multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modeling the...

Multimodal Science Teachers’Discourse in Modelingthe Water Cycle

CONXITA MARQUEZ, MERCE IZQUIERDO, MARIONA ESPINETDepartament de Didactica de la Matematica i de les Ciencies Experimentals,Facultat Ciencies de l’Educacio, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona,O8193 Cerdanyola del valles (Barcelona), Spain

Received 21 April 2004; revised 25 January 2005, 25 April 2005; accepted 28 June 2005

DOI 10.1002/sce.20100Published 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 character-

ization 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 teach-

ing and learning as modeling, and social semotics and Halliday’s functional grammar. An

analytic scheme guiding teachers’ discourse analysis is presented and results discussed. Im-

plications for science teacher education are drawn that would contribute to the improvement

of science teacher education. C© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 90:202–226, 2006

RESEARCH BACKGROUND

This paper focuses on the role that teacher’s discourse plays within a secondary scienceclassroom 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 or-chestrated 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. Sciencelearning is understood as the construction of models that allow learners the interpretation ofnatural phenomena from a scientific view point (Franco et al., 1999; Gobert, 2000; Greca &

Correspondence to: Conxita Marquez; e-mail: [email protected] grant sponsor: Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologıa (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 beenchosen for its highly multimodal nature when being used within the scientific community. Inaddition, the water cycle is also a very common topic present in the majority of elementaryand secondary science curricula and science textbooks. Finally, learning of the water cycleis not easy since conflict emerges between the apparent simplicity of its representationaldevice and the complexity of its scientific meaning.

Assuming that science teachers’ discourse is multimodal, efforts have been directedtoward the development of analytical strategies that would allow a homogeneous and com-parative description of the role played by speech, gesture, image, and written text in thescience classroom. The social semiotics and more specifically the systemic functional gram-mar 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 pro-moting meaning making in the science classroom while teaching the water cycle. Morespecifically, the interest lies in describing the contribution of each communicative modesuch as speech, gesture, visual, and written text within a science teacher’s discourse. Thetheoretical framework in which this research is grounded is presented below: (a) research onmultimodal communication, (b) science teaching and learning as modeling, and (c) socialsemiotics and Halliday’s functional grammar.

Multimodal Communication Research in Science Classrooms

Scientific discourse is, in itself, multimodal, and Lemke (1998a) proposes the term “semi-otic 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 achannel of communication that provides information (sometimes equivalent, sometimescomplementary, redundant, or contradictory and so on), and it is an interaction betweendifferent modes that makes possible the construction of meaning. Scientific concepts taughtin the classroom can also be considered as “semiotic hybrids” since they are also presentedand 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 & VanLeeuwen, 1996; Lemke, 1998a). In recent years, there has been an increasing interest ininvestigating the role that different sign systems, or semiotic modes, participating in scienceclassroom communication play besides language (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001; Kress et al.,1998, 2001; Lemke, 1998a; Marquez, 2002; Marquez, Izquierdo, & Espinet, 2003).

These considerations would imply that the language used by the teacher and studentsshould not be expected to be the same, and the use of different semiotic modes would notplay 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 scienceeducation: text processors, drawing or design applications, animation programs, CD-ROMs,Internet etc. Both science education research and practice indicate a clear shifting from amonomodal view of communication, centered in verbal language (either written or oral), toa multimodal view of communication, based on the interactions of different communicativemodes.

When teachers speak, they nearly always simultaneously deploy other semiotic resourcesfor meaning making. Teachers often use gesture, visual language, and written text on theblackboard during the genesis of scientific discourse. However, little is known on howscience teachers use this multimodality when presenting specific natural phenomena tostudents, and also when constructing representations, such as the cycle, of abstract scientificconcepts that need to be shared and reflected upon within the classroom.

204 MARQUEZ ET AL.

Research on gesture–speech relations generally assumes that speech and gesture provideconsistent information. Examples of this work done by Crowder (1996) and Crowder andNewman (1993) claim that gestural modality provides predominantly redundant informa-tion. However, the results of recent investigations point at the idea that gesture and speechare not always consistent. Thus, Goldin-Meadow, Alibali, and Church (1993) have stud-ied the discrepancies between gesture and speech when children are in transitional states oftheir understanding. In addition, Roth and Welzel (2001) and Roth and Lawless (2002) haveshown that gestural expressions appear to precede the evolution of new verbal expressionsin hands-on secondary science classrooms. The relationship is up-to-date problematic.

Recent research studies have investigated science classroom communication when teach-ing 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 necessarilythe predominant mode of representation, and also that different communicative modes usedin classroom communication have specific functions.

The studies reviewed provide interesting evidence to support the idea that communicativemodes would play specific roles in science classrooms depending on the scientific concepttaught and the phase within the teaching and learning process. However, more researchstudies are necessary to construct a better picture of the communicative difficulties involvedin dealing with particular scientific concepts, and also how these difficulties evolve duringthe 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 canbe considered as a multimodal construction of meaning because it is usually presented asa diagram in which words, images, graphs, and mathematical equations are combined, andthe meaning arises from the contribution of the different communicative modes. In fact,Christodolou (1999) has investigated the different uses of the cycle in science textbooksand 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 textbookshighlights the variety of representations used and also the multimodality of their construc-tions. 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 repre-sented. For instance, when the water cycle is examined in textbooks, text and images arecentral. When the context shifts to the teacher’s explanation, gesture needs to be added asan important communicative mode.

