Bilingual Scientific Literacy?

The Use of English in

Swedish University Science Courses
John Airey, Kalmar University College
Cedric Linder, Uppsala University

Abstract.
A direct consequence of the Bologna declaration on harmonisation of European
education has been an increase in the number of courses taught in English at Swedish
universities. A worrying aspect of this development is the lack of research into the effects
on disciplinary learning that may be related to changing the teaching language to English
in this way. In fact, little is known at all about the complex inter-relationship between
language and learning. In this article we attempt to map out the types of parameters that
our research indicates would determine an appropriate language mix in one section of
Swedish higher education—natural science degree courses. We do this from the
perspective of the overall goal of science education, which we suggest is the production
of scientifically literate graduates. Here we introduce a new term, bilingual scientific
literacy to describe the particular set of language-specific science skills that we hope to
foster within a given degree course. As an illustration of our constructs, we carry out a
simple language audit of thirty Swedish undergraduate physics syllabuses, listing the
types of input provided for students and the types of production expected from students in
both languages. We use this information to map out an ‘implied student’ for the courses
with respect to bilingual scientific literacy. The article finishes by identifying issues for
further research in this area.

1. Background and aims

European higher education institutions are currently preparing for a

major influx of exchange students. The reason for this is the recently
signed Bologna declaration on harmonisation of European education,
which promises freedom of movement for students from the 46 countries
now involved in the process by 2010 (Bologna Process, 2007). At the
same time, higher education institutions are also interested in attracting
other cohorts of foreign students from, for example, Africa, India and
Asia, for both financial and academic reasons. In many cases, one aspect
of this preparation has involved adopting English as the default teaching
language in a wide selection of courses. In this respect, the Nordic
countries feature strongly, with recent surveys of European programmes
taught through the medium of English showing only the Netherlands

Nordic Journal of English Studies, vol. 7 No. 3, December 2008 145-161

Ⓒ 2008 Authors
146 John Airey and Cedric Linder

offering more student places on this type of course (Maiworm and

Wächter, 2002; Wächter and Maiworm, 2008). At postgraduate level, for
example, approximately half of the masters courses offered by Swedish
higher education establishments in autumn 2007 were expected to be
taught in English (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education,
2007). Even at undergraduate level many courses in Sweden are now
taught exclusively in English. This is particularly true in natural sciences,
engineering and medicine, where the majority of course literature has
long been published in English, and where English is playing an
increasingly dominant role as the de facto language of science (Ammon,
2001; Falk, 2001; Gunnarsson and Öhman, 1997).
Although the shift to teaching in English has often been welcomed
by teachers and students, the research community is only beginning to
understand the dynamics of these changes within the learning
environment. One of the reasons for this is that there is very little
research available into the effects on disciplinary learning in higher
education when the language used to teach a course is changed in this
way. Both Met and Lorenz (1997) and Duff (1997) have suggested that
limitations in a second language may inhibit students’ ability to explore
abstract concepts in non-language subjects. However, even without the
added complication of a second language, the language aspect of
disciplinary learning is particularly problematic and complex. As Östman
(1998) points out, a disciplinary language is abstract and represents
special communicative traditions and assumptions. On a similar theme,
Säljö (2000) argues that difficulties in student learning are in fact
difficulties in handling and understanding highly specialised forms of
communication which are not found to any great extent in everyday
situations. Lemke (1990) has thus concluded that learning depends on the
ability to understand the disciplinary language in which the knowledge is
construed. In this respect Halliday and Martin (1993) have claimed that
language itself is much more than a simple representation of disciplinary
knowledge, it is actively engaged in bringing such knowledge into being.
With so many writers pointing out the complex, non-trivial nature of the
relationship between language and disciplinary learning, one might
expect to find an extensive body of research into the subject—
particularly with respect to changing the teaching language to English.
Unfortunately, there is very little Nordic research that can inform the
current language shift occurring in higher education.
The Use of English in Swedish University Science Courses 147

