Multimodal Science Teachers’
Discourse in Modeling
the Water Cycle
CONXITA MÁRQUEZ, MERCÈ IZQUIERDO, MARIONA ESPINET
Departament de Didàctica de la Matemàtica i de les Ciències Experimentals,
Facultat Ciències de l’Educació, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,
O8193 Cerdanyola del vallès (Barcelona), Spain
Received 21 April 2004; revised 25 January 2005, 25 April 2005; accepted 28 June 2005
DOI 10.1002/sce.20100
Published online 1 February 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
ABSTRACT: The paper presents an intensive study of a micro-event aiming at the characterization of teacher’s discourse from a multimodal communication perspective in a secondary
school science classroom dealing with the topic of “water cycle.” The research addresses
the following questions: (a) What communicative modes are used by the teacher?, (b) what
role do the different communicative modes play within teacher’s discourse?, and (c) what
are the relationships among communicative modes being used by the teacher? Theoretical
framework is developed based on three strands: multimodal communication, science teaching and learning as modeling, and social semotics and Halliday’s functional grammar. An
analytic scheme guiding teachers’ discourse analysis is presented and results discussed. Implications for science teacher education are drawn that would contribute to the improvement
C 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 90:202 – 226, 2006
of science teacher education. RESEARCH BACKGROUND
This paper focuses on the role that teacher’s discourse plays within a secondary science
classroom where the topic of water cycle is being taught.
It is assumed a particular view of language and the role it plays in teaching and learning.
From this point of view, meaning making in the classroom is produced through the orchestrated use of different semiotic modes (verbal, gestural, visual etc.) (Kress, Ogborn, &
Martins, 1998). Classroom communication is thus considered to be essentially multimodal.
It is also assumed that science teaching and learning is a process of modeling. Science
learning is understood as the construction of models that allow learners the interpretation of
natural phenomena from a scientific view point (Franco et al., 1999; Gobert, 2000; Greca &
Correspondence to: Conxita Márquez; e-mail: [email protected]
Contract grant sponsor: Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a (Spain)
Contract grant number: BSO 2002-0473CO2-01.
Contract grant sponsor: Generalitat de Catalunya.
Contract grant number: ARIE-0066.
C
2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
203
Moreira, 2000; Izquierdo et al., 1999; Van Driel &Verloop, 2002). Water cycle has been
chosen for its highly multimodal nature when being used within the scientific community. In
addition, the water cycle is also a very common topic present in the majority of elementary
and secondary science curricula and science textbooks. Finally, learning of the water cycle
is not easy since conflict emerges between the apparent simplicity of its representational
device and the complexity of its scientific meaning.
Assuming that science teachers’ discourse is multimodal, efforts have been directed
toward the development of analytical strategies that would allow a homogeneous and comparative description of the role played by speech, gesture, image, and written text in the
science classroom. The social semiotics and more specifically the systemic functional grammar have proven to be useful as providers of analytical tools.
The goal of this paper is to know how a science teacher uses multimodality when promoting meaning making in the science classroom while teaching the water cycle. More
specifically, the interest lies in describing the contribution of each communicative mode
such as speech, gesture, visual, and written text within a science teacher’s discourse. The
theoretical framework in which this research is grounded is presented below: (a) research on
multimodal communication, (b) science teaching and learning as modeling, and (c) social
semiotics and Halliday’s functional grammar.
Multimodal Communication Research in Science Classrooms
Scientific discourse is, in itself, multimodal, and Lemke (1998a) proposes the term “semiotic hybrid” to convey the idea that scientific concepts are simultaneously verbal, visual,
mathematical, and actional. For this author, each of the “modes” can be considered as a
channel of communication that provides information (sometimes equivalent, sometimes
complementary, redundant, or contradictory and so on), and it is an interaction between
different modes that makes possible the construction of meaning. Scientific concepts taught
in the classroom can also be considered as “semiotic hybrids” since they are also presented
and used through a multiplicity of semiotic modes.
New modes of representation and reproduction of knowledge (diagrams, new images,
new technologies etc.) can transform the semiotic codes used by scientists (Kress & Van
Leeuwen, 1996; Lemke, 1998a). In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in
investigating the role that different sign systems, or semiotic modes, participating in science
classroom communication play besides language (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001; Kress et al.,
1998, 2001; Lemke, 1998a; Márquez, 2002; Márquez, Izquierdo, & Espinet, 2003).
These considerations would imply that the language used by the teacher and students
should not be expected to be the same, and the use of different semiotic modes would not
play the same role in the teaching and learning of an abstract scientific concept.
In fact, a broader repertoire of communication modes is currently available in science
education: text processors, drawing or design applications, animation programs, CD-ROMs,
Internet etc. Both science education research and practice indicate a clear shifting from a
monomodal view of communication, centered in verbal language (either written or oral), to
a multimodal view of communication, based on the interactions of different communicative
modes.
When teachers speak, they nearly always simultaneously deploy other semiotic resources
for meaning making. Teachers often use gesture, visual language, and written text on the
blackboard during the genesis of scientific discourse. However, little is known on how
science teachers use this multimodality when presenting specific natural phenomena to
students, and also when constructing representations, such as the cycle, of abstract scientific
concepts that need to be shared and reflected upon within the classroom.
204
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
Research on gesture – speech relations generally assumes that speech and gesture provide
consistent information. Examples of this work done by Crowder (1996) and Crowder and
Newman (1993) claim that gestural modality provides predominantly redundant information. However, the results of recent investigations point at the idea that gesture and speech
are not always consistent. Thus, Goldin-Meadow, Alibali, and Church (1993) have studied the discrepancies between gesture and speech when children are in transitional states of
their understanding. In addition, Roth and Welzel (2001) and Roth and Lawless (2002) have
shown that gestural expressions appear to precede the evolution of new verbal expressions
in hands-on secondary science classrooms. The relationship is up-to-date problematic.
Recent research studies have investigated science classroom communication when teaching secondary science concepts such as blood circulation, the cell, or energy (Kress et al.,
1998, 2000, 2001). The results indicate that verbal language is only one and not necessarily
the predominant mode of representation, and also that different communicative modes used
in classroom communication have specific functions.
The studies reviewed provide interesting evidence to support the idea that communicative
modes would play specific roles in science classrooms depending on the scientific concept
taught and the phase within the teaching and learning process. However, more research
studies are necessary to construct a better picture of the communicative difficulties involved
in dealing with particular scientific concepts, and also how these difficulties evolve during
the teaching and learning of such specific scientific concepts in the classroom.
Teaching the Concept ‘‘Water Cycle’’ in Secondary Science Classrooms
The Water Cycle as a Multimodal Construction of Meaning. The water cycle can
be considered as a multimodal construction of meaning because it is usually presented as
a diagram in which words, images, graphs, and mathematical equations are combined, and
the meaning arises from the contribution of the different communicative modes. In fact,
Christodolou (1999) has investigated the different uses of the cycle in science textbooks
and concluded that in the construction of the cycle concept the role of images is not silent,
as is the case in the construction of other scientific concepts.
A closer look at water cycles that appear in primary and secondary science textbooks
highlights the variety of representations used and also the multimodality of their constructions. Both images and text take part in all water cycle constructions found in textbooks.
