The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes
Open accessAbstract
In this theoretical article we use an interpretative study with physics undergraduates to exemplify a proposed characterization of student learning in university science in terms of fluency in disciplinary discourse. Drawing on ideas from a number of different sources in the literature, we characterize what we call “disciplinary discourse” as the complex of representations, tools and activities of a discipline, describing how it can be seen as being made up of various “modes”. For university science, examples of these modes are: spoken and written language, mathematics, gesture, images (including pictures, graphs and diagrams), tools (such as experimental apparatus and measurement equipment), and activities (such as ways of working—both practice and praxis, analytical routines, actions, etc.). Using physics as an illustrative example, we discuss the relationship between the ways of knowing that constitute a discipline and the modes of disciplinary discourse used to represent this knowing. The data comes from stimulated recall interviews where physics undergraduates discuss their learning experiences during lectures. These interviews are used to anecdotally illustrate our proposed characterization of learning and its associated theoretical constructs. Students describe a repetitive practice aspect to their learning, which we suggest is necessary for achieving fluency in the various modes of disciplinary discourse. Here we found instances of discourse imitation, where students are seemingly fluent in one or more modes of disciplinary discourse without having related this to a teacher‐intended disciplinary way of knowing. The examples lead to the suggestion that fluency in a critical constellation of modes of disciplinary discourse may be a necessary (though not always sufficient) condition for gaining meaningful holistic access to disciplinary ways of knowing. One implication is that in order to be effective, science teachers need to know which modes are critical for an understanding of the material they wish to teach. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 27–49, 2009
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2 · Cited by 2,894
“Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project‐based science
Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.1014 · Cited by 381
Cited by
Source Evaluation, Comprehension, and Learning in Internet Science Inquiry Tasks
Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831209333183 · Cited by 419
Teaching the process of science: faculty perceptions and an effective methodology
Coil, D., Wenderoth, M. P., Cunningham, M., & Dirks, C. (2010) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.10-01-0005 · Cited by 282
Conditions for the Effectiveness of Multiple Visual Representations in Enhancing STEM Learning
Rau, M. A. (2017) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9365-3 · Cited by 281
Lighten the Load: Scaffolding Visual Literacy in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Offerdahl, E. G., Arneson, J. B., & Byrne, N. (2017) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.16-06-0193 · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- Airey, J., & Linder, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-12-02
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-49
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2024809121
- Cited by
- 344
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 42.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/tea.20265
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20265
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.