A number of Nordic studies have examined the extent to which

English is used in higher education and there are also studies of the
effects of such teaching on language learning (e.g. Brandt and Schwach,
2005; Carroll-Boegh, 2005; Falk, 2001; Gunnarsson and Öhman, 1997;
Hellekjaer and Westergaard, 2002; Höglin, 2002; Melander, 2005;
Teleman, 1992; Tella, Räsänen and Vähäpassi, 1999; Wilson, 2002).
However, studies relating to disciplinary learning in a second language
are few in number—in fact, apart from our own work, we could only find
two Swedish studies that could be said to have any bearing on the
questions posed in this article. These two studies have examined the
understanding of written text, both concluding that the ability to judge
broad relevance is greatly reduced when text is in a second language
(Karlgren and Hansen, 2003; Söderlundh, 2004).
Even internationally there are only a small number of studies that
have examined the effects of the teaching language on disciplinary
learning in higher education. These international studies point to negative
correlations between disciplinary learning and changing the teaching
language to English (Gerber, Engelbrecht, Harding and Rogan, 2005;
Klaassen, 2001; Neville-Barton and Barton, 2005; Vinke, 1995).
However, in the most comprehensive of these studies Klaassen (2001)
found that the negative effects on disciplinary learning disappeared over
the period of a year. Klaassen concluded that the students in her study
had adapted to the language switch, and suggested follow-up work to
identify the mechanisms by which this adaptation may occur.
Until recently no Nordic research had been carried out into the
relationship between the teaching language and disciplinary learning at
tertiary level. This situation changed with the publication of the results of
a Swedish study which examined the disciplinary learning of
undergraduate physics students who were taught in both Swedish and
English (Airey, 2006a, 2006b; Airey and Linder, 2006; 2007). Building
on Klaassen’s earlier experiences in the Netherlands, this study showed
that, whilst on the whole students believed that the teaching language had
little effect on their learning, the same students could witness to a
number of significant differences in their learning when commenting on
video footage of teaching situations. The differences found involved the
amount of interaction in lectures (students asked and answered fewer
questions when taught in English) and a greater focus on the process of
note-taking in English-medium teaching at the expense of following the
148 John Airey and Cedric Linder

lecturer’s line of reasoning. Importantly, the students in the study

changed their learning strategies to cope with the language shift in a
number of ways: some students read sections of work before lectures,
whilst others no longer took notes in class. However, in some extreme
cases lectures had simply become sessions for mechanical note taking
with extra work needed to make sense of these notes later.
Valuable though the above research is for teachers faced with the
day-to-day reality of teaching Swedish students through the medium of
English, we would argue that the changes brought about by the push to
internationalise Swedish higher education require much more than
increased awareness of the ways such teaching can be experienced by
students. The decision to use a particular language must also be justified
from a pedagogical perspective. Unfortunately, in the present situation
the decision to change the teaching language to English often has little to
do with achieving specific disciplinary learning objectives. Writing in
2002, Carlson voiced the concerns still held by many in Swedish higher
education about the effects of language shift on disciplinary learning:

At present there has been no systematic research into the way in which student
learning is affected by the language used, but my gut feeling and that of many of my
colleagues is that students gain less robust knowledge and poorer understanding if
the language used is not their mother tongue. (Carlson, 2002: 15) (our translation)

In an attempt to improve the disciplinary language of their students,

teachers at Uppsala University started a project named DiaNa (Dialogue
for Natural Scientists). Here, the academic departments of chemistry,
biology and earth science emphasise communication training as an
integrated part of their programme courses (Uppsala universitet, 2001,
2007). Moreover, in an attempt to redress what was seen as an imbalance
between English and Swedish, Carlson and her colleagues also reduced
the percentage of courses offered in English to third and fourth year
biology students from approximately 70% to approximately 40%. All
students now read at least one advanced course in Swedish. Although a
movement back towards disciplinary Swedish seems to be a reasonable
objective, Airey suggests that we would be well-advised pedagogically to
focus on disciplinary learning objectives rather than the creation of
general language policies:
The Use of English in Swedish University Science Courses 149

[…] decisions [about the language of instruction] should be taken in order to better
fulfil the aims of the syllabus, and not in order to solve temporary problems about
what to do with a particular exchange student. This demands a structured approach,
where the language of instruction is an integrated part of the overall strategy to
produce well-educated graduates. (Airey, 2004: 104)

