John Airey
Disciplinary Literacy
Department of Languages,
Linnaeus University, Sweden
University Physics Education Research Group
Uppsala University, Sweden
Brief summary of my earlier work
Learning in English
Teaching in English
Monolingual Learning
Disciplinary differences
Disciplinary literacy
Disciplinary literacy discussion matrix
Conclusions
Questions
Overview
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions QuestionsOverview of earlier work
Students learning in English
Airey (2003; 2004; 2006a; 2006b; 2009a 2009b 2010a; 2010b)
Teachers teaching in English
Airey (2011a; 2011b; 2011c; 2011d; 2012; 2013; 2014; 2015; 2016)
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
PhD work:
Parallel courses in English and Swedish
Videoed lectures in Swedish and English
Selected video clips used to
stimulate recall
Learning in English
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions QuestionsResults
Students reported
no difference
in their
learning when taught in Swedish or English
However, during stimulated recall students
did report a number of
important differences
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
When taught in English
Students
ask and answer fewer questions
Results
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions QuestionsWhen taught in English
Students
who took notes
had difficulty
following the lecture
The success of these students appeared to
depend on doing
extra work outside class
Results
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Students
adapted
their study habits…
Only asked questions after the lecture
Stopped taking notes in class
Read sections of work before class
Simply used the lecture for mechanical
note-taking
Airey and Linder (2006; 2007)
Results
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions QuestionsThe following are six
recommendations
for
lecturers :
1. Discuss the fact that there are differences
when lectures are in a second language.
2. Create more opportunities for students to
ask and answer questions in lectures.
3. Allow time after the lecture for students to
ask questions.
Recommendations
4. Ask students to read material before the
lecture.
5. Give out lecture notes in advance or follow
the book
6. Consider other teaching forms than lectures
Online lecture followed by discussion?
Recommendations
Thøgersen & Airey (2011)
Built on earlier work with students that
suggested people speak more slowly in a
second language
(Hincks 2010; Airey 2010)
Danish lecturer taught same lecture five
times
Teaching in English
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
English
Danish
In English:
Same material took longer (22%)
Lecturer used a more formal, ’textbook’
style
Teaching in English
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Questions:
Is this true for all lecturers?
Is this true for all languages?
Is this true for all subject areas?
Teaching in English
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions QuestionsLecturer profiles
18 lecturers at two Swedish universities
Range of disciplines
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Video
1. Ten-minute mini-lecture in Swedish on
a subject they usually teach
2. Ten-minute mini-lecture in English on
the same subject
Data collection
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions QuestionsLecturers spoke more slowly had more
pauses and shorter runs in English
Differences between lectures
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
5,00% 10,00% 15,00% 20,00% 25,00%
Articulation rate in syllables per second [normalised]
English Swedish
Three types of lecturer
1. Structured no change in English
Two options:
– lecture is longer
– the end of the lecture is cut off
2. Structured works differently in English
Two options:
– Choose to miss out some content
– Cover all content but in less depth
3. Free structure
– presents different information (but probably would in L1)
– Lecture tends to be shorter—less to say
Tentative conclusions
1. Lecturers probably
need more time
to do the
same job in English
2. Highly-structured (teacher-centred) lecturers
may have fewer problems changing to
English.
3. May be pragmatic for lecturers to change
style to a more structured approach.
Summary earlier work
My research shows what happens when:
Swedish students learn in English
Swedish lecturers teach in English
But what should guide the decision to
teach in English in the first place?
First need to understand monolingual
learning.
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Monolingual learning
Northedge (2002) claims that the fundamental
role of a university lecturer is to introduce
students to the
specialist discourse
of the
discipline.
Building on this, Airey (2012, 2016) argues
all
teachers are language teachers
even in
monolingual settings
.
Two ways of viewing this claim:
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Weak, uncontroversial stance
Disciplinary learning depends on the ability
to
interpret the specialized language
in
which the knowledge is construed.
(Lemke 1990)
Strong, radical stance
Disciplinary learning is a form of
discourse
change
.
