Narration and multimodality: the role of the human body and material objects in science teaching

Panagiotis Pantidos, George Kaliampos, Konstantinos Ravanis

Abstract


This article seeks to shed light on the semiotic approach to science teaching and learning. Essentially, the mental representations of learners are also affected by the sign vehicles employed to communicate ideas in the material world. Thus, any learning object also appears as a material representation, consisting of acoustic and visual forms, which affect its content. The human body’s kinesic modalities, spatial configurations (i.e., graphs, images), material objects, prosody, as well as the written and spoken word constitute the perceptual data that encode the concepts. This particular paper deals with the possibility that the more emphatic signifiers, i.e., the human body and material objects, can create narrative spaces and produce meaning during science teaching. It also discusses alternative uses of material objects along with the multiple interpretations their visual images can evoke. As regards the human body, iconic, deictic, and ergotic gestures are analyzed as forms that produce meaning and are autonomous and dynamic when working with the other semiotic systems. Both material objects and the human body rely upon the ability of the learners’ imagination to transport them to narrative worlds located outside the classroom. 

Keywords


multimodality; narration; human body; material objects; science teaching

References


S. Hwang and W.M. Roth, “The (embodied) performance of physics concepts in lectures,” Research in Science Education, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 461–477, 2011.

K.S. Tang, C. Delgado and E.B. Moje, “An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning‐making in science education,” Science Education, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 305-326, 2014.

A.E. Pierson, D.B. Clark and C.E. Brady, “Scientific modeling and translanguaging: a multilingual and multimodal approach to support science learning and engagement”, Science Education, vo. 105, no.4, pp. 776-813, 2021.

P. Pantidos, E. Herakleioti and M.E. Chachlioutaki, “Reanalysing children’s responses on shadow formation: a comparative approach to bodily expressions and verbal discourse,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 39, no. 18, pp. 2508-2527, 2017.

M. Hackling, K. Murcia and K. Ibrahim-Didi, “Teacher orchestration of multimodal resources to support the construction of an explanation in a Year 4 Astronomy topic,” Teaching Science, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 7-15, 2013.

D. Givry and P. Pantidos, “Toward a multimodal approach of science teaching,” Skhole, vol. 17, pp. 123–129, 2012.

G. Kaliampos, V. Kada, A. Saregar and K. Ravanis, “Preshool pupils mental represenations on electricity, simple electrical circuit and electrical appliances,” European Journal of Education Studies, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 596-610, 2020.

Μ. Koutsikou, V. Christidou, M. Papadopoulou and F. Bonoti, “Interpersonal Meaning: verbal text–image relations in multimodal science texts for young children,” Education Sciences, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1-20, 2021.

M. Wood, and S. Stocklmayer, “Visual context and relevance in life cycle diagrams,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 17, no. 1, e2224, 2021.

Z.C. Zacharia and G. Olympiou, “Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 21, pp. 317–331, 2011.

S. Goldin-Meadow and M.W. Alibali, “Gesture’s role in speaking, learning, and creating language,” Annual review of psychology, vol. 64, pp. 257-283, 2013.

E. Herakleioti and P. Pantidos, “The contribution of the human body in young children’s explanations about shadow formation,” Research in Science Education, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 21-42, 2016.

S. Goldin-Meadow, “Taking a hands-on approach to learning”, Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 163-170, 2018.

J.B. Lopes, A.A. Silva, J.P. Cravino, C.A. Santos, A. Cunha, A. Pinto, A. Silva, C. Viegas, E. Saraiva and M. J. Branco, “Constructing and using multimodal narratives to research in science education: contributions based on practical classroom,” Research in Science Education, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 415-438, 2014.

C. Kontra, D. Lyons, S. Fisher and S. Beilock, “Physical experience enhances science learning,” Psychological Science, pp. 1-13, 2015.

C. Kontra, S. Goldin‐Meadow and S.L. Beilock, “Embodied learning across the life span,” Topics in Cognitive Science, vol.4, no. 4, pp. 731-739, 2012.

D. Givry and W-M. Roth, “Toward a new conception of conceptions: Interplay of talk, gestures, and structures in the setting,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 43, pp. 1086-1109, 2006.

Y. Hadzigeorgiou, Imaginative science education: The central role of imagination in science education. Springer, 2016.

P. Pantidos, “Narrating science in the classroom: the role of semiotic resources in evoking imaginative thinking,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 388-401, 2017.

T. De Jong, M.C. Linn, and Z.C. Zacharia, “Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education,” Science, vol. 340, no. 6130, pp. 305-308, 2013.

Z.C. Zacharia, E. Loizou, E and M. Papaevripidou, “Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students?” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 447-457, 2012.

M. Kim, W-M. Roth and J. Thom, “Children’s gestures and the embodied knowledge of geometry,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 207-238, 2011.

I. Han, “Embodiment: a new perspective for evaluating physicality in learning,” Journal of educational Computing Research, vol. 49, pp. 41-59, 2013.