The multimodality of the water cycle concept depends on the context in which it is represented. For instance, when the water cycle is examined in textbooks, text and images are
central. When the context shifts to the teacher’s explanation, gesture needs to be added as
an important communicative mode.
The Water Cycle as a Model. The water cycle is a complex concept that appears not
to be so. The cycle’s simplicity contrasts with the complexity of its scientific contents
(circulation of water in nature in this case). The simplicity of the “sign” (the circle) is
transferred to the different processes that are chained, which appear arranged and almost
explained through their participation in that sign. In fact, the water cycle successfully
presents the main characteristics of this complex process: water circulation, changes in
state, return or periodicity in changes, and conservation of the global amount of water in
nature; it can also contribute to the contemporary consideration of the earth as a system
(American Geophysical Union, 1997).
But this simple idea needs to be supported with many general theoretical principles that
have to be presented in a contextualized way. Thus, the “water cycle” can be considered a
scientific model (Giere, 1988; Izquierdo & Adúriz, 2001), since it appears in textbooks as
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
205
concretion of an abstract and interrelated view on some processes that occur in nature. The
water cycle highlights some of these processes and shows how to simplify these relations.
As with other scientific models, it represents theoretical ideas thanks to the possibility of
simplifying them to explain how the real-world works.
The consideration of the “water cycle” as a scientific model gives to it a special meaning
as a tool for teaching science as a process of modeling the world. This connects with our
aims when teaching science.
Teaching the Water Cycle as Modeling. A proposal for the teaching of the water cy-
cle as modeling was developed for the purpose of this research so that a context for data
collection was created. Within this proposal, science learning is understood as the construction of models that allow learners the interpretation of natural phenomena from a scientific
view point (Franco et al., 1999; Gobert, 2000; Greca & Moreira, 2000; Izquierdo et al.,
1999; Van Driel & Verloop, 2002). Modeling of natural phenomena would imply seeing the
world as a system constituted by material, dynamic, and causal components. The material
components are considered to be the parts or entities of the system, the dynamic components
are constituted by the relationships among its parts or entities, and the causal components
explain the causes and functioning of the system (Buckley & Boulter, 2000; Gobert &
Clement, 1999).
In our case, modeling the water cycle would mean helping students to see the phenomenon
of water circulation in nature as being part of a system. Students must recognize new
entities such as water stores, new relationships such as water changes and flows (infiltration,
evaporation etc.), and functional mechanisms such as water conservation, cyclic changes,
or causal agents. In this process, students will learn to see the water cycle as a succession
of chained phenomena that takes place in nature subjected to laws.
During the process of modeling, a progression from learners’ initial models toward scientific models takes place. In order to facilitate this progression, a block diagram showing
a three-dimensional view of a landscape was given to students (see Figure A1 in the Appendix). This diagram was first presented to students empty and progressively developed
with the help of the teacher. The diagram acted as a collective representation facilitating
students’ construction of a more abstract representation of the water cycle.
Our research has focused on a very particular moment of the water cycle modeling. At the
beginning, students are familiar with water stores and water changes in nature such as water
sources, rivers, rain, cloud formation, filtration etc. However, these known phenomena do
not provide students with the power to explain water circulation in nature. The introduction
of the “circle sign” will help students to go a step further toward the understanding of the
general mechanism of water circulation.
Social Semiotics and Halliday’s Functional Grammar
We need a grammar that can help us to organize and give meaning to the communicative
processes in the classroom. Social semiotics has provided a useful framework from which
to obtain conceptual tools for reflection and research on science classroom communication
(Halliday, 1978). This relatively new field within social sciences is interested in how people
elaborate and use signs to construct meaning in a particular community. From this point of
view, the construction of meaning in the classroom is produced through the words that are
said, the diagrams that are drawn, the formulae that are written down, and the experiments
that are done (Lemke, 1992, 1998b). It is the result of a dynamic process where all actions
are socially shared and where there is a joint construction of knowledge between teachers
and students.
206
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
A communicative action is produced in a particular context, without which its meaning
cannot be explained; that is, an action becomes meaningful when it is contextualized (Lemke,
1993). We will here use the expressions “semiotic mode” or “communicative mode” to
refer to a system of semiotic resources with particular functions that make communication
possible.
The conception of language developed by Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar has
proved to be useful as a tool for capturing the dynamic aspects of language and also for
categorizing language uses when analyzing social communication in general. The strength
of this view lies in that it stresses the functionality of language rather than its structure.
According to the systemic-functional grammar (SFG) (Halliday, 1985), language is a system
of meanings, together with the forms that allow these meanings to be produced. This view
is functional in the sense that it does not intend to make a formal description of language
but rather to study how language is used to create meaning. It is systemic in that it analyzes
how a concrete meaning is created through language, among the many other meanings that
could be produced within a specific social situation.
Halliday identifies three basic components, or meta-functions: the ideational, the interpersonal, and the textual (Halliday, 1985). The textual function refers to the way in which
information is distributed in phrases along a text. The interpersonal function is concerned
with the interaction between emitter and receiver, considered as an exchange of messages.
The ideational function is the expression of our experience of the world. Thus, in a discursive
act we say something (ideational function) within a relationship between people (interpersonal function) and holding coherence and continuity (textual function). The ideational
function is the most important in terms of scientific discourse, and it has been chosen as a
focus for our research work.
One of the fundamental aspects of SFG that is used in this research is the focus given
to processes when analyzing language. In fact, when people talk about world phenomena
they mainly refer to processes by means of a verb that refers to an action, to its participants,
and to the circumstances in which it is produced. Verbs allow the identification of six
different kinds of processes: material, mental, relational, behavioral, verbal, and existential
processes (Halliday, 1985). However, these processes are too general and the typology too
simple to facilitate the capturing of the diversity of verbs used in specific contexts such as
the science classroom. Whereas Halliday’s approach is oriented toward the identification of
the processes common in many different communicative contexts, we are more interested
in identifying the particulars of the processes used in science classrooms. A new analytical
scheme needs to be developed to allow the capturing of processes when teaching a scientific
concept in a science classroom.
Originally, the systemic functional grammar was developed to explain how language is
used to create meaning. Recently, this perspective has been expanded to explain how other
communicative modes such as images create meaning (Hodge & Kress, 1988; Kress &
Van Leeuwen, 1996). We are now interested in applying the SFG view of language to the
analysis of how three communicative modes---language, gesture, and image---contribute to
the construction of meaning within science classrooms. In doing so we are assuming that
the functional analysis of verbal language could be similarly applied to images and gesture.
Consequently, an analytical scheme was developed for the analysis of verbal language,
images, and gesture.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The teaching and learning of the water cycle concept can be seen as a communicative
activity between students and the teacher. As a first step, we are particularly interested in
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
207
the role played by the science teacher within the communicative activity taking place in the
classroom. The description of the teacher’s discourse can be approached, as previously described, considering that the meanings attributed to words, gestures, texts, and images refer
to processes. In addition, teacher’s discourse about the water cycle can also be considered
a multimodal activity in which the different communicative modes can play the same or
different roles, that is, they can refer to the same or different processes. The general purpose
of the research work presented here is to describe a multimodal science teacher’s discourse
when teaching the water cycle concept.
