Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing Students’ Disciplinary Literacy? The Case of University Physics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

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 from http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=9547Accessed 27 April 2017.

  • Airey, J. (2011a). The disciplinary literacy discussion matrix: A heuristic tool for initiating collaboration in higher education. Across the disciplines, 8(3) Unpaginated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Airey, J. (2011b). Initiating collaboration in higher education: Disciplinary literacy and the scholarship of teaching and learning. In Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: Theory, research, and reflections (pp. 57–65). Cape Town: Cape Peninsula University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (p. 103). Retrieved from urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-266049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Airey, J., & Larsson, J. (2014). What knowledge do trainee physics teachers need to learn? Differences in the views of training staff. International Science Education Conference ISEC 2014, National Institute of Education, Singapore, 25–27 November 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 73(4), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9950-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Airey, J. & Linder, C. (2017) Social semiotics in university physics education. In D. Treagust, R. Duit & H. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple representations in physics education. (pp.95–122). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research and critique. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björk, L., & Räisänen, C. A. (2003). Academic writing: A university writing course (3rd ed.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • CHE-SAIP. (2013). Review of undergraduate physics education in public higher education institutions. Retrieved from http://www.saip.org.za/images/stories/documents/documents/Undergrad_Physics_Report_Final.pdf.

  • Duff, P. (2010, March). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsman, J. (2015). Complexity theory and physics education research: The case of student retention in physics and related degree programmes. Digital comprehensive summaries of Uppsala dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A846064&dswid=-4668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortanet-Gomez, I. (2013). CLIL in higher education: Towards a multilingual language policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredlund, 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, 020128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances. The ecological approach to visual perception (pp. 127–143). Boston: Houghton Miffin.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, P. D. H. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen, B. F. (2013). Attrition and retention in university physics: A longitudinal qualitative study of the interaction between first year students and the study of physics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Science, Department of Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, O. (2005). Parallellspråkighet [Parallel language use]. Språkvård, 2005(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, J., & Airey, J. (2014). Searching for stories: The training environment as a constituting factor in the professional identity work of future physics teachers. British Educational Research Association Conference BERA 2014, London, September 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, J., & Airey, J. (2015). The “physics expert” discourse model – counterproductive for trainee physics teachers’ professional identity building? Paper presented at the 11th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Helsinki, August 31 to September 4, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, M. R., & Street, B.V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions. Retrieved from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm. Accessed 16 September 2005.

  • Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(4), 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2014.953294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B. (2007, March). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConachie, S., Hall, M., Resnick, L., Ravi, A. K., Bill, V. L., Bintz, J., & Taylor, J. A. (2006). Task, text, and talk: Literacy for all subjects. Educational Leadership, 64(2).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordic Educational Research Association. (2009). Literacy as worldmaking. Congress of the Nordic Educational Research Association. Retrieved from http://www.neracongress2009.com.

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parodi, G. (2012) University genres and multisemiotic features: Accessing specialized knowledge through disciplinarity. Fórum Linguístico, 9(4), 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson, R. (2006). English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of languages. European Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 13–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. S. K., Ho, C., & Putra, G. B. S. (2016). Developing multimodal communication competencies: A case of disciplinary literacy focus in Singapore. In Using multimodal representations to support learning in the science classroom (pp. 135–158). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2004). The plurality of literacy and its implications for policies and programmes. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (1958). Recommendations concerning the international standardization of educational statistics. Paris, UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    John Airey & Johanna Larsson

  2. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    John Airey

  3. Department of Languages, Linnaeus University, Kalmar/Växjö, Sweden

    John Airey

Authors
  1. John Airey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johanna Larsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Airey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Curtin University, Perth, Western Autralia, Australia

    Kok-Sing Tang

  2. Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden

    Kristina Danielsson

Appendix A

Appendix A

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Airey, J., Larsson, J. (2018). Developing Students’ Disciplinary Literacy? The Case of University Physics. In: Tang, KS., Danielsson, K. (eds) Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69196-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69197-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation