disciplinary literacy small - diva...

Disciplinary Literacy: Theorising the Specialized Use of

Language and other Modes in University Teaching and Learning

John Airey

Department of Mathematics and Science Education Stockholm University

Department of Languages Linneaus University

Department of Physics and Astronomy Uppsala University

Overview

1. Disciplinary knowledge structures

2. What does it mean to become disciplinary literate?

3. What does it mean to become disciplinary literate in more than one language?

Bernstein (1999) classified disciplinary knowledge structures as more hierarchical or more horizontal

Hierarchical knowledge structures mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

mm

Horizontal knowledge structures

Disciplinary knowledge structures

Bernstein (1999) classified disciplinary knowledge structures as more hierarchical or more horizontal

Hierarchical knowledge structures Progress by integration of new knowledge with existing knowledge



Hierarchical knowledge structures

Newtonian Physics

Quantum Mechanics


General Relativity

Quantum Mechanics

Newtonian Physics


General Relativity

Quantum Mechanics

Newtonian Physics

Grand Unified Theory

Airey (2012:69) adapted from Lindstrøm (2011)

So what are horizontal knowledge structures ?

Hierarchical knowledge structures Progress by integration of new knowledge with existing knowledge

Horizontal knowledge structures Progress by introducing new perspectives that do not need to be coherent with existing perspectives


L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 + L5... Lx

Expansion of knowledge

Horizontal knowledge structures are likened to the introduction of new descriptive languages


These ”languages” do not need to be compatible with one another.

Each offers a different perspective that may or may not be useful in a given situation

Same phenomenon can be analysed in different ways:

Post-colonnial Feminist Marxist etc. etc.



More hierarchical knowledge structures

More horizontal knowledge structures

“warring triangles”

physics biology

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5...

social sciences

history literary studies

linguistics sociology

Adapted from Martin (2011) and Wignell (2004)

sciences humanities

Disciplinary knowledge structures are not language neutral.

Horizontal knowledge structures create new ”languages”.

Hierarchical knowledge structures value coherence all languages potentially equal.


Natural sciences Social sciences Humanities and Arts

Disciplinary differences and language

Least objection to English

Most objection to English

Suggested that these differences will affect disciplinary attitudes to English language use.

Prediction:

Adapted from Kuteeva & Airey (2014)

English language PhD theses

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

Nat.

Mat.

Med.

Tek. Fil. Eko. Sam

. Spr.

Ark.

Lit. Etn. G

eo. H

is. Rel. Kon. U

pp.

%

Salö (2010:24)

Lectures in English across Faculties

Adapted from Bolton & Kuteeva (2012)

The relationship between disciplinary learning and our first language is by no means straightforward

Learning is intimately linked to language

All learning can be viewed as language learning even in a monolingual setting

From this perspective any university lecturer is a teacher of a disciplinary discourse

Disciplinary Literacy

– Found that languages alone were insufficient to describe the interview data I collected.

– Other representational forms or modes seemed important.

– First I had three languages.

– Mathematics, diagrams, graphs, lab work etc.

– A multimodal approach

Multimodality

Critical Constellations of Resources

Airey (2009)

I bring together the multilingual and multimodal nature of disciplines in terms of Disciplinary Literacy

Disciplinary literacy

I suggest the goal of any degree programme is the development of disciplinary literacy.

Airey (2011b)


Disciplinary literacy refers to the ability to appropriately participate in the communicative practices of a discipline.


– Gee (1991) suggests that we have one primary discourse (the oral language we learn as a child) and many secondary discourses (specialised communicative practices used in other sites outside the home).

– Gee defines Literacy as ’fluency in’ these secondary discourses.

– So literacy depends on the site i.e. Where will it used?

What is Literacy?

– So what site does disciplinary literacy refer to?


I suggest that the disciplinary literacy goals of any degree course will entail a unique mix of fluency for three specific sites:

– The academy – The workplace – Society


Disciplinary Literacy Triangle

Society

Academy Workplace

Each of these sites places

different demands on language


Society

Academy Workplace

Disciplinary Literacy

Society

Academy Workplace

L1 L2

L3

Singulars

A singular is a discipline with strong boundaries such as physics, history, economics etc.

Singulars generate strong inner commitments centred around their perceived intrinsic value.

Regions

Regions are disciplines in which a number of singulars are brought together in an integrating framework (Young 2008)

While singulars face inwards, regions face outwards to the various fields of practice in everyday life.


Airey (2011b)

Society

Academy Workplace

Airey, Larsson ISEC Singapore 26 Nov. 2014

Singulars and regions

Airey & Larsson (2018)

Disciplinary differences

Knowledge structure matrix

Airey, Larsson ISEC Singapore 26 Nov. 2014

Hierarchical Horizontal

Singular R

egion

Physics

Education Engineering

History

Adapted from Airey & Larsson (2018)

Bring together my discussion of disciplinary literacy in a simple heuristic tool—the Disciplinary Literacy Matrix.

The three columns of the matrix correspond to the three sites in which disciplinary literacy may be enacted.