More concretely, we aim at developing an analytical scheme to describe the science
teacher’s discourse when encouraging students’ appropriation of the “circle sign.” We resort
to the approach of teaching the water cycle as modeling and the adapted contributions of
the SFG. The specific questions of our research are the following:
1. What communicative modes are used by this secondary science teacher when teaching the water cycle concept in a secondary science classroom?
2. What role do the different communicative modes used by this secondary science
teacher play when teaching the water cycle concept?
3. What are the relationships between communicative modes within this teacher’s discourse when teaching the water cycle concept?
METHODOLOGY
Sample and Data Collection Strategies
This research took place in a 7th-grade science classroom where a unit on the water cycle
was taught. In this class there were 30 pupils aged 12. The school is a public secondary
school located in a village near Barcelona, Spain. The teacher holds a bachelor’s degree in
biology and has 25 years of teaching experience. Together the teacher and the researchers
planned the instructional activities of the water cycle unit. The five 55-min sessions devoted
to teaching the water cycle unit were videotaped, but only two of these sessions were
transcribed and analyzed for research purposes. These two lessons were chosen for two
reasons: The teacher’s discourse on water cycle was central, and the discourse was related
to a specific phase of the teaching of water cycle as modeling: the teacher’s transference
and students’ appropriation of the “circle sign.” A short description of these two lessons
can be found in the Appendix.
Units of Analysis: Interactivity Segments
The two lessons were transcribed numbering teacher’s and students’ interventions and
splitting the different semiotic modes that participate in the teacher’s discursive activity into
four columns: speech, meaningful gestures, drawings or symbols, and written text on the
blackboard.
Once the multimodal transcription was done, we proceeded to identify “interactivity
segments” (Coll & Onrubia, 1994, 1997) with the aim of obtaining the units of analysis.
Each segment is characterized by (i) thematic content and (ii) the participants’ way of
organization (collective or individual work). Each time that a change in one of these two
aspects was identified, a new segment was established. Table 1 shows the 11 interactivity
segments. Given that the two lessons chosen were characterized by teacher’s discourse, few
changes on classroom organization have been found. Thus, the 11 interactivity segments
primarily indicate changes in thematic content. Table 1 also includes a column associating
each interactivity segment to its location within the water cycle modeling process.
208
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
TABLE 1
Location of Each Interactivity Segment in the Water Cycle Modeling Process
Interactivity Segments
Water Cycle Modeling Process
Segment 1: ‘Problem posing’
Segment 2: ‘Problem appropriation’
Facts to be explained. Physical system
under study
Identification of the material and dynamic
components of the system. Recognition of
new water stores, water changes and
flows
Segment 3: ‘Presentation of the water cycle’
Segment 4: ‘Location of places or stores
where water is found in nature’
Segment 5: ‘Identification and
representation of the changes in the water
cycle’
Segment 6: ‘Identification and
representation of changes
in the water cycle. Individual work’
Segment 7: ‘Why do we talk about a cycle?
Enchained changes’
Segment 8: ‘Diversity of cycles’
Identification of the system’s functioning
such us water conservation, cyclic
changes,
Segment 9: ‘Difficulties in identifying and
representing changes in the water cycle’
Segment 10: ‘Identification and
representation of more changes’
Identification of the system’s material and
dynamic components. Recognition of new
water stores, water changes and flows
Segment 11: ‘Causal agents in the water
cycle’
Identification of the system’s functioning
Analytic Scheme
Consideration of the teacher’s discourse from a not strictly linguistic point of view has
meant adapting the systemic-functional grammar to the analysis of other communication
modes besides language that constitute the teacher’s discourse. More concretely, it has
meant adapting SFG categories so that a new analytic scheme has been constructed. This
new analytical scheme acts as an instrument to better capture the richness and diversity of
meanings involved in a very specific context such as the teaching of the water cycle concept.
Each mode in an interactivity segment is analyzed according to (a) the semiotic spaces
and (b) the processes.
Semiotic Spaces. A semiotic space is the aspect of reality to which a particular process
gives meaning to. Semotic spaces act as groupings of meanings and represent a new category
in relation to those developed within the frame of SFG. Three semiotic spaces have been
identified.
--- Thematic space (TS). Every meaning that is related to the topic under study, every
process that gives meaning to conceptual aspects. So our thematic space is water
circulation in nature.
--- Classroom management space (CMS). Every meaning that relates to organization of
the classroom as a communicative and social space where it is necessary to organize
participation, time, order of the interventions etc.
--- Representation management space (RMS). Every meaning that relates to the strategies
used by the teacher to help students construct a water cycle diagram.
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
209
Processes. Processes are actions represented through verbs that can be inferred from
participants’ discourse. The meaning given to this category is the same as that generated
within the SFG (Halliday, 1985) although the processes’ classification differ considerably
from those identified by the work of Halliday. In our work, six kinds of processes have been
considered each one appearing in a particular semiotic space.
In the thematic space : water in nature two processes appear:
--- (P1) Processes related to properties and characteristics of water in nature. This group
includes processes representing that a thing “exists” (“there is a lake”) or “happens”
(“there is evaporation”) in relation with material and dynamic components of the
system, or that a thing “is” (“gravity is a force attracting things”).
--- (P2) Processes related to water changes and causes of water circulation. This group
includes processes that give meaning to actions and interactions between components
of the system. Processes of re-location of water, such as circulate, precipitate, go down,
go, infiltrate etc.; processes of state change, such as evaporate, condense, melt etc.
And all those processes in which some entity related to the topic of water circulation
in nature “does” or “is done” something (“the sun melts snow”).
In the classroom management space, one process has been considered:
--- (P3) Processes related to the control of students’ participation. This group includes processes that refer to control of participation, time, and order of the class in
general.
In the representation management space, three kinds of processes appear:
--- (P4) Processes of naming water cycle entities. This group includes processes of telling
or naming the system’s components, changes, and causes related to thematic content.
--- (P5) Processes related to the management of the water cycle diagram. This group
includes processes directed to making scientific content accessible to students and
to allowing students to elaborate a meaningful diagram on the water cycle. In this
category, we also include processes that communicate teacher’s intentions related
to her organization of the explanation or the actions that she proposes to students
so that they advance in the subject. These kinds of processes are interesting since
they show the decisions made by the teacher during the lessons. When we refer to
these aspects, we use the expression “teacher’s narrative,” considered as the teaching
device through which scientific ideas are introduced and explored in the classroom
(Mortimer & Scott, 2000).
--- (P6) Mental processes. In this group, the following kinds of processes are included:
(i) processes that show the teacher’s attitudes or feelings, such as expressing agreement, disagreement, doubt; (ii) processes that promote students’ mental activity, such
as think, know, ask; processes that invite to a connection between what is said in class
and students’ everyday experiences: memories, use of analogies, interpretative questions such as “how come?”; and (iii) processes that promote the creation of mental
categories, such as “it is a question,” “it is an explanation,” and “it is an answer.”
Data Analysis
The interactivity segments were examined using the analytic scheme to identify within
the teacher’s discourse the frequency and functions of each communicative mode and the
210
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
relations among different communicative modes. The complete communication activity
was next analyzed as a whole, in order to identify relations between interactivity segments.
