semiotic technologies: a case study of discipline-based

1

Manuscript submitted to: Social Semiotics Semiotic technologies: a case study of discipline-based practices and pedagogy Zach Simpson1 and Arlene Archer2

1 Corresponding author: Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa [email protected] +27115593683 c/o Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, PO Box 524, Auckland Park 2006 Johannesburg South Africa

2 Centre for Higher Education Development, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. [email protected] +27216503319 Writing Centre Steve Biko Building Private Bag University of Cape Town 7708 South Africa Zach Simpson, PhD., works in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa, as an educational development lecturer. His research combines interest in multimodal social semiotics, academic literacy development, higher education studies and engineering education. He has contributed to books in international series, such as Routledge’s Studies in Multimodality and Brill’s Studies in Writing. Arlene Archer, PhD., is the co-ordinator of the Writing Centre at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. Her research draws on social semiotics and multimodal pedagogies to enable student access to writing and to Higher Education. She has recently co-edited three books on multimodality and pedagogy.

Word count: 8383 words

2

Semiotic technologies: a case study of discipline‐based practices and pedagogy

Abstract

This paper examines semiotic technologies, both in terms of the resources they harness and the

practices developed around their use. It draws on data collected as part of an ethnographic

investigation into the meaning‐making practices deployed within civil engineering study. The data is

used as a case study for examining semiotic technologies as socially‐situated resources for

disciplinary practices. Using a multimodal social semiotic approach, we argue that technologies are

not self‐evident, and that their use constitutes specific social practices that require development in

the classroom. In order to deploy technologies in pedagogically effective ways, we need to

understand the semiotic resources they draw on (including embodied resources). Awareness that

technologies are not neutral or value free, but are socially situated and ideologically‐laden, may

enable meta‐level understanding of the discipline, thus creating the possibility for improved

pedagogical practices.

Key words: multimodality; social semiotics; technology; higher education; engineering education;

discipline‐based pedagogy

Introduction

Technology has come to mediate communication across all domains of life. However, this

phenomenon is not as new as one might think: human semiosis has always relied on technologies,

from the abacus, the telegram and the simple pen to, more recently, scientific calculators, cellular

phones and the computer. The increasingly rapid advance of technologies into all spheres of human

semiosis requires that we consider how shifts in technology affect meaning‐making. Furthermore,

the distribution of technological resources is often uneven, which in turn requires consideration of

how access to technology is obtained and awarded.

3

These issues are of particular concern in the case discussed in this paper, that of engineering

education, where technologies range from the everyday to the highly specialised. Civil engineering

students (and professionals) use various technologies in the practical accomplishment of their

studies or work. The aim of this paper is to examine the technological dimensions of the semiotic

work of civil engineering study. This is done with a view to highlighting the pedagogical implications

so as to enable student access, both to technologies and to the disciplinary basis of civil

engineering. More specifically, we investigate the following research question: “How are different

semiotic technologies used within a field of study, and how can this reflect and shape the pedagogy

within that field?”.

The paper begins by exploring the notion of ‘semiotic technology’ within the theoretical frame of

social semiotics. Thereafter, the methodology used for collecting and analysing the data is discussed.

Using this data, we argue that technologies in engineering study are not self‐evident, and that their

use constitutes specific social practices that need to be developed (Wood et al., 1976) in the

classroom. In order to effectively deploy these technologies, we argue for the need to understand

the resources that technologies draw on as well as their underlying logics.

Theoretical approach to semiotic technologies

The theoretical approach adopted herein is multimodal social semiotics. Social semiotics emerges

from the seminal work of Michael Halliday (1978) and is concerned with the collection,

documentation and cataloguing of semiotic resources as well as investigation into how these

resources are used in specific cultural, historical and institutional contexts (van Leeuwen, 2005).

Multimodal approaches to representation and communication expand the notion of what

constitutes a semiotic resource by including the full gamut of resources used to express meaning

4

(Jewitt, 2009a), including language, image, music, gesture and so on. Language is not ignored, but

examined as embedded within broader semiotic frameworks (Jewitt, 2009b). Multimodal

approaches are useful in combination with social semiotics because, while a multimodal approach

can tell us what representational modes are used, social semiotics is necessary to investigate how

they are used, and what their use means in particular contexts (Kress, 2010).

Fundamental to multimodal social semiotics is the notion of mode. A mode is a "socially shaped and

culturally given resource for making meaning" (Kress, 2009: 54). What constitutes a mode is highly

context‐dependent: if a community uses a semiotic resource with regularity and consistency, then

that resource constitutes a mode for that group (Kress, 2010). Each mode consists of a set of

semiotic resources. For a mode to function communicatively, there needs to be a shared

understanding of the set of resources that constitute it, and how these are organised to make

meaning (Jewitt, 2009a).

Multimodal social semiotics expands understandings of knowledge, pedagogy and literacy and, as

such, has been used to interrogate what it means to learn and to be literate (Jewitt, 2009a; Stein,

2008). This has been a particular theme in the literature emanating from South African higher

education studies (see the volume edited by Archer and Newfield, 2014). Multimodal social

semiotics has further been put to productive use within mathematics education (O’ Halloran, 2009)

and science education (Lemke, 2002; 2004), but has not been applied as extensively within

engineering education. However, there is rich potential in the application of multimodal social

semiotics within engineering education. This is because, as Johri et al. (2013) have shown, both the

natural and engineering sciences rely on a representational chain, in which disciplinary practitioners

move between iconic representations, which bear resemblance to the physical world, and abstract

representations, in which the relationship with the physical world is no longer iconic. Whereas a

5

natural scientist might move from the iconic to the abstract, the engineering design professional

moves in the other direction. Figure 1 illustrates this representational chain.

