A Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA) Approach to Science Literacies in Secondary School Chemistry textbooks

Liu Yu Multimodal Analysis Lab

National University of Singapore

Background: Significance of science education

Highly valued in the school curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007)

Governments’ generous financial investment on science education (Rose, 1997: 3)

Scientific Literacy vs. Science Literacy

Scientific Literacy: Students’ individual cognitive development and the ability to understand scientific concepts.

Science Literacy: Scientific talking, reading and writing as representations.

(Bennett 2003: 148)

Literacy challenges posed by multimodal construction of scientific knowledge

Language

Images

Graphs and tables

Mathematical symbols

Chemical symbols

Research questions

How to bridge scientific literacy and science literacy and incorporate their insights in chemistry education?

Why did modern chemical symbolism emerge complementary to language?

What are the special functions of chemical symbolism and their implications for teaching and learning?

Outline

Revisiting a classic psychological model in chemistry education

(Johnstone 1982, 1993) and incorporating its insights into the SF-

MDA approach (O’Halloran 2007)

Investigating semogenesis of modern chemical symbolism and

analyzing its functional affordances

Discussing teaching and learning implications from Bernstein’s

(1990) sociology of education

Scientific literacy: The psychological approach

Macroscopic Level

Submicroscopic Level Representational Level

Adapted from Johnstone (1993: 703)

Different descriptions of the rusting of iron

Level Macroscopic Submicroscopic Representational

Description Solid iron nail has a brown flaky coating on it that comes off easily when touched.

Iron metal has iron atoms all closely packed together to form the solid nail. Some of the iron atoms next to the surface have reacted with the oxygen molecules forming a bond between an iron atom and an oxygen atom according to the formula Fe2O3.

The chemical equation summarizes the reaction showing the number of iron atoms and oxygen atoms involved in the reaction. A ball-and-stick model and a computer simulation can depict the solid iron atoms being attacked by the oxygen molecule.

Real or Representation

Real Real-but too small to be seen with naked eyes

Representation

Perception Visible Can’t be seen with naked eyes, so mental image is based on descriptions, diagrams, explanations

The model is a tool to help understand the real entity.

Adapted from Chittleborough (2004: 22)

Science literacy: Social semiotic approach

Context plane Common sense Scientific knowledge

Content plane

Semantic stratum

Ideational meaning

Lexico-grammaticalstratum

Common language Technical language

Based on Martin (2007: 34)

Systemic functional linguistic approach to chemistry verbal texts

Meaning

StratumIdeational meaning

Semantic stratum Macroscopic meaning

Submicroscopic meaning

Lexicogrammatical

stratum

Common language (e.g. a brown flaky

coating)

Technical language (e.g.

ferri oxide)

Recent research on Multimodal Discourse Analysis from Systemic Functional perspectives

(SF-MDA)

Displayed art (O’Toole 1994)Visual design (Kress and van Leeuwen 1996)Scientific and mathematical visuals (O’Halloran 1996, 1999a,

2000, 2005, 2007b ; Baldry and Thibault 2006; Guo 2004; Jones 2007)

Mathematical symbolism (O’Halloran 1996, 1999a, 2000, 2005)

Three-dimensional objects (O’Toole 1994, 2004; Kress and van Leeuwen 2006)

Embodied action (Martinec 1998, 2000)Music (Van Leeuwen 1999)

SF-MDA approach to science literacies in secondary school chemistry textbooks

Meaning

Stratum Ideational meaning

Semantic stratum Macroscopic meaning Submicroscopic meaning

Lexicogrammatical stratum

Common language

Photographs

Technical language

Micrographs

Scientific drawing

Tables

Graphs

Chemical symbolism

Semogenesis of modern chemical symbolism

Quantification requirements of chemistry

Theoretical revolution of chemistry in the late 18th century

Meaning making potentials (language vs. symbolism)

Ratio rate between elements (e.g. calcium chloride / CaCl2)

Medium in an Ergativity configuration [e.g. Charcoal is burned. / C + O2]

Lexicogrammatical strategies: The Reactive process

The Reactive process [[C + O2]] CO2

[[Fe + O2]] Fe2O3

The Reactive/Operative process [[2Fe + 3O2]] 2Fe2O3

Lexicogrammatical strategies: Multiple rankshift

Clause: 2H2 + O2 → 2H2O

Expression: H2, O2, H2O, 2H2, 2H2O (i.e. word group

/phrase) Atom: H, O, 2, +, → (i.e. word)

[[[[2[[H2]]]] + [[O2]]]] → [[2[[H2O]]]]

Lexicogrammatical strategies: Multiple rankshift

Rank Process Participants

Rank 1 (ranking clause) →(Relational) 2H2+O2

2H2O

Rank 2 + (Reactive/Operative) 2H2

O2

Rank 3 ( )Ⅰ Х (Operative) 2H2

Rank 3 ( )Ⅱ Х (Operative) O2

Rank 3 ( )Ⅲ Х (Operative) 2H2O

Rank 4 ( )Ⅰ + ( Reactive/Operative) HH

Rank 4 ( )Ⅱ + ( Reactive/Operative) OO

Rank 4 ( )Ⅲ + ( Reactive/Operative) HOH

Lexicogrammatical strategies: Multiple rankshift

Step 1: Write the formula H2 + O2 → H2OStep 2: Count the atoms 2 2 2 1Step 3: Add ‘2’ in front of H2O H2 + O2 → 2H2OStep 4: Count the atoms again 2 2 4 2Step 5: Add ‘2’ in front of H2 2H2 + O2 → 2H2O

Adapted from (Onn, Ang and Khoo 2006: 59)

Lexicogrammatical strategies: Ellipsis of the Reactive/Operative process at the rank of

Expression

Symbolic representations of ‘copper oxide’

Congruent representation: Cu + O (Berzelius 1813, see Brock 1993: 154)

Rank-shifted representation: CuO

Cu O

CuO

Copper Oxide

+

The semo-genetic codification of copper oxide

Viewed from Bernstein’s (1990) classification of pedagogical devices

Intra-individual

Psychological approach (e.g. Johnstone 1982, 1993)

Acquisition Transmission

SF-MDA approach

(e.g. O’Halloran 2007 )

Inter-group

Concluding remarks

Developing scientific literacy with science literacies

Chemical symbolism as powerful meaning potential for semantic expansions rather than a jargon

Towards a SF-MDA meta-language for developing literacies with a visible pedagogy