See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/322524917

Meaning-Making in a Secondary Science Classroom: A Systemic Functional

Multimodal Discourse Analysis

Chapter · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_12

CITATIONS READS

18 1,628

2 authors, including:

Gail Forey
University of Bath
40 PUBLICATIONS 898 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gail Forey on 29 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal
input in teaching science through English

Gail Forey and John Polias

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

This chapter addresses the role of multimodal semiotic