Data analysis will be exemplified using excerpts from segment 4.
Segment Analysis. Each segment and each communicative mode was analyzed sepa-
rately. Each verb (in the case of speech), each meaningful gesture, each graphic element,
and each word written on the blackboard were classified according to the semiotic space to
which they belong and the process which they give meaning to.
The intervention 130 in segment 4 is chosen to exemplify the way categories (semiotic
spaces and processes) were applied (Table 2). For instance, when the teacher says, “It’s
called infiltration,” we have identified a process whose meaning is to name water infiltration
(P4) that corresponds to the representation management space. While she is talking, she
uses the gesture mode moving her right hand downwards. The meaning assigned to this
process is that infiltration is an up-down movement (P2) corresponding to the thematic
space. Moreover, while the teacher is acting that way she holds a diagram and suggests a
location where infiltration might possibly take place. The meaning assigned to this process
(P5) corresponds to the representation management space.
Individual tables for each communicative mode in each interactivity segment were constructed so that the absolute and relative frequencies of each process and semotic mode were
made evident. These tables were useful to identify the contribution of a particular mode to
each semotic space and to each kind of process. Table 3 shows the contribution of teacher’s
gesture in segment 4.
Definition of the Functions for Each Communication Mode.
The functions performed by each communicative mode were defined from the information gathered in frequency tables such as the one included in Table 3. The highest relative frequencies assigned
to a particular process indicated the functionality of a particular mode. From Table 3, it
can be inferred that the functions of teacher’s gesture mode in that particular segment 4 are
“locating in the diagram and indicating where to represent water stores” (56% of P5),
“assigning direction to dynamic processes” (22% of P2), and finally “managing classroom
TABLE 2
An Example of Categorizing Multimodal Teacher’s Intervention 130 from
Interactivity Segment 4
Speech
130. Teacher: It’s called
infiltration (RMS, P4)
So draw groundwater
below.
Draw it as if it was a river
(RMS, P5)
Well it’s not really a river
(TS, P1)
Gesture
Visual Language
Written Text
She moves her right hand
downwards (TS, P2)
She points at the diagram
(RMS, P5)
She moves her right hand
slope down (TS, P2)
This is a cross section
(RMS, P5)
(RMS, P5)
Kind of Process
Gesture and Assigned Verbs
Thematic space: water in
nature (TS)
She joins her hands by the fingertips,
P1. Processes related to
forming a sphere (spring out)
properties and
characteristics of water
in nature
P2. Processes related to
She moves downwards her open right
water changes and causes
hand (infiltrate)
She follows with her finger the course of
of water circulation
the river to the sea (circulate)
She gestures downwards from the clouds
to the surface (rain)
Classroom management
P3. Processes related to the She stretches her forefinger towards
space (CMS)
control of students’
a student (say)
participation
She puts her forefinger, pointing up,
to her mouth (be quiet)
She slowly moves her open hands,
with the palms to the front (wait)
Representation management P4. Processes of naming
space (RMS)
water cycle entities
P5. Processes related to the She points to a concrete place in the
management of water cycle
diagram (put)
diagram
She points to the diagram (locate)
P6. Mental processes
She nods (agree)
She moves her shoulders (it is easy)
Total
Semiotic Space
TABLE 3
Processes and Semiotic Spaces of Teacher’s Gesture in Segment 4
8%
100%
28
4
50
9
3
1
56%
12%
22%
2%
19
1
1
4
2
6
11
7
2
1
1
100%
64%
12%
24%
Frequency Total Processes Semiotic Space
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
211
212
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
TABLE 4
Functions Performed by Speech, Gesture, Visual Language in Segment 4
Speech
Gesture
Visual Language
Written Text
Assign direction Present a scenario
to dynamic
Showing space
processes
relationships
between the whole
and the parts
Visualize dynamic
processes in water
circulation
Managing
Managing
classroom
classroom
functioning
functioning
Showing
Suggesting the Locating in the
consensual
diagram and
location of
locations for
indicating
water stores in
water stores
where to
the diagram
represent water
stores
Thematic space: Identify water
water in nature stores and
assign
properties
Classroom
management
space
Representation
management
space
functioning” (12% of P3). Table 4 shows the functions performed by all four communicative
modes in segment 4.
Definition of the Relations Between Communication Modes. This part of the anal-
ysis was inspired in the work done by Kress et al. (1998). Two kinds of relations between
communication modes have been identified in our research: co-operation and specialization.
We considered that a relationship is of co-operation when the communication modes that
contribute to giving meaning to the same kind of process in their semiotic space perform
the same functions. We considered that the relationship is of specialization when semiotic
modes that contribute to giving meaning to the same process perform different functions.
In order to identify the relationships between modes, graphs for a particular segment
were constructed to show the absolute frequency of each mode in each kind of process (an
example is shown in Figure 1). When in a particular process more than one communication
mode participates, we interpret, from the functions of each mode, what kind of relationship
(co-operation or specialization) is established between modes.
For instance, in segment 4 (Figure 1) we can see that only two modes, speech and gesture,
participate in classroom management processes. The relationship between these two modes
is of co-operation, since both modes perform the same function such as “managing student’s
participation” as it can be seen in Table 4.
On the other hand, both speech and visual language modes contribute to giving meaning to
the processes related to water characteristics and properties and water circulation (Figure 1).
However, the functions performed by these two modes are not the same and thus they held a
relationship of specialization. While speech is used to “identifying water stores and assign
properties,” visual language is used to “showing space relationships between the whole and
the parts” (Table 4). In fact, the teacher gave students a diagram presenting the scenario in
which the water cycle takes place and she showed the relations between the parts (some
places where water can be found in nature) and the whole (general circulation of water in
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
213
Figure 1. Graph showing the contribution of each semiotic mode (speech, gesture, visual language, and written
text) to each process and semiotic space in a particular segment (segment 4). (P1) Processes related to properties
and characteristics of water in nature, (P2) processes related to water changes and causes of water circulation,
(P3) processes related to the control of students’ participation, (P4) processes of naming water cycle entities, (P5)
processes related to the management of water cycle diagram, and (P6) mental processes.
nature). At the same time, the teacher identified in her speech the water stores and assigned
properties to them.
Analysis of the Communicative Activity as a Whole.
Once the relations between
the different modes were described, the focal communication mode was identified (Kress
et al., 1998). The focal communication mode always centers on the communicative activity,
it might contain the biggest amount of information in relation to thematic content, and
it might initiate the segment at the thematic level. When a semiotic mode is defined as
focal, the rest of the modes become subsidiary, since they collaborate with the former. For
instance, in segment 4 whose aim was “location of places or stores where water is found
in nature,” the focal communicative mode is visual language. The segment begins when
the teacher provides students with a diagram. This diagram centers on the communicative
activity between the teacher and students since they constantly refer to it throughout the
segment. In addition the diagram allows the development of thematic content facilitating
the location of water stores in nature. The science teacher’s discourse as a whole was
analyzed applying the concept of communicative architecture (Kress et al., 1998). As a
communicative architecture, it is understood the changes in focal communicative modes
along the communicative activity. In order to construct such a communicative architecture
changes in focal communicative mode along the communicative activity were identified.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Research results have been organized through the research questions.
