| 5. |
- Airey, John, 1963-, et al.
(författare)
-
Developing Students’ Disciplinary Literacy? : The Case of University Physics
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education. - Cham, Switzerland : Springer. - 9783319691978 - 9783319691961 ; , s. 357-376
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The main data set used in this chapter comes from a comparative study of physicslecturers in Sweden and South Africa. (Airey 2012; 2013: Linder et al 2014). Semistructuredinterviews were carried out using a disciplinary literacy discussion matrix(Airey 2011b), which enabled us to probe the lecturers’ disciplinary literacy goals in thevarious semiotic resource systems used in undergraduate physics (i.e. graphs, diagrams,mathematics, language, etc.).The findings suggest that whilst physics lecturers have strikingly similardisciplinary literacy goals for their students, regardless of setting; they have very differentideas about whether they themselves should teach students to handle these disciplinaryspecificsemiotic resources. It is suggested that the similarity in physicslecturers’disciplinary literacy goals across highly disparate settings may be related to thehierarchical, singular nature of the discipline of physics (Bernstein 1999; 2000).In the final section of the chapter some preliminary evidence about the disciplinaryliteracy goals of those involved in physics teacher training is presented. Using Bernstein’sconstructs, a potential conflict between the hierarchical singular of physics and thehorizontal region of teacher training is noticeable.Going forward it would be interesting to apply the concept of disciplinary literacyto the analysis of other disciplines—particularly those with different combinations ofBernstein’s classifications of hierarchical/horizontal and singular/region.ReferencesAirey, 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=9547Airey, J. (2011a). The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix: A Heuristic Tool for Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education. Across the disciplines, 8(3).Airey, J. (2011b). Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education: Disciplinary Literacy and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: theory, research, and reflections (pp. 57-65). Cape Town, South Africa: Cape Peninsula University of Technology.Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79.Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik (pp. 41-58): Gleerups.Airey, J. (2015). Social Semiotics in Higher Education: Examples from teaching and learning in undergraduate physics In: SACF Singapore-Sweden Excellence Seminars, Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research in Higher Education (STINT), 2015 (pp. 103). urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-266049.Airey, J., & Larsson, J. (2014). What Knowledge Do Trainee Physics Teachers Need to Learn? Differences in the Views of Training Staff. International Science Education Conference ISEC 2014, National Institute of Education, Singapore. 25-27 November 2014.Airey, J., Lauridsen, K., Raisanen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2016). The Expansion of English medium Instruction in the Nordic Countries. Can Top-down University Language Policies Encourage Bottom-up Disciplinary Literacy Goals? Higher Education. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-015-9950-2Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2008). Bilingual Scientific Literacy? The use of English in Swedish university science programmes. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 145-161.Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2011). Bilingual scientific literacy. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. Roberts, P.-O. Wickman, G. Ericksen & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 106-124). London: Routledge.Airey, J. & Linder, C. (in press) Social Semiotics in University Physics Education. In D. Treagust, R. Duit, R. & H. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Physics Education Springer.American Association of Physics Teachers. (1996). Physics at the crossroads Retrieved from http://www.aapt.org/Events/crossroads.cfmBecher, T., & Trowler, P. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Bennett, K. (2010). Academic discourse in Portugal: A whole different ballgame? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 21-32.Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology Education, 20(2), 157-173.Bernstein, B. (2000). pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research and critique. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Björk, L., & Räisänen, C. A. (2003). Academic Writing: A university writing course (3 ed.). Lund: studentlitteratur.Bogdan, R. C., and Biklen, S. R. 1992. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.CHE-SAIP. (2013). Review of undergraduate physics education in public higher education institutions. http://www.saip.org.za/images/stories/documents/documents/Undergrad_Physics_Report_Final.pdfDuff, P. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(March 2010), 169-192.European Commission Expert Group. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.Forsman, J. (2015). Complexity Theory and Physics Education Research: The Case of Student Retention in Physics and Related Degree Programmes. Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A846064&dswid=-4668Fortanet-Gomez, I. (2013). CLIL in Higher Education. Towards a Multilingual Language Policy. Bristol UK: Multilingual Matters.Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33, 657-666.Fredlund, T., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Linder, A. (2014). Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 10(020128 (2014)).Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2015). Enhancing the possibilities for learning: Variation of disciplinary-relevant aspects in physics representations. European Journal of Physics, 36(5), 055001.Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3-11). New York: Bergin & Garvey.Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127-143). Boston: Houghton Miffin.Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). The analysis of scientific texts in English and Chinese. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 124-132). London: Falmer Press.Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.Hurd, P. d. H. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13-16.Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Johannsen, B. F. (2013). Attrition and retention in university physics: A longitudinal qualitative study of the interaction between first year students and the study of physics (Doctoral dissertation, University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Science, Department of Science Education).Josephson, O. (2005). Parallellspråkighet [parallel language use]. Språkvård, 2005(1), 3.Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education. Science Education, 81, 515-532.Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary Differences in the Use of English in Higher Education: Reflections on Recent Policy Developments Higher Education 67(5), 533-549.Larsson, J., & Airey, J. (2014). Searching for stories: The training environment as a constituting factor in the professional identity work of future physics teachers. British Educational Research Association Conference BERA 2014, London, September 2014.Larsson, J., & Airey, J. (2015). The "physics expert" discourse model – counterproductive for trainee physics teachers' professional identity building? Paper presented at the 11th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Helsinki, August 31 to September 4, 2015.Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84:, 71–94.Lea, M. R., & Street, B.V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions Retrieved September 16, 2005, from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htmLillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(4), 5–32.Linder, A., Airey, J., Mayaba, N., & Webb, P. (2014). Fostering Disciplinary Literacy? South African Physics Lecturers’ Educational Responses to their Students’ Lack of Representational Competence. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3), 242-252. doi:10.1080/10288457.2014.953294Martin, J. R. (2011). Bridging troubled waters: Interdisciplinarity and what makes it stick. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity (pp. 35-61). London: Continuum International Publishing.Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing Socially Just Subject-Mat
|
|
