• Kok-Sing TangEmail author


Based on the multidisciplinary field of multimodality, this paper offers a theoretical perspective on the construct of a curricular concept which is commonly used in a school curriculum and applies it to an analysis of a typical curricular text and classroom instruction that exposit the physics concept of work–energy. Theorizing a concept as a network of meaning relationships across multiple modes of representation situated in human activity, this approach examines how we can recognize the meaning constructed through the semantic relationships of language and its contextualization with pictorial, graphical, and numerical resources. The value of this approach to curriculum and instruction in formal educational settings is also presented.


concept curriculum and instruction discourse analysis multimodal representations science learning semiotics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology; a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  2. Cambridge International Examinations (2009a). General certificate of education: Mathematics syllabus advanced level. Retrieved July 17, 2009, from
  3. Cambridge International Examinations (2009b). General certificate of education: Physics syllabus advanced level. Retrieved July 17, 2009, from
  4. CEEO (2010). SAM animation. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from
  5. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & De Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science & Education, 89(2), 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  9. Gagné, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3dth ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  10. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  12. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  13. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henderson, T. (2007). Multimedia physics studios: Energy transformation on a roller coaster. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from
  16. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Kuipers, J., & Viechnicki, G. B. (2008). Special issue on objectification and the inscription of knowledge in science classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 19(3), 203–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  22. Lemke, J. L. (1992). Intertextuality and educational research. Linguistics and Education, 4, 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lemke, J. L. (2002). 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. Ottawa: Legas.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  27. Martinec, R. (2000). Construction of identity in Michael Jackson’s “Jam”. Social Semiotics, 10(3), 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ministry of Education (2007a). Primary mathematics syllabuses. Retrieved July 17, 2009, from
  29. Ministry of Education (2007b). Secondary mathematics syllabuses. Retrieved July 17, 2009, from
  30. Ministry of Education (2008). Science syllabus (lower secondary). Retrieved July 17, 2008, from
  31. MIT Media Lab (2010). Scratch—imagine, program, share. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from
  32. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.Google Scholar
  34. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. O’Halloran, K. L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 (p. vi). London: Continuum. 252 p.Google Scholar
  37. 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 (p. xii). New York: Cambridge University Press. 468 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science & Education, 66(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roth, W.-M. (2008). The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological perspective. Educational Research Review, 3(1), 30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roth, W.-M., Lee, Y., & Hwang, S. (2008). Culturing conceptions: From first principles. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 231–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schleppegrell, M. (2002). Challenges of the science register for ESL students. In M. Schleppegrell & C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (p. x). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 274 p.Google Scholar
  44. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  45. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Tang, K., Tan, S. C., & Yeo, J. (2010). Students’ multimodal construction of work-energy concepts. International Journal of Science Education (in press).Google Scholar
  47. Tobin, K. (2008). In search of new lights: Getting the most from competing perspectives. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 227–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Treagust, D., & Duit, R. (2008a). Compatibility between cultural studies and conceptual change in science education: There is more to acknowledge than to fight straw men! Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Treagust, D., & Duit, R. (2008b). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 297–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Unsworth, L. (1998). “Sound” explanations in school science: A functional linguistic perspective on effective apprenticing texts. Linguistics and Education, 9(2), 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, England: Open University.Google Scholar
  52. van Leeuwen, T. (1998). Music and ideology: Notes toward a sociosemiotics of mass media music. Popular Music and Society, 22(4), 25.Google Scholar
  53. Vosniadou, S. (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. Educational psychology handbook series. Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  54. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Translation newly rev. and edited/by Alex Kozulin ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. c1986.Google Scholar
  55. Wells, G. (2008). Learning to use scientific concepts. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White, R., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations