↓ Direkt till sidans innehåll
↓ Direkt till sidans sekundära innehåll (sidomenyn)

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Airey John 1963 ) "

Sökning: WFRF:(Airey John 1963 )

Resultat 1-50 av 119

Sortera/gruppera träfflistan

Sortering: Träffar per sida:

Numrering	Referens	Omslagsbild	Hitta
1.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Making the Invisible Visible : The role of undergraduate textbooks in the teaching and learning of physics and chemistry 2023 Ingår i: Designing futures. - London : UCL Press. Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract As disciplines, undergraduate physics and chemistry leverage a particularly wide range of semiotic systems (modes) in order to create and communicate their scientific meanings. Examples of the different semiotic systems employed are: spoken and written language, mathematics, chemical formulae, graphs, diagrams, sketches, computer simulations, hands-on work with experimental apparatus, computer simulations, etc. Individual semiotic resources within this range of semiotic systems are coordinated in specific constellations (Airey & Linder, 2009) in order to mediate scientific knowledge. In this Swedish Research Council project, we are interested in the representation of scientific phenomena that cannot be seen. The question we pose is: How is scientific knowledge mediated when we cannot directly interact with the phenomena in question through our senses? We adopt a social semiotic approach (Airey & Linder, 2017; van Leeuwen, 2005), to investigate the ways in which two phenomena—electromagnetic fields and chemical bonds—are presented in undergraduate textbooks. To do this we carried out a semiotic audit (Airey & Erikson, 2019) of eight textbooks (four in each discipline). We note that the individual resources used have a mixture of affordances—whilst the majority retain high disciplinary affordance, others are unpacked (Patron et al. 2021) providing higher pedagogical affordance. We discuss the ways in which the resources have been combined and orchestrated (Bezemer & Jewitt, 2010) in order to attempt to make visible that which is invisible, and identify a number of potential problems. In earlier work, Volkwyn et al. (2019) demonstrated how experimental work with physics devices can make the Earth’s magnetic field accessible to students through chains of transduction. Thus, we propose that encouraging transductions across the semiotic resource systems provided in textbooks may help students to experience the invisible.ReferencesAirey, J. (2006). Physics students' experiences of the disciplinary discourse encountered in lectures in English and Swedish (Licentiate dissertation, Department of Physics, Uppsala University).Airey, J. (2009). Science, language, and literacy: Case studies of learning in Swedish university physics (Doctoral dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis).Airey, J. (2015). Social Semiotics in Higher Education: Examples from teaching and learning in undergraduate physics. In In: SACF Singapore-Sweden Excellence Seminars, Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research in Higher Education (STINT) , 2015 (pp. 103). Airey, J., & Eriksson, U. (2019). Unpacking the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram: A social semiotic analysis of the disciplinary and pedagogical affordances of a central resource in astronomy. Designs for Learning, 11(1), 99-107.Goodwin, C. (2015). Professional vision. In Aufmerksamkeit: Geschichte-Theorie-Empirie (pp. 387-425). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.O’Halloran, K. (2007). Mathematical and scientific forms of knowledge: A systemic functional multimodal grammatical approach. language, Knowledge and pedagogy: functional linguistic and sociological perspective, 205-236.Patron, E. (2022). Exploring the role that visual representations play when teaching and learning chemical bonding: An approach built on social semiotics and phenomenography(Doctoral dissertation, Linnaeus University Press).
2.	Hill, Matthew, et al. (författare) Developing and Evaluating a Survey for Representational Fluency in Science 2014 Ingår i: International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education. - : The University of Sydney. - 1836-0858 .- 1836-0866. ; 22:5, s. 22-42 Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract Various representations, used for communication and problem solving in science, are an unspoken prerequisite for learning, understanding, and participating in scientific communities. Work has been done highlighting the importance of competence in particular multiple representations in science learning, the specific representational practices for the different disciplines, and to translating between representations. However, limited attention has been paid to obtaining a threshold level of ability in, not only one, but some combination of representations for a discipline. This notion leads to generic fluency with various representational forms used in science, with discipline specific expertise – representational fluency nuanced for a particular discipline. The aim of this study is to examine representational fluency nuanced for physics. This is achieved through the development of a survey instrument, the Representational Fluency Survey (RFS), consisting of representationally rich multiple choice items obtained predominantly from various validated sources. The survey was implemented with 334 students from first year to postgraduate at an Australian university to capture a cross-sectional snapshot of representational fluency nuanced for the specialization of physics. Reliability and validity were determined through standard statistical analysis and through consultation with experts. The results show that representation fluency develops across the years, and that there is a threshold associated with fluency. However, our study does not comment on causality. We demonstrate that in coalescing existing research on multiple representation while paying attention to disciplinary differences is a potentially fruitful pursuit. The RFS test of representational fluency in science is tailored to be used with university physics students but illustrates that adaption for other specializations may be possible.
3.	Linder, Cedric, 1954-, et al. (författare) Towards modelling formal learning in terms of the multimodal emergence of transduction. 2017 Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract Disciplinary learning is a multimodal endeavour that calls for achieving representational competency (Linder et al 2014), which is constituted from the coordination of disciplinary semiotic resources (Airey & Linder, in press). Examples of these semiotic resources for disciplines such as physics and chemistry are mathematics, graphs, gestures, diagrams and language. The effective learning of complex subjects such as these presents many unsolved challenges. In order to begin working towards solving these challenges much still needs to be done to deepen our understanding of how such disciplinary learning takes place. Taking the idea that formal learning is made possible through experiencing specific patterns of variation (Marton 2015), we will use our analysis of student-engagement data to present a case for seeing complex learning in terms of the multimodal emergence (Davis & Sumara, 2006) of transduction (Kress, 2010). We use these results to propose a model of disciplinary learning that characterizes the multimodal emergence of transduction in terms of the start of a journey towards achieving fluency in a critical constellation of semiotic resources (Airey & Linder 2009; in press) for a given object of learning.ReferencesAirey, J. & Linder, C. (in press) Social Semiotics in University Physics Education, in Treagust, D., Duit R., Fischer, H. (eds) Multiple Representations in Physics Education: Springer.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.Kress G. 2010. Multimodality. A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching and research: Erlbaum.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. Marton, F. (2015). Necessary Conditions of learning: Routledge
4.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) A Semiotic Analysis of the Disciplinary Affordances of the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram in Astronomy 2014 Ingår i: The 5th International 360 Conference, Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge, May 8-10 2014, Aarhus University, Denmark. - Aarhus : Aarhus University. ; , s. 22- Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract One of the central characteristics of disciplines is that they create their own particular ways of knowing the world through their discourse (Airey & Linder 2009). This process is facilitated by the specialization and refinement of disciplinary-specific semiotic resources over time. Nowhere is this truer than in the sciences, where it is the norm that disciplinary-specific representations have been introduced and then refined by a number of different actors (Airey 2009). As a consequence, many of the semiotic resources used in the sciences today still retain some traces of their historical roots. This makes the aquisition of disciplinary literacy (Airey, 2013) particularly problematic (see Eriksson et al. 2014 for an example from astronomy). In this paper we analyse one such disciplinary-specific semiotic resource from the field of Astronomy—the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. We audit the potential of this semiotic resource to provide access to disciplinary knowledge—what Fredlund et al (2012) have termed its disciplinary affordances. Our analysis includes consideration of the use of scales, labels, symbols, sizes and colour. We show how, for historical reasons, the use of these aspects in the resource may differ from what might be expected by a newcomer to the discipline.We suggest that some of the issues we highlight in our analysis may, in fact, be contributors to alternative conceptions and therefore propose that lecturers pay particular attention to the disambiguation of these features for their students.
5.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) A Social Semiotic Approach to Teaching and Learning Science 2018 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract 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.
6.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) A Social Semiotic Approach to Teaching and Learning Science 2018 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract 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.ReferencesAirey, 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=9547Airey, 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-226598Airey, 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-260209Airey, 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.
7.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Building on higher education research - How can we take a scholarly approach to teaching and learning 2018 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
8.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Changing to Teaching and Learning in English 2016 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract AbstractIn 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, 1963- (författare) Changing to Teaching and Learning in English 2015 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
10.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) 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 Matters 2017 Ingår i: ESP Today. - : Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade. - 2334-9050. ; 5:2, s. 297-302 Recension (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
11.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) CLIL: Combining Language and Content 2017 Ingår i: ESP Today. - : Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade. - 2334-9050. ; 5:2, s. 297-302 Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