(Wickman & Östman 2002)
We are all language teachers!
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Disciplinary learning clearly becomes more
complex when two (or more) languages are
involved.
Which languages are actually
needed
for
appropriate disciplinary learning?
What is an appropriate
language mix
?
Learning in more than one language
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Disciplines have been shown to have quite
different approaches to knowledge building.
See Biglan (1973), Kolb (1981),
Becher & Trowler (2001), Bernstein (1999),
Trowler (2014)
Disciplinarity
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Each discipline has different goals and
different
ontological
and
epistemological
assumptions
Ontology
A set of assumptions about the nature
of reality and existence
Epistemology
A set of assumptions about how
knowledge is obtained
Disciplinarity
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Bernstein (1999) classified disciplinary
knowledge structures as
hierarchical
or
horizontal
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
Disciplinary knowledge structures
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Progression in hierarchical knowledge
structures can be viewed as
developing a single
agreed “language”
New knowledge comes from
integration
Progression in horizontal knowledge structures
can be viewed as
introducing new ”languages of
description”
New knowledge comes
from new perspectives
Disciplinary knowledge structures
L
1
L
2
L
3
L
4
L
5
L
5+1
horizontal
Disciplinary knowledge structures
hierarchical
knowledge
structure
horizontal
knowledge
structure
“warring
triangles”
physics
biology
science
L
1
L
2
L
3
L
4
L
5
...
social science
humanities
history literary studies
Physics has the most hierarchical knowledge
structure of all disciplines.
(Bernstein1999)
Kuteeva and Airey (2014) find disciplines with
hierarchical knowledge structures have
strong preferences for
English
as a medium
of instruction.
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Disciplinary knowledge structures
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
English language PhD theses
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nat.
Ma
t.
Me
d.
Te
k.
Fil.
Eko
.
Sa
m.
Sp
r.
Ark.
Lit.
Et
n.
Geo.
H
is.
Rel.
Ko
n.
Upp.
Natural sciences Social sciences Humanities and Arts
Disciplinary differences and language
Least objection
to English
Most objection
to English
Teaching in English
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% All/almost all None/almost noneWhat does this mean for
parallel
language use?
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Parallel language use is a necessity—only its
implementation can be discussed
Gregersen and Josephson (2014: 45)
An intuitively appealing idea [but] a
somewhat fuzzy and probably unrealistic
target
Phillipson (2006: 25)
An unoperationalised political slogan
Kuteeva and Airey (2014: 536)
Parallel language use—some voices
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Parallel language use and disciplines
How can we operationalise parallel language
use?
What do we want our graduates to learn to do?
In
which languages
should they be able to do
this?
I argue that this
depends on the discipline.
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Disciplinary Literacy
Attempt to operationalise parallel language
use in terms of the development of
disciplinary literacy
In order to explain this term first need to
look at the term
literacy
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
What is literacy?
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.
Two points here:
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
What is literacy?
1. Literacy involves not just reading and
writing but also
speaking and listening and
other (non-linguistic) skills
e.g. maths skills
graphing skills, experimental skills, etc
cf. Archer (2006) Airey & Linder (2009)
2. Literacy depends on
where
you intend to
use these skills.
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Disciplinary literacy refers to the ability to
appropriately participate in the
communicative practices of a discipline.
Airey (2011b)
What is disciplinary literacy?
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Disciplinary Literacy
The goal of any degree programme is the
development of
disciplinary literacy.
Airey (2011b)
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Disciplinary Literacy
Disciplinary literacy is developed for three
sites
society
,
workplace
and the
academy
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Disciplinary Literacy Triangle
Society
Academy
Workplace
Each of these
sites places
different demands
on language
Disciplinary Literacy Triangle
Society
Moreover, each site has the potential to be
divided into an
international and a local
form
.
These forms have quite different language
needs
The
international forms
will almost certainly
involve some
English
, whilst the
local forms
probably involve
one or more other
languages
.
