A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 27-49

  Airey, John ^a,b   Linder, Cedric ^b,c  

^a LINNAEUS UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF THE WESTERN CAPE   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Disciplinary discourse; Representation; Semiotic resources; University science learning

Indexed keywords

SEMIOTICS; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

DISCIPLINARY DISCOURSE; EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS; ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES; LEARNING EXPERIENCES; MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENTS; REPRESENTATION; SCIENCE TEACHERS; SEMIOTIC RESOURCES; STUDENT LEARNING; UNIVERSITY SCIENCE LEARNING;

EDUCATION;

EID: 59349088681     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20265     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Ahlberg, K. (2004). Synvändor: Universitetsstudenters berättelser om kvalitativa förändringar av sätt att erfara situationers mening under utbildningspraktik [Viewturns: University students' narratives about qualitative changes in their way of experiencing meaning during internship] (Vol. 206). Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
2. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2-3), 131-152.
3. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
4. 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.
5. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2006). Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden. European Journal of Physics, 27(3), 553-560.
6. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2007). Disciplinary learning in a second language: A case study from university physics. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Researching content and language Integration in Higher Education (pp. 161-171). Maastricht: Maastricht University Language Centre.
7. Bianchini, J. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039-1065.
8. Bloom, B. (1953). Thought processes in lectures and discussions. Journal of General Education, 7, 160-169.
9. Brown, B. A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 810-834.
10. Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 211-217.
11. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
12. Clark, D. (1951). Imitation: Theory and practice in Roman rhetoric. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 37, 11-22.
13. Clark, J.M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149-210.
14. Conefrey, T. (1997). Gender, culture and authority in a university life sciences laboratory. Discourse & Society, 8(3), 313-340.
15. Crawford, T., Kelly, G.J., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 237-258.
16. diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105-226.
17. diSessa, A. (2004). Meta-representation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331.
18. diSessa, A., & Sherin, B.L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385-398.
19. Driver, R., & Erickson, G.L. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.
20. Duval, R. (2002). The cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in the learning of mathematics. Retrieved 14 April, 2006, from http://www.math. uncc.edu/~sae/dg3/duval.pdf.
21. Duval, R. (2006). From one kind of representation to another kind: Break or continuity in the comprehension process? Keynote address at EARLISIG 2 Biennial meeting, University of Nottingham, 30 August-1 September 2006, Nottingham, UK.
22. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.
23. Florence, M.K., & Yore, L.D. (2004). Learning to write like a scientist: Coauthoring as an enculturation task. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 637-668.
24. Fransson, A. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning: IV-Effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic test anxiety on process and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 244-257.
25. Gee, J.P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis. Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
26. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The theory of affordances. In The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127-143). Boston: Houghton Miffin.
27. Givry, D., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Toward a new conception of conceptions: Interplay of talk, gestures, and structures in the setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(10), 1086-1109.
28. Hakstian, A.R. (1971). The effects of type of examination anticipated on test preparation and performance. Journal of Educational Research, 64, 319-324.
29. Hall S. (Ed.), (1997). Representation. Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage Publications in association with The Open University.
30. Hammer, D. (1995). Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory physics. Science Education, 79(4), 393-413.
31. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R.E., & Redish, E. (2005). Resources, framing and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 121-154). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
32. Hewitt, P.G. (1983). Millikan Lecture 1982: The missing essential - A conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 51(4), 305-311.
33. Kittleson, J.M., & Southerland, S.A. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 267-293.
34. Kozma, R., Chin, C., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 102-143.
35. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
36. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold.
37. Kuhn, T.S. (1962/1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
39. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
40. Lemke, J.L. (1995). Intertextuality and text semantics. In P.H. Fries & M. Gregory (Eds.), Discourse in society: Systemic functional perspectives. Meaning and choice in language (pp. 85-114). Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
41. Lemke, J.L. (1998) Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions. Retrieved September 16, 2005, from http://academic. brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/ barcelon.htm.
42. Linder, C., Fraser, D., & Pang, M.F. (2006). Using a variation approach to enhance physics learning in a college classroom. The Physics Teacher, 44(9), 589-592.
43. Linder, C., & Marshall, D. (2003). Reflection and phenomenography: Towards theoretical and educational development possibilities. Learning and Instruction, 13, 271-284.