12.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Dealing with Contemporary Challenges in University Education: Response Strategies of South African Physics Lecturers to Students’ Lack of Representational Competence 2013 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract Recently, both South Africa and the United States have undertaken reviews of the physics education being offered in their respective countries in higher education institutions (CHE-SAIP report, 2013; NRC report, 2013). These reviews came about as a consequence of concerns that have arisen regarding the appropriateness of curricula and the quality of the education that is currently being offered by our universities.In the light of these two reviews what becomes critical is how physics departments, specifically individual physics lecturers, adapt their teaching practices in response to the competencies of their students.Many studies have shown that in order for meaningful learning to occur in university science subjects such as physics, lecturers need to give more consideration to challenges that arise from the different communication forms such as written and oral language, diagrams, graphs, mathematics, apparatus, laboratory routines, etc. that are typical to the educational environment.This seminar will discuss results arising from a set of comprehensive interviews undertaken with physics lecturers from South Africa and Sweden in relation to how they deal with these challenges, which we are calling challenges of representational competence. The aim of this presentation is to contribute to a better understanding of how the development of representational competence in physics students is currently being faced and to open a discussion about appropriateness and quality in the teaching and learning of university physics.Funding from the Swedish National Research Council and the South African National Research Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.ReferencesAberg-Bengtsson, L., & Ottosson, T. (2006). What lies behind graphicacy? Relating students' results on a test of graphically represented quantitative information to formal academic achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 43-62.Airey, J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala Retrieved 2009-04-27, from http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=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). Talking about Teaching in English. Swedish university lecturers' experiences of changing their teaching language. Ibérica, 22(Fall), 35-54.Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79.Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman & R. Säljö (Eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik (pp. 41-58): Gleerups.Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2006). Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden. European Journal of Physics, 27(3), 553-560.Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2008). Bilingual scientific literacy? The use of English in Swedish university science programmes. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 145-161.Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49.Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2011). Bilingual scientific literacy. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. Roberts, P.-O. Wickman, G. Ericksen & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 106-124). London: Routledge.American Association of Physics Teachers. (1996). Physics at the crossroads Retrieved from http://www.aapt.org/Events/crossroads.cfmBogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. R. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. (2 ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.Brookes, D. T. (2006). The role of language in learning physics. (PhD), Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ. Council on Higher Education and the South African Institute of Physics. (2013). Review of undergraduate physics education in public higher education institutions Retrieved from http://www.saip.org.za/images/stories/documents/documents/Undergrad_Physics_Report_Final.pdfCreswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approache. Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage.Crotty, M. (1989). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sydney: :Allen & Unwin.Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031 ), 862-864.Domert, D., Airey, J., Linder, C., & Kung, R. (2007). An exploration of university physics students' epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations. NorDiNa, Nordic Studies in Science Education(3), 15-28.Dufresne, R., Gerace, W. J., & Leonard, W. (1997). Solving physics problems with multiple representations. The Physics Teacher, 35(5), 270-275.Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (in press). Who needs 3D when the Universe is flat? Science Education.European Commission Expert Group. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33, 657-666.Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Johannsen, B. F. (2007). Attrition in university physics. A narrative study of individuals reacting to a collectivist environment. (Licentiate thesis), Uppsala University, Uppsala. Kohl, P. B., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2008). Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 4(010111), 1-13.Kohl, P. B., Rosengrant, D., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3(010108), 10.Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions Retrieved from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htmMeltzer, D. E. (2005). Relation between students' problem-solving performance and representational format. American Journal of Physics, 73(5), 463-478.National Research Council. (2013). Adapting to a Changing World --- Challenges and Opportunities in Undergraduate Physics Education. Committee on Undergraduate Physics Education Research and Implementation. Board on Physics and Astronomy Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Northedge, A. (2002). Organizing excursions into specialist discourse communities: A sociocultural account of university teaching. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century. Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 252-264). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.O’Connor, M. K., Netting, F. E., & Thomas, M. L. (2008). Grounded theory: Managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(1), 28-45.Ragout De Lozano, S., & Cardenas, M. (2002). Some Learning Problems Concerning the Use of Symbolic Language in Physics. Science and Education, 11(6), 589-599.Rosengrant, D., Etkina, E., & van Heuvelen, A. (2007). An overview of recent research on multiple representations. American Institute of Physics Conference proceedings January 30 2007, 883, 149-152.Rosengrant, D., van Heuvelen, A., & Etkina, E. (2009). Do students use and understand free-body diagrams? Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(1:010108).Scherr, R. E. (2008). Gesture analysis for physics education researchers. Physical Review. Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 4(010101), 1-9.Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognitive Instruction, 19, 479-541.Tang, K.-S., Tan, S. C., & Yeo, J. (2011). Students' multimodal construction of the work-energy concept. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1775-1804.Treagust, D. F., Tsui, C.-Y., & (Eds.). (Eds.). (2013). Multiple representations in biological education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing Representations to Learn in Science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59(10), 891-897.van Heuvelen, A., & Zou, X. (2001). Multiple representations of workenergy processes. American Journal of Physics, 69(2), 184-194.van Someren, M., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & de Jong, T. (Eds.). (1998). Learning with multiple representations. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
13.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Developing Student Representational Competence 2021 Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract In order to make disciplinary meanings, science students need to coordinate a large number of semiotic systems such as graphs, diagrams, spoken and written language, gesture, mathematics, etc. In this respect, it has been suggested that there is a critical constellation of semiotic resources that is necessary for holistic construction of each scientific concept (Airey, 2009). Other actors have discussed this problem in terms of building students' representational competence (Kozma & Russell 2005; Kohl & Finkelstein 2005; De Cock 2012; Linder et al. 2014). Combining this work, Volkwyn et al (2020:91) define representational competence as: “The ability to appropriately interpret and produce a set of disciplinary-accepted representations of real-world phenomena and link these to formalized scientific concepts”. In this paper we first put forward a theoretical proposal for how such student representational competence may be developed, before empirically demonstrating the usefulness of this proposal for a particular representational system (graphs) in a particular area of physics (1-D kinematics). By coordinating kinematics concepts, the three graphs, and real-world movement we show how the students begin to practice their representational competence. We also show the complexity of this apparently simple system in representational terms.
14.	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 In this chapter we use the concept of disciplinary literacy (Airey, 2011a, 2013) to analyze the goals of university physics lecturers. Disciplinary literacy refers to a particular mix of disciplinary-specific communicative practices developed for three specific sites: the academy, the workplace and society. It has been suggested that the development of disciplinary literacy may be seen as one of the primary goals of university studies (Airey, 2011a).The main data set used in this chapter comes from a comparative study of physics lecturers in Sweden and South Africa (Airey, 2012, 2013; Linder, Airey, Mayaba, & Webb, 2014). Semi-structured interviews were carried out using a disciplinary literacy discussion matrix (Airey, 2011b), which enabled us to probe the lecturers’ disciplinary literacy goals in the various semiotic resource systems used in undergraduate physics (i.e. graphs, diagrams, mathematics, language).The findings suggest that whilst physics lecturers have strikingly similar disciplinary literacy goals for their students, regardless of setting, they have very different ideas about whether they themselves should teach students to handle these disciplinary-specific semiotic resources. It is suggested that the similarity in physics lecturers’ disciplinary literacy goals across highly disparate settings may be related to the hierarchical, singular nature of the discipline of physics (Bernstein, 1999, 2000).In the final section of the chapter some preliminary evidence about the disciplinary literacy goals of those involved in physics teacher training is presented. Using Bernstein’s constructs, a potential conflict between the hierarchical singular of physics and the horizontal region of teacher training is noticeable.Going forward it would be interesting to apply the concept of disciplinary literacy to the analysis of other disciplines—particularly those with different combinations of Bernstein’s classifications of hierarchical/horizontal and singular/region.
15.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance : Teaching the Multimodal Discourse of University Science 2017 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract 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.
16.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance : Teaching the Multimodal Discourse of University Science 2017 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract Disciplinary Affordance vs Pedagogical Affordance: Teaching theMultimodal Discourse of University ScienceThe natural sciences have been extremely successful in modeling some specific aspectsof the world around us. This success is in no small part due to the creation of generallyaccepted, paradigmatic ways of representing the world through a range of semioticresources. The discourse of science is of necessity multimodal (see for example Lemke,1998) and it is therefore important for undergraduate science students to learn tomaster this multimodal discourse (Airey & Linder, 2009). In this paper, I approach theteaching of multimodal science discourse via the concept of affordance.Since its introduction by Gibson (1979) the concept of affordance has been debated by anumber of researchers. Most famous, perhaps is the disagreement between Gibson andNorman (1988) about whether affordances are inherent properties of objects or areonly present when perceived by an organism. More recently, affordance has beendrawn on in the educational arena, particularly with respect to multimodality (seeFredlund, 2015 for a recent example). Here, Kress et al (2001) have claimed thatdifferent modes have different specialized affordances.In the presentation the interrelated concepts of disciplinary affordance and pedagogicalaffordance will be presented. Both concepts make a radical break with the views of bothGibson and Norman in that rather than focusing on the perception of an individual, theyrefer to the disciplinary community as a whole. Disciplinary affordance is "the agreedmeaning making functions that a semiotic resource fulfills for a disciplinary community".Similarly, pedagogical affordance is "the aptness of a semiotic resource for the teachingand learning of some particular educational content" (Airey, 2015). As such, in ateaching situation the question of whether these affordances are inherent or perceivedbecomes moot. Rather, the issue is the process through which students come to usesemiotic resources in a way that is accepted within the discipline. In this characterizationthen, learning can be framed in terms of coming to perceive and leverage thedisciplinary 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 disciplinaryaffordances of semiotic resources are ultimately leveraged and coordinated in order tomake 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=9547Airey, 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.cfmAirey, 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-226598Airey, 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-260209Airey, J. & Linder, C. (2017) Social Semiotics in University Physics Education: Multiple Representations in Physics Education Springer. pp 85-122Eriksson, 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:10.1080/10288457.2014.953294Lo, 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.