International and local
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Society
Academy
Workplace
L1
L2
L3
Each discipline has its own knowledge
structure. These knowledge structures
do
not appear to be language−neutral.
Each discipline fosters a unique form of
disciplinary literacy for three sites:
Society,
Academy and Workplace.
The demands placed on language in these
three sites are very different.
Summary
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix
Focuses discussion on:
The communicative practices lecturers
believe students need to master.
i.e. The local language(s), English,
and other modes.
The site in which these communicative
practices are needed.
i.e. academy, workplace and society
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
What forms of communication do you think
your students need to master?
Each lecturer marks the cells in the matrix
Discussion then moves from cell to cell
(regardless of whether or not it is checked).
Introductory question
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
Initiating faculty dialogue
Two follow up questions:
1. How will students be given the opportunity
to develop the desired skills during a given
course?
2. How will this development be assessed?
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions Questions
A
top down, “one-size-fits-all” language
policy
that deals with language in anything
more than a ”general recommendations”
sense will be
problematic.
Need
locally decided, disciplinary-specific
decisions
about what to teach in which
language(s)
Suggest using the matrix to stimulate
intra-faculty discussion
Conclusions
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions QuestionsUniversity language policies should:
1. Encourage the faculty discussion of
disciplinary literacy goals.
2. Require disciplines to declare the
language-learning outcomes of each
course.
Conclusions
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions QuestionsProgramme and course syllabuses should
detail disciplinary literacy outcomes
alongside more traditional learning
outcomes:
In this course the following skills will be
developed in the following language(s)
How do the skills developed in a particular
course relate to the overall goal—the
development of disciplinary literate
graduates?
John Airey Bergen 25 January 2016
Conclusions
Overview Earlier work Monolingual learning Disciplinary differences Disciplinary literacy The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix Conclusions QuestionsAirey, 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.), Didaktikens mångfald (Vol. 1, pp. 11-18). Gävle, Sweden: Högskolan i 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. (2006a). När undervisningsspråket blir engelska [When the teaching language is changed to English]. Språkvård, 2006(4), 20-25.
Airey, J. (2006b). 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. (2009a). Estimating bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International Journal of Content and Language Integrated
Learning, 1(2), 26-35.
Airey J. (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 Retrieved 2009-04-27, from
http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=9547
Airey, J. (2010a). När undervisningsspråket ändras till engelska [When the teaching language changes to English] Om
undervisning på engelska (pp. 57-64). Stockholm: Högskoleverket Rapport 2010:15R
Airey, J. (2010b). 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. (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. (2014) Representations in Undergraduate Physics. Docent lecture, Ångström Laboratory, 9th June 2014 From
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-226598
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., 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/s10734-015-9950-2
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. (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 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. (2010). Tvåspråkig ämneskompetens? En studie av naturvetenskaplig parallellspråkighet i svensk högre utbildning In L. G. Andersson, O. Josephson, I. Lindberg, & M. Thelander (Eds.), Språkvård och språkpolitik Svenska
språknämndens forskningskonferens i Saltsjöbaden 2008 (pp. 195-212). Stockholm: Norstedts.
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2011). Bilingual scientific literacy. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. Roberts, P-O. Wickman, G. Ericksen, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 106-124). London: Routledge.
Airey, J. & Linder, C. (in press) Social Semiotics in Physics Education : Multiple Representations in Physics Education
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology Education, 20(2), 157-173.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203. Gerber, 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.
Hincks, R. (2010). Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca oral presentations. English for Specific Purposes,
29(1), 4-18
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.
Kolb, D. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. Chickering (Ed.), The Modern American College: Responding to
the New Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing Society (pp. 232-255). London: Jossey-Bass.
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
Lehtonen, 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.html
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
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:10.1080/10288457.2014.953294
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.
Neville-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.pdf
Northedge, A. (2002). Organizing excursions into specialist discourse communities: A sociocultural account of university teaching. In Gordon Wells & Guy Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century. Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 252-264). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Salö, L. (2010). Engelska eller svenska? En kartläggning av språksituationen inom högre utbildning och forskning [English or