44. Lo, M.L., Marton, F., Pang, M.R, & Pong, W. Y. (2004). Towards a pedagogy of learning. In F. Marton & A.B.M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. II - Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.
47. Marton F. Tsui A.B.M. (Eds.), (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Mayer, R.E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
49. Mayer, R.E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
50. Middendorf, J., & Pace, D. (2004). Decoding the disciplines: A model for helping students learn disciplinary ways of thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 98(Summer 2004), 1 -12.
51. Miller, O.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Some limits on our capacity to process information, Psychological Review, 63, 81-87.
52. Mintock, M. (1995). Toward a postmodern pedagogy of imitation. Journal of Advanced Composition, 15, 489-509.
53. Moje, E.B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R.W. (2001). "Maestro, what is 'quality'?": Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-498.
54. Newble, D.I., & Jaeger, K. (1983). The effect of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Medical Education, 17, 165-171.
55. 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.
56. Northedge, A. (2003). Enabling participation in academic discourse. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 169-180.
57. Östman, L. (1998). How companion meanings are expressed by science education discourse. In D. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science education (pp. 54-70). New York: Teachers College Press.
58. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59. Peters, P.C. (1982). Even honors students have conceptual difficulties with physics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 501-508.
60. Postman, N., & Wiengartner, C. (1971). Teaching as a subversive activity. Harmondsworth: Penguin Education.
61. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham, U.K.: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
62. Redish, E. (2003). Teaching physics with the physics suite. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
63. Reimann, P. (2003). Multimedia learning: Beyond modality. Learning and Instruction, 13, 245-252.
64. Rider, J. (1990). Must imitation be the mother of invention? Journal of Teaching Writing, 9(2), 165-185.
65. Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture, and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86(3), 368-385.
66. Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M.K., & Bowen, G.M. (1996). Applications of science and technology studies: Effecting change in science education. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21, 454-484.
67. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., & Shaw, K. (1997). Cascades of inscriptions and the re-presentation of nature: How numbers, tables, graphs and money come to re-present a rolling ball. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1075-1091.
68. Roth, W.-M., & Welzel, M. (2001). From activity to gestures and scientific language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 103-136.
69. Säljö, R. (1997). Talk as data and practice - A critical look at phenomenographic enquiry and the appeal to experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 173-190.
70. Säljö, R. (1999). Concepts, cognition and discourse: From mental structures to discursive tools. In W. Schnotz S. Vosniadou & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 81 -90). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
71. Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken: ett sociokulturellt perspektiv [Learning in practice: A sociocultural perspective]. Stockholm: Prisma.
72. Scoulier, K.M., & Prosser, M. (1994). Students' experiences in studying for multiple choice question examinations. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 267-279.
73. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N.M. (1997). Talking about leaving. Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder: Westview Press.
74. Solomon, J. (1983). Learning about energy: How pupils think in two domains. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 49-59.
75. Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, G.E. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 191-203.
76. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77. Svensson, L. (1976). Study skill and learning. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
78. Svensson, L. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning: III. Study skill and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 233-243.
79. Svensson, L. (1984). Skill in learning. In F. Marton D.J. Hounsell & N.J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 56-70). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
80. Svensson, L., & Högfors, C. (1988). Conceptions as the content of teaching: Improving education in mechanics. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 162-177). London: Kogan Page.
81. Taber, K.S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions-Prevention, diagnosis and cure. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
82. The New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of Multiliteracies designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-37). London: Routledge.
83. Thomas, K. (1990). Gender and subject in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
84. Tobias, S. (1986). Peer perspectives. On the teaching of science. Change, March/April 1.986, 36-41.
85. Tobias, S. (1992-1993). Disciplinary cultures and general education: What can we learn from our learners? Teaching Excellence, 4(6), 1-3.
86. Tsui, A.B.M. (2004). The shared space of learning. In F. Marton & A.B.M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning. (pp. 165-186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
87. Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models, representation and scientific understanding. Boston: Reidel.
88. Wells, G. (2000). Modes of meaning in a science activity. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 307-334.
89. Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86(5), 601-623.
90. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (Anscombe, G.E.M., Trans. 2 ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.