17.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Disciplinary differences in the use of English 2014 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
18.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Disciplinary Literacy : Theorising the Specialized Use of Language and other Modes in University Teaching and Learning 2018 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)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.
19.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Disciplinary Literacy 2016 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
20.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Disciplinary Literacy: A Research Overview 2018 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract 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.ReferencesAirey, 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/24Airey, 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=9547Airey, J. (2010). Närundervisningsspråketändrastill engelska[When the teaching language changes to English] Omundervisning påengelska(pp. 57-64). Stockholm: HögskoleverketRapport 2010:15RAirey, 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.cfmAirey, 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-226598Airey, 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/s10734-015-9950-2Airey, 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: SpringerGerber, 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/s10734-013-9660-6Lehtonen, 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.htmlLinder, 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:10.1080/10288457.2014.953294Neville-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.pdfThøgersen, 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.
21.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Disciplinary Literacy and English-Medium Instruction 2023 Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract Disciplinary Literacy and English-Medium Instruction In this keynote, I will discuss the concept of disciplinary literacy (Airey, 2011a; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012) and its usefulness in highlighting issues for consideration when embarking on English-medium instruction. For the purposes of the presentation, I will be using the following definition of disciplinary literacy:The ability to appropriately participate in the communicative practices of a discipline. (Airey, 2011a) I have earlier suggested that the goal of all university teaching is the production of disciplinary literate graduates (Airey, 2011b), but what specifically does being disciplinary literate entail in an EMI setting? Here, I will propose three distinct aspects of disciplinary literacy that I suggest require consideration when embarking on EMI. The first of these aspects is the particular knowledge structure of the discipline at hand (Bernstein, 1999), which has been shown to affect disciplinary attitudes to language use (Airey, 2012; Kuteeva & Airey, 2014). The second aspect of note is the importance of semiotic resource systems other than language (such as mathematics, sketches, diagrams, graphs, gestures, hands-on work with physical tools, etc) in the creation of disciplinary knowledge (Kress, 2009; Airey & Linder 2009). The degree of reliance on these other resource systems necessarily affects the role played by language in the discipline. Finally, I suggest that disciplinary literacy is developed to function within three specific sites: the academy, society and the workplace. This can be conceptualised in terms of a disciplinary literacy triangle (Airey & Larsson, 2018; Airey, 2020). Different disciplines place different emphasis on these three sites, however, it is highly unlikely that the same emphasis needs to be given to each site across different languages (L1 and English for example). I finish the presentation by proposing a disciplinary literacy discussion matrix (Airey, 2011b; 2020) as heuristic tool for disciplinary needs analysis in EMI. ReferencesAirey, J. (2011a). Initiating collaboration in higher education: Disciplinary literacy and the scholarship of teaching and learning 57-65.Airey, J. (2011b). The disciplinary literacy discussion matrix: A heuristic tool for initiating collaboration in higher education. Across the disciplines, 8(3), 1-9.Airey, J. (2012). I don’t teach language. The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(25), 64-79.Airey, J. (2020). The content lecturer and English-medium instruction (EMI): epilogue to the special issue on EMI in higher education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 340-346.Airey, J., & Larsson, J. (2018). Developing students’ disciplinary literacy? The case of university physics. In Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 357-376). Springer, Cham.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.Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. In Education and society (pp. 53-73). Routledge.Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: Reflections on recent language policy developments. Higher education, 67(5), 533-549.
22.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Disciplinary Literacy: Theorising the Specialized Use of Language and other Modes in University Teaching and Learning 2018 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract Disciplinary Literacy: Theorising the Specialized Use of Language and other Modes in University Teaching and LearningAbstractIn 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 ReferencesAirey, 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=9547Airey, 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.cfmAirey, 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/s10734-015-9950-2Bernstein, 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/s10734-013-9660-6Lea, 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:10.1080/10288457.2014.95329Lindström, 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 MichiganThøgersen, 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.
23.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) EAP, EMI or CLIL? : (English for Academic Purposes, English Medium Instruction or Content and Language Integrated Learning) 2016 Ingår i: Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. - Milton Park : Routledge. - 9781138774711 - 9781317328094 ; , s. 71-83 Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
24.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) EAP, EMI or CLIL? 2016 Ingår i: The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. - : Routledge. - 9781317328100 - 9781138774711 ; , s. 71-83 Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract IntroductionIn this chapter I discuss the European-inspired notion of content and language integrated learning (CLIL). What makes CLIL different from English-medium instruction (EMI) on the one hand and English for academic purposes (EAP) on the other? A cursory examination of the acronym itself raises a number of questions. The Ls in CLIL-language and learning-are straightforward enough, but what about the I and the C? The I in CLIL stands for integrated: this signals CLIL’s dual emphasis on disciplinary learning outcomes along with language learning. Which brings us to the C in CLIL-content. More than anything else, it is this focus on the teaching of disciplinary content that makes CLIL unique. Can EAP professionals teach content? Can disciplinary experts teach language? Or does the CLIL approach necessarily imply collaboration between language and content teachers? These are some of the questions I address in this chapter.
25.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) EMI, CLIL, EAP : What’s the difference? 2018 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)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.
26.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) EMI, CLIL, EAP:What’s the difference? 2018 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract EMI, CLIL, EAP: What’s the difference?AbstractIn 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.ReferencesAirey, 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=9547Airey, J. (2010). Närundervisningsspråketändrastill engelska[When the teaching language changes to English] Omundervisning påengelska(pp. 57-64). Stockholm: HögskoleverketRapport 2010:15RAirey, 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.cfmAirey, 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/s10734-015-9950-2Duff, 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:PDFKuteeva, 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/s10734-013-9660-6Linder, 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:10.1080/10288457.2014.953294Marsh, 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.
27.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy : Summarizing ten years of research into teaching and learning in English 2015 Ingår i: English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education. - Berlin : Walter de Gruyter. - 9781614515272 - 9781614517252 ; , s. 157-176 Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)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.
28.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy : Summarizing ten years of research into teaching and learning in English 2015 Ingår i: English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education. - Berlin : De Gruyter Mouton. - 9781614515272 ; , s. 157-176 Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract AbstractThis 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.ReferencesAirey, 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. 145–164Kuteeva, 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. Jou
29.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Increasing Access to Science and Engineering : the Role of Multimodality 2019 Ingår i: Designs for Learning. - Stockholm : Stockholm University Press. - 1654-7608 .- 2001-7480. ; 11:1, s. 138-140 Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract The idea for this special issue of Designs for Learning emerged during the 8th International Conference on Multimodality (8ICOM), held in Cape Town in December 2016. During that conference, a special stream of papers was organised, all of which addressed the question of science and/or engineering teaching from a multimodal perspective. In this editorial we discuss the issue of multimodal access to science and engi- neering and introduce the papers in the special issue.
30.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education : Disciplinary Literacy and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2011 Ingår i: Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education. - Cape Town : Cape Peninsula University of Technology. ; , s. 57-65 Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
31.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Investigating Undergraduate Physics Lecturers’ Disciplinary Literacy Goals For Their Students 2017 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract In this presentation we use the concept of disciplinary literacy (Airey, 2011a; 2013) to analyse the expressed learning goals of university physics lecturers for their students. We define disciplinary literacy in terms of learning to control a particular set of multimodal communicative practices. We believe it is important to document the expressed intentions of lecturers in this way, since it has previously been suggested that the development of such disciplinary literacy may be seen as one of the primary goals of university studies (Airey, 2011a).The main data set used in this presentation comes from a comparative study of 30 physics lecturers from Sweden and South Africa. (Airey, 2012, 2013; Linder et al, 2014). Semi-structured interviews were carried out using a disciplinary literacy discussion matrix (Airey, 2011b), which enabled us to probe the lecturers’ disciplinary literacy goals in the various semiotic resource systems used in undergraduate physics (e.g. graphs, diagrams, mathematics, spoken and written languages, etc.).The findings suggest that physics lecturers in both countries have strikingly similar disciplinary literacy goals for their students and hold similar beliefs about disciplinary semiotic resources. The lecturers also agree that teaching disciplinary literacy ought not to be their job. Here though, there were differences in whether the lecturers teach students to handle disciplinary-specific semiotic resources. These differences appear to be based on individual decisions, rather than being specific to a particular country or institution.