[Insert Figure 1 around here]

Figure 1 demonstrates that engineering students and practitioners are expected to master a

representational chain, “as ideas are translated into sketches, formal designs, prototypes, and

objects in the material world” (Johri et al., 2013: 10). Circulation through this chain relies on

technologies. Literature in the area of multimodal social semiotics has begun to investigate such

technologies, and the role they play in meaning‐making (cf. Jewitt et al., 2007; Djonov and Van

Leeuwen 2013; Zhao et al., 2014). This investigation is important because new technologies of

representation have dramatically expanded the possibilities for communication and they

increasingly mediate our interaction with the world and with each other (Jewitt, 2009b). Indeed,

Kress (2005) terms this a ‘revolution’, not only in the means of representation available, but also in

the modes available for representation.

We understand semiotic ‘technology’ to refer to the technical means developed from the application

of scientific knowledge for the purposes of inscription or representation. The semiotic technologies

we engage with include mechanical technologies such as a pencil, compass and calculator. They also

include software applications (basic applications such as ‘MS Word’ as well as more advanced

applications used in engineering such as Computer‐Aided Draughting applications). Of course, the

computer, itself, is a mechanical technology as well, but it operates as a platform for these software

applications. There are also hybrid technologies that are somewhere between mechanical hardware

and computer software, such as the laser equipment used to take measurements during land

surveying, or infra‐red cameras (Samuelsson and Haglund, 2016; Dolo et al., 2016). Put more simply,

6

we include both ‘hardware’ and ‘software’ in our identification of semiotic technologies, including

single‐purpose hardware with specific, embedded software.

Semiotic technologies are important because they are the means by which meaning‐making is made

manifest. As such, a multimodal social semiotic approach “needs to engage with the tools with

which the semiotic artefacts are created and which are regulating and regulated by social practice”

(Poulsen and Kvåle, n.d.). We argue that technology articulates with a range of existing cultural

forces; and the use and effect of a technology is closely tied to the social and political context in

which it appears. Or, as Kress puts it, "social, political and technological elements coincide" (1998:

54). In some analyses, the term 'technological determinism' is used to characterise the assumption

that technology is autonomous of human agency. Within such a view, technology can be viewed as

instrumentalist (a 'tool') or as substantive (as holding power over users). However, in use,

technologies are neither completely neutral nor all‐powerful.

We prefer, instead, the notion of ‘affordance’ (Gibson, 1979), despite the contestation of the term

that has emerged since its initial use (for a review of these debates, see Oliver, 2005). In the original

view, the affordances of an object are those which we perceive, and from which we can infer an

object’s purpose(s) (Laurillard, 1997). In the semiotic sense, the term refers to the semiotic logic of

different modes, that is, the potentials and limitations for meaning‐making that exist within all

representational modes (Kress, 2010). However, Oliver (2005: 412) posits that it is unhelpful to

simply focus on what objects – or modes – offer, as this ignores the agency with which individuals

approach these objects:

it may be more productive for this field to focus not upon the ‘offered’ possibilities

but upon what a person imagines might be possible – and also upon what they can

imagine doing to achieve the same end with some other object. If an object does

not allow us to undertake an action, we can find an alternative or make a new tool

that does.

7

Similarly, in their arrangement of semiotic resources, individuals use modes in creative, innovative

and contrary ways, and they ‘make do’ with the resources that they have at their disposal. As such,

modal affordance has an important social dimension, in that it includes consideration of the cultural

and material constraints present within a particular social context. Meaning‐makers are constrained

by the resources they have at their disposal, but also by the social conventions present in highly

regulated contexts, such as engineering.

Much of the literature that deals with semiotic technology uses social media as a site of display

(Jones, 2009; Zappavigna, 2014; 2016). Some research has examined software applications, such as

Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, in the context of higher education (Kvåle, 2016; van Leeuwen and

Djonov, 2013; Zhao, Djonov and van Leeuwen, 2014). Nonetheless, less research has been

undertaken in social and educational contexts where these semiotic technologies are not necessarily

regarded as ‘everyday’ and are not routinely deployed in classrooms, as is the case in South Africa.

Also at stake in this paper is a concern with professional disciplines, specifically civil engineering.

Multimodality has been applied in education in various disciplinary contexts, including professional

disciplines such as medicine (Weiss, 2014), engineering (Simpson, 2016) and accounting (Alyousef &

Mickan, 2016). It has also been applied to contexts of professional practice, including medicine

(Bezemer at al., 2011a; Bezemer et al., 2011b) and architecture (Lymer et al., 2011). However, little

attention has been given to technologies and pedagogy within these professional disciplines.

This study is interested in the affordances of semiotic technologies in relation to a particular

curriculum, and we are specifically interested in the "semiotic practices of subjects who have

variable access to the institutional processes of education" (Williams and Hasan, 1996: xii). In so

doing, we build on the work of previous scholars such as Jewitt, Moss and Cardini (2007), for

example, who examine how Interactive White Boards (IWBs) used in school mathematics classrooms

come to configure pedagogy, in both positive and negative ways. While IWBs, they argue, open up

8

new possibilities for multimodality and interactivity, they also increase the pace of instruction which

may be to the detriment of some learners. Zhao and van Leeuwen (2014) examine how MS

PowerPoint is used in cultural studies lectures, and argue that the bounded units of meaning

enabled by the PowerPoint slide contrast with the rather more open, or weakly‐framed, disciplinary

conventions privileged within cultural studies. Unlike these studies, we do not examine a particular

semiotic technology; rather, we seek to identify observations pertinent to semiotic technologies, as

used during civil engineering study, more broadly.

