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

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

Bernstein (1999) classified disciplinary knowledge

structures as more

hierarchical

or more

horizontal

Hierarchical knowledge structures

Progress by integration of new knowledge with

existing knowledge

Horizontal knowledge structures

Hierarchical knowledge structures

Newtonian

Physics

Quantum

Hierarchical knowledge structures

General

Relativity

Quantum

Mechanics

Newtonian

Physics

Hierarchical knowledge structures

General

Relativity

Quantum

Mechanics

Newtonian

Physics

Grand

Unified

Theory

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

L

1

_{+ L}

2

_{+ L}

3

_{+ L}

4

_{+ L}

5

_{... L}

x

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.

Disciplinary knowledge structures

More hierarchical

knowledge structures

More

horizontal

knowledge

structures

“warring

triangles”

physics

biology

L

1

_L

2

_L

3

_L

4

_L

5

_...

social sciences

history literary studies

linguistics sociology

Adapted from Martin (2011) and Wignell (2004)

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

English language PhD theses

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Na

t.

M

at.

M

ed.

Te

_k.

Fi

l.

Ek

_o.

Sam.

S

pr

.

Ark.

_Lit.

E

tn

.

Ge

o.

H

is.

Re

_l.

Ko

_n

.

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

– 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

Critical Constellations of Resources

I bring together the multilingual and multimodal

nature of disciplines in terms of 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?

– 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

Disciplinary Literacy Triangle

Society

Disciplinary Literacy

Society

Academy

Workplace

L1

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.

Disciplinary Literacy Triangle

Airey (2011b)

Society

Academy

Workplace

Airey, Larsson ISEC Singapore 26 Nov. 2014

Singulars and regions

Disciplinary differences

Knowledge structure matrix

Airey, Larsson ISEC Singapore 26 Nov. 2014

Hierarchical

Horizontal

Si

ng

ula

r

R

eg

io

n

Physics

Education

Engineering

History

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.

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

Adapted from Airey (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.

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

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.

39

Disciplinary

literacy

Read and write science

Fundamental

Derived

Mul6lingual?

Monolingual?—Which language?

Bilingual?

Graphs, Gesture, Physical Tools,

Computer Simula6ons, Mathema6cs, Pictures, etc.

A set of competencies Academy Workplace Society

• 

Academic Wri6ng

e.g. Swales & Feak (2004)

Defini&on

Semio&c Resources

Disciplinary

literacy

Scien&fic

Literacy

Interpre6ve Genera6ve

Fluency

Airey (2009)

‘read’

the resource

the resource

‘write’

Func6on

Disciplinary

affordance

Fredlund et al (2012)

Generic affordance

Gibson (1979)

Language

choice

Speech, Wri6ng,

Norris & Phillips (2003)

What?

Where?

Appropriate

par&cipa&on in

disciplinary

communica&ve

prac&ces

Airey (2011)

• 

Academic Literacies

Lea & Street (1998)

Pedagogical

affordance

Airey (2015) Airey (2011)

“Science for

ci6zenship”

“Science for

doing science”

(Metaphorical)

Two Visions of

scien6fic literacy

Roberts (2007)

Vision I Vision II

Type of Discipline

Bernstein (1999; 2000)

Singular

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.

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)

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