32.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Investigating Undergraduate Physics Lecturers’ Disciplinary Literacy Goals For Their Students 2017 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract Investigating Undergraduate Physics Lecturers’ disciplinary literacy Goals for their students.Abstract In this presentation we use the concept of disciplinary literacy (Airey, 2011a; 2013) to analyse the expressed learning goals of university physics lecturers for their students. We define disciplinary literacy in terms of learning to control a particular set of multimodal communicative practices. We believe it is important to document the expressed intentions of lecturers in this way, since it has previously been suggested that the development of such disciplinary literacy may be seen as one of the primary goals of university studies (Airey, 2011a).The main data set used in this presentation comes from a comparative study of 30 physics lecturers from Sweden and South Africa. (Airey, 2012, 2013; Linder et al, 2014). Semi-structured interviews were carried out using a disciplinary literacy discussion matrix (Airey, 2011b), which enabled us to probe the lecturers’ disciplinary literacy goals in the various semiotic resource systems used in undergraduate physics (e.g. graphs, diagrams, mathematics, spoken and written languages, etc.). The findings suggest that physics lecturers in both countries have strikingly similar disciplinary literacy goals for their students and hold similar beliefs about disciplinary semiotic resources. The lecturers also agree that teaching disciplinary literacy ought not to be their job. Here though, there were differences in whether the lecturers teach students to handle disciplinary-specific semiotic resources. These differences appear to be based on individual decisions, rather than being specific to a particular country or institution. Keywords: Higher education, Scientific literacy, Representations.Introduction: disciplinary literacyIn this presentation we examine the notion of disciplinary literacy in university physics (see Airey, 2011a, 2011b, 2013 and the extensive overview in Moje, 2007). Drawing on the work of Gee (1991), Airey (2001a) has broadened the definition of literacy to include semiotic resource systems other than language, defining disciplinary literacy as:The ability to appropriately participate in the communicative practices of a discipline. He goes on to suggest that the development of disciplinary literacy may be seen as one of the primary goals of university studies. In this study we use this disciplinary literacy concept to compare and problematize the goals of undergraduate physics lecturers in Sweden and South Africa.Research questionsOur research questions for this study are:What do physics lecturers at universities in Sweden and South Africa say about disciplinary literacy in terms of the range of semiotic resources they want their students to learn to master?To what extent do these physics lecturers say that they themselves take responsibility for the development of this disciplinary literacy in their students?Data CollectionThe data set used for this presentation is taken from a comparative research project where 30 university physics lecturers from a total of nine universities in Sweden (4) and South Africa (5) described the disciplinary literacy goals they have for their students (Airey, 2012, 2013; Linder et al, 2014). A disciplinary literacy discussion matrix (Airey, 2011b) was used as the basis for in-depth, semi-structured interviews.These were conducted in English and lasted approximately 60 minutes each. In the interviews the lecturers were encouraged to talk about the semiotic resources they think their students need to learn to control.AnalysisThe analysis drew on ideas from the phenomenographic research tradition by treating the interview transcripts as a single data set or “pool of meaning” (Marton & Booth, 1997: 133). The aim was to understand the expressed disciplinary literacy goals of the physics lecturers interviewed. Following the approach to qualitative data analysis advocated by Bogdan and Biklen (1992), iterative cycles were made through the data looking for patterns and key statements. Each cycle resulted in loosely labeled categories that were often split up, renamed or amalgamated in the next iteration. More background and details of the approach used can be found in Airey (2012).Results and DiscussionAnalysis of the 30 interviews resulted in the identification of four themes with respect to the lecturers’ disciplinary literacy goals:Teaching physics is not the same thing as developing students’ disciplinary literacy.All the lecturers expressed a strong commitment that physics is independent of the semiotic resources used to construct it. For them, developing disciplinary literacy and teaching physics were quite separate things.These are tools, physics is something else. Physics is more than the sum of these tools it’s the way physicists think about things—a shared reference of how to analyse things around you.This theme challenges contemporary thinking in education and linguistics. Halliday and Martin (1993, p. 9) for example insist that communicative practices are not some sort of passive reflection of a priori disciplinary knowledge, but rather are actively engaged in bringing knowledge into being. In science education, an even more radical stance has been taken by Wickman and Östman (2002), who insist that disciplinary learning itself should be viewed as a form of discourse change.Disciplinary literacy in a range of semiotic resources is necessary for learning physics.All the lecturers in the study felt it was desirable that students develop disciplinary literacy in a range of semiotic resources in order to cope with their studies. In many ways this finding is unremarkable, with a number of researchers having commented on the wide range of semiotic systems needed for appropriate knowledge construction and communication in physics (e.g. Airey, 2009; Lemke, 1998; McDermott, 1990; Parodi, 2012).Developing disciplinary literacy is not really the job of a physics teacher.All physics lecturers expressed frustration at the low levels of disciplinary literacy in their students, feeling that they really should not have to work with the development of these skills, e.g.:I cannot say that I test them or train them in English. Of course they can always come and ask me, but I don’t think that I take responsibility for training them in EnglishNorthedge (2002) holds that the role of a university lecturer should be one of a discourse guide leading “excursions” into disciplinary discourse. However, although some lecturers actually did in fact work in this way (see category 4) the none of physics lecturers interviewed in this study felt comfortable with this role.Some teachers were prepared to take responsibility for the development of certain aspects of students’ disciplinary literacy.Nonetheless, some physics lecturers did say that the development of students’ disciplinary literacy would be something that they would work with. In these cases, lecturers (somewhat grudgingly) took on Northedge’s (2002) role of a discourse guide. This position was most common for mathematics, which was seen as essential for an understanding of physics (see Airey, 2012. p. 75 for further discussion of this theme).To be able to express it in a precise enough way you need mathematics. Language is more limited than mathematics in this case. So they need to use mathematics to see physics rather than language. ConclusionIn this presentation we have applied the concept of disciplinary literacy to the goals of university physics lecturers. Lecturers reported their belief that disciplinary literacy in a wide range of semiotic resources is a necessary condition for physics learning. However, the same lecturers do not feel the development of this disciplinary literacy is their job. Although some lecturers were prepared to help students develop specific aspects of disciplinary literacy, all the lecturers interviewed believed that teaching physics is something that is separate from teaching disciplinary literacy. Here, Airey has argued that:Until lecturers see their role as one of socialising students into the discourse of their discipline…[they] will continue to insist that they are not [teachers of disciplinary literacy] and that this should be a job for someone else. (Airey, 2011b, p. 50)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, Sweden.: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A173193&dswid=-4725.Airey, J. (2011a). The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix: A Heuristic Tool for Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education. Across the disciplines, 8(3), unpaginated.Airey, J. (2011b). Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education: Disciplinary Literacy and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: theory, research, and reflections (pp. 57-65). Cape Town, South Africa: Cape Peninsula University of Technology.Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79.Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik (pp. 41-58): Gleerups.Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. R. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. (2 ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3-11). New York: Bergin & Garvey.Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R.
33.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Learning and Sharing Disciplinary Knowledge : The Role of Representations 2017 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)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.
34.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Learning and Sharing Disciplinary Knowledge : The Role of Representations 2017 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract Learning and Sharing Disciplinary Knowledge: The Role of Representations.AbstractIn 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=9547Airey, 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-226598Airey, 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-260209Airey, 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 SpringerAirey, 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 , 302-316Fredlund, 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.
35.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Multimodal Science and Engineering Teaching: Perspectives from 8ICOM 2018 Ingår i: 9ICOM - Complete Book Of Abstracts. - Odense, Denmark. : Syddansk Universitet. Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract The previous international conference on multimodality – 8ICOM – featured two sessions devoted to multimodal, social semiotic approaches to science teaching and learning (c.f. Halliday1978; van Leeuwen 2005, Airey & Linder 2017). What the papers in these sessions shared was the argument that such perspectives on science, and science teaching, can, at least in part, respond to calls to ‘democratize’ science education by recognising diverse sets of semiotic resources and, in so doing, seeking to address impediments to equal participation (Burke et al., 2017). The 8ICOM science sessions were particularly noteworthy given the backdrop against which 8ICOM had been organised. In the months leading up to the conference, South Africa (and Cape Town, in particular) had experienced campus unrest aimed at ‘decolonizing’ higher education in that country. As part of this movement, the phrase #ScienceMustFall briefly trended on social media. This emanated from the claim that ‘science’ is a western, colonial construct that needs to be dismantled and replaced with the teaching of indigenous, African knowledge. Although the #ScienceMustFall slogan has since departed from the wider public consciousness, the questions it raises nonetheless remain: why, and how, should science be taught? Is science more than just a western colonial construction and, if so, why? And, what can the concept of multimodality offer by way of answering these questions? In this paper, we offer an overview of the multimodal science papers presented in the two sessions at 8ICOM in the light of these questions. This is done with a view to assessing where the multimodality community finds itself regarding science education, and how it might address questions of the legitimacy of western science in the future. It is thus an attempt, as the conference theme suggests, to ‘move the theory forward’.