Methodology

This paper explores the semiotic technologies used within civil engineering study. It does so in order

to address the question as to how semiotic technologies are used within civil engineering study and

how this can inform civil engineering pedagogy. In so doing, the paper adopts a case study

methodology, in which a particular programme in civil engineering study is used to examine the

central research question. However, we concur with Flyvberg’s (2011) contention that it is a

misunderstanding that case study research cannot fruitfully be generalised beyond the particular

case under study. In this paper, we make use of the particular case of civil engineering study in order

to seek out implications for pedagogy that may resonate beyond this specific context, particularly in

contexts where inequity in access to technology is prevalent.

We draw on data collected as part of an (auto)ethnographic investigation into the social semiotics of

civil engineering education (Simpson, 2015). This larger study involved one of the authors spending

two years participating, as a student, in a civil engineering diploma offered by a large university in

Johannesburg, South Africa. The aim of that investigation was to understand the meaning‐making

practices of civil engineering, and the challenges students faced in relation to these practices, so as

to inform engineering pedagogy. This is important in contexts where students enter higher

9

education with variable and diverse resources such as South Africa, where this data was collected.

This paper explores one of the themes that emerged from that larger study, namely, engagement

with semiotic technologies.

Data was collected in the form of student texts (produced by the researcher, as well as by

participant‐students), ‘official’ texts (those learning artefacts with which students engaged, but

which they did not produce, such as course notes and text books), reflections on the part of the

researcher, and informal interviews with student‐participants. In total, data was drawn from six

student‐participants, in addition to the data generated by the researcher. This data was analysed

using a process of progressive focusing (Parlett and Hamilton, 1972; Stake, 2010), in which the

researcher adopts an initial wide‐angle lens with subsequent focusing and narrowing of the data

(Cohen et al., 2007). Such an approach is in line with the recommendations made by Blommaert and

Jie (2010) regarding successful ethnography, wherein one ‘follows’ the data, allowing it to suggest

particular theoretical issues.

Deploying technologies for civil engineering study

Technologies are neither simple, nor self‐evident, and thus require explicit teaching for their

potential to be realized. The semiotic technologies for drawing are amongst the most ‘basic’ that

civil engineering students might use to materialize meanings, including drawing boards, set squares,

pencils, protractors and compasses. Although, on face value, such technologies may seem self‐

evident, the course materials provided do not take this for granted. The first eight pages of the

course notes on drawing given out in the first semester are devoted to introducing students to these

technologies and describing the use thereof. Included in these notes is description of the drawing

board, T‐square, set squares, clutch pencils, erasers, the erasing shield, compass, scale rulers,

protractors, stencils, French curves, flexible curves and drawing paper. Of these, specific instruction

10

is provided for the drawing board, set squares, the T‐square and compass. Some of the headings

included in the notes are: “Mounting the drawing sheet to the board” and “Using the compass”.

Indeed, the compass is given particular treatment in that it is the only instrument that has an entire

page devoted to it in the course notes, and it is the only one in which separate headings are

provided for describing what a compass is and for describing how to use it. Figure 2 is the page in

question. These notes represent attempts at introducing the technologies to be used; such efforts

are important, as they indicate how these technologies are used in the discipline and represent

attempts at overcoming disparities in access to such technologies.


Another example of such explicit teaching can be found in the case of the instruments and

equipment used within civil engineering surveying. In this regard, the notes given to the student

cohort included nine pages of content that classified, discussed and explained various surveying

instruments and equipment. One of the broad groups of instrument discussed is that of linear

surveying instruments which are used for measuring horizontal and vertical distances. These

instruments, or technologies, range from items such as linen and steel tape, to more sophisticated

optical equipment, such as the theodolite and prism, which are used within surveying practice to

measure distance and angles. The notes act as an introduction to these technologies, which was

then furthered through the efforts of lecturers and tutors in class and in practical sessions.

However, explicit teaching of this kind is not only required for software applications or when ‘new’

technologies are being introduced. It is also used when new practices are to be learnt within ‘old’

technologies. This was made evident in the efforts of one mathematics lecturer who, after teaching

the student cohort about Euler’s number and natural logarithms, for example, then proceeded to

11

dedicate a few minutes of class time to explaining how to use these functions with a scientific

calculator. In this instance, the students were shown how to expand their meaning‐making

repertoire in the use of scientific calculators, a technology with which they were already familiar.

These various examples from the data illustrate that modern semiotic technologies are not self‐

evident; instead, their use constitutes specific social practices that require explicit teaching if

students are to be successful. Being explicit enables access, rather than assumes students have

equal access to knowledge resources and the technologies through which they are realized. Indeed,

this was evident throughout the civil engineering curriculum in which this data was collected: certain

modules were devoted exclusively to the teaching and learning of technologies. For example, the

civil engineering cohort were expected to undertake a module on CAD (Computer‐Aided

Draughting). Similarly, in another module, the student cohort were introduced to MS Word, MS

Excel, and VBA (Visual Basic for Applications: a Microsoft programming language embedded within

other Microsoft software applications, such as Excel). The explicit goal of such modules is to enable

students’ exploration with – and skilful use of – these technologies. This includes making explicit the

underlying logics of certain technologies. This is discussed in the next section.