What we are suggesting, then, is a comprehensive rethink of the

fundamental aims of undergraduate degree courses in order to
acknowledge the language aspects involved in appropriate disciplinary
learning.
A similar conclusion was reached at a recent symposium on
language policy in higher education held at Södertörn University,
Sweden in 2006. The symposium brought together representatives from
the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education, the Swedish
Language Council, the Swedish Academy, the Swedish Student Union,
the Swedish Research Council and the Parliamentary Working Group
that drafted the 2002 report on language Mål i mun
(Utbildningsdepartementet, 2002) and its 2005 follow-up report. At the
symposium, concern was expressed about issues of diglossia (Ferguson,
1959)—a division of functions between languages—where English is the
academic ‘high’ language and Swedish is the everyday ‘low’ language
and domain losses1 to English (Fishman, 1967) with the fear being that
certain subject areas in society might become impossible to discuss in
Swedish. There was also general agreement that both English and
Swedish are needed in Swedish higher education, with the term parallel
language use being adopted to describe the desired situation (see
Josephson, 2005). However, questions about what the term parallel
language use actually means and how it might be implemented remained
largely unanswered.
We suggest that the first point to note when examining the term
parallel language use is that its focus appears to be primarily on the
educational system itself, i.e. the language used when educating students

1
The concept of domains was first presented by Fishman (1967). Examples of
domains are the family, school, the workplace, etc. The idea is that domains can
dictate language choice.
150 John Airey and Cedric Linder

rather than the language competencies that we would like graduates to

attain with respect to their subject of study. Clearly, the former is
intended to imply the latter; however, we believe it is dangerous to
assume that there is a one-to-one relationship between teaching and
learning in this way. Thus, we prefer to reformulate the parallel language
requirement, suggesting that each degree course should be analysed in
terms of the desired combination of language-specific disciplinary skills
that we would like to be attained within that course. Once this has been
decided, the next step would then be to determine the appropriate
combination of input and output that we hope would lead to these aims
being achieved.
For this article then, our overarching goal is to map out the
parameters which we see as important when deciding on the language
combination to be offered within one section of Swedish higher
education—namely the case of natural science degree courses. Here we
suggest that the answers to two questions are important for informing
future research in this area:

• What kind of input and output with respect to language can be argued to be
typical in natural science degree courses—i.e. what does the educational system
seem to be offering students at the moment?
• What kind of language-specific student science-competencies does this
combination of input and output imply?

In an attempt to illustrate the answers to these questions, we take as

our starting point the overall goal of science education, which we argue
is the production of scientifically literate graduates.

2. The goal of science education: scientific literacy

Why do our students spend three or four years learning undergraduate

science? One answer to this question—the one subscribed to by the
authors of this article—is that we want to produce scientifically literate
graduates. The term science literacy was first coined by Hurd (1958), but
since then there has been little agreement as to its precise meaning
(Laugksch, 2000). So, for the purposes of this article, what exactly do
we mean by the term scientifically literate? Usually when we talk about
literacy we mean being able to read and write. In this respect, Norris and
The Use of English in Swedish University Science Courses 151

Phillips (2003) have suggested that literacy takes two forms;

fundamental and derived. Fundamental literacy is the ability to extract
meaning from text (i.e. in its widest sense), whilst derived literacy refers
to the use of knowledge in a particular context. Clearly, then, from this
point of view, the fundamental form of scientific literacy involves being
able to extract appropriate meaning from a science text, but when one
comes to derived scientific literacy there are questions of context that
need to be answered. Here, Roberts (2007) has aided our thinking by
introducing the notion of two visions of scientific literacy: Vision I—
coming to understand the content of science itself, and Vision II—
coming to understand the implications and applications of science,
particularly in relation to everyday situations. He suggests that when we
think about derived scientific literacy we are in fact referring to a
combination of Vision I and Vision II. Thus, Roberts argues that the type
of derived scientific literacy fostered by a given undergraduate science
course will place itself somewhere on the continuum between these two
complementary visions. Following this division we define scientific
literacy for the purposes of this article as both the ability to work within
science and the ability to apply science to everyday life.