36.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Music and physics don’t mix! : What the humorous misuse of disciplinary-specific semiotic resources can tell us about disciplinary boundaries. 2014 Ingår i: The 5th International 360 Conference. Encompassing the multimodality of knowledge, May 8-10 2014, Aarhus University, Denmark. - Aarhus : Aarhus University. ; , s. 21- Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract Becoming part of an academic discipline has been described both in terms of becoming fluent in a disciplinary discourse (Airey 2009; Airey & Linder 2009; Northedge 2002) and achieving disciplinary literacy (Airey 2011, 2013; Geisler 1994). In this paper we investigate disciplinary boundaries by documenting the responses of academics to a semiotic disciplinary hybrid. The hybrid we use is the Physikalisches Lied, a bogus piece of sheet music into which disciplinary-specific semiotic resources from the realm of physics have been incorporated to humorous effect.The piece is presented to three distinct disciplinary focus groups: physicists, musicians and a group of academics who have had little contact with either discipline. In order to elicit disciplinary responses that are free from researcher prompts, each focus group is first asked the simple, open-ended question What do you see here? Once discussion of this question is exhausted the focus groups are asked to identify as many puns as they can—essentially all the disciplinary items that they feel have been misappropriated—and to attempt to explain what this means from a disciplinary standpoint. The differences in the responses of the three groups are presented and analysed.We argue that the semiotic resources focused on by each of the three groups and the nature of the explanation offered provide evidence of the degree of integration into the disciplines of physics and music. Our findings shed light on the process of becoming a disciplinary insider and the semiotic work involved in this process.
37.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Music and physics don’t mix! : What the humorous misuse of disciplinary-specific semiotic resources can tell us about disciplinary boundaries. 2014 Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract Becoming part of an academic discipline has been described both in terms of becoming fluent in a disciplinary discourse (Airey 2009; Airey & Linder 2009; Northedge 2002) and achieving disciplinary literacy (Airey 2011, 2013; Geisler 1994). In this paper we investigate disciplinary boundaries by documenting the responses of academics to a semiotic disciplinary hybrid. The hybrid we use is the Physikalisches Lied, a bogus piece of sheet music into which disciplinary-specific semiotic resources from the realm of physics have been incorporated to humorous effect. The piece is presented to three distinct disciplinary focus groups: physicists, musicians and a group of academics who have had little contact with either discipline. In order to elicit disciplinary responses that are free from researcher prompts, each focus group is first asked the simple, open-ended question What do you see here? Once discussion of this question is exhausted the focus groups are asked to identify as many puns as they can—essentially all the disciplinary items that they feel have been misappropriated—and to attempt to explain what this means from a disciplinary standpoint. The differences in the responses of the three groups are presented and analysed. We argue that the semiotic resources focused on by each of the three groups and the nature of the explanation offered provide evidence of the degree of integration into the disciplines of physics and music. Our findings shed light on the process of becoming a disciplinary insider and the semiotic work involved in this process.ReferencesAirey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman & R. Säljö (Eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik (pp. 41-58): Gleerups.Airey, J. (2011). The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix: A Heuristic Tool for Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education. Across the disciplines, 8(3).Airey, J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala Retrieved 2009-04-27, from http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=9547Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49.Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Northedge, A. (2002). Organizing excursions into specialist discourse communities: A sociocultural account of university teaching. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century. Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 252-264). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
38.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) När undervisningsspråket ändras till engelska [When the teaching language changes to English] 2010 Ingår i: <em>Om undervisning på engelska</em>. - Stockholm : Högskoleverket. ; , s. 57-64 Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
39.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) On the Disciplinary Affordances of Semiotic Resources 2014 Ingår i: Book of Abstracts. ; , s. 54-55, s. 54-55 Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract In the late 70’s Gibson (1979) introduced the concept of affordance. Initially framed around the needs of an organism in its environment, over the years the term has been appropriated and debated at length by a number of researchers in various fields. Most famous, perhaps is the disagreement between Gibson and Norman (1988) about whether affordances are inherent properties of objects or are only present when they are perceived by an organism. More recently, affordance has been drawn on in the educational arena, particularly with respect to multimodality (see Linder (2013) for a recent example). Here, Kress et al. (2001) have claimed that different modes have different specialized affordances. Then, building on this idea, Airey and Linder (2009) suggested that there is a critical constellation of modes that students need to achieve fluency in before they can experience a concept in an appropriate disciplinary manner. Later, Airey (2009) nuanced this claim, shifting the focus from the modes themselves to a critical constellation of semiotic resources, thus acknowledging that different semiotic resources within a mode often have different affordances (e.g. two or more diagrams may form the critical constellation).In this theoretical paper the concept of disciplinary affordance (Fredlund et al., 2012) is suggested as a useful analytical tool for use in education. The concept makes a radical break with the views of both Gibson and Norman in that rather than focusing on the discernment of one individual, it refers to the disciplinary community as a whole. Put simply, the disciplinary affordances of a given semiotic resource are determined by those functions that the resource is expected to fulfil by the disciplinary community. Disciplinary affordances have thus been negotiated and developed within the discipline over time. As such, the question of whether these affordances are inherent or discerned becomes moot. Rather, from an educational perspective the issue is whether the meaning that a semiotic resource affords to an individual matches the disciplinary affordance assigned by the community. The power of the term for educational work is that learning can now be framed as coming to discern the disciplinary affordances of semiotic resources.In this paper we will briefly discuss the history of the term affordance, define the term disciplinary affordance and illustrate its usefulness in a number of educational settings.
40.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Physics Education Research 2020 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract AbstractIn this presentation I will briefly describe the history of physics education research (PER), explain my own research interests and suggest the alternative discipline-based education research as an alternative to pedagogy or didactics when dealing with training courses for univerity lecturers.ReferencesAirey, 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=9547Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). "A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49.Airey, J. & Linder, C. Airey, J. & Linder, C. (2017). Social Semiotics in University Physics Education. In Treagust, D. Duit, R. & Fischer, H. Representations in Physics Education, pp. 95-122, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_5Airey, J., & Eriksson, U. (2019). Unpacking the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram: A Social Semiotic Analysis of the Disciplinary and Pedagogical Affordances of a Central Resource in Astronomy, Designs for Learning, 11(1), 99–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.137Airey, J., Grundström Lindqvist, J. & Lippmann Kung, R. (2019). What does it mean to understand a physics equation? A study of undergraduate answers in three countries. In McLoughlin, E., Finlayson, O., Erduran, S., & Childs, P. (eds.), Bridging Research and Practice in Science Education: Selected Papers from the ESERA 2017 Conference.. Pp. 225–239. Contributions from Science Education Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17219-0_14Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33, 657-666.Fredlund, T. & Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015). A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies 2015 4:3 , 302-316 Fredlund, T., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Linder, A. (2014). Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 10(020128).Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127-143). Boston: Houghton Miffin.Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127-143). Boston: Houghton Miffin.Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London: Arnold.Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158’National Research Council. (2012). Discipline Based Education Research. Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington DC: The National Academies PressNorman, 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.
41.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Representations in Undergraduate Physics 2014 Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract Representations in undergraduate physicsProblem solving is one of the most important parts of undergraduate physics education, yet a huge body of international research has clearly shown that simply being able to solve a set of physics problems correctly is not a good indicator of students having attained appropriate physics understanding. Grounded in a comparison of the way experts and novices solve problems, the research focus has gradually shifted towards the importance of representational competence in solving physics problems.Physicists use a wide range of representations to communicate physics knowledge (e.g. mathematics, graphs, diagrams, and spoken and written language, etc.). Many of these representations are highly specialized and have been developed and refined into their present form over time. It is the appropriate coordination of these different representations that allows complex physics meanings to be made and shared. Experienced physicists naturally maintain coherence as they move from one representation to the next in order to solve a physics problem. For students, however, learning to appropriately use physics representations in this way is a challenging task. This lecture addresses the critical role that representations play in undergraduate physics education. The research that has been carried out in this area will be summarized and a number of theoretical constructs that have been developed in the Division of Physics Education Research will be presented and illustrated using empirical data. The consequences of this research work for the teaching and learning of undergraduate physics will be discussed.