What Communicative Modes Are Used by the Teacher?
Remarkable differences between contributions of the different semiotic modes to communicative activity as a whole have been found. Table 5 summarizes these results and
provides an overview.
214
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
TABLE 5
Table Comparing the Absolute Frequency of Each Communication Mode to
Each of the Semiotic Spaces and Processes
Kind of Process
Thematic space
Classroom
management
space
Representation
management
space
Processes
related to
properties and
characteristics
of water in
nature
Processes
related to
water changes
and causes of
water
circulation
Processes
related to the
control of
students’
participation
Processes of
naming water
cycle entities
Processes
related to the
management
of water cycle
diagram
Mental
processes
Total
Total
Visual Written
Semiotic
Speech Gesture Language Text Total Space
156
5
33
0
194
212
70
37
0
319
513
75
81
0
0
156
156
87
0
0
70
157
276
103
1
12
392
182
32
1
9
224
988
291
72
91
1442
773
1442
A reading by rows of the table provides an idea on the frequency of semiotic spaces and
processes used by the teacher to the modeling of water cycle. The absolute frequency of
processes related to water properties and water changes is up to 513. These results are not
surprising since the classroom deals with the water cycle.
The number of processes related to the classroom management is only 156. Compared
to other semiotic spaces, this result is rather low indicating that the teacher is an experienced one with a good control over the classroom dynamics. Finally, we have found 773
processes related to the management of representation. This significant result would indicate that the construction of a representation (the water cycle diagram) is an important and
also a hard task given the amount of communicative interactions needed for its development. An interesting point to comment on these data is the relatively high frequency of
mental strategies (224 processes). This would indicate that the teacher promotes the student mental activities such as thinking, explaining, asking, evoking, answering, and making
questions.
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
215
A reading by columns of the table gives an idea of the contribution of each communicative
mode to the modeling of water cycle. These data indicate that speech dominates the teacher’s
discourse (988) in this science classroom and contributes to all processes within the three
semiotic spaces. Gesture has also an important contribution (291) to all but one process
within the teacher’s discourse. The only process where gesture is not present is in the
naming of water cycle entities. Finally, although visual and written text modes are not as
frequent as speech and gesture, we should ask whether they play a specific and important role
in the modeling of water cycle. Whereas the former only contributes to the thematic space,
adding information about properties and changes of water circulation, the contribution of
the latter is only to the representation management space. In this case the written text on the
blackboard has only been used for labeling, managing the representation, and encouraging
students’ thinking.
These results support the idea that communicative modes contribute in different ways and
weights to the modeling of water cycle. However, they do not help in drawing a picture on
the specific roles that speech, gesture, visual language, and written text play within teacher’s
discourse.
What Is the Role of Each Communicative Mode Being Used
by the Teacher?
The analysis showed a great variety of communication functions performed by the different modes. Given the importance and richness of processes related to the thematic space, only
the functions related to this space will be presented and discussed here. Table 6 succinctly
TABLE 6
Functions Performed by Speech, Gesture, and Visual Language in Relation
to the Thematic Space
Semiotic Mode
Speech
Gesture
Visual language
Communication Functions
Pose thematic questions
Introduce new thematic aspects
Identify water locations, properties, cyclical routes
Identify changes
Identify causal mechanisms
Present and name the water cycle
Answer thematic questions
Locate entities in nature
Communicate properties of the circulation of water in nature
Describe water movements in nature
Assign direction to dynamic processes
Dynamize processes
Visualize the effect of some interactions
Present a scenario and water locations
Provide a symbol to represent changes in the water cycle
Draw the cyclical character of water circulation in nature
Incorporate water locations in nature
Visualize dynamic processes in water circulation
Exemplify the variety of relations and the diversity of interconnected
routes of water in nature
Locate changes produced in water circulation in nature
216
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
shows the functions of the three modes, speech, gesture, and visual language that contribute
to the communication of the topic, water circulation in nature.
Speech and Gesture Functions. Teacher’s speech is used to present and develop an
important part of knowledge related to water circulation in nature (Table 6). In processes
related to water changes and causes of water circulation, analysis of the teacher’s talk has
evidenced low presence of scientific verbs that are specific to the topic such as evaporate,
condense, etc., whereas general verbs such as “pass” and “go” are very frequent and acquire,
in class, many different meanings. In these cases, scientific meaning becomes precise with
the help of other communicative modes that add information while communication takes
place as it will be analyzed later on.
The teacher uses gesture mostly to locate entities in nature; for instance, when she mentions wells or “water tables,” she points downwards. With gesture she also communicates
in a specific way those properties of water circulation in nature that are related to a cyclical
character, as for instance in segment 3, when the teacher makes an emblematic gesture--the circle---to refer to the water cycle. She also uses gesture to describe water movements,
to give them direction, to dynamize different processes such as precipitation, infiltration,
superficial circulation, and to show the space relations between entities, therefore communicating the behavior of some entities that is not explicit in speech or other modes. Besides,
the teacher shows with gestures the effects of some interactions. Thus, when talking about
gravity, the teacher’s gesture clearly marks the direction downward and the effect (things
falling); she does not assume the direction of the force to be evident or well known.
Visual Language Functions and Arrows’ Role.
The diagram given to students offers
a scenario on which to think and in which to locate, add, and identify the main entities
involved in the water cycle. The diagram is initially used to represent what is seen in nature,
and thus it facilitates the sharing a common representation on water in nature.
The diagram also facilitates the actions of representing changes, locating them and making
them dynamic. To communicate this kind of information, the teacher, and the scientific
community in general, uses arrows. When arrows are added to the diagram, this begins to
show what we know on water circulation in nature.
The teacher uses different arrows that give different meanings to the changes they represent. According to Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996), arrows are a graphic tool to represent a
process in a narrative diagram. The use and meaning of arrows is very diverse; this confirms
their multisemantic character, that is, as a sign, they can have different meanings (Atmeller
& Pintó, 2002; Styliandou, Ormerod, & Ogborn, 2002). In scientific visual representations
this statement can be easily supported: An arrow can represent force, energy, velocity etc.
In the case of the diagrams on the water cycle, arrows can give meaning to phenomena
so varied as sunbeams, wind blow, superficial circulation of water, or a change in state such
as evaporation. In the case that we are studying, the teacher mainly uses arrows to signify
a change of location or state in water.
The teacher initially makes straight horizontal arrows to name the changes in water stores
or state. Figure 2 shows how the teacher writes on the blackboard the initial location of
water: (the sea) and the water state (liquid). She then draws a straight horizontal line above
which she writes the name of the process (evaporation) and at the end of which she writes
the final location of water (atmosphere) and its state (gas). This constitutes a description of
the state of affairs.
Later on, the teacher communicates, through gesture and a change in the arrow style,
patterns of behavior of water (water changes can be invigorated, quantified, and located)
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
217
Figure 2. Kinds of arrows used by the teacher.
in its circulation in nature. At the moment in which arrows become vertical and curved
and they mark the space direction of the change that they represent, they are incorporating
an iconic component (Lemke, 1999), they are correlating patterns of behavior and their
visual representation, and they are facilitating greater complexity showing the relations of
transitivity between the different entities represented. This constitutes both a description
and an interpretation of the phenomenon.