Semiotic logics of civil engineering technologies

Semiotic technologies undertake their work using a particular logic, or ‘grammar’ (Kress and van

Leeuwen, 2006), which dictates that meaning‐making be undertaken in specific ways. Part of the

challenge that civil engineering students face is recognizing and effectively deploying these

underlying logics. For example, different brands of scientific calculator draw on different logics with

regard to the mathematical operations they carry out. This emerged in discussion with one of the

student participants in the larger study from which this paper is drawn. The student argued that two

calculators could produce different answers to the same calculation. Using calculators made by each

12

of the two brands most common amongst the student cohort, he systematically performed a

number of similar mathematical operations on each calculator, demonstrating that the same

functions (or ‘buttons’) pressed in the same order would yield different answers. Figure 3 indicates

the functions he performed and the results yielded.


The examples this participant produced illustrate the different logics, or ‘grammars’, underpinning

each brand/make of scientific calculator. In the first two examples, he showed that the two makes of

calculator applied the two operations (sine and inverse) in different orders. In the one case, the

inverse operation (‐1) is first applied to the angle (60°) before the sine (SIN) function is applied. With

the other make of calculator, the sine function is applied first and the result of that is then inverted.

In the last two examples, he indicated that the use of brackets was particularly important to

ensuring that one obtains the correct answer, and he indicated that he uses brackets “all the time

now”. In so doing, he was demonstrating a tacit understanding of the rule of BODMAS1, where

functions in brackets are undertaken before any other operations.

Differences between these two makes of calculator frequently acted as a constraint for students.

There were countless observed incidents in which participants would attempt to peer tutor each

other, showing each other how they understand certain content, or how they undertook to solve

certain problems. Often, in such instances, it would become necessary to perform operations that

required the use of a calculator. If two participants had different makes of calculator, it was difficult

for one of the students to use the other’s calculator. Instead, either the participant who owned the

1 BODMAS stands for Brackets‐Of‐Division‐Multiplication‐Addition‐Subtraction. This rule‐of‐thumb dictates the order in which operations are carried out in a mathematical equation. Expressions within brackets, therefore, are resolved before applying any other mathematical operation. For example, ¼ of (4+4) = 2, while ¼ of 4 + 4 = 5. Similarly, 6 ÷ (2 x 3) = 1, while 6 ÷ 2 x 3 = 9.

13

calculator would undertake the calculator work, or the other student would produce their own

calculator in order to perform the calculation. In all such instances, differences between calculators

led to a noticeable pause in the flow of these discussions.

This data illustrates the fact that technologies, even those that seem simple, are underpinned by

specific design logics, or grammars. Part of the challenge of using those technologies is to

understand this underlying logic system. Because each student had their own calculator, they

developed a high level of comfort and competence in the use of their calculator, which was

embodied in their expedient use thereof (a point returned to later in this paper). However, they

displayed a lack of comfort with an alternative when faced with this situation. This was further

exacerbated by the fact that each make of calculator also adopts a differing layout for the buttons,

or functions. This affected the ability of students to perform calculations expediently when not using

their own calculator. However, the consequences of this were not particularly severe, as they could

simply produce their own calculator in such instances.

These stakes are raised somewhat in the instance of software applications and in consideration of

what might happen in professional practice. A simple example from the data will be used to explain.

In the study drawn on here, the student cohort was required to complete a half‐module in computer

programming, using Microsoft VBA. Without exception, the participants were unable, in the time

available, to gain command of programming, as a meaning‐making resource, and appreciate its value

in their chosen profession. This was because none of the participants had any prior experience in

this regard and had never considered the mechanisms through which computer applications

operate. In particular, they struggled to come to terms with the particular, and highly codified,

‘grammar’ of programming. In an early programming task, the participants were given code which

allowed them to select a series of numbers in Microsoft Excel and then perform basic descriptive

14

statistics2 on that selection. The point of the exercise was to create the user interface for the code,

so that they could be introduced to some of the basic ‘tools’ of VBA, before beginning to write code

themselves. Figure 4 shows the user interface that one participant produced.


What is evident in Figure 4 is the participants’ limited understanding of the linkage between the

code provided for them, and the need for that code to be of use to a potential user of the

programme. This is evident in that the student‐participant has not re‐named the command button

such that it explains the function, or functions, that it performs. This is despite the fact that the

student cohort was shown how to re‐name the command button and was given a suggested name:

‘Calculate Descriptive Statistics’. This process of writing code and then producing an interface that

allows users to perform meaningful tasks is important, as it reverses the nature of students’

engagement with other software applications. Mostly, students are the users of software, and the

user interface tends to obscure their access to the underlying code and, in so doing, the processes by

which the software enacts underlying engineering principles.

Software applications that the participants were introduced to during the course of their studies

included those aimed at performing structural design tasks, structural analysis, slope stability

analysis, and others. Much like the rudimentary example illustrated in Figure 4, users of such

software applications begin by entering values. In this case, these values are not random or

arbitrary, but instead relate to specific parameters, properties and characteristics at stake within an

operation, whether these are the characteristic strengths of concrete, the cohesion of a soil, or the

shape/type of steel bar. The user then clicks on one or more ‘command buttons’ that enable them to

2 Descriptive statistics, in simple terms, refers to the calculation of the average, median and mean of a given set of values.

