Abstract
In science education, there is a growing understanding that learning science involves developing a repertoire of disciplinary-specific literacy skills to engage with the knowledge and practices of the scientific community (Kelly 2008). Such ‘disciplinary literacy’, or the specific ways of talking, reading, writing, doing, and thinking valued and used by the discipline (McConachie et al. 2006; Moje 2007), is central rather than peripheral to the development of scientific understanding (Norris and Phillips 2003). For decades, researchers from multiple disciplines have shed light on the language and discursive features of academic science (Halliday and Martin 1993; Lemke 1990) as well as pioneering various reading and writing strategies to help students master scientific discourse (Hand et al. 1999; Yore and Shymansky 1985). However, in more recent years, there has been increasing attention toward the role of visual, graphical, mathematical, and gestural modes of representation in scientific communication (Kress et al. 2001; Lemke 1998). Research in this area reveals how each mode of representation plays a unique function in representing different aspects of scientific meaning. More studies are also beginning to show how scientific knowledge in specific content consists of a characteristic and recognizable pattern of relationships among multimodal representations (e.g., Hubber et al. 2010; Tang 2011; Tytler et al. 2006).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (1st ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical & methodological Issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
English Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS). (2011). Whole school approach to effective communication. http://www.elis.moe.edu.sg/professional-learning/subject-literacy
Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225). San Diego: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hand, B., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021–1035.
Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5–28.
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267.
Kelly, G. J. (2008). Learning science: Discursive practices. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Boston: Springer Science + Business Media LLC.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London/New York: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science. London/New York: Routledge.
Martinec, R. (2000). Types of process in action. Semiotica, 130(3–4), 243–268.
McConachie, S., Hall, M., Resnick, L., Raci, A., Bill, V., Bintz, J., et al. (2006). Task, text, and talk: Literacy for all subjects. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 8–14.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ministry of Education. (2010). MOE to enhance learning of 21st century competencies and strengthen art, music and physical education. Press release, 9 March. http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2010/03/moe-to-enhance-learning-of-21s.php
Ministry of Education. (2011). Standards and benchmarks for 21st century competencies. Singapore: Curriculum Policy Office, Ministry of Education.
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tang, K. S. (2011). Reassembling curricular concepts: A multimodal approach to the study of curriculum and instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 109–135.
Tang, K. S., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. B. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98(2), 305–326.
Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.
Tytler, R., Peterson, S., & Prain, V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: Learning science literacy through a particle representation. Teaching Science, the Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 52(1), 12–17.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 585–609.
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean-scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In C. Frances & J. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161–195). London: Cassell.
Yore, L. D., & Shymansky, J. A. (1985). Reading, understanding, remembering and using information in written science materials. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 258825.
Acknowledgement
This chapter refers to data from the research project “Developing Disciplinary Literacy Pedagogy in the Sciences” (OER 48/12 TKS), funded by the Education Research Funding Programme, National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the views of NIE.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Teaching sequence and corresponding communicative mode, use of resources, and modes of representation for the physics lessons. Selected segments shown in the analysis are shaded in grey.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(Kenneth) Tang, KS., Ho, C., Putra, G.B.S. (2016). Developing Multimodal Communication Competencies: A Case of Disciplinary Literacy Focus in Singapore. In: Hand, B., McDermott, M., Prain, V. (eds) Using Multimodal Representations to Support Learning in the Science Classroom. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16449-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16450-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)