The Water Cycle as a Model. The water cycle is a complex concept that appears notto 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) istransferred to the different processes that are chained, which appear arranged and almostexplained through their participation in that sign. In fact, the water cycle successfullypresents the main characteristics of this complex process: water circulation, changes instate, return or periodicity in changes, and conservation of the global amount of water innature; 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 thathave to be presented in a contextualized way. Thus, the “water cycle” can be considered ascientific model (Giere, 1988; Izquierdo & Aduriz, 2001), since it appears in textbooks as


concretion of an abstract and interrelated view on some processes that occur in nature. Thewater 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 ofsimplifying them to explain how the real-world works.

The consideration of the “water cycle” as a scientific model gives to it a special meaningas a tool for teaching science as a process of modeling the world. This connects with ouraims 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 datacollection was created. Within this proposal, science learning is understood as the construc-tion of models that allow learners the interpretation of natural phenomena from a scientificview 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 theworld as a system constituted by material, dynamic, and causal components. The materialcomponents are considered to be the parts or entities of the system, the dynamic componentsare constituted by the relationships among its parts or entities, and the causal componentsexplain 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 phenomenonof water circulation in nature as being part of a system. Students must recognize newentities 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 successionof chained phenomena that takes place in nature subjected to laws.

During the process of modeling, a progression from learners’ initial models toward sci-entific models takes place. In order to facilitate this progression, a block diagram showinga three-dimensional view of a landscape was given to students (see Figure A1 in the Ap-pendix). This diagram was first presented to students empty and progressively developedwith the help of the teacher. The diagram acted as a collective representation facilitatingstudents’ 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 thebeginning, students are familiar with water stores and water changes in nature such as watersources, rivers, rain, cloud formation, filtration etc. However, these known phenomena donot provide students with the power to explain water circulation in nature. The introductionof the “circle sign” will help students to go a step further toward the understanding of thegeneral 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 communicativeprocesses in the classroom. Social semiotics has provided a useful framework from whichto obtain conceptual tools for reflection and research on science classroom communication(Halliday, 1978). This relatively new field within social sciences is interested in how peopleelaborate and use signs to construct meaning in a particular community. From this point ofview, the construction of meaning in the classroom is produced through the words that aresaid, the diagrams that are drawn, the formulae that are written down, and the experimentsthat are done (Lemke, 1992, 1998b). It is the result of a dynamic process where all actionsare socially shared and where there is a joint construction of knowledge between teachersand students.

206 MARQUEZ ET AL.

A communicative action is produced in a particular context, without which its meaningcannot 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” torefer to a system of semiotic resources with particular functions that make communicationpossible.

The conception of language developed by Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar hasproved to be useful as a tool for capturing the dynamic aspects of language and also forcategorizing language uses when analyzing social communication in general. The strengthof 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 systemof meanings, together with the forms that allow these meanings to be produced. This viewis functional in the sense that it does not intend to make a formal description of languagebut rather to study how language is used to create meaning. It is systemic in that it analyzeshow a concrete meaning is created through language, among the many other meanings thatcould be produced within a specific social situation.

Halliday identifies three basic components, or meta-functions: the ideational, the inter-personal, and the textual (Halliday, 1985). The textual function refers to the way in whichinformation is distributed in phrases along a text. The interpersonal function is concernedwith 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 discursiveact we say something (ideational function) within a relationship between people (interper-sonal function) and holding coherence and continuity (textual function). The ideationalfunction is the most important in terms of scientific discourse, and it has been chosen as afocus for our research work.

One of the fundamental aspects of SFG that is used in this research is the focus givento processes when analyzing language. In fact, when people talk about world phenomenathey 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 sixdifferent kinds of processes: material, mental, relational, behavioral, verbal, and existentialprocesses (Halliday, 1985). However, these processes are too general and the typology toosimple to facilitate the capturing of the diversity of verbs used in specific contexts such asthe science classroom. Whereas Halliday’s approach is oriented toward the identification ofthe processes common in many different communicative contexts, we are more interestedin identifying the particulars of the processes used in science classrooms. A new analyticalscheme needs to be developed to allow the capturing of processes when teaching a scientificconcept in a science classroom.

Originally, the systemic functional grammar was developed to explain how language isused to create meaning. Recently, this perspective has been expanded to explain how othercommunicative 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 theanalysis of how three communicative modes---language, gesture, and image---contribute tothe construction of meaning within science classrooms. In doing so we are assuming thatthe 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 communicativeactivity between students and the teacher. As a first step, we are particularly interested in


the role played by the science teacher within the communicative activity taking place in theclassroom. The description of the teacher’s discourse can be approached, as previously de-scribed, considering that the meanings attributed to words, gestures, texts, and images referto processes. In addition, teacher’s discourse about the water cycle can also be considereda multimodal activity in which the different communicative modes can play the same ordifferent roles, that is, they can refer to the same or different processes. The general purposeof the research work presented here is to describe a multimodal science teacher’s discoursewhen teaching the water cycle concept.

More concretely, we aim at developing an analytical scheme to describe the scienceteacher’s discourse when encouraging students’ appropriation of the “circle sign.” We resortto the approach of teaching the water cycle as modeling and the adapted contributions ofthe SFG. The specific questions of our research are the following:

1. What communicative modes are used by this secondary science teacher when teach-ing the water cycle concept in a secondary science classroom?

2. What role do the different communicative modes used by this secondary scienceteacher play when teaching the water cycle concept?