The need to communicate the idea of chained changes in water circulation in nature makes
the teacher transform once again the arrow sign and incorporate a metaphoric component.
The location of words and the shape and distribution of the arrows will form a circle that
allows the teacher to convey the idea of conservation, of return, and of successive changes,
thus allowing prediction besides description and interpretation.
Visual representations that are constructed along these two sessions show an increasing
degree of abstraction; the last representation is the most abstract. In this, the entities represented are words, they bear no similarity in space distribution with nature: What is being
highlighted is cyclical circulation and the conservation of water in nature. Along these two
sessions, the class shifts from a “description of what is seen” to an “interpretation of nature’s
functioning” from the point of view of current knowledge (Figure 3).
What Are the Relationships Between Communicative
Modes Within This Teacher’s Discourse When Teaching the Water
Cycle Concept?
Data analysis performed in previous paragraphs has provided evidence that teacher’s discourse on the water cycle is highly multimodal. However, in order to capture the dynamics
of multimodality it becomes necessary to take a longitudinal approach. An analysis was
thus undertaken comparing the communicative modes present in each segment along the
218
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
Figure 3. Shift from the things we see: water in nature to the things we know: the water cycle.
two lessons selected for the study. Two purposes guided this longitudinal analysis: to identify which communicative mode was driving the thematic content in each segment (focal
communicative mode) and to describe possible relationships among communicative modes
within the segments (either co-operation or specialization relationships).
Communicative Focality.
The concept of focal communication mode (Kress et al., 1998)
proved to be very useful. The changes in focal communication modes along communicative
activity have facilitated the description of the “communicative architecture” (Kress et al.,
1998). Figure 4 shows the transition of focal communication modes along the analyzed
segments.
The communicative activity begins with the observation of a picture presenting an aspect
of the world (S1) in which the focal communicative mode is “visual language.” The teacher
encourages students to ask some questions through speech in segment 2 (S2) where the
focal communicative mode is “speech.” Then the teacher proposes an explanation for these
questions through a model, the water cycle. She gives the model a name and explains
how it can be constructed (S3). Again, the focal communicative mode in this segment
is “speech.” From this moment on “visual language” becomes the focal mode along the
segments (S4 to S10), until the closing of the communicative activity (S11) where “speech”
goes back to communicative focality. Visual language looses its focality in the transition of
segments 5 and 6 where the teacher uses the blackboard for naming water cycle changes
previously presented by students through linear arrows. Visual language also looses its
focality within segment 7 when the teacher uses a gesture to introduce the idea of cycle.
Focality goes back to visual language when the teacher transforms the gesture cycle into
Figure 4. Focal communicative modes along the communicative activity.
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
219
cyclic arrows increasing the abstraction of what is being communicated. At the end, the
focal communicative mode becomes speech when the teacher introduces the causal agents
conducive to the establishment of functional mechanisms of water cycle system.
Although speech is always present in the science teacher’s discourse on the water cycle,
it is not by far the most frequent focal communicative mode. Speech becomes focal at the
beginning and at the end of the teaching sequence whereas visual language acts in between
holding the weight of abstraction within the modeling of water cycle.
Communicative Relationships. Most of the time, communicative modes are used si-
multaneously by the teacher along the communicative activity. Special attention was given
to those modes performing the same or different functions within teacher’s discourse since
this was considered to be the basis for the establishment of a relationship between modes.
The distinction between co-operative and specialized relationship between modes will give
us new clues as for how communicative modes contribute to meaning construction within
the classroom.
Table 7 displays the types of relationships between communicative modes identified along
the communicative activity investigated. Rows in the table include the 11 segments used for
the analysis, and columns represent processes belonging to their corresponding semiotic
space. Different shades in the table indicate the relationship between communicative modes:
specialization (darker gray), co-operation (lighter gray), and monomodal situations (white).
A reading by rows provides information on the relationship between communicative
modes used to signify all processes in one segment. As an example, in segment 1 where the
focal mode is visual language, monomodal situations dominate teacher’s discourse. Collaboration relationships between modes appear when teacher’s discourse deals with classroom
management processes and mental processes related to the management of representation. Finally, specialization relationships become evident within teacher’s discourse when
dealing with processes related to water changes and causes of water circulation in nature.
A reading by columns provides information on the relationships between communicative
modes signifying the same types of processes along the communicative activity. This type
of reading is of special interest since it conveys a global idea on how collaboration and
specialization between modes is distributed among semiotic spaces.
The most important result emerging from this table is that thematic space concentrates a
clearly specialized relationship between communication modes, whereas within classroom
management and representation management spaces the relationship is mostly collaborative.
A closer look at the collaboration relationship shown in (Table 7) provides information to
assert that collaboration between speech and gesture is the predominant relationship when
teacher’s discourse deals with the control of students’ participation, the management of
the water cycle diagram, and the encouragement of students’ mental processes. This result
would point at the idea that speech and gesture are important communication modes that
collaborate frequently to emphasize and highlight what is being communicated by the
science teacher.
A closer look at the table shows that specialized relationships between modes mostly
appear when science teacher’s discourse deals with processes related to water properties
and characteristics, water changes, and explanations of water circulation in nature. The
specialized relationship between semiotic modes specifies information and makes it more
precise. As speech, gesture, and visual language hold clearly distinct functions, the specialized contribution of all of them is necessary to achieve better meaning construction
(or better phenomenon representation). For instance, changes produced in the water cycle
are identified through speech, and through gesture they are given orientation in space,
rhythm, and intensity. Visual language, such as the representation with an arrow, allows
220
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
TABLE 7
Specialization and Collaboration Relationships Between Communication
Modes Along the Communicative Activity
placing water changes in a concrete location and showing the space relationships with other
changes. The specialized relationship between modes also facilitates the communication
of a lot of meanings using few verbs. As remarked before, the analysis has shown that the
teacher uses very few verbs belonging to the specific scientific vocabulary. In contrast, verbs
such as “go” and “pass” are very frequent; they communicate precise meanings with the
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
221
collaboration of gesture and visual language. For instance, the verb “pass,” together with
a gesture pointing upwards from sea to atmosphere, communicates a different meaning
(“evaporate”) than the same verb accompanied by a gesture moving downwards from cloud
to earth (“precipitate”). The same happens with gestures or graphic signs. Many scientific
concepts acquire meaning thanks to the specialized collaboration between modes, given the
necessary presence of the teacher.
The processes of naming the water cycle entities have been shown to include either
collaborative, specialized, or monomodal relationships between communication modes.
Initially the monomodal use of speech dominates teacher’s discourse for naming. From
segments 4 to 11 written text enters into teacher’s discourse in a collaborative and specialized
manner. An interesting pattern of modal relationships between speech and written text
occurs in segments 4, 5, 10, and 11. Initially this relationship is collaborative considering
that almost simultaneously the teacher tells and writes on the blackboard the name of water
cycle entities or changes. Later in the segment the relationship between speech and written
text becomes specialized since the latter acquires new functions. Finalized text written on
the blackboard acquires new status since it becomes a consensus representation of what is
important and worth reflecting upon.
