Students’ multimodal construction of the work–Energy concept

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 33, Issue 13, 2011, Pages 1775-1804

  Tang, Kok‐Sing ^a   Tan, Seng Chee ^b   Yeo, Jennifer ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Design study; Discourse; K 12; Language; Multimodality; Qualitative research; Representation; Semiotics

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010509532     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2010.508899     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 131-152.
2. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of Modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 27-49.
3. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
4. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical & methodological issues. Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
5. Driver, R., & Warrington, L. (1985). Students’ use of the principle of energy conservation in problem situations. Physics Education, 20(4), 171-176.
6. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335-347.
7. Givry, D., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Toward a new conception of conceptions: Interplay of talk, gestures, and structures in the setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(10), 1086-1109.
8. Goldring, H., & Osborne, J. (1994). Students’ difficulties with energy and related concepts. Physics Education, 29(1), 26-32.
9. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489-1522.
10. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
11. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
12. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
13. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2006). Moving from border crossing to convergence of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 101-107.
14. Henderson, T. (2007). Multimedia physics studios: Energy transformation on a roller coaster. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/energy/ce.cfm
15. Hodge, B., & Kress, G. R. (1988). Social semiotics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
16. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241-267.
18. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1995). Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science, technology and society (pp. 140-166). Los Angeles: Sage.
19. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143.
20. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
21. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom: London: Continuum.
22. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London/New York: Routledge.
23. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24. Lawson, R. A., & McDermott, L. C. (1986). Student understanding of the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems. American Journal of Physics, 55(9), 775-863.
25. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
26. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.
27. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 247-271.
28. Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson (Ed.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215-234). Ottawa: Legas.
29. Martin, J. R. (1993). Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 166-202). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
30. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London/New York: Continuum.
31. Martinec, R. (2000). Construction of identity in Michael Jackson’s ‘Jam’. Social Semiotics, 10(3), 313-329.
32. Ministry of Education (2008). Integrated programme. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from http://app.sis.moe.gov.sg/schinfo/ipProg.asp
33. Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and situation analysis. Sociological Review, 31, 187-211.
34. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.
35. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
36. Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). ‘When I come down I’m in the domain state’: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 328-369). New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. O’Halloran, K. L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359-388.
38. O’Toole, M. (1994). The language of displayed art. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
39. O’Toole, M. (2006). Opera Ludentes: The Sydney Opera House at work and play. In K. L. O’Halloran (Ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic-functional perspectives (pp. 11-27). London/New York: Continuum.
40. Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843-1866.
41. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276.
42. Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, M. G. (1998). Decalages in talk and gesture: Visual and verbal semiotics of ecology lectures. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 335-358.
43. Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, M. G. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 159-194.
44. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2004). Interpreting unfamiliar graphs: A generative, activity theoretic model. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 265-290.
45. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (1997). Cascades of inscriptions and the re-presentation of nature: How numbers, tables, graphs, and money come to re-present a rolling ball. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1075-1091.
46. Roth, W.-M., & Welzel, M. (2001). From activity to gestures and scientific language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 103-136.
47. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-115). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
48. Solomon, J. (1983). Learning about energy: How pupils think in two domains. International Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 49-59.
49. Tang, K. (in press). Reassembling curricular concepts: A multimodal approach to the study of curriculum and instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.
50. Unsworth, L. (2001a). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 585-609.
51. Unsworth, L. (2001b). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University.
52. van Leeuwen, T. (1998). Music and ideology: Notes toward a sociosemiotics of mass media music. Popular Music and Society, 22(4), 25.
53. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Translation newly revised and edited by Alex Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. Watts, D. M. (1983). Some alternative views of energy. Physics Education, 18(5), 213-217.
55. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
56. Wells, C. G. (1998). Modes of meaning in a science activity. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 307-334.
57. Wells, C. G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
58. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 Years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.
59. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., Wallace, C. S. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347-352.
60. Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 291-314.