3. What are the relationships between communicative modes within this teacher’s dis-course 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 cyclewas taught. In this class there were 30 pupils aged 12. The school is a public secondaryschool located in a village near Barcelona, Spain. The teacher holds a bachelor’s degree inbiology and has 25 years of teaching experience. Together the teacher and the researchersplanned the instructional activities of the water cycle unit. The five 55-min sessions devotedto teaching the water cycle unit were videotaped, but only two of these sessions weretranscribed and analyzed for research purposes. These two lessons were chosen for tworeasons: The teacher’s discourse on water cycle was central, and the discourse was relatedto a specific phase of the teaching of water cycle as modeling: the teacher’s transferenceand students’ appropriation of the “circle sign.” A short description of these two lessonscan be found in the Appendix.

Units of Analysis: Interactivity Segments

The two lessons were transcribed numbering teacher’s and students’ interventions andsplitting the different semiotic modes that participate in the teacher’s discursive activity intofour columns: speech, meaningful gestures, drawings or symbols, and written text on theblackboard.

Once the multimodal transcription was done, we proceeded to identify “interactivitysegments” (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 oforganization (collective or individual work). Each time that a change in one of these twoaspects was identified, a new segment was established. Table 1 shows the 11 interactivitysegments. Given that the two lessons chosen were characterized by teacher’s discourse, fewchanges on classroom organization have been found. Thus, the 11 interactivity segmentsprimarily indicate changes in thematic content. Table 1 also includes a column associatingeach interactivity segment to its location within the water cycle modeling process.

208 MARQUEZ ET AL.

TABLE 1Location of Each Interactivity Segment in the Water Cycle Modeling Process

Interactivity Segments Water Cycle Modeling Process

Segment 1: ‘Problem posing’ Facts to be explained. Physical systemunder studySegment 2: ‘Problem appropriation’

Segment 3: ‘Presentation of the water cycle’ Identification of the material and dynamiccomponents of the system. Recognition ofnew water stores, water changes andflows

Segment 4: ‘Location of places or storeswhere water is found in nature’

Segment 5: ‘Identification andrepresentation of the changes in the watercycle’

Segment 6: ‘Identification andrepresentation of changesin the water cycle. Individual work’

Segment 7: ‘Why do we talk about a cycle?Enchained changes’

Identification of the system’s functioningsuch us water conservation, cyclicchanges,Segment 8: ‘Diversity of cycles’

Segment 9: ‘Difficulties in identifying andrepresenting changes in the water cycle’

Identification of the system’s material anddynamic components. Recognition of newwater stores, water changes and flowsSegment 10: ‘Identification and

representation of more changes’

Segment 11: ‘Causal agents in the watercycle’

Identification of the system’s functioning

Analytic Scheme

Consideration of the teacher’s discourse from a not strictly linguistic point of view hasmeant adapting the systemic-functional grammar to the analysis of other communicationmodes besides language that constitute the teacher’s discourse. More concretely, it hasmeant adapting SFG categories so that a new analytic scheme has been constructed. Thisnew analytical scheme acts as an instrument to better capture the richness and diversity ofmeanings 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 spacesand (b) the processes.

Semiotic Spaces. A semiotic space is the aspect of reality to which a particular processgives meaning to. Semotic spaces act as groupings of meanings and represent a new categoryin relation to those developed within the frame of SFG. Three semiotic spaces have beenidentified.

--- Thematic space (TS). Every meaning that is related to the topic under study, everyprocess that gives meaning to conceptual aspects. So our thematic space is watercirculation in nature.

--- Classroom management space (CMS). Every meaning that relates to organization ofthe classroom as a communicative and social space where it is necessary to organizeparticipation, time, order of the interventions etc.

--- Representation management space (RMS). Every meaning that relates to the strategiesused by the teacher to help students construct a water cycle diagram.


Processes. Processes are actions represented through verbs that can be inferred fromparticipants’ discourse. The meaning given to this category is the same as that generatedwithin the SFG (Halliday, 1985) although the processes’ classification differ considerablyfrom those identified by the work of Halliday. In our work, six kinds of processes have beenconsidered 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 groupincludes processes representing that a thing “exists” (“there is a lake”) or “happens”(“there is evaporation”) in relation with material and dynamic components of thesystem, or that a thing “is” (“gravity is a force attracting things”).

--- (P2) Processes related to water changes and causes of water circulation. This groupincludes processes that give meaning to actions and interactions between componentsof 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 circulationin 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 in-cludes processes that refer to control of participation, time, and order of the class ingeneral.

In the representation management space, three kinds of processes appear:

--- (P4) Processes of naming water cycle entities. This group includes processes of tellingor naming the system’s components, changes, and causes related to thematic content.

--- (P5) Processes related to the management of the water cycle diagram. This groupincludes processes directed to making scientific content accessible to students andto allowing students to elaborate a meaningful diagram on the water cycle. In thiscategory, we also include processes that communicate teacher’s intentions relatedto her organization of the explanation or the actions that she proposes to studentsso that they advance in the subject. These kinds of processes are interesting sincethey show the decisions made by the teacher during the lessons. When we refer tothese aspects, we use the expression “teacher’s narrative,” considered as the teachingdevice 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 agree-ment, disagreement, doubt; (ii) processes that promote students’ mental activity, suchas think, know, ask; processes that invite to a connection between what is said in classand students’ everyday experiences: memories, use of analogies, interpretative ques-tions such as “how come?”; and (iii) processes that promote the creation of mentalcategories, 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 withinthe teacher’s discourse the frequency and functions of each communicative mode and the

210 MARQUEZ ET AL.

relations among different communicative modes. The complete communication activitywas 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 towhich they belong and the process which they give meaning to.