Teachers’ discourse analysis undertaken in this study shows that the relation between the
communicative modes is always cooperative or specialized. No instances have been found
in which information transferred in two different modes was contradictory. This would
indicate that the teacher has acted toward the establishment of a “coherent” communication
within the classroom. The teacher emphasizes and highlights what is being communicated
with the collaborative use of modes in the classroom and representation management spaces.
Instead, she constructs a more specific and precise explanation of scientific concepts with
a specialized use of modes when it comes to the thematic spaces.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The evidence collected through the work presented in this paper has contributed to
drawing a more accurate picture of the role, speech, gesture, and visual language (through
the use of diagrams and arrows) play in modeling the water cycle in secondary science
classrooms.
The interest and awareness among science educators on the importance of language in
science classroom goes back to the 1990s. As pointed very recently by Fensham (2004),
language in the science classrooms represents one of the new and more promising frontiers of research in science education. The way these frontiers have been advancing has
been through the “theoretical borrowing” into science education from other fields. This
process of borrowing conceptual tools from other fields becomes, from our stand, not only
unavoidable but also necessary. However, we are very much aware of the problems stated
by Fensham as for the theoretical looseness of some research pieces on language in the
science classrooms undertaken by science education researchers. A good use of borrowed
conceptual frameworks might not only contribute to an increasing understanding of science
education contexts but also might enrich the borrowed theoretical approach itself.
The study presented in this paper is a description of one-sided communication event: the
talk of one science teacher on the water cycle when using a modeling approach to science
teaching in a secondary classroom. This description has been done through the lenses
of social semiotics theory and more specifically from the influential Halliday’s systemicfunctional grammar. This study represents a small piece of research work that helps to
develop new lenses and consequently new insights on the complexity of what is going on
in science classrooms.
222
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
The fact of having chosen one specific scientific model such as the water cycle represents
one more step toward the development of our field. The underlying belief sustaining this
selection is that language in science classrooms is crucially shaped by the specific content
that needs to be learned. In this sense, the present study would be an invitation to the
development of a science education research agenda that would emphasize diversity in
language use when teaching different scientific models in the classroom. In the same way
that our study has shown how semiotic modes are used by the teacher when constructing
the model of water cycle in secondary classroom, other research studies could be developed
to highlight how the use of semiotic modes change depending on the conceptual needs
underlying the understanding of other scientific models such as for instance magnetic field
or nutrition.
One of the major findings of the present study is of a theoretical nature and has contributed
to the enrichment of the original framework as a consequence of the necessary appropriation
and re-construction of Halliday’s SFG in our context.
The analytic scheme developed in this study has used the idea of semiotic spaces as a
way to categorize science teacher’s discourse and thus a way to classify meaning in science
classrooms. Three types of semiotic spaces have been identified within the communicative
activity taking place in these two lessons. The first type of meaning (thematic space) deals
with the theme such as water circulation in nature. The second type (classroom management
space) refers to the management of the classroom such as time and space allocation and
participation, and the last is related to the communication dealing with the joint construction of the diagram (representation management space). A major finding of our study is the
importance of the representation management space as a salient domain for the description
of science teacher’s discourse. Classroom communication studies have repeatedly shown
that teacher’s discourse deals with a topic or content and the control of participation. However, when science classrooms adopt a modeling approach to science teaching, and models
need to be constructed through representations, new communicative domains need to be
considered.
More research needs to be conducted to test whether this analytical scheme equally applies
to other science education contexts where different scientific models are being taught. In
addition, the evidence collected in this study might also indicate that the management
representation space could be considered as a powerful category for the analysis of any
communicative activity which is educational. In this context the teacher becomes a mediator
between students and the constructed representation needing to deploy new management
competencies.
Another group of major findings of the present research study deals with the multimodality
of science teacher’s discourse while developing a modeling approach to the teaching of water
cycle. The evidence collected shows that all four communicative modes are, in fact, used by
the teacher in this secondary science classroom and that they contribute in a co-operative
or in a specialized way to construct a meaningful science classroom. Science teachers’
discourse is thus multimodal with a major presence of speech and a lesser presence of
visual language, gesture, and written text. Communicative modes contribute in different
ways and weights to the modeling of water cycle. Teacher’s speech and gesture are used to
give meaning to all semiotic spaces, whereas visual language is used specifically within the
thematic space and written text only in representation management space. Teacher’s speech
has been important in the past and is still important in the present. Viewing the classroom
as an interconnected whole, even those communicative modes that are less used can be
important.
Communication modes used by the teacher while teaching the water cycle perform a
great diversity of functions that are in general specific for each mode. Whereas speech
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
223
introduces and identifies the entities, gesture locates them and dynamizes processes. Visual language, through the diagram, provides a scenario, and through arrows, facilitates
the establishment of functional mechanisms necessary to construct an explanation of water circulation in nature. These specialized roles might be due to the different experiential
meaning potential (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001) each mode has in relation to the water
cycle model. Modes differ in relation to their own possibilities for communicating and
representing meaning created in social situations. For instance, verbal language offers the
possibility to better communicate the temporal and sequential characteristics of phenomena
whereas visual language facilitates the communication of spatial and simultaneous characteristics of the experiential world. Scientific models are considered “semiotic hybrids” in
the sense that different communicative modes are necessary to represent them. The water
cycle is a complex scientific model needing the specialized roles of all modes in order to
be meaningfully constructed in a science classroom. Promoting students’ use of different
modes while learning the water cycle will facilitate the construction of a model useful to
explain water circulation in nature.
The description of the communicative architecture of the teacher’s discourse has evidenced a rhythm in the modeling process, going from the “world” (water circulation) to a
“model of the world” (water cycle). The teacher, through her multimodal discourse, facilitates the shift from the experiences in the physical world to abstract conceptual entities.
Along her discourse, the teacher constructs more and more visual abstract signs allowing
the representation of concepts that are gradually more complex through the use of multimodal communication. This communicative architecture might not be considered as fixed,
but it probably depends on the scientific model being taught, on the cultural characteristics
of the classroom and on the teacher’s communicative intention. Meaning will arise from
the rhythm and harmonization between semiotic modes. Analogy with an orchestra seems
adequate to refer to discourse’s flow in the classroom. Discourse, as music, has rhythm,
melody, and harmony, from which meaning emerges.
The results of the study point at the importance of the science teacher’s role in the construction of representations. The teacher combines the diversity of meanings attributed to a
word, a gesture, an image in such a way to communicate to the classroom a very concrete
and precise meanings. Science teachers construct their own discourse through a considerable amount of communicative resources they are not completely aware of. Teachers’
awareness of multimodality in science classroom would be necessary, and attempts should
be made to help them become skillful in the use of communicative modes. Science teachers’
conscious use of communicative resources would facilitate the learning through modeling
by presenting the factual world as something ready to be accessed, described, explained,
and transformed by learners.
Implications for teacher education can be drawn from this study. At present many European countries are undertaking university reforms affecting higher education curricula and methodology (Bologna, 1999). Common grounds for a core European university
curricula are being sought based on the identification of professional competences. The
results of our study provide evidence for the need to include multimodal communicative competences within science teacher education curricula. Although this study has focused on teacher’s discourse, classroom science is a community where communicative
activity includes both the teacher and students. Given that science classroom communication is multimodal, science teachers should promote students’ multimodal activity
such as talk, writing, drawing, gesture, and doing in order to facilitate knowledge construction. New research needs to be undertaken to get a better picture on how science
teacher’s multimodal activity and students’multimodal activity interact so that learning
occurs.