3. Bilingual scientific literacy

If one accepts that the goal of natural science degree courses is the
production of scientifically literate graduates, in line with our definition,
then, what is the nature of this scientific literacy with respect to
language? At this point we introduce a new term, bilingual scientific
literacy, which we define as scientific literacy in two languages. We use
this notion to characterise the particular collection of language-specific
science skills fostered within a given degree course with respect to
Roberts’ two visions.
We suggested above that everyday literacy is often couched in terms
of reading and writing. Here, we note that reading is an interpretive skill
whilst writing is a generative skill. Thus, from an analytical perspective,
we argue that bilingual scientific literacy should similarly be divided into
interpretive and generative components. Thus, we suggest that it is
important that any science degree course syllabus clearly identify the
particular blend of bilingual scientific literacy that is intended in terms of
152 John Airey and Cedric Linder

a combination of three factors: the vision (I and II), the language (L1 and
L2), and the form of literacy (interpretive and generative) see figure 1.

Figure 1 Bilingual scientific literacy in a degree course syllabus.

To our knowledge, no Swedish degree syllabuses specify educational

outcomes for all these components of bilingual scientific literacy in an
explicit manner at this time. What, then, we wonder, are the implied
goals with respect to our suggested components of bilingual scientific
literacy that form the ‘hidden curriculum’ of these courses? In an attempt
to answer this question we audited a sample of thirty syllabuses from
undergraduate courses in physics offered in spring term 2008 at one of
Sweden’s foremost universities in science and engineering.
The Use of English in Swedish University Science Courses 153

4. Syllabus analysis with respect to bilingual scientific literacy

Using a Vision I perspective, Airey and Linder (2008) have divided

disciplinary semiotic resources into three categories; representations,
tools and activities. They suggest that for natural science the category of
representations includes; oral and written language, mathematics, tables,
graphs and diagrams. The tools category refers to any physical objects
used within science, whilst activities refers to the methods and praxis of
the discipline. They suggest that students will need to become fluent in a
critical constellation of these semiotic resources. Clearly, from this
perspective, each of these semiotic resources will require both
interpretive and generative fluency. We draw on this description to
analyse the types of formal learning activities used on the thirty courses.
Initially we focussed on two course features that could be readily
collated from the thirty syllabuses: course literature and teaching
language.
Unfortunately, ten of the course syllabuses failed to detail the
required literature, thus effectively reducing the number of useable
syllabuses to twenty for this aspect. Of the twenty undergraduate course
syllabuses that did specify texts, only four appear to have exclusively
Swedish course literature. Sixteen courses had at least some literature in
English, with six of these having only English texts. When it comes to
the teaching language, things were somewhat different. Of the thirty
courses, only two were taught exclusively in English; the majority,
twenty-three were taught in Swedish. This information is summarised in
Table 1.
It is interesting to note that five syllabuses indicated that “If so
required, the course will be given in English.” One can wonder about the
type of bilingual scientific literacy that course developers have in mind
when a course can spontaneously change teaching language in this way.
154 John Airey and Cedric Linder

Table 1 Language use in 30 undergraduate physics courses as specified in the syllabus.

English Mixed texts Swedish Taught Taught in Taught in
texts texts in English or Swedish
only only English Swedish

6 10 4 2 5 23

Note: Of the 30 syllabuses, 10 gave no guidance on literature, these have therefore been
excluded from the left hand column detailing the language of course texts.

Following our initial analysis, informal discussions were held with

lecturers to ascertain typical types of course activities and the languages
used in these. We then used this information to build up a picture of the
types of student competencies that the course activities implied.

5. The implied student

From our analysis of the thirty syllabuses and our discussions with
course lecturers about course activities we have generated a profile of an
implied student with respect to bilingual scientific literacy. In Table 2
below, we first analyse the implied fluency in semiotic resources other
than language.
Here we see that the course activities imply high levels of
interpretive and generative fluency within the discipline (Vision I), but
the implication is that there is little use of these semiotic resources with
respect to the problems of everyday life (Vision II). We suggest that
either lecturers do not see it as their job to encourage societal scientific
literacy, or they assume that disciplinary literacy automatically leads to
an ability to use the semiotic resources of science in an everyday context.
The Use of English in Swedish University Science Courses 155

Table 2 Implied fluency in semiotic resources other than language

VISION I VISION II
Interpretive Generative Interpretive Generative
Mathematics High High Low Low
Graphs High High Low Low
Diagrams High High Low Low
Tables High High Low Low
Tools High High Low Low
Activities High High Low Low

A similar division can be seen when we examine the use of linguistic

semiotic resources in the thirty courses (Table 3).