The intervention 130 in segment 4 is chosen to exemplify the way categories (semioticspaces and processes) were applied (Table 2). For instance, when the teacher says, “It’scalled 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, sheuses the gesture mode moving her right hand downwards. The meaning assigned to thisprocess is that infiltration is an up-down movement (P2) corresponding to the thematicspace. Moreover, while the teacher is acting that way she holds a diagram and suggests alocation 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 con-structed so that the absolute and relative frequencies of each process and semotic mode weremade evident. These tables were useful to identify the contribution of a particular mode toeach semotic space and to each kind of process. Table 3 shows the contribution of teacher’sgesture in segment 4.

Definition of the Functions for Each Communication Mode. The functions per-formed by each communicative mode were defined from the information gathered in fre-quency tables such as the one included in Table 3. The highest relative frequencies assignedto a particular process indicated the functionality of a particular mode. From Table 3, itcan 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 2An Example of Categorizing Multimodal Teacher’s Intervention 130 fromInteractivity Segment 4

Speech Gesture Visual Language Written Text

130. Teacher: It’s calledinfiltration (RMS, P4)

She moves her right handdownwards (TS, P2)

So draw groundwaterbelow.

She points at the diagram(RMS, P5)

Draw it as if it was a river(RMS, P5)

Well it’s not really a river(TS, P1)

She moves her right handslope down (TS, P2)

This is a cross section(RMS, P5)

(RMS, P5)


TAB

LE

3P

roc

es

se

sa

nd

Se

mio

tic

Sp

ac

es

of

Te

ach

er’

sG

es

ture

inS

eg

me

nt

4

Se

mio

ticS

pa

ceK

ind

of

Pro

cess

Ge

stu

rea

nd

Ass

ign

ed

Ve

rbs

Fre

qu

en

cyTo

tal

Pro

cess

es

Se

mio

ticS

pa

ce

Th

em

atic

spa

ce:w

ate

rin

na

ture

(TS

)P

1.

Pro

cess

es

rela

ted

top

rop

ert

ies

an

dch

ara

cte

rist

ics

of

wa

ter

inn

atu

re

Sh

ejo

ins

he

rh

an

ds

by

the

fing

ert

ips,

form

ing

asp

he

re(s

pri

ng

ou

t)1

12

%2

4%

P2

.P

roce

sse

sre

late

dto

wa

ter

cha

ng

es

an

dca

use

so

fw

ate

rci

rcu

latio

n

Sh

em

ove

sd

ow

nw

ard

sh

er

op

en

rig

ht

ha

nd

(in

filtr

ate

)7

11

22

%

Sh

efo

llow

sw

ithh

er

fing

er

the

cou

rse

of

the

rive

rto

the

sea

(circu

late

)2

Sh

eg

est

ure

sd

ow

nw

ard

sfr

om

the

clo

ud

sto

the

surf

ace

(ra

in)

2

Cla

ssro

om

ma

na

ge

me

nt

spa

ce(C

MS

)P

3.

Pro

cess

es

rela

ted

toth

eco

ntr

olo

fst

ud

en

ts’

pa

rtic

ipa

tion

Sh

est

retc

he

sh

er

fore

fing

er

tow

ard

sa

stu

de

nt(s

ay)

46

12

%1

2%

Sh

ep

uts

he

rfo

refin

ge

r,p

oin

ting

up,

toh

er

mo

uth

(be

qu

iet)

1

Sh

esl

ow

lym

ove

sh

er

op

en

ha

nd

s,w

ithth

ep

alm

sto

the

fro

nt(w

ait)

1

Re

pre

sen

tatio

nm

an

ag

em

en

tsp

ace

(RM

S)

P4

.P

roce

sse

so

fn

am

ing

wa

ter

cycl

ee

ntit

ies

64

%

P5

.P

roce

sse

sre

late

dto

the

ma

na

ge

me

nto

fw

ate

rcy

cle

dia

gra

m

Sh

ep

oin

tsto

aco

ncr

ete

pla

cein

the

dia

gra

m(p

ut)

19

28

56

%

Sh

ep

oin

tsto

the

dia

gra

m(lo

cate

)9

P6

.M

en

talp

roce

sse

sS

he

no

ds

(agre

e)

34

8%

Sh

em

ove

sh

er

sho

uld

ers

(it

ise

asy

)1

Tota

l5

01

00

%1

00

%

212 MARQUEZ ET AL.

TABLE 4Functions Performed by Speech, Gesture, Visual Language in Segment 4

Speech Gesture Visual Language Written Text

Thematic space:water in nature

Identify waterstores andassignproperties

Assign directionto dynamicprocesses

Present a scenarioShowing space

relationshipsbetween the wholeand the parts

Visualize dynamicprocesses in watercirculation

Classroommanagementspace

Managingclassroomfunctioning

Managingclassroomfunctioning

Representationmanagementspace

Suggesting thelocation ofwater stores inthe diagram

Locating in thediagram andindicatingwhere torepresent waterstores

Showingconsensuallocations forwater stores

functioning” (12% of P3). Table 4 shows the functions performed by all four communicativemodes 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 betweencommunication modes have been identified in our research: co-operation and specialization.We considered that a relationship is of co-operation when the communication modes thatcontribute to giving meaning to the same kind of process in their semiotic space performthe same functions. We considered that the relationship is of specialization when semioticmodes that contribute to giving meaning to the same process perform different functions.

In order to identify the relationships between modes, graphs for a particular segmentwere constructed to show the absolute frequency of each mode in each kind of process (anexample is shown in Figure 1). When in a particular process more than one communicationmode 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 modesis of co-operation, since both modes perform the same function such as “managing student’sparticipation” as it can be seen in Table 4.