224
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
The authors would like to think of the science classroom as an orchestra driven by an
excellent conductor (the teacher) in which a melody is being played. The collaboration of
diverse instruments and musicians should contribute to the construction of shared knowledge
on the physical world and, if possible, of emotions as well.
APPENDIX
The first lesson begins with plenary discussion on the interpretation that each student
makes of a picture in the textbook. The picture shows a Greek philosopher asking a question
on the origin of natural water sources found in mountains. The picture also includes the
hypotheses made by the Greek philosopher: (a) the water comes from the interior of the
earth, and (b) the water comes from the rain. After discussion, a consensual answer is
agreed upon. The teacher asks students to formulate questions related to the circulation
of water in nature. The “water cycle” is immediately presented as the current scientific
explanation to all those questions. Students are then given a diagram to start the work
(Figure A1).
The teacher tells students that, in order to study the water cycle (she makes, for the first
time, a circle with her hands), they will distinguish: places, or stores, where there the water
is located, changes of water from one place to the another, and causes for such changes. The
following activity consists in locating and representing in the diagram all the places where
water can be found in nature, in solid, liquid, or gaseous states, and next students identify
and represent the changes produced in the water cycle.
Once the stores and changes in the water cycle are identified, the teacher introduces a
new topic for reflection: Why do we talk about a water cycle? This makes students follow,
on their diagrams, the route of water since it leaves a store until it returns to it.
The teacher writes on the blackboard the different locations of water, in such a way that
the names and arrows connecting them, together with the names of the process that they
represent, end by forming a circle. Each student is invited to use this kind of representation
to show possible water routes. The session ends with plenary discussion of the different
routes that water can follow and with evidence of the great variety of “cycles” that there
can be within the water cycle.
In the second lesson the teacher has reproduced on the blackboard the diagram given
to students; in the diagram, new water stores and processes are located and represented.
Students express their doubts and difficulties with some representations. The teacher stresses
the need to generalizing processes by providing students with statements such as “water
does not evaporate only in the sea” or “it does not rain only on the mountains . . . .” Finally,
the teacher states the need for finding causes for all these changes. The first causal agent
identified by students is the sun. Immediately, the teacher gives hints to identify gravity
as another causal agent. The session ends classifying the different processes identified
according to their causal agent.
Figure A1. Bloch diagram given to students.
MULTIMODAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ DISCOURSE
225
We would like to thank the members of our research group LIEC from the Departament de Didàctica
de la Matemàtica i de les Ciències Experimentals from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and
also the three reviewers who have contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
American Geophysical Union (1997). Shaping the future of undergraduate earth science education, innovation
and change using an earth system approach (pp. 1 – 35). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.
Ametller, J., & Pintó, R. (2002). Student’s readings of innovative images of energy at secondary school level.
International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 285 – 313.
Buckley, B. C., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the role of representations and expressed models in building
mental models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 119 – 135).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Coll, C., & Onrubia, J. (1994). Temporal dimension and interactive processes in teaching/learning activities: A
theoretical and methodological challenge. In N. Mercer & C. Coll (Eds.), Explorations in socio-cultural studies,
Vol. 3: Teaching, learning and interactions (pp. 107 – 122). Madrid: Fundación Infancia y Aprendizaje.
Coll, C., & Onrubia, J. (1997). The construction of shared meaning in the classroom: Joint activity and semiotic
devices in the mutual teacher/student control and tracking. In C. Coll & D. Edwards (Eds.), Teaching, learning
and classroom discourse (pp. 49 – 65). Madrid: Fundación Infancia y Aprendizaje.
Crowder, E. M. (1996). Gestures at work in meaning-making science talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
5(3), 173 – 208.
Crowder, E. M., & Newman, D. (1993). Telling what they know: The role of gesture and language in children’s
science explanations. Pragmatics and Cognition, 1(2), 341 – 376.
Christodolou, N. (1999). Metaphor in the teaching of environmental science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of London, Institute of Education, London.
Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Franco, C., Barros, H. C. D., Colinvaux, D., Krapas, S., Queiroz, G., & Alves, F. (1999). From scientists’ and
inventors’ minds to some scientific and technological products: Relationships between theories, models, mental
models and conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 277 – 291.
Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gobert, J. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal
of Science Education, 22(9), 891 – 894.
Gobert, J., & Clement, J. (1999). The effects of students-generated diagrams on conceptual understanding of
causal and dynamic knowledge in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39 – 53.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Alibali, M., & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in concept acquisition: Using the hands to
read the mind. Psychological Review, 100, 279 – 297.
Greca, A. I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal
of Science Education, 22(1), 1 – 11.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning.
London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Izquierdo, M., & Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2001). Contributions of the cognitive model or science to didactics of science.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th IHPST Conference, Denver, CO.
Izquierdo, M., Espinet, M., Garcia, P., Pujol, R. M., & Sanmartı́, N. (1999). Caracterización y fundamentación de
la ciencia escolar. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, special issue: Aportación de un modelo cognitivo de ciencias a
la enseñanza de las ciencias, 79 – 91.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. H. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning. The rhetorics of
the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Kress, G., Ogborn, J., Jewitt, C., & Tsatsarelis, C. H. (2000). The rhetorics of the science classroom: A multimodal
approach. ESRC. Institute of Science Education
Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Martins, I. (1998). A satellite view of language: Some lessons from science classrooms.
Language Awareness, 7(2 & 3), 69 – 89. Special issue on miscommunication in instructional settings.
Lemke, J. L. (1992). Intertextuality and educational research. Linguistic and Education, 4, 257 – 267.
Lemke, J. L. (1993). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
226
MÁRQUEZ ET AL.
Lemke, J. L. (1998a). Multiplying meaning. Visual and verbal semiotic in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel
(Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87 – 114). London: Routledge.
Lemke, J. L. (1998b). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images and actions. Available at
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu //education/jlemke/papers/barcelona.htm.
Lemke, J. L. (1999). Typological and topological meaning in diagnostic discourse. Discourse Processes, 27,
173 – 185.
Márquez, C., (2002). La comunicació multimodal en l’ensenyament del cicle de l’aigua. Doctoral dissertation.
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Márquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M., (2003). La comunicación multimodal en la clase de ciencias: El ciclo
del agua. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 21(3), 371 – 386.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2000). Analysing discourse in the science classroom. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne
(Eds.), Improving science education. The contribution of research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Roth, W-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the emergence of abstract
scientific concepts. Learning and Instruction, 12, 285 – 304.
Roth, W-M., & Welzel, M. (2001). From activity to gestures and scientific language. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 38(1), 103 – 136.
Stylianidou, F., Ormerod, F., & Ogborn, J. (2002). Analysis of science textbook pictures about energy and pupil’s
readings of them. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 257 – 285.
Van Driel, L. J. H., & Verloop, N. (2002). Experienced teachers’ knowledge of teaching and learning of models
and modelling in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1255 – 1272.