Table 3 Implied fluency in linguistic semiotic resources

VISION I VISION II
English Swedish English Swedish
Reading High Medium Low Low
Listening Medium High Low Low
Writing Medium Medium Low Low
Speaking Low Low Low Low

Once again, the implication is that a Vision II perspective may be

absent. However, a new pattern emerges. Within the discipline (Vision
I), there is now no longer a uniformly high level of practice. Fluency in
spoken disciplinary English and Swedish does not appear to be
encouraged. This is, in fact, a common finding in science—even without
a dual-language approach (Lemke, 1990). Second, we would like to point
out that the higher levels of implied fluency appear to be in interpretive
rather than generative forms, i.e. reading in English and listening in
Swedish. This might suggest that students become less able to use
language themselves when a dual-language approach is adopted. Finally,
the analysis raises questions for reading, listening and writing. In these
forms there is only some practice in one or both languages. It could be
argued that this is a result of a dual-language approach—i.e. if learning
had been limited to one language alone, extensive practice might have
been recorded for these forms.
156 John Airey and Cedric Linder

6. Discussion and implications

We believe we are now in a position to make some tentative observations

about the kind of implied attitudes to bilingual scientific literacy and
scientific literacy in general that university science courses appear to
represent. The first point is that in comparison to the other disciplinary
semiotic resources, linguistic resources would seem to be less well
developed—with the least developed of these being oral skills in both
English and Swedish. In this respect, Lemke (1990) has suggested that
students should be given the chance to “talk science”, whilst Tobias
(1986) believes that science learning would be enhanced if students were
encouraged to “kick the ideas around” as they typically are in the social
sciences and humanities. Here we extend these assertions by suggesting
that development of oral skills in both languages may be an important
factor in becoming scientifically literate.
Consideration of Tables 2 and 3 indicates that there may also be an
implicit assumption in university science education (in this case physics)
with respect to Vision II scientific literacy. Either it is assumed that
Vision I literacy, virtually by default, provides for Vision II literacy, or
that Vision II literacy does not form part of the curriculum in any kind of
specific way. In any case, the lack of focus on Vision II literacy has
serious implications for the attainment of scientific literacy in general.
These implications arguably become more profound in the context of the
attainment of bilingual scientific literacy. It is here that we believe that a
model such as the one presented in Figure 1 can be used as a powerful
educational tool. When preparing to teach disciplinary knowledge, we
know that information about students as learners, student-teacher
perceptions of teaching and learning, and the relations between these are
educationally critical. However, in contexts where consideration also
needs to be given to bilingual scientific literacy, Figure 1 offers a
reflective teaching-preparation instrument that could be used to bring
into focus the kinds of things that we would argue are needed to make
the attainment of scientific literacy possible.
At the same time we have argued elsewhere that in the Vision I
domain students need to become fluent in a critical constellation of
semiotic resources in order to appropriately experience a given
disciplinary concept (Airey and Linder 2008). It is interesting to
speculate whether this criterion can be applied to the Vision II domain. If
The Use of English in Swedish University Science Courses 157

this is indeed the case, then the model given in Figure 1 also provides a
way for teachers to think about the semiotic resources that they will need
to draw on for the attainment of scientific literacy.
The findings of this study also have implications for the training of
future science teachers. It is not unusual for trainee teachers to study
natural science together with students from other programmes. However,
we note that the goals of a teacher-training course with respect to
bilingual scientific literacy are probably quite different than those of
courses offered to the rest of the student population. We argue that
trainee teachers will need to become fluent users of Swedish scientific
literacy centred mainly around a Vision II perspective. Consequently, we
suggest that the ways in which these students translate their English
language, Vision I literacy into Swedish language, Vision II literacy in
their day-to-day work in the classroom is an important area for future
research.
Earlier, in our critique of the term parallel language use, we
suggested that it was irresponsible to plan courses based on the
assumption of a one-to-one relationship between teaching and learning.
The discussion above hints at some of the kind of complexity that may
be involved. We cannot go further than that here. Our interests in this
article are reformist in nature and have simply been to analyse the
implicit aims of a sample of natural science courses with respect to
bilingual scientific literacy. We believe this to be an important issue for
discussion regarding the wider goals of undergraduate science. Since we
have identified spoken English and Swedish as potentially the most
critical areas our future work concentrates on this problem. We intend to
report on an analysis of spoken bilingual scientific literacy, where
student oral descriptions of scientific concepts in both languages are
analysed and related to the types of linguistic input provided within their
degree courses.