On the other hand, both speech and visual language modes contribute to giving meaning tothe 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 arelationship of specialization. While speech is used to “identifying water stores and assignproperties,” visual language is used to “showing space relationships between the whole andthe parts” (Table 4). In fact, the teacher gave students a diagram presenting the scenario inwhich the water cycle takes place and she showed the relations between the parts (someplaces where water can be found in nature) and the whole (general circulation of water in


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 assignedproperties to them.

Analysis of the Communicative Activity as a Whole. Once the relations betweenthe different modes were described, the focal communication mode was identified (Kresset 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, andit might initiate the segment at the thematic level. When a semiotic mode is defined asfocal, the rest of the modes become subsidiary, since they collaborate with the former. Forinstance, in segment 4 whose aim was “location of places or stores where water is foundin nature,” the focal communicative mode is visual language. The segment begins whenthe teacher provides students with a diagram. This diagram centers on the communicativeactivity between the teacher and students since they constantly refer to it throughout thesegment. In addition the diagram allows the development of thematic content facilitatingthe location of water stores in nature. The science teacher’s discourse as a whole wasanalyzed applying the concept of communicative architecture (Kress et al., 1998). As acommunicative architecture, it is understood the changes in focal communicative modesalong the communicative activity. In order to construct such a communicative architecturechanges 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 com-municative activity as a whole have been found. Table 5 summarizes these results andprovides an overview.

214 MARQUEZ ET AL.

TABLE 5Table Comparing the Absolute Frequency of Each Communication Mode toEach of the Semiotic Spaces and Processes

TotalVisual Written Semiotic

Kind of Process Speech Gesture Language Text Total Space

Thematic space Processesrelated toproperties andcharacteristicsof water innature

156 5 33 0 194

Processesrelated towater changesand causes ofwatercirculation

212 70 37 0 319 513

Classroommanagementspace

Processesrelated to thecontrol ofstudents’participation

75 81 0 0 156 156

Representationmanagementspace

Processes ofnaming watercycle entities

87 0 0 70 157

Processesrelated to themanagementof water cyclediagram

276 103 1 12 392 773

Mentalprocesses

182 32 1 9 224

Total 988 291 72 91 1442 1442

A reading by rows of the table provides an idea on the frequency of semiotic spaces andprocesses used by the teacher to the modeling of water cycle. The absolute frequency ofprocesses related to water properties and water changes is up to 513. These results are notsurprising since the classroom deals with the water cycle.

The number of processes related to the classroom management is only 156. Comparedto other semiotic spaces, this result is rather low indicating that the teacher is an experi-enced one with a good control over the classroom dynamics. Finally, we have found 773processes related to the management of representation. This significant result would indi-cate that the construction of a representation (the water cycle diagram) is an important andalso a hard task given the amount of communicative interactions needed for its develop-ment. An interesting point to comment on these data is the relatively high frequency ofmental strategies (224 processes). This would indicate that the teacher promotes the stu-dent mental activities such as thinking, explaining, asking, evoking, answering, and makingquestions.


A reading by columns of the table gives an idea of the contribution of each communicativemode to the modeling of water cycle. These data indicate that speech dominates the teacher’sdiscourse (988) in this science classroom and contributes to all processes within the threesemiotic spaces. Gesture has also an important contribution (291) to all but one processwithin the teacher’s discourse. The only process where gesture is not present is in thenaming of water cycle entities. Finally, although visual and written text modes are not asfrequent as speech and gesture, we should ask whether they play a specific and important rolein 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 ofthe latter is only to the representation management space. In this case the written text on theblackboard has only been used for labeling, managing the representation, and encouragingstudents’ thinking.

These results support the idea that communicative modes contribute in different ways andweights to the modeling of water cycle. However, they do not help in drawing a picture onthe specific roles that speech, gesture, visual language, and written text play within teacher’sdiscourse.

What Is the Role of Each Communicative Mode Being Usedby the Teacher?

The analysis showed a great variety of communication functions performed by the differ-ent modes. Given the importance and richness of processes related to the thematic space, onlythe functions related to this space will be presented and discussed here. Table 6 succinctly

TABLE 6Functions Performed by Speech, Gesture, and Visual Language in Relationto the Thematic Space

Semiotic Mode Communication Functions

Speech Pose thematic questionsIntroduce new thematic aspectsIdentify water locations, properties, cyclical routesIdentify changesIdentify causal mechanismsPresent and name the water cycleAnswer thematic questions

Gesture Locate entities in natureCommunicate properties of the circulation of water in natureDescribe water movements in natureAssign direction to dynamic processesDynamize processesVisualize the effect of some interactions

Visual language Present a scenario and water locationsProvide a symbol to represent changes in the water cycleDraw the cyclical character of water circulation in natureIncorporate water locations in natureVisualize dynamic processes in water circulationExemplify the variety of relations and the diversity of interconnected

routes of water in natureLocate changes produced in water circulation in nature

216 MARQUEZ ET AL.

shows the functions of the three modes, speech, gesture, and visual language that contributeto the communication of the topic, water circulation in nature.

Speech and Gesture Functions. Teacher’s speech is used to present and develop animportant part of knowledge related to water circulation in nature (Table 6). In processesrelated to water changes and causes of water circulation, analysis of the teacher’s talk hasevidenced 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 withthe help of other communicative modes that add information while communication takesplace as it will be analyzed later on.

The teacher uses gesture mostly to locate entities in nature; for instance, when she men-tions wells or “water tables,” she points downwards. With gesture she also communicatesin a specific way those properties of water circulation in nature that are related to a cyclicalcharacter, 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 commu-nicating 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 aboutgravity, the teacher’s gesture clearly marks the direction downward and the effect (thingsfalling); 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 offersa scenario on which to think and in which to locate, add, and identify the main entitiesinvolved 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 makingthem dynamic. To communicate this kind of information, the teacher, and the scientificcommunity in general, uses arrows. When arrows are added to the diagram, this begins toshow what we know on water circulation in nature.