S. Anastopoulou, M. Sharples and C. Baber, “An evaluation of multimodal interactions with technology while learning science concepts,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 266-290, 2011.

Y. Hadzigeorgiou, Imaginative science education: the central role of imagination in science education. Springer, 2016.

D. Givry and A. Tiberghien, “Studying students’ learning processes used during physics teaching sequence about gas with networks of ideas and their domain of applicability,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 223-249, 2012.

R.E. Scherr, H.G. Close, E.W. Close, and S. Vokos,” Representing energy. II. Energy tracking representations,” Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, vol. 8, no. 2, 020115, 2012.

G. Fragkiadaki and K. Ravanis, “The unity between intellect, affect, and action in a child’s learning and development in science,” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, vol. 29, no. 1, 100495, 2021.

L. Pozzer-Ardenghi. “Visual representations in educational research,” In A companion to research in education, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 513-516, 2014.

P. Pantidos, K. Ravanis, K. Valakas and E. Vitoratos, “Incorporating poeticality into the teaching of physics,” Science & Education, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 621-642, 2014.

W.M. Roth, D. Lawless and K. Tobin, “Toward a praxeology of teaching,” Canadian Journal of Education, pp. 1-15, 2014.

P. Schrader and E. Rapp, “Does multimedia theory apply to all students? The impact of multimedia presentations on science learning” Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 32-46, 2016.

C.A. Cohen and M. Hegarty, “Visualizing cross sections: training spatial thinking using interactive animations and virtual objects,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 33, pp. 63-71, 2014.

M. Stieff, M. Hegarty and G. Deslongchamps, “Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays,” Cognition and Instruction, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 123-145, 2011.

P. Pantidos, “Epistemic, cognitive and semiotic significations in science teaching: the case of sound.” European Journal of Education Studies, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 210-231, 2019.

R.M. Ping and S. Goldin-Meadow, “Hands in the air: using ungrounded iconic gestures to teach children conservation of quantity,” Developmental Psychology, vol. 44, 1277-1287, 2008.

E. Ochs, “Experiencing language,” Anthropological Theory, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 142-160, 2012.

S. Papert and I. Harel, “Situating constructionism,” Constructionism, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1-11, 1991.

E. Fioratou and S.J. Cowley, “Insightful thinking: cognitive dynamics and material artifacts,” In Distributed Language, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 57-80, 2011.

V.P. Glăveanu, “What can be done with an egg? Creativity, material objects, and the theory of affordances,” The Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 192-208, 2012.

G. Aiello, “Visual semiotics: key concepts and new directions,” In The SAGE handbook of visual research methods, Sage Publications, pp. 367-380, 2020.

T. Van Leeuwen, “Multimodality,” In The handbook of discourse analysis, Wiley Blackwell, pp. 447-465, 2018.

M.W. Alibali, M.J. Nathan and Y. Fujimori, “Gestures in the mathematics classroom: what’s the point?” In Developmental cognitive science goes to school, Routledge, pp. 233-248, 2013.

M. A. Impedovo, C. Andreucci1 and J. Ginestie, “Mediation of artefacts, tools and technical objects: an international and french perspective,” International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 19-30, 2017.

M-E. Chachlioutaki, P. Pantidos and M. Kampeza, “Changing semiotic modes indicates the introduction of new elements in children's reasoning: the case of earthquakes,” Educational Journal of the University of Patras UNESCO Chair, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 198-208, 2016.

P. Pantidos, K. Valakas, E. Vitoratos and K. Ravanis, “Towards applied semiotics: an analysis of iconic gestural signs regarding physics teaching in the light of theatre semiotics,” Semiotica, vol. 172, no. 1/4, pp. 201-231, 2008.

K. Plakitsi (Ed.), Activity Theory in formal and informal Science Education, Sense Publishers, 2013.

L. Moro, E.F. Mortimer and A. Tiberghien, “The use of social semiotic multimodality and joint action theory to describe teaching practices: two cases studies with experienced teachers,” Classroom Discourse, vol.11, no.3, pp. 229-251, 2020.

F. Arzarello and C. Sabena, “Analytic-structural functions of gestures in mathematical argumentation processes,” In Emerging perspectives on gesture and embodiment, IAP, pp.75-103, 2014.

G. Fragkiadaki, M. Fleer and K. Ravanis, “A cultural-historical study of the development of children’s scientific thinking about clouds in everyday life,” Research in Science Education, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1523-1545, 2019.

W.M. Roth and L. Pozzer-Ardenghi, “Pictures in biology education,” In Multiple representations in biological education, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 39-53, 2013.

M.A. Novack, E.L. Congdon, N. Hemani-Lopez and S. Goldin-Meadow, “From action to abstraction: using the hands to learn math,” Psychological Science, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 903-910, 2014.




DOI: http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i2.22074

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science

International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)
p-ISSN: 2252-8822, e-ISSN: 2620-5440

View IJERE Stats

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.