42.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Research on physics teaching and learning, physics teacher education, and physics culture at Uppsala University 2017 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract This project compares the affordances and constraints for physics teachers’ professional identity building across four countries. The results of the study will be related to the potential consequences of this identity building for pupils’ science performance in school. The training of future physics teachers typically occurs across three environments, the physics department, the education department and school (during teaching practice). As they move through these three environments, trainees are in the process of building their professional identity. However, what is signalled as valuable for a future physics teacher differs considerably in different parts of the education. In educational research, professional identity has been used in a variety of ways (See for example overviews of the concept in Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; and Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004). In this project we draw on the work of Sfard and Pruzak (2005) who have defined identity as an analytical category for use in educational research. The project leverages this concept of identity as an analytical tool to understand how the value-systems present in teacher training environments and society as a whole potentially affect the future practice of trainee physics teachers. For identities to be recognized as professional they must fit into accepted discourses. Thus the project endeavours to identify discourse models that tacitly steer the professional identity formation of future physics teachers. Interviews will be carried out with trainee physics teachers and the various training staff that they meet during their education (physics lecturers, education lecturers, school mentors). It has been suggested that the perceived status of the teaching profession in society has a major bearing on the type of professional identity teachers can enact. Thus, in this project research interviews will be carried out in parallel across four countries with varying teacher status and PISA science scores: Sweden, Finland, Singapore and England. These interviews will be analysed following the design developed in a pilot study that has already carried out by the project group in Sweden. The research questions for the project are as follows: In four countries where the societal status of the teaching profession differs widely: What discourse models are enacted in the educational environments trainee physics teachers meet? What are the potential affordances and constraints of these discourse models for the constitution of physics teacher professional identities? In what ways do perceptions of the status assigned by society to the teaching profession potentially affect this professional identity building? What are the potential consequences of the answers to the above questions for the view of science communicated to pupils in school? In an extensive Swedish pilot study, four potentially competing discourse models were identified: these are: the critically reflective teacher, the practically well-equipped teacher, the syllabus implementer and the physics expert. Of these, the physics expert discourse model was found to dominate in both the physics department and amongst mentors in schools. In the physics expert discourse model the values of the discipline of physics dominate. Thus, the overarching goal of physics teaching is to create future physicists. In this model, the latest research in physics is seen as interesting and motivating, whereas secondary school subject matter is viewed as inherently unsophisticated and boring—something that needs to be made interesting. The model co-exists with the three other discourse models, which were more likely to be enacted in the education department. These other models value quite different goals such as the development of practical skills, reflective practice, critical thinking and citizenship. We claim that knowledge of the different discourse models at work in four countries with quite different outcomes on PISA science will useful in a number of ways. For teacher trainers, a better understanding of these models would allow informed decisions to be taken about the coordination of teacher education. For prospective teachers, knowledge of the discourse models at work during their education empowers them to question the kind of teacher they want to become.
43.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Science, Language, and Literacy : Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics 2009 Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract This thesis presents an investigation of undergraduate student learning with respect to physics lectures attended in English and Swedish. The work studies three connected areas: student learning patterns, bilingual scientific literacy and disciplinary discourse.Twenty-two physics students at two Swedish universities attended lectures in both English and Swedish as part of their regular undergraduate programme. These lectures were video-taped and used to contextualize in-depth, semi-structured interviews with students.When taught in English the students asked and answered fewer questions and reported be-ing less able to simultaneously follow the lecture and take notes. Students adapted to being taught in English by; asking questions after the lecture, no longer taking notes in class, read-ing sections of work before class or—in the worst case—by using the lecture for mechanical note taking.Analysis of student oral descriptions of the lecture content in both languages identified a small number of students who found it almost impossible to speak about disciplinary concepts in English. These students were first-years who had not been taught in English before. How-ever, the findings suggest that, above a certain threshold level of disciplinary language com-petence, it does not appear to matter which language students are taught in.Finally, the thesis makes a theoretical contribution to educational research. The initial lan-guage perspective is broadened to include a wide range of semiotic resources that are used in the teaching of undergraduate physics. Student learning is then characterized in terms of becoming fluent in a disciplinary discourse. It is posited that in order to achieve an appropri-ate, holistic experience of any given disciplinary concept, students will need to become fluent in a critical constellation of disciplinary semiotic resources.
44.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Semiotic Resources and Disciplinary Literacy 2017 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract In this research project we focused on the different semiotic resources used in physics (e.g. graphs, diagrams, language, mathematics, apparatus, etc.). We were interested in the ways in which undergraduate physics students learn to combine the different resources used in physics in order to become “disciplinary literate” and what university lecturers do to help their students in this process. Comparative data on the disciplinary literacy goals of physics lecturers for their students was collected at five universities in South Africa and four universities in Sweden.One of the main contributions of the project concerned what we termed the disciplinary affordance of a semiotic resource, that is, the specific meaning-making functions a particular resource plays for the discipline. We contrasted these meaning-making functions with the way that students initially viewed the same resource.We proposed two ways that lecturers can direct their students’ attention towards the disciplinary affordances of a given resource. The first involves unpacking the disciplinary affordance in order to create a new resource with higher pedagogical affordance. Our second proposal involved the use of systematic variation in order to help students notice the disciplinary relevant aspects of a given resource. A total of 19 articles/book chapters were published as a direct result of this funding.
45.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Semiotic Resources and Disciplinary Literacy 2017 Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract Semiotic Resources and Disciplinary LiteracyProject leader: John Airey, Reader in Physics Education Research, Uppsala UniversityType of funding: Four-year position as Research AssistantContact details: john.airey@physics.uu.se AbstractIn this research project we focused on the different semiotic resources used in physics (e.g. graphs, diagrams, language, mathematics, apparatus, etc.). We were interested in the ways in which undergraduate physics students learn to combine the different resources used in physics in order to become “disciplinary literate” and what university lecturers do to help their students in this process. Comparative data on the disciplinary literacy goals of physics lecturers for their students was collected at five universities in South Africa and four universities in Sweden.One of the main contributions of the project concerned what we termed the disciplinary affordance of a semiotic resource, that is, the specific meaning-making functions a particular resource plays for the discipline. We contrasted these meaning-making functions with the way that students initially viewed the same resource.We proposed two ways that lecturers can direct their students’ attention towards the disciplinary affordances of a given resource. The first involves unpacking the disciplinary affordance in order to create a new resource with higher pedagogical affordance. Our second proposal involved the use of systematic variation in order to help students notice the disciplinary relevant aspects of a given resource. A total of 19 articles/book chapters were published as a direct result of this funding.Selected publicationsAirey, J., & Linder, C. (2017). Social Semiotics in University Physics Education. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. H. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Physics Education (pp. 95-122). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman & R. Säljö (Eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik (pp. 41-58). Lund: Gleerups.Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Introducing the Anatomy of Disciplinary Discernment An example for Astronomy. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 167-182. Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Who needs 3D when the Universe is flat? Science Education 98(3), 412-442. Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2015). Enhancing the possibilities for learning: variation of disciplinary-relevant aspects in physics representations. European Journal of Physics. 36, (5), 055001.Fredlund, T., Linder, C., & Airey, J. (2015). A social semiotic approach to identifying critical aspects. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies. 4 (3), 302-316Fredlund, T., Linder, C. Airey, J., & Linder, A. (2014) Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance. Physical Review: Special Topics Physics Education Research 10, 020129 Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33, 657-666.Linder, A., Airey, J., Mayaba, N., & Webb, P. (2014). Fostering Disciplinary Literacy? South African Physics Lecturers’ Responses to their Students’ Lack of Representational Competence. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18, (3), 242-252.
46.	Airey, John, 1963- (författare) Social Semiotics in Higher Education: Examples from teaching and learning in undergraduate physics 2015 Ingår i: SACF Singapore-Sweden Excellence Seminars. - : Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research in Higher Education (STINT). ; , s. 103- Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract Social semiotics is a broad construct where all communication in a particular social group is viewed as being realized by the use of semiotic resources. In social semiotics the particular meaning assigned to these semiotic resources is negotiated within the group itself and has often developed over an extended period of time. In the discipline of physics, examples of such semiotic resources are; graphs, diagrams, mathematics, language, etc. In this presentation, social semiotics is used to build theory with respect to the construction and sharing of disciplinary knowledge in the teaching and learning of university physics. Based on empirical studies of physics students, a number of theoretical constructs have been developed in our research group. These constructs are: disciplinary affordance, disciplinary discourse, discursive fluency, discourse imitation and critical constellations. I will present these constructs and examine their usefulness for problematizing teaching and learning with multiple representations in higher education.
47.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Social semiotics in university physics education : Leveraging critical constellations of disciplinary representations 2015 Ingår i: Science Education Research. - : European Science Education Research Association. - 9789515115416 Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract Social semiotics is a broad construct where all communication is viewed as being realized through signs and their signification. In physics education we usually refer to these signs as disciplinary representations. These disciplinary representations are the semiotic resources used in physics communication, such as written and oral languages, diagrams, graphs, mathematics, apparatus and simulations. This alternative depiction of representations is used to build theory with respect to the construction and sharing of disciplinary knowledge in the teaching and learning of university physics. Based on empirical studies of physics students cooperating to explain the refraction of light, a number of theoretical constructs were developed. In this presentation we describe these constructs and examine their usefulness for problematizing teaching and learning in university physics. The theoretical constructs are: fluency in semiotic resources, disciplinary affordance and critical constellations.The conclusion formulates a proposal that has these constructs provide university physics teachers with a new set of meaningfully and practical tools, which will enable them to re-conceptualize their practice in ways that have the distinct potential to optimally enhance student learning.