The teacher uses different arrows that give different meanings to the changes they repre-sent. According to Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996), arrows are a graphic tool to represent aprocess in a narrative diagram. The use and meaning of arrows is very diverse; this confirmstheir multisemantic character, that is, as a sign, they can have different meanings (Atmeller& Pinto, 2002; Styliandou, Ormerod, & Ogborn, 2002). In scientific visual representationsthis 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 phenomenaso varied as sunbeams, wind blow, superficial circulation of water, or a change in state suchas evaporation. In the case that we are studying, the teacher mainly uses arrows to signifya change of location or state in water.

The teacher initially makes straight horizontal arrows to name the changes in water storesor state. Figure 2 shows how the teacher writes on the blackboard the initial location ofwater: (the sea) and the water state (liquid). She then draws a straight horizontal line abovewhich she writes the name of the process (evaporation) and at the end of which she writesthe final location of water (atmosphere) and its state (gas). This constitutes a description ofthe 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)


Figure 2. Kinds of arrows used by the teacher.

in its circulation in nature. At the moment in which arrows become vertical and curvedand they mark the space direction of the change that they represent, they are incorporatingan iconic component (Lemke, 1999), they are correlating patterns of behavior and theirvisual representation, and they are facilitating greater complexity showing the relations oftransitivity between the different entities represented. This constitutes both a descriptionand an interpretation of the phenomenon.

The need to communicate the idea of chained changes in water circulation in nature makesthe 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 thatallows 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 increasingdegree of abstraction; the last representation is the most abstract. In this, the entities repre-sented are words, they bear no similarity in space distribution with nature: What is beinghighlighted is cyclical circulation and the conservation of water in nature. Along these twosessions, the class shifts from a “description of what is seen” to an “interpretation of nature’sfunctioning” from the point of view of current knowledge (Figure 3).

What Are the Relationships Between CommunicativeModes Within This Teacher’s Discourse When Teaching the WaterCycle Concept?

Data analysis performed in previous paragraphs has provided evidence that teacher’s dis-course on the water cycle is highly multimodal. However, in order to capture the dynamicsof multimodality it becomes necessary to take a longitudinal approach. An analysis wasthus undertaken comparing the communicative modes present in each segment along the

218 MARQUEZ 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 iden-tify which communicative mode was driving the thematic content in each segment (focalcommunicative mode) and to describe possible relationships among communicative modeswithin 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 communicativeactivity have facilitated the description of the “communicative architecture” (Kress et al.,1998). Figure 4 shows the transition of focal communication modes along the analyzedsegments.

The communicative activity begins with the observation of a picture presenting an aspectof the world (S1) in which the focal communicative mode is “visual language.” The teacherencourages students to ask some questions through speech in segment 2 (S2) where thefocal communicative mode is “speech.” Then the teacher proposes an explanation for thesequestions through a model, the water cycle. She gives the model a name and explainshow it can be constructed (S3). Again, the focal communicative mode in this segmentis “speech.” From this moment on “visual language” becomes the focal mode along thesegments (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 ofsegments 5 and 6 where the teacher uses the blackboard for naming water cycle changespreviously presented by students through linear arrows. Visual language also looses itsfocality 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.


cyclic arrows increasing the abstraction of what is being communicated. At the end, thefocal communicative mode becomes speech when the teacher introduces the causal agentsconducive 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 thebeginning and at the end of the teaching sequence whereas visual language acts in betweenholding 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 givento those modes performing the same or different functions within teacher’s discourse sincethis 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 giveus new clues as for how communicative modes contribute to meaning construction withinthe classroom.

Table 7 displays the types of relationships between communicative modes identified alongthe communicative activity investigated. Rows in the table include the 11 segments used forthe analysis, and columns represent processes belonging to their corresponding semioticspace. 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 communicativemodes used to signify all processes in one segment. As an example, in segment 1 where thefocal mode is visual language, monomodal situations dominate teacher’s discourse. Collab-oration relationships between modes appear when teacher’s discourse deals with classroommanagement processes and mental processes related to the management of representa-tion. Finally, specialization relationships become evident within teacher’s discourse whendealing with processes related to water changes and causes of water circulation in nature.A reading by columns provides information on the relationships between communicativemodes signifying the same types of processes along the communicative activity. This typeof reading is of special interest since it conveys a global idea on how collaboration andspecialization between modes is distributed among semiotic spaces.

The most important result emerging from this table is that thematic space concentrates aclearly specialized relationship between communication modes, whereas within classroommanagement and representation management spaces the relationship is mostly collaborative.A closer look at the collaboration relationship shown in (Table 7) provides information toassert that collaboration between speech and gesture is the predominant relationship whenteacher’s discourse deals with the control of students’ participation, the management ofthe water cycle diagram, and the encouragement of students’ mental processes. This resultwould point at the idea that speech and gesture are important communication modes thatcollaborate frequently to emphasize and highlight what is being communicated by thescience teacher.

A closer look at the table shows that specialized relationships between modes mostlyappear when science teacher’s discourse deals with processes related to water propertiesand characteristics, water changes, and explanations of water circulation in nature. Thespecialized relationship between semiotic modes specifies information and makes it moreprecise. As speech, gesture, and visual language hold clearly distinct functions, the spe-cialized contribution of all of them is necessary to achieve better meaning construction(or better phenomenon representation). For instance, changes produced in the water cycleare 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 MARQUEZ ET AL.