15

perform certain functions on the entered values. The desired outputs are then displayed in an

appropriate format, either a drawn design or tabular analysis, or other representational form. The

challenge facing the civil engineering student is relating these functions to underlying engineering

knowledge and principles, which may be better aided by a deeper understanding of programming as

the ‘grammar’ that underpins the development of these software applications. Failure to understand

these underlying logics and principles has the potential to lead to the oft‐cited adage, ‘garbage‐in‐

garbage‐out’, in which inexpert use of technologies leads to incorrect conclusions being drawn, the

consequences of which could be severe in a professional practice context, albeit that these

consequences are less severe in an educational setting.

One of the major advantages of software applications is that they allow large numbers of complex

mathematical operations to be undertaken exceedingly quickly. However, a constraint of such

applications is that their underpinning design logic is often obscure, or hidden from the view of the

user. Students need to understand these design logics in order to relate the functions of the

software to underlying engineering principles which, in part, requires understanding of programming

algorithms as the ‘grammar’ of software design. As Fuller (2008: 1) argues, software involves:

algorithms; logical functions so fundamental that they may be imperceptible to

most users; ways of thinking and doing that leak out of the domain of logic and

into everyday life; the judgments of value and aesthetics that are built into

computing; programming’s own subcultures and its implicit or explicit politics;

or the tightly formulated building blocks working to make, name, multiply,

control, and interrelate reality.

As such, programming, within the context of civil engineering study and elsewhere, is more than just

a tool that students use to undertake certain operations. Instead, it has the potential to be used as a

means of understanding software applications and relating these to underlying engineering

principles and values.

16

We have argued that semiotic technologies use a particular logic. Part of the challenge that civil

engineering students face is recognizing and effectively deploying these underlying logics. As this

section has shown, this applies as much to seemingly everyday technologies, such as the scientific

calculator, as it does to advanced software applications. These design logics are rarely stated and yet

can have significant consequences – for students, and in practice.

Varying use of semiotic resources across technologies

The data reveals that semiotic resources are deployed differently across technologies. A productive

example of this is engineering drawing, undertaken both by hand and using Computer‐Aided

Draughting (CAD) software by the students involved in this study. When engaged in drawing by

hand, students are taught that resources such as line thickness, line continuity and line darkness

carry particular meanings within the representational mode of the technical engineering drawing.

Figure 5 illustrates some of these resources and the meanings they denote.


The meanings depicted in Figure 5 are constructed differently within CAD software applications, as

the participant students discovered when they undertook a semester course on CAD. Within the

CAD module, many drawing resources, such as line thickness and line darkness, are no longer

employed within the software applications used. Instead, colour, not used at all in hand drawing, is

used productively to signify different types of lines, in a process known as ‘layering’. The

draughtsperson creates various layers, and attributes each to a particular aspect of the drawing.

Each layer then appears in a different colour. For example, one layer can be set to include all

dimension lines, which will then all appear in, say, yellow. All hidden detail will constitute a second

17

layer, which will appear in a different colour. This is not dissimilar from Microsoft Word’s use of

‘styles’, where a style is defined and, thereafter, any text attributed to that style will be re‐formatted

accordingly. As such, what is represented using a particular line‐type in the hand‐drawn iteration of

a technical drawing, is represented using colour in the CAD iteration.

The challenge that faces students within the CAD module, is to ascertain how those resources that

constitute hand‐drawn texts are made manifest in software applications. Where, in hand‐drawn

texts, different types of lead are used to produce lines of different thickness and darkness to signify

different meanings (see Figure 5), in the case of CAD applications, ‘layers’ are used and are signified

by different colours. The CAD drawing still achieves the same objectives of the hand‐drawn text, but

it realizes these meanings using different semiotic resources.

Understanding this is crucial if students are to fully realize the potential of CAD applications, as a

meaning‐making technology. This is further complicated by the fact that, as was the case with

different makes of calculator, different CAD applications are underpinned by different design logics.

Some, including the one referred to in this discussion, follow the same underlying principle of using

lines and curves to produce a model, or drawing. In others, however, the design philosophy is such

that the draughtsperson begins with a solid block, and carves out sections to produce a model. In

this latter instance, the work of the draughtsperson has more in common with that of a carpenter

than it does with the type of technical drawing done by hand.

It is thus evident that the choice of technology has implications for the ways in which the semiotic

narrative of civil engineering activity (see Figure 1) plays out and, more specifically, for the

representational moves that are required to achieve the desired objectives. This means that

students need to understand how technologies work, and how different technologies work

18

differently, to fulfil the semiotic narrative that underlies civil engineering study. Lastly, we will look

at the ways in which students’ uses of technologies embody their levels of expertise.

Embodied uses of technologies

Early on in the programme embarked upon by the student‐participants, discussion with one of the

participants revealed his concern over the use of the compass. In his view, his use of the compass

was awkward and clumsy, and the quality of the circles he produced was below the standards he

imagined were required. He and the researcher proceeded to draw various circles using a compass,

discussing what they were doing as they engaged in practicing their compass use. What was at stake

in this discussion was not the logic of the use of the compass: both participants knew how to use the

compass, but they lacked dexterity in their use thereof. Their mutual lack of experience in utilizing a

compass was embodied in the ways they held the compass and manipulated it in order to produce

drawn circular objects. Their efforts were generally erratic as they attempted to train their bodies in

the skilled use of the compass. The circles they drew differed in continuity and smoothness and, in

some cases, the ‘ends’ did not meet to form a ‘perfect’ circle.

It was thus evident that the attempts produced by these two participants reflected their technical

drawing expertise. The effects of this expertise can be seen in Figures 6 and 7, instances of the same

text produced by two participants with significantly different experience in technical drawing: one

had no prior experience (and produced Figure 6), while the other had worked for two years as a

professional draughtsman (and produced Figure 7). The different levels of experience and expertise

of these two student‐participants can be seen in their production of construction lines. The texts

shown in Figures 6 and 7 were produced in response to an exercise in third‐angle orthographic

projection. This involves producing side, front and top (plan) views of an unseen or imagined object.