References

Airey, J. 2004. “Can you teach it in English? Aspects of the language

choice debate in Swedish higher education.” In R. Wilkinson (Ed.),
Integrating Content and Language: Meeting the challenge of a
158 John Airey and Cedric Linder

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. and C. Linder. 2006. “Language and the experience of learning
university physics in Sweden.” European Journal of Physics, 27(3),
553-560.
Airey, J. and C. Linder. 2007. “Disciplinary learning in a second
language: A case study from university physics.” In R. Wilkinson
and V. Zegers (Eds.), Researching content and language integration
in higher education (pp. 161-171). Maastricht: Maastricht University
Language Centre.
Airey, J. and C. Linder. 2008. “A disciplinary discourse perspective on
university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical
constellation of modes.” Accepted for publication in Journal of
Research in Science Teaching.
Ammon, U. (Ed.). 2001. The dominance of English as a language of
science: Effects on other languages and language communities.
Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bologna Process. 2007. Bologna Process. Towards the European higher
education area. Retrieved 31 May 2008, from
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/
Brandt, S. S. and V. Schwach. 2005. Norsk, engelsk og tospråklighet i
høyere utdanning En pilotstudie om bruk av engelsk i fem fagtilbud
ved fire læresteder [Norwegian, English and bilingualism in higher
education. A pilot study of the use of English in five courses at four
institutions]. NIFU STEP Norsk institutt for studier av forskning og
utdanning / Senter for innovasjonsforskning.
Carlson, K. 2002. “Tvåspråkiga naturvetare [Bilingual natural
scientists].” Språkvård, 2002(2), 14-19.
Carroll-Boegh, A. 2005. “Internationalisation and teaching through
English: A Danish perspective.” Educate, 5(2), 19-30.
The Use of English in Swedish University Science Courses 159

Duff, P. A. 1997. “Immersion in Hungary: an ELF experiment.” In R. K.

Johnson and M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International
perspectives (pp. 19-43). Cambridge, UK: CUP.
Falk, M. L. 2001. Domänförluster i svenskan [Domain losses in
Swedish]: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Ferguson, C. 1959. “Diglossia.” Word: Journal of the Linguistic Circle
of New York, 15, 325-340.
Fishman, J. A. 1967. “Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia
with and without bilingualism.” Journal of Social Issues, 23, 29-38.
Gerber, A., J. Engelbrecht, A. Harding and J. Rogan. 2005. The influence
of second language teaching on undergraduate mathematics
Performance. Retrieved 23 September 2005, from
http://ridcully.up.ac.za/muti/language.pdf
Gunnarsson, B.-L. and K. Öhman. 1997. Det internationaliserade
universitetet. En studie av bruket av engelska och andra främmande
språk vid Uppsala universitet [The Internationalized University. A
study of the use of English and other foreign languages at Uppsala
university]. TeFa No.16. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk,
Uppsala universitet.
Halliday, M. A. K. and J. R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and
discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.
Hellekjaer, G. O. and M. R. Westergaard. 2002. “An exploratory survey
of content learning through English at Scandinavian universities.” In
A. M. Simensen (Ed.), Teaching and learning foreign languages
issues and ideas (pp. 47-61). Oslo: Unipub.
Hurd, P. d. H. 1958. “Science literacy: Its meaning for American
schools.” Educational Leadership, 16, 13-16.
Höglin, R. 2002. Engelska språket som hot och tillgång i Norden [the
English language as threat and resource in the Nordic countries.]
(Vol. 561). Köpenhamn: Nordiska ministerrådet.
Josephson, O. 2005. “Parallellspråkighet [parallel language use].”
Språkvård, 2005(1), 3.
Karlgren, J. and P. Hansen. 2003. Cross-Language relevance assessment
and task context. Paper presented at the Advances in Cross-
Language Information Retrieval. Third Workshop of the Cross-
Language Evaluation Forum, CLEF 2002, Rome, Italy.
160 John Airey and Cedric Linder