The rows of the matrix relate to languages and other modes that students may need to become fluent in.

Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix

Adapted from Airey (2011a)

Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix

Where used?

Academy Workplace Society

First language

Reading

Writing

Listening

Speaking

Second language

Reading

Writing

Listening

Speaking

Third

language

Reading

Writing

Listening

Speaking

Other modes (please

add to the list)

Graphs

Tables

Diagrams

Mathematics

à

à

à

à

AdaptedfromAirey(2011)

Discuss with a colleague.

What do you think would be the disciplinary literacy goals for say a chemist, a social worker a literary scholar?

Other disciplines?

Go though the matrix describing what you think those students need.

Using the Matrix

1. Not relevant 2. Relevant but not my job 3. Avoid problematic representations 4. Encourage translation to alternative representations 5. Offer passive support 6. Actively engage

Disciplinary literacy goals of South African physics lecturers

1. Not relevant 2. Relevant but not my job 3. Avoid problematic representations 4. Encourage translation to alternative representations 5. Offer passive support 6. Actively engage First three response strategies are teacher centred and risk students not achieving disciplinary literacy

Discussion

Linder et al (2014)

Only English?

For lecturers who did attempt to develop language competence in their students this was only done for English.

Similar findings in Sweden where physics has been shown to have strong preferences for English.

Kuteeva & Airey (2014)

39

Disciplinaryliteracy

Readandwritescience

Fundamental

Derived

Mul6lingual?

Monolingual?—Whichlanguage?Bilingual?

Graphs,Gesture,PhysicalTools,ComputerSimula6ons,Mathema6cs,Pictures,etc.

Asetofcompetencies

Academy Workplace

Society

•  AcademicWri6nge.g.Swales&Feak(2004)

Defini&on

Semio&cResources

Disciplinaryliteracy

Scien&ficLiteracy

Interpre6ve Genera6ve

FluencyAirey(2009)

‘read’theresource

‘write’theresource

Func6on

Disciplinaryaffordance

Fredlundetal(2012)

GenericaffordanceGibson(1979) Language

choice

Speech,Wri6ng,

Norris&Phillips(2003)

What?

Where?

Appropriatepar&cipa&onindisciplinary

communica&veprac&ces

Airey(2011)

•  AcademicLiteraciesLea&Street(1998)

PedagogicalaffordanceAirey(2015)

Airey(2011)

“Scienceforci6zenship”

“Sciencefordoingscience”

(Metaphorical)

TwoVisionsofscien6ficliteracy

Roberts(2007)

VisionIVisionII

TypeofDiscipline

Bernstein(1999;2000)

SingularorRegion?

HierarchicalorHorizontal?

Each discipline fosters a unique form of disciplinary literacy for three sites: Society, Academy and Workplace.

The demands placed on languages and other modes in these three sites are very different.

Summary

Until content lecturers see their role as one of socialising students into the discourse of their discipline, there can be no discussion of disciplinary literacy goals. Without such a discussion lecturers will continue to insist that they are not language teachers and that this should be a job for someone else.

(Airey 2011a:50)

Finally…

Questions or Comments?

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(pp. 41-58): Gleerups. Airey, J. (2015). 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 Slobodanka Dimova, Anna Kristina Hultgren, & Christian Jensen (Eds.), English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education. English in Europe, Volume 3 (pp. 157-176): De Gruyter Mouton.

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

Airey, J. (2017). CLIL: Combining Language and Content. ESP Today, 5(2), 297-302. Airey, J., & Larsson, J. (2018). Developing Students’ Disciplinary Literacy? The Case of University Physics. In K.-S. Tang & K.

Danielsson (Eds.), Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education: Springer. Airey, J., Lauridsen, K., Raisanen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2017). The Expansion of English-medium Instruction in the Nordic

Countries. Can Top-down University Language Policies Encourage Bottom-up Disciplinary Literacy Goals? Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9950-2

Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology Education, 20(2), 157-173. Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of

English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(5), 429-447. Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp.

3-11). New York: Bergin & Garvey. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127-143). Boston: Houghton

Miffin. Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary Differences in the Use of English in Higher Education: Reflections on Recent Policy

Developments Higher Education, 67(5), 533-549. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9660-6 Lea, Mary R., & Street, Brian V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher

Education, 23(2), 157-172. Linder, A., Airey, J., Mayaba, N., & Webb, P. (2014). Fostering Disciplinary Literacy? South African Physics Lecturers’ Educational

Responses to their Students’ Lack of Representational Competence. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3), 242-252. doi:10.1080/10288457.2014.95329

Lindström, C. (2011). Analysing knowledge 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: Interdisciplinarity and 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). Engelska eller svenska? En kartläggning av språksituationen inom högre utbildning och forskning [English or Swedish? A survey of the language situation in higher education and research]. Stockholm: Språkrådet.

Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2004). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Thøgersen, J., & Airey, J. (2011). Lecturing undergraduate science in Danish and in English: A comparison of speaking rate and

rhetorical style. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 209-221.

disciplinary literacy small - diva...

Documents