TABLE 7Specialization and Collaboration Relationships Between CommunicationModes Along the Communicative Activity

placing water changes in a concrete location and showing the space relationships with otherchanges. The specialized relationship between modes also facilitates the communicationof a lot of meanings using few verbs. As remarked before, the analysis has shown that theteacher uses very few verbs belonging to the specific scientific vocabulary. In contrast, verbssuch as “go” and “pass” are very frequent; they communicate precise meanings with the


collaboration of gesture and visual language. For instance, the verb “pass,” together witha gesture pointing upwards from sea to atmosphere, communicates a different meaning(“evaporate”) than the same verb accompanied by a gesture moving downwards from cloudto earth (“precipitate”). The same happens with gestures or graphic signs. Many scientificconcepts acquire meaning thanks to the specialized collaboration between modes, given thenecessary presence of the teacher.

The processes of naming the water cycle entities have been shown to include eithercollaborative, specialized, or monomodal relationships between communication modes.Initially the monomodal use of speech dominates teacher’s discourse for naming. Fromsegments 4 to 11 written text enters into teacher’s discourse in a collaborative and specializedmanner. An interesting pattern of modal relationships between speech and written textoccurs in segments 4, 5, 10, and 11. Initially this relationship is collaborative consideringthat almost simultaneously the teacher tells and writes on the blackboard the name of watercycle entities or changes. Later in the segment the relationship between speech and writtentext becomes specialized since the latter acquires new functions. Finalized text written onthe blackboard acquires new status since it becomes a consensus representation of what isimportant and worth reflecting upon.

Teachers’ discourse analysis undertaken in this study shows that the relation between thecommunicative modes is always cooperative or specialized. No instances have been foundin which information transferred in two different modes was contradictory. This wouldindicate that the teacher has acted toward the establishment of a “coherent” communicationwithin the classroom. The teacher emphasizes and highlights what is being communicatedwith the collaborative use of modes in the classroom and representation management spaces.Instead, she constructs a more specific and precise explanation of scientific concepts witha 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 todrawing a more accurate picture of the role, speech, gesture, and visual language (throughthe use of diagrams and arrows) play in modeling the water cycle in secondary scienceclassrooms.

The interest and awareness among science educators on the importance of language inscience 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 fron-tiers of research in science education. The way these frontiers have been advancing hasbeen through the “theoretical borrowing” into science education from other fields. Thisprocess of borrowing conceptual tools from other fields becomes, from our stand, not onlyunavoidable but also necessary. However, we are very much aware of the problems statedby Fensham as for the theoretical looseness of some research pieces on language in thescience classrooms undertaken by science education researchers. A good use of borrowedconceptual frameworks might not only contribute to an increasing understanding of scienceeducation contexts but also might enrich the borrowed theoretical approach itself.

The study presented in this paper is a description of one-sided communication event: thetalk of one science teacher on the water cycle when using a modeling approach to scienceteaching in a secondary classroom. This description has been done through the lensesof social semiotics theory and more specifically from the influential Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar. This study represents a small piece of research work that helps todevelop new lenses and consequently new insights on the complexity of what is going onin science classrooms.

222 MARQUEZ ET AL.

The fact of having chosen one specific scientific model such as the water cycle representsone more step toward the development of our field. The underlying belief sustaining thisselection is that language in science classrooms is crucially shaped by the specific contentthat needs to be learned. In this sense, the present study would be an invitation to thedevelopment of a science education research agenda that would emphasize diversity inlanguage use when teaching different scientific models in the classroom. In the same waythat our study has shown how semiotic modes are used by the teacher when constructingthe model of water cycle in secondary classroom, other research studies could be developedto highlight how the use of semiotic modes change depending on the conceptual needsunderlying the understanding of other scientific models such as for instance magnetic fieldor nutrition.

One of the major findings of the present study is of a theoretical nature and has contributedto the enrichment of the original framework as a consequence of the necessary appropriationand re-construction of Halliday’s SFG in our context.

The analytic scheme developed in this study has used the idea of semiotic spaces as away to categorize science teacher’s discourse and thus a way to classify meaning in scienceclassrooms. Three types of semiotic spaces have been identified within the communicativeactivity taking place in these two lessons. The first type of meaning (thematic space) dealswith the theme such as water circulation in nature. The second type (classroom managementspace) refers to the management of the classroom such as time and space allocation andparticipation, and the last is related to the communication dealing with the joint construc-tion of the diagram (representation management space). A major finding of our study is theimportance of the representation management space as a salient domain for the descriptionof science teacher’s discourse. Classroom communication studies have repeatedly shownthat teacher’s discourse deals with a topic or content and the control of participation. How-ever, when science classrooms adopt a modeling approach to science teaching, and modelsneed to be constructed through representations, new communicative domains need to beconsidered.

More research needs to be conducted to test whether this analytical scheme equally appliesto other science education contexts where different scientific models are being taught. Inaddition, the evidence collected in this study might also indicate that the managementrepresentation space could be considered as a powerful category for the analysis of anycommunicative activity which is educational. In this context the teacher becomes a mediatorbetween students and the constructed representation needing to deploy new managementcompetencies.

Another group of major findings of the present research study deals with the multimodalityof science teacher’s discourse while developing a modeling approach to the teaching of watercycle. The evidence collected shows that all four communicative modes are, in fact, used bythe teacher in this secondary science classroom and that they contribute in a co-operativeor 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 ofvisual language, gesture, and written text. Communicative modes contribute in differentways and weights to the modeling of water cycle. Teacher’s speech and gesture are used togive meaning to all semiotic spaces, whereas visual language is used specifically within thethematic space and written text only in representation management space. Teacher’s speechhas been important in the past and is still important in the present. Viewing the classroomas an interconnected whole, even those communicative modes that are less used can beimportant.

Communication modes used by the teacher while teaching the water cycle perform agreat diversity of functions that are in general specific for each mode. Whereas speech


introduces and identifies the entities, gesture locates them and dynamizes processes. Vi-sual language, through the diagram, provides a scenario, and through arrows, facilitatesthe establishment of functional mechanisms necessary to construct an explanation of wa-ter circulation in nature. These specialized roles might be due to the different experientialmeaning potential (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001) each mode has in relation to the watercycle model. Modes differ in relation to their own possibilities for communicating andrepresenting meaning created in social situations. For instance, verbal language offers thepossibility to better communicate the temporal and sequential characteristics of phenomenawhereas visual language facilitates the communication of spatial and simultaneous charac-teristics of the experiential world. Scientific models are considered “semiotic hybrids” inthe sense that different communicative modes are necessary to represent them. The watercycle is a complex scientific model needing the specialized roles of all modes in order tobe meaningfully constructed in a science classroom. Promoting students’ use of differentmodes while learning the water cycle will facilitate the construction of a model useful toexplain water circulation in nature.

The description of the communicative architecture of the teacher’s discourse has evi-denced 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, facil-itates 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 allowingthe representation of concepts that are gradually more complex through the use of multi-modal communication. This communicative architecture might not be considered as fixed,but it probably depends on the scientific model being taught, on the cultural characteristicsof the classroom and on the teacher’s communicative intention. Meaning will arise fromthe rhythm and harmonization between semiotic modes. Analogy with an orchestra seemsadequate 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 con-struction of representations. The teacher combines the diversity of meanings attributed to aword, a gesture, an image in such a way to communicate to the classroom a very concreteand precise meanings. Science teachers construct their own discourse through a consid-erable amount of communicative resources they are not completely aware of. Teachers’awareness of multimodality in science classroom would be necessary, and attempts shouldbe made to help them become skillful in the use of communicative modes. Science teachers’conscious use of communicative resources would facilitate the learning through modelingby 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 Eu-ropean countries are undertaking university reforms affecting higher education curric-ula and methodology (Bologna, 1999). Common grounds for a core European universitycurricula are being sought based on the identification of professional competences. Theresults of our study provide evidence for the need to include multimodal communica-tive competences within science teacher education curricula. Although this study has fo-cused on teacher’s discourse, classroom science is a community where communicativeactivity includes both the teacher and students. Given that science classroom commu-nication is multimodal, science teachers should promote students’ multimodal activitysuch as talk, writing, drawing, gesture, and doing in order to facilitate knowledge con-struction. New research needs to be undertaken to get a better picture on how scienceteacher’s multimodal activity and students’multimodal activity interact so that learningoccurs.

224 MARQUEZ ET AL.

The authors would like to think of the science classroom as an orchestra driven by anexcellent conductor (the teacher) in which a melody is being played. The collaboration ofdiverse instruments and musicians should contribute to the construction of shared knowledgeon the physical world and, if possible, of emotions as well.

APPENDIX

The first lesson begins with plenary discussion on the interpretation that each studentmakes of a picture in the textbook. The picture shows a Greek philosopher asking a questionon the origin of natural water sources found in mountains. The picture also includes thehypotheses made by the Greek philosopher: (a) the water comes from the interior of theearth, and (b) the water comes from the rain. After discussion, a consensual answer isagreed upon. The teacher asks students to formulate questions related to the circulationof water in nature. The “water cycle” is immediately presented as the current scientificexplanation 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 firsttime, a circle with her hands), they will distinguish: places, or stores, where there the wateris located, changes of water from one place to the another, and causes for such changes. Thefollowing activity consists in locating and representing in the diagram all the places wherewater can be found in nature, in solid, liquid, or gaseous states, and next students identifyand represent the changes produced in the water cycle.

Once the stores and changes in the water cycle are identified, the teacher introduces anew 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 thatthe names and arrows connecting them, together with the names of the process that theyrepresent, end by forming a circle. Each student is invited to use this kind of representationto show possible water routes. The session ends with plenary discussion of the differentroutes that water can follow and with evidence of the great variety of “cycles” that therecan be within the water cycle.

In the second lesson the teacher has reproduced on the blackboard the diagram givento students; in the diagram, new water stores and processes are located and represented.Students express their doubts and difficulties with some representations. The teacher stressesthe need to generalizing processes by providing students with statements such as “waterdoes 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 agentidentified by students is the sun. Immediately, the teacher gives hints to identify gravityas another causal agent. The session ends classifying the different processes identifiedaccording to their causal agent.

Figure A1. Bloch diagram given to students.


We would like to thank the members of our research group LIEC from the Departament de Didactica

de la Matematica i de les Ciencies Experimentals from the Universitat Autonoma 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., & Pinto, 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: Fundacion 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: Fundacion 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., & Aduriz-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., & Sanmartı, N. (1999). Caracterizacion y fundamentacion de

la ciencia escolar. Ensenanza de las Ciencias, special issue: Aportacion de un modelo cognitivo de ciencias a

la ensenanza 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 communi-

cation. 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 MARQUEZ 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.

Marquez, C., (2002). La comunicacio multimodal en l’ensenyament del cicle de l’aigua. Doctoral dissertation.

Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Marquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M., (2003). La comunicacion multimodal en la clase de ciencias: El ciclo

del agua. Ensenanza 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.

multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modeling the...

Documents