In order to produce the third angle orthographic projection, it is necessary to draw a 45° projection

19

line: this is the diagonal line extending from the centre towards the top left corner of each drawing.

This projection line is then used to ‘project’ the image from the plan view to the right view, that is, to

project what would be seen when looking at the object from the top or from the right‐hand side.

This projection is undertaken using construction lines. The course notes provided for the drawing

module offer the following regarding the production of construction lines:

All construction lines are to be shown, i.e. no construction lines or constructions are

to be erased. A construction line is a feint thin line that cannot be seen from ± one

meter, i.e. should a photo‐copy of the drawing be made, the construction lines

should not appear when the machine is set at its normal setting.



These construction lines are evident in Figure 6, in the form of the many horizontal and vertical lines

across the drawn text, but are not visible in Figure 7. This is despite the fact that both of these

drawings have been photocopied using a high resolution professional copying machine, with

identical settings in place. Drawing construction lines requires a deftness of touch that comes from

extensive experience with drawing by hand. The differences evident in these drawings thus act as a

signifier of the differences in experience and the different levels of expertise of each of the

participants. This is evident across many of the technologies employed within civil engineering study,

but the exemplar of civil engineering drawing is particularly apt for making this observation as use of

the compass or use of the pencil is a particular instance in which it is possible to ‘see’ students’

expertise in the drawn texts they produce. As such, it is able to visually depict the fact that when

students produce texts, they do not only materialize the particular meanings evident within those

texts; they also materialize their own expertise with the technologies used to produce the texts.

20

Because technologies act as an interface between the body of the text‐maker and the text itself,

their use, we argue, is embodied. McDonald (2013) argues that the notion of embodiment is a useful

concept for understanding texts in semiotic systems such as music or, in this case, drawing because,

in such semiotic systems, meaning is enacted rather than objectified. Students’ expertise and,

indeed, comfort in and with technologies is embodied. As a result, the texts that students produce

are signifiers of this expertise, experience, knowledge and comfort. Even where technologies are not

as overtly ‘embodied’ as was the case with drawing equipment, relative levels of expertise are

visible. By way of further example, in the production of typed documents, various aspects illustrate

individuals’ relative expertise in the use of word processing software. This includes aspects such as

using ‘styles’ in MS Word to standardize headings or being able to effectively integrate images and

tables. Similarly, when the skilled typist produces close to one hundred words a minute and a novice

types with only their two index fingers, they are embodying their expertise, not in what they are

writing about, but in the technologies they use to write about it.

Implications for pedagogy

Technologies cut across the semiotic resources deployed in civil engineering study: a pencil can be

used to construct drawn texts, written texts, informal information graphics, force diagrams and so

on. They also cut across the modes of representation privileged within civil engineering study: the

practice of drawing can be enacted by hand on paper using pencils, or it can be enacted on

computer using computer‐aided draughting software applications. Finally, technologies cut across

the semiotic narrative of civil engineering study (Simpson, 2015; Johri et al., 2013): this narrative is

played out through skilful use of the right technologies at the right time.

This paper has made several, inter‐connected arguments about technologies, particularly those

deployed within the context of civil engineering study. We have shown that technologies, even the

21

most every day, are neither simple nor self‐evident, and require explicit instruction for their

potential to be realised. Furthermore, technologies are designed according to a specific logic, or

grammar, that needs to be understood if their full meaning‐making potential is to be realised. What

is more, these technologies rely upon the deployment of semiotic resources in specific and unique

ways and, as such, afford specific and unique meanings. Finally, students’ use of these technologies

embodies their relative levels of expertise, a fact that can often be observed in the texts that they

produce. We identify three implications that arise from these observations about semiotic

technologies.

First, technology can be used as a vehicle with which to introduce students to the concerns, values

and interests of the broader practice of civil engineering. This has value in that it allows students to

locate their future work, and current study, within broader historical frames and social purposes that

add meaning to what they are studying. It thus offers an outward view of how social, historical and

technological factors impinge upon civil engineering activity: in Kress’ (1998: 54) terms, how “social,

political and technological elements coincide". But, it also offers a view inward, one that gives

students access to an understanding of the underlying nature of civil engineering activity.

As mentioned earlier in this paper, the notes given to the student cohort on land surveying included

nine pages of content that classified, discussed and explained various surveying instruments and

equipment. One of the broad groups of instrument discussed is that of linear surveying instruments

which “are used for measuring horizontal and vertical distances” (unpublished course notes).

The instruments discussed in the notes are presented in an order that reflects their historical

development, and the historical progression of these instruments reflects the broader interests of

the civil engineering discipline. First, linen tape is discussed, and its tendency to stretch is identified

as its primary weakness. Thereafter, metallic tapes that have copper strands woven into the linen

are mentioned. The introduction of these copper strands decreases the tendency of the tape to

22

stretch. Steel tapes are then discussed, their advantage being that they do not stretch, but they

break easily. Synthetic tapes, made of fiberglass coated in PVC neither stretch nor damage easily,

but are limited to relatively short distances, a drawback of the tape, as mechanism, in general. As a

result, students learn, the use of such tapes has been replaced by the use of more advanced

technologies that harness light as a resource through, for example, laser technology. The

progression of these instruments and technologies reflects a broader preoccupation with accuracy

and precision, initially, and with ever‐larger scale work, later. The progression of the technologies

used not only signifies the historical trajectory of the discipline, but the values and interests

underpinning the work of the discipline. Questions of accuracy point to the need to minimize waste

and cut costs. Questions of scale point to the fact that the ‘products’ of civil engineering, that is, the

services and structures that it delivers, must cater to the demands of an ever‐increasing population.

