In:Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Tom Morton
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 47] 2017
► pp. 145–164
Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English
Published online: 16 March 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.09for
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.09for
Abstract
This chapter addresses the role of multimodal semiotic systems in teaching science through English as a second language. We argue that pedagogical concerns should focus on language and other semiotic choices that teachers use to scaffold their students’ learning. Through an investigation of the inter-relationship of different semiotic systems (modalities), we are able to develop models of best practice that can help inform teachers. We consider two broad educational contexts: one that is becoming more prevalent, where it may happen that English is neither the primary language for the students nor for the teachers, as in Hong Kong, and one that is commonplace in places, such as Australia, where there is a large proportion of students with English as an additional language studying in a country where English is the predominant language. We use video data from two secondary science classrooms in these two contexts to analyse how the teachers provide multiple access points to meaning and how they scaffold the learners into the disciplinary literacy of science.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Examining some characteristics of best practice
- Classroom context 1
- Classroom context 2
- Activity 1 – Phase 1
- Activity 1 – Phase 2
- Activity 1 – Phase 3
- Activity 2
- Conclusion
- Author queries
Note References
References (50)
Bonnet, A. (2012). Towards an evidence base for CLIL: How to integrate qualitative and quantitative as well as process, product and participant perspectives in CLIL research. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 66–78.
Byrnes, H. (2013). Positioning writing as meaning-making in writing research: An introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 95–106.
Christie, F. (2005). Language education in the primary years. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Christie, F., & Martin, J.R. (Eds.). (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.
Coffin, C., & Derewianka, B. (2008). Multimodal layout in school history books: The texturing of historical interpretation. In G. Thompson & G. Forey (Eds.), Text type and texture: Functional linguistics (pp. 191–215). London: Equinox.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1–38.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Stanford, CA: National Staff Development Council, Stanford University. <[URL]>.
Disadvantaged Schools Program. (1996). Write it Right project. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education.
Evans, S. (2013). The long march to biliteracy and trilingualism: Language policy in Hong Kong education since the handover. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 302–324.
Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reforms in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 45–55.
Gebhard, M., Harman, R., & Seger, W. (2007). Reclaiming recess in urban schools: The potential of systemic functional linguistics for ELLs and their teachers. Language Arts, 84(5), 419–430.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Linguistics and the teaching of English. Reprinted in J. J. Webster (Ed.), 2007. Language and education, Vol. 9 in the Collected Works of M. A .K. Halliday (pp. 25–34). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Hammond, J. (2012). Hope and challenge in The Australian Curriculum: Implications for EAL students and their teachers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(2), 224–241.
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference. What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference on Building Teacher Quality. Melbourne, Australia.
(2006). Cross-age tutoring and the reading together program. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(2), 100–124.
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.
Jaipal, K. (2010). Meaning making through multiple modalities in a biology classroom: A multimodal semiotics discourse analysis. Science Education, 94(1), 48–72.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
(1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin, & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.
(2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 33–47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association and Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Linares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, D., & Meyer, O. (Eds.). (2012). Quality interfaces: Examining evidence & exploring solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett, Germany: Eichstaett Academic Press.
Martin, J. R., & Maton, K. (2013). Cumulative knowledge-building in secondary schooling. Linguistics and Education, 24(1), 1–74.
Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.
O’Halloran, K., Podlasov, A., Chua, A., Tisse, C. L., Lim, F.V., & Smith, B. A. (2014). Challenges and solutions for multimodal analysis: Technology, theory and practice. In Y. Fang, & J. J. Webster (Eds.). Developing systemic functional linguistics: Theory and application (pp. 271–297). London: Equinox.
Polias, J. (2010). Pedagogical resonance: Improving teaching and learning. In C. Coffin (Ed.), Systemic functional linguistics (special edition). National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum (NALDIC) Quarterly, Autumn 8(1), 42–49.
(2011). English language teachers and subject teachers collaborating: recent changes in pedagogical practices in Hong Kong. Viden om læsning, September 2011. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nationellt Videncenter för Læsning.
(2016). Apprenticing students into science: Doing, talking and writing scientifically. Melbourne: Lexis Education.
Polias, J., & Forey, G. (2016). Teaching through English Maximal Input in meaning making. In D.R. Miller & P. Bayley (Eds.), Hybridity in Systemic Functional Linguistics – Grammer, Text and Discursive Context (pp. 109–132). London: Equinox.
Rose, D., & Martin, J. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. London: Equinox.
Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan, & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). London: Longman.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schleppegrell, M. J., & Colombi, M. C. (Eds.). (2002). Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shoenberg, R. E., & Turlington, B. (Eds.). (1998). Next steps for languages across the curriculum: Prospects, problems, and promise. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Shum, M. S. K. (2006). Developing an approach for teaching subject specific genres in Chinese-the case of post-colonial Hong Kong. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 1–22.
Straight, H. S. (Ed.). (1994). Languages across the curriculum. Translation Perspectives VII 1994. Invited essays on the use of foreign languages throughout the postsecondary curriculum. Binghamton, NY: Center for Research in Translation, State University of New York.
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.
van Leeuwen, T., & Humphrey, S. (1996). On learning to look through a geographer’s eyes. In R. Hasan, & G. Williams (Eds.). Literacy in society. London: Longman.
Cited by (10)
Cited by ten other publications
Garcés-Manzanera, Aitor & José Luis Roca-Marín
Martínez-Hita, Francisco José
Lai, Cheng-Ji
Qu, Zhihua
Salvador-García, Celina
Adams, Jonathon & Fei Victor Lim
Costa, Francesca & Olivia Mair
Dare, Brian & John Polias
2022. Lessons learnt applying a systemic functional model to teaching and learning in school contexts over the last thirty years. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 4:1 ► pp. 2 ff.
Kakimova, M. E., E. V. Sabiev & G. Zh. Ensegenova
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