Klaassen, R. 2001. The international university curriculum: Challenges

in English-Medium engineering education. Delft: Department of
Communication and Education, Delft University of Technology.
Laugksch, R. C. 2000. “Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview.”
Science Education, 84, 71-94.
Lemke, J. L. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning and values.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Maiworm, F. and B. Wächter. (Eds.). 2002. English-Language-Taught
degree programmes in European higher education, trends and
success factors. Bonn: Lemmens Verlags and Mediengesellschaft.
Melander, B. 2005. “Engelska och svenska vid Uppsala universitet - en
uppföljning. [English and Swedish at Uppsala university - a follow-
up report].” In Text i arbete/Text at work Festskrift till Britt-Louise
Gunnarsson den 12 januari 2005 (pp. 135-143).
Met, M. and E. B. Lorenz. 1997. “Lessons from U.S. immersion
programs: Two decades of experience.” In R. K. Johnson and M.
Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp.
243-264). Cambridge, UK: CUP.
Neville-Barton, P. and B. Barton. 2005. The relationship between
English language and mathematics learning for non-native speakers.
Retrieved 21 Sept. 2005, from
http://www.tlri.org.nz/pdfs/13909.pdf
Norris, S. P. and L. M. Phillips. 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 and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook
of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swedish National Agency for Higher Education. 2007. Stor andel
utländska studenter på program på den avancerade nivån Analys av
preliminära uppgifter om registrerade studenter höstterminen 2007
[Large percentage of foreign students on programmes at
postgraduate level An analysis of preliminary statistics on registered
students for autumn term 2007]. Retrieved 28 May 2008, from
http://www.hsv.se/download/18.7313a03211671c020798000339/
utlandska-studenter-analys-0709.pdf
The Use of English in Swedish University Science Courses 161

Säljö, R. 2000. Lärande i praktiken: ett sociokulturellt perspektiv

[Learning in practice: a sociocultural perspective]. Stockholm:
Prisma.
Söderlundh, H. 2004. “Lika bra på engelska? En undersökning av hur
studenter i Sverige förstår kurslitteratur på svenska resp. engelska
[Just as good in English? A study of Swedish students’
understanding of course texts in Swedish and in English].” Språk och
stil, 14, 137-165.
Teleman, U. 1992. “Det svenska riksspråkets utsikter i ett integrerat
Europa [The outlook for Swedish in an integrated Europe].”
Språkvård, 1992(4), 7-16.
Tella, S., A. Räsänen and A.Vähäpassi. (Eds.). 1999. Teaching through a
foreign language: From tool to empowering mediator (Vol. 5).
Helsinki: Edita.
Tobias, S. 1986. “Peer perspectives. On the teaching of science.”
Change, March/April 1986, 36-41.
Uppsala universitet. 2001. Goal document for the DiaNa project.
Retrieved 20 Sept 2003, from
http://kimura.ibg.uu.se/diana/dianagoals.html
Uppsala universitet. 2007. DiaNa: Kommunikationsträning i
naturvetarutbildning [DiaNa: Communication training in natural
sciences education]. Retrieved 30 May 2008, from
http://www.ibg.uu.se/diana/english/index.html
Utbildningsdepartementet. 2002. Mål i mun. Slutbetänkande av
kommittén för svenska språket [Languages we speak. Final report of
the Swedish parliamentary committee for the Swedish language]
(SOU 2002:27). Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.
Vinke, A. A. 1995. English as the medium of instruction in Dutch
engineering education. Delft: Department of Communication and
Education, Delft University of Technology.
Wilson, D. 2002. The englishisation of academe: A Finnish perspective.
(No. 5). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä Language Centre.
Wächter, B. and F. Maiworm. 2008. English-Taught programmes in
European higher education. The Picture in 2007. Bonn: Lemmens.
Östman, L. 1998. “How companion meanings are expressed by science
education discourse.” In D. Roberts and L. Östman (Eds.), Problems
of meaning in science education (pp. 54-70). New York: Teachers
College Press.