The history of technologies of measurement, therefore, is also a means of understanding the social

and historical context of civil engineering activity.

The second implication arising from this study revolves around the question of access. Students do

not only need access to content knowledge, but also to the symbolic forms in which such content

knowledge is encoded and decoded. These forms are made manifest by different technologies and,

as such, access to technology, at least in part, acts as a proxy for access to knowledge. This means

that technologies cannot be taken as self‐evident, neutral and value‐free within the educational

sphere. Instead, they need to be seen as socially situated and ideologically‐laden. The more that

educators can reflect the constructed nature of such technologies, and the underpinning values that

inform them, the more students may be able to deploy them in their own meaning‐making efforts.

Indeed, because of the socially situated nature of technologies, when students use them, they

embody their expertise therein, but they also mark their social histories and (mis)align themselves in

relation to the practice of civil engineering study. It is for this reason that McDonald (2013) argues

23

that the texts individuals produce are ‘acts’ rather than ‘objects’. The meanings of these acts can

only be recognised within the confines of a particular community.

Third, perhaps one of the most important abilities that students require, in order to be successful in

their studies, is understanding how technologies work. That is to say, students need to acquire a

meta‐level understanding of the technologies with which they are required to engage. Of course,

different technologies work in different ways. It is thus necessary to find common principles that

underlie technologies that can enable students to more meaningfully interrogate the affordances

thereof. An example of this is the case of programming, which underpins the development of

software applications. A plethora of software applications are prevalent in civil engineering practice

and many civil engineering design tasks are undertaken using either commercially available software

or in‐house corporate software. As was alluded to previously in this paper, such software reflects, in

the words of Fuller (2008), the ways of thinking and doing and the judgments of value and aesthetics

that underpin the profession of civil engineering or, in the case of in‐house corporate software

applications, of particular corporate institutions. Civil engineering students, rather than rote‐learning

specific software applications, need to understand the logics that underpin these applications as well

as the ways in which they reflect the values and interests of their chosen profession or organisation.

In this regard, programming is more than just an isolated skill that students may or may not develop.

Instead, it is a means by which the underlying principles, logics and grammars of myriad other

software applications can be understood. It can thus be harnessed as a meaning‐making resource

both for its own sake, and for the sake of connecting software applications to underlying engineering

principles.

We have argued that understanding the use of technologies enables meta‐level understanding of

the social and historical interests of the discipline in which they are employed. This is important in

terms of access for diverse students to knowledge and to the conventions of disciplinary practices. It

24

is clear that technology and access to the discipline are inextricably linked as technology is socially‐

situated and ideologically‐laden. The introduction of improved technologies is not a new

phenomenon: the calculator replaced the abacus and, later, the scientific calculator negated the

need for log tables, and so on. Nonetheless, consideration should be given to how shifts in

technology affect meaning‐making, pedagogy, and student learning.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research

and Higher Education (STINT) and the National Research Foundation of South Africa (NRF) through a

Science and Technology Research Collaboration Grant.

References

Alyousef, H.S. and Mickan, P. 2016. Multimodal literacy and numeracy practices in postgraduate

management accounting. In A. Archer and E. Breuer (eds.) Multimodality in Higher

Education. G. Rijlaarsdam and T. Olive (Series Eds.), Studies in Writing, Vol. 33, Leiden: Brill.

216 – 240.

Archer, A. and Newfield, D. 2014. Challenges and opportunities of multimodal approaches to

education in South Africa. In Multimodal approaches to research and pedagogy: Recognition,

resources and access, edited by A. Archer and D. Newfield. Oxon and New York: Routledge. 1

– 18.

Bezemer, J., Murtagh, G., Cope, A., Kress, G. and Kneebone, R. 2011a. “ ‘Scissors, please’: The

practical accomplishment of surgical work in the operating theater”. Symbolic Interaction, 34

(3), pp. 398–414.

Bezemer, J., Cope, A., Kress, G. and Kneebone, R. 2011b. “Do you have another Johan?”: Negotiating

meaning in the operating theatre”. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, pp. 313– 334.

25

Blommaert, J. and Jie, D. 2010. Ethnographic Fieldwork: A Beginners Guide. Bristol: Multilingual

Matters.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. 2007. Research Methods in Education, 6th edition. London:

Routledge.

Djonov, E. and van Leeuwen, T. 2013. “Between the grid and composition: Layout in PowerPoint’s

design and use”. Semiotica, 197, pp.1‐34.

Dolo, G., Haglund, J. and Schönborn, K. J. 2016. “Infrared cameras support inquiry‐based science

education in a township school in South Africa”. Paper presented at the 8th International

Conference on Multimodality (8ICOM), Cape Town, 7‐9 December.

Flyvberg, B. 2011. “Case study”. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K.

Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Fuller, M. 2008. “Introduction”. In: Software Studies: A Lexicon, edited by M. Fuller, 1 – 14.

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

Jewitt, C. 2009a. "An introduction to multimodality". In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal

Analysis, edited by C. Jewitt, 14 – 27. London: Routledge.

Jewitt, C. 2009b. “Introduction”. In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, edited by C.

Jewitt, 1 ‐ 8. London: Routledge.