48.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Social Semiotics in University Physics Education 2017 Ingår i: Multiple Representations in Physics Education. - Cham : Springer. - 9783319589121 - 9783319589145 ; , s. 95-122 Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract In this chapter we discuss the application of social semiotics to the teaching and learning of university physics. Social semiotics is a broad construct where all communication in a particular social group is realized through the use of semiotic resources. In the discipline of physics, examples of such semiotic resources are graphs, diagrams, mathematics, spoken and written language, and laboratory apparatus. In physics education research it is usual to refer to most of these semiotic resources as representations. In social semiotics, then, disciplinary learning can be viewed as coming to interpret and use the meaning potential of disciplinary-specific semiotic resources (representations) that has been assigned by the discipline. We use this complementary depiction of representations to build theory with respect to the construction and sharing of disciplinary knowledge in the teaching and learning of university physics. To facilitate both scholarly discussion and future research in the area, a number of theoretical constructs have been developed. These constructs take their point of departure in empirical studies of teaching and learning in undergraduate physics. In the chapter we present each of these constructs in turn and examine their usefulness for problematizing teaching and learning with multiple representations in university physics.
49.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Social semiotics in university physics education : Leveraging critical constellations of disciplinary representations 2015 Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract Social semiotics is a broad construct where all communication is viewed as being realized through signs and their signification. In physics education we usually refer to these signs as disciplinary representations. These disciplinary representations are the semiotic resources used in physics communication, such as written and oral languages, diagrams, graphs, mathematics, apparatus and simulations. This alternative depiction of representations is used to build theory with respect to the construction and sharing of disciplinary knowledge in the teaching and learning of university physics. Based on empirical studies of physics students cooperating to explain the refraction of light, a number of theoretical constructs were developed. In this presentation we describe these constructs and examine their usefulness for problematizing teaching and learning in university physics. The theoretical constructs are: fluency in semiotic resources, disciplinary affordance and critical constellations.The conclusion formulates a proposal that has these constructs provide university physics teachers with a new set of meaningfully and practical tools, which will enable them to re-conceptualize their practice in ways that have the distinct potential to optimally enhance student learning. PurposeThis aim of this theoretical paper is to present representations as semiotic resources in order to make a case for three related constructs that we see as being central to learning with multiple representations in university physics; fluency in semiotic resources, disciplinary affordance and critical constellations. We suggest that an understanding of these constructs is a necessary part of a physics lecturer’s educational toolbox. Why semiotics?The construct of representations as it is presently used in science education can, in our opinion, be unintentionally limiting since it explicitly excludes important aspects such as physical objects, (e.g. physics apparatus) and actions (e.g. measuring a value). Clearly, such aspects play a central role in sharing physics meaning and they are explicitly included as semiotic resources in a social semiotic approach. Van Leeuwen (2005:1) explains the preference for the term semiotic resource instead of other terms such as representation claiming that “[…] it avoids the impression that what a [representation] stands for is somehow pre-given, and not affected by its use”. Thus, the term semiotic resource encompasses other channels of meaning making, as well as everything that is generally termed external representations (Ainsworth, 2006). Why social semiotics? The reason for adopting social semiotics is that different groups develop their own systems of meaning making. This is often achieved either by the creation of new specialized semiotic resources or by assigning specific specialized meaning to more general semiotic resources. Nowhere is this more salient than in physics where the discipline draws on a wide variety of specialized resources in order to share physics knowledge. In our work in undergraduate physics education we have introduced three separate constructs that we believe are important for learning in physics: fluency in semiotic resources, disciplinary affordance and critical constellations. Fluency in semiotic resourcesThe relationship between learning and representations has received much attention in the literature. The focus has often been how students can achieve “representational competence” (For a recent example see Linder et al 2014). In this respect, different semiotic resources have been investigated, including mathematics, graphs, gestures, diagrams and language. Considering just one of these resources, spoken language, it is clear that in order to share meaning using this resource one first needs to attain some sort of fluency in the language in question. We have argued by extension that the same holds for all the semiotic resources that we use in physics (Airey & Linder, 2009). It is impossible to make meaning with a disciplinary semiotic resource without first becoming fluent in its use. By fluency we mean a process through which handling a particular semiotic resource with respect to a given piece of physics content becomes unproblematic, almost second-nature. Thus, in our social semiotic characterization, if a person is said to be fluent in a particular semiotic resource, then they have come to understand the ways in which the discipline generally uses that resource to share physics knowledge. Clearly, such fluency is educationally critical for understanding the ways that students learn to combine semiotic resources, which is the interest of this symposium. However, there is more to learning physics than achieving fluency. For example: MIT undergraduates, when asked to comment about their high school physics, almost universally declared they could “solve all the problems” (and essentially all had received A's) but still felt they “really didn't understand at all what was going on”. diSessa (1993, p. 152) Clearly, these students had acquired excellent fluency in disciplinary semiotic resources, yet still lacked a qualitative conceptual understanding. The disciplinary affordance of semiotic resourcesThus, we argue that becoming fluent in the use of a particular semiotic resource, though necessary, is not sufficient for an appropriate physics understanding. For an appropriate understanding we argue that students need to come to appreciate the disciplinary affordance of the semiotic resource (Fredlund, Airey, & Linder, 2012; Fredlund, Linder, Airey, & Linder, 2015). We define disciplinary affordance as the potential of a given semiotic resource to provide access to disciplinary knowledge. Thus we argue that combining fluency with an appreciation of the disciplinary affordance of a given semiotic resource leads to appropriate disciplinary meaning making. However, in practice the majority of physics phenomena cannot be adequately represented by one a single semiotic resource. This leads us to the theme of this symposium—the combination of multiple representations. Critical constellations – the significance of this work for the symposium themeThe significance of the social semiotic approach we have outlined for work on multiple representations lies in the concept of critical constellations.Building on the work of Airey & Linder (2009), Airey (2009) suggests there is a critical constellation of disciplinary semiotic resources that are necessary for appropriate holistic experience of any given disciplinary concept. Using our earlier constructs we can see that students will first need to become fluent in each of the semiotic resources that make up this critical constellation. Next, they need to come to appreciate the disciplinary affordance of each separate semiotic resource. Then, finally, they can attempt to grasp the concept in an appropriate, disciplinary manner. In this respect, Linder (2013) suggests that disciplinary learning entails coming to appreciate the collective disciplinary affordance of a critical constellation of semiotic resources. RecommendationsThere are a number of consequences of this work for the teaching and learning of physics. First, we claim that teachers need to provide opportunities for their students to achieve fluency in a range of semiotic resources. Next teachers need to know more about the disciplinary affordances of the individual semiotic resources they use in their teaching (see Fredlund et al 2012 for a good example of this type of work).Finally, teachers need to contemplate which critical constellations of semiotic resources are necessary for making which physics knowledge available to their students. In this respect physics teachers need to appreciate that knowing their students as learners includes having a deep appreciation of the kinds of critical constellations that their particular students need in order to effectively learn physics ReferencesAinsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.Airey, J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala Retrieved 2009-04-27, from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A173193&dswid=-4725Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49.diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an Epistemology of Physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105-225.Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33, 657-666.Fredlund, T., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Linder, A. (2015). Unpacking physics representations: towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 10( 020128 (2014)).Linder, A., Airey, J., Mayaba, N., & Webb, P. (2014). Fostering Disciplinary Literacy? South African Physics Lecturers’ Educational Responses to their Students’ Lack of Representational Competence. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3). doi: 10.1080/10288457.2014.953294Linder, C. (2013). Disciplinary discourse, representation, and appresentation in the teaching and learning of science. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(2), 43-49.van leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.
50.	Airey, John, 1963-, et al. (författare) Social Semiotics in University Physics Education 2017 Ingår i: Multiple Representations in Physics Education. - Cham : Springer. - 9783319589121 - 9783319589145 ; , s. 95-122 Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract In this chapter we discuss the application of social semiotics (Halliday 1978; van Leeuwen 2005) in the teaching and learning of university physics. For our purposes we define social semiotics as the study of the development and reproduction of spe- cialized systems of meaning making in particular sections of society. In our work we have used social semiotics as a lens to understand teaching and learning in undergraduate physics. There are many similarities between our social semiotic approach and the other representational work presented in the chapters of this vol- ume. The fundamental aim of this chapter is to introduce the supplementary and complementary aspects that a social semiotic perspective offers physics education and research in the area. Thus, in what follows, we describe our motivations for adopting a social semiotic approach and map out the similarities and differences to the extant body of work on multiple representations in physics education research. We then present a number of theoretical constructs that we have developed in our research group, and discuss their usefulness for understanding the processes of teaching and learning in undergraduate physics.

Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka

Länka till träfflistan

Resultat 1-50 av 119

Avgränsa träffmängd

Typ av publikation: konferensbidrag (83); tidskriftsartikel (17); bokkapitel (11); doktorsavhandling (4); annan publikation (2); licentiatavhandling (1); visa fler...; recension (1); visa färre...

Typ av innehåll: refereegranskat (60); övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt (59)

Författare/redaktör: Airey, John, 1963- (117); Gregorcic, Bor (14); Volkwyn, Trevor, 196 ... (13); Linder, Cedric, 1954 ... (11); Linder, Cedric (10); Larsson, Johanna, 19 ... (9); visa fler...; Heijkenskjöld, Filip ... (9); Grundström Lindqvist ... (8); Fredlund, Tobias (5); Larsson, Johanna (4); Lundqvist, Eva, 1972 ... (4); de Winter, James, 19 ... (4); Kapodistrias, Anasta ... (4); Danielsson, Anna, Pr ... (3); Urban, Eriksson (3); Eriksson, Urban (3); Linder, Anne (3); Jons, Lotta, 1961- (3); Simpson, Zachary (2); Wikman, Susanne, 196 ... (2); Berge, Maria (2); Lippman Kung, Rebecc ... (2); Volkwyn, Trevor Stan ... (2); Wikman, Susanne (1); Mayaba, Nokhanyo (1); Webb, Paul (1); Volkwyn, Trevor (1); Patron, Emelie (1); Berge, Maria, 1979- (1); Linder, Cedric, Prof ... (1); Säljö, Roger, Profes ... (1); Eriksson, Urban, 196 ... (1); Kung, Rebecca (1); Braskén, Mats (1); Elmgren, Maja, 1964- (1); Scantlebury, Kathryn ... (1); Johansson, Anders, 1 ... (1); Hill, Matthew (1); de Winter, James (1); Gregorcic, Bor, Dr. (1); Heijkenskjöld, Filip (1); Gullström, Cecilia (1); Sharma, Manjula (1); O' Byrne, John (1); Henriksen, Ellen Kar ... (1); Hamza, Karim, Dr. (1); Airey, John, Dr. 196 ... (1); Lundqvist, Eva, Dr. ... (1); Vetleseter Bøe, Mari ... (1); Thøgersen, Jacob (1); visa färre...

Lärosäte: Uppsala universitet (84); Stockholms universitet (47); Linnéuniversitetet (27); Högskolan i Gävle (5); Högskolan Kristianstad (4); Umeå universitet (1)

Språk: Engelska (114); Svenska (5)

Forskningsämne (UKÄ/SCB): Samhällsvetenskap (92); Naturvetenskap (85); Humaniora (20)

År

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

LIBRIS.kb.se

Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy