CLIL, EAP: What’s the difference?2018Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

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

  • 25.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    EMI, CLIL, EAP:What’s the difference?2018Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

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

    Abstract

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

    References

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

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

    Airey, J. (2010). Närundervisningsspråketändrastill engelska[When the teaching language changes to English] Omundervisning  påengelska(pp. 57-64). Stockholm: HögskoleverketRapport 2010:15R

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

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

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

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

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

    Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79. Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman, & R. Säljö(Eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik (pp. 41-58): Gleerups. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Marsh, Herbert. W., Hau, Kit-Tai., & Kong, Chit-Kwong. (2000). Late immersion and language of instruction (English vs. Chinese) in   Hong Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and non-language subjects. Harvard Educational Review, 70(3),   302-346. 

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

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

  • 26.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och materialvetenskap, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Estimating undergraduate bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden2009Ingår i: International CLIL Research Journal, ISSN 1797-948X, Vol. 1, nr 2, s. 26-35Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
  • 27.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    Estimating undergraduate bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden2009Ingår i: International CLIL Research Journal, ISSN 1797-948X, Vol. 1, nr 2, s. 26-35Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    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.

  • 28.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy: Summarizing ten years of research into teaching and learning in English2015Ingår i: English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education / [ed] Dimova, S. Hultgren, A-K. Jensen, C., Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton , 2015, s. 157-176Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Abstract

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

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

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

    References

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

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

    Airey, John. 2009b. Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 29.
    Airey, John
    Linnéuniversitetet, Fakulteten för konst och humaniora (FKH), Institutionen för språk (SPR). Uppsala University, Sweden.
    From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy: Summarizing ten years of research into teaching and learning in English2015Ingår i: 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, s. 157-176Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
    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.

  • 30.
    Airey, John
    Linnéuniversitetet, Fakultetsnämnden för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap, Institutionen för språk och litteratur, SOL. Uppsala University.
    "I don't teach language": The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden2012Ingår i: AILA Review, ISSN 1461-0213, Vol. 25, nr 1, s. 64-79Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    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.

  • 31.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    "I don't teach language": The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden2012Ingår i: AILA Review, ISSN 1461-0213, Vol. 25, nr 1, s. 64-79Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    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.

  • 32.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education: Disciplinary Literacy and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning2011Ingår i: Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: theory, research, and reflections / [ed] Jacobs, C., Cape Town: Cape Peninsula University of Technology , 2011, s. 57-65Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 33.
    Airey, John
    Linnéuniversitetet, Fakultetsnämnden för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap, Institutionen för språk och litteratur, SOL.
    Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education: Disciplinary Literacy and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.2011Ingår i: Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: theory, research, and reflections / [ed] Jacobs, C., Cape Town: Cape Peninsula University of Technology , 2011, s. 57-65Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
  • 34.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och materialvetenskap, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Language and Engineering: Towards Bilingual Scientific Literacy2008Ingår i: Paper presented at the Engineering Education Development Conference, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 26-27 November., 2008Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 35.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    Language and Engineering: Towards Bilingual Scientific Literacy2008Ingår i: Paper presented at Engineering Education Development 2008. Royal Institute of Technology. 26-27 November 2008. Stockholm, 2008Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 36.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    Language Aspects in Physics Education2004Ingår i: Invited Speaker. Meeting the Challenges of University Physics Education, Symposium on Physics Education June 3-4 2004, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 2004Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 37.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    Learning and language: Mapping the bilingual scientific literacy of Swedish science students2008Ingår i: Paper presented at the conference Cultural and Linguistic Practices in the International University. Roskilde University, 15-17 December, Roskilde, Denmark, 2008Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 38.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University.
    Learning and Sharing Disciplinary Knowledge: The Role of Representations2017Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Learning and Sharing Disciplinary Knowledge: The Role of Representations.

    Abstract

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

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

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

    References 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

     

  • 39.
    Airey, John
    Stockholms universitet, Naturvetenskapliga fakulteten, Institutionen för matematikämnets och naturvetenskapsämnenas didaktik. Uppsala University, Sweden.
    Learning and Sharing Disciplinary Knowledge: The Role of Representations2017Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

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

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

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

  • 40.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    Learning through English: Researching language environments in Scandinavian universities2008Ingår i: Symposium organized for the conference Cultural and Linguistic Practices in the International University. Roskilde University 15-17 December Roskilde Denmark, 2008Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 41.
    Airey, John
    Linnéuniversitetet, Fakultetsnämnden för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap, Institutionen för språk och litteratur, SOL. Uppsala University.
    Lecturing in English2012Ingår i: CALPIU '12 Higher education across borders: Transcultural interaction and linguistic diversity, Roskilde University, Denmark, 1-4 April, 2012Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 42.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Lecturing in English2012Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 43.
    Airey, John
    Linnéuniversitetet, Fakulteten för konst och humaniora (FKH), Institutionen för språk (SPR). Uppsala University.
    Lecturing in English: Comparing fluency and content in L1 and L22013Ingår i: ICLHE 2013: Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education. University of Maastricht, Netherlands, 11-13 April, 2013Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    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.

  • 44.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    Lecturing in English: Comparing fluency and content in L1 and L22013Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

    Keywords

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

  • 45.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    När undervisningen kräver att studenterna byter språk2009Ingår i: Invited plenary speaker. Högskoleverket Konferens om undervisning på engelska i svensk högre utbildning, 24 november 2009, 2009Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
  • 46.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    När undervisningsspråket blir engelska2006Ingår i: Språkvård, Vol. 4, s. 20-25Artikel i tidskrift (Övrig (populärvetenskap, debatt, mm))
  • 47.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Fysiska institutionen, Fysikundervisningen didaktik. Physics Education Research.
    När undervisningsspråket blir engelska2006Ingår i: Språkvård, ISSN 0038-8440, nr 4, s. 20-25Artikel i tidskrift (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [sv]

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

  • 48.
    Airey, John
    Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Fysiska sektionen, Institutionen för fysik och astronomi, Fysikundervisningens didaktik.
    När undervisningsspråket ändras till engelska2010Ingår i: Om undervisning på engelska, Stockholm: Högskoleverket , 2010, s. 57-64Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
  • 49.
    Airey, John
    Linnéuniversitetet, Fakultetsnämnden för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap, Institutionen för språk och litteratur, SOL.
    När undervisningsspråket ändras till engelska [When the teaching language changes to English]2010Ingår i: Om undervisning på engelska / [ed] Gunnar Enequist, Aija Sadurskis, Åsa Rurling, Stockholm: Högskoleverket , 2010, s. 57-64Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 50.
    Airey, John
    Högskolan i Kalmar, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen.
    Parallel Language Use2009Ingår i: Invited speaker. Paper presented at the symposium: Språkstrategier och parallellspråk vid nordiska universitet. Helsinki 26–27 mars 2009, 2009Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
123456 1 - 50 av 270
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • 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