Jewitt, C., Moss, G., & Cardini, A. 2007. Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers’ design of

texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom. Learning, Media and

Technology, 32 (3): 303‐317.

Johri, A., Roth, W‐M. and Olds, B. M. 2013. “The role of representations in engineering practices:

Taking a turn towards inscriptions”. Journal of Engineering Education, 102 (1): 2–19.

Jones, R. H. 2009. "Technology and sites of display". In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal

Analysis, edited by C. Jewitt, 114 – 120. London: Routledge.

26

Kress, G. 1998. “Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically mediated

communication: The potentials of new forms of text”. In Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into

the Electronic Era, edited by I. Snyder, 55 – 80. New York: Routledge.

Kress, G. 2005. Gains and Losses: New Forms of Texts, Knowledge, and Learning. Computers and

Composition, 22 (1): 5‐22.

Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London:

Routledge.

Kress, G. 2009. "What is mode?". In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, edited by C.

Jewitt, 54 – 67. London: Routledge.

Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London:

Routledge.

Kvåle, G. 2016. “Software as ideology: A multimodal critical discourse analysis of Microsoft Word and

SmartArt”. Journal of Language and Politics, 15 (3): 259–273.

Laurillard, D. 1997. “Learning formal representations through multimedia”. In The Experience of

Learning. Implications for teaching and Studying in Higher Education, edited by F. Marton, D.

Hounsell and N. Entwistle, 172 – 183. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Lemke, J. 2002. “Multimedia genres for science education and scientific literacy”. In Developing

Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages, edited by M. Schleppegrell and M. C.

Colombi, 21 – 44. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lemke, J. 2004. “The literacies of science”. In Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction,

edited by E. W. Saul, 33 – 47. Newark, DE: NSTA Press.

Lymer, G., Lindwall, O. and Ivarsson, J. 2011. “Space and discourse interleaved: Intertextuality and

interpretation in the education of architects”. Social Semiotics, 21 (2): 197 – 217.

McDonald, E. 2013. “Embodiment and meaning: Moving beyond linguistic imperialism in social

semiotics”. Social Semiotics, 23 (3): 318–334.

27

O' Halloran, K. 2009. “Historical changes in the semiotic landscape: From calculation to

computation”. In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, edited by C. Jewitt, 98 –

113. London: Routledge.

Oliver, M. 2005. “The problem with affordance”. E‐Learning, 2 (4), 402–413.

Parlett, M. and Hamilton, D. 1972. “Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of

innovatory programs”. [Web:] http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED167634.pdf [Date of Access:

22 May 2015].

Poulsen, S. V. and Kvåle, G. n.d. “Social media as semiotic technology: A multimodal social semiotic

perspective”. Accessed 2 November 2017. https://multimodalsemiotics.com/social‐media‐

as‐semiotic‐technology/.

Samuelsson, R. and Haglund, J. 2016. “Hot vision: Affordances of infrared cameras in education”.

Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Multimodality (8ICOM), Cape Town,

7‐9 December.

Simpson, Z. 2015. “‘Students’ navigation of the multimodal meaning‐making practices of civil

engineering: An (auto)ethnographic approach.” PhD diss., University of Cape Town.

Simpson, Z. 2016. “‘Drawn writing’: The role of written text in civil engineering drawing.” In

Multimodality in Higher Education, edited by A. Archer, and E. O. Breuer, 241–255. Leiden:

Brill.

Stake, R. E. 2010. Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. New York: The Guildford Press.

Stein, P. 2008. Multimodal pedagogies in diverse classrooms, representation, right and resources.

London, New York: Routledge.

van Leeuwen, T. 2005. Introducing Social Semiotics. Routledge: London.

van Leeuwen, T. and Djonov, E. 2013. “Multimodality and software”. In Encyclopedia of Applied

Linguistics, edited by C. Chapelle, Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell.

28

Weiss, R. 2014. Multimodality and medicine: Designing for social futures. In Multimodal approaches

to research and pedagogy: Recognition, resources and access, edited by A. Archer and D.

Newfield. Oxon and New York: Routledge. 153 – 173.

Williams, G. and Hasan, R. (Eds). 1996. Literacy in Society. London and New York: Longman.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. and Ross, G. 1976. “The role of tutoring in problem solving”. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 17 (2): 89‐100.

Zappavigna, M. 2014. “Enacting identity in microblogging through ambient affiliation”. Discourse

& Communication, 8 (2): 209‐228.

Zappavigna, M. 2016. “Social media photography: Construing subjectivity in Instagram images”.

Visual Communication, 15 (3): 271‐292.

Zhao, S., Djonov, E., and van Leeuwen, T. 2014. “Semiotic technology and practice: A multimodal

social semiotic approach to PowerPoint”. Text & Talk, 34 (3): 349‐375.

Zhao, S. and van Leeuwen, T. 2014. “Understanding semiotic technology in university classrooms: A

social semiotic approach to PowerPoint‐assisted cultural studies lectures”. Classroom

Discourse, 5 (1), pp. 71‐90.

29

Figure Captions:

Figure 1: Representational chain in engineering design and science (Johri et al., 2013: 9)

Figure 2: Page taken from notes on civil engineering drawing, provided to students

Figure 3: Series of calculations performed on two makes of scientific calculator

Figure 4: User interface created by student participant

Figure 5: Line types used in engineering drawing

Figure 6: Third angle orthographic projection produced by inexperienced participant

Figure 7: Third angle orthographic projection produced by experienced participant

semiotic technologies: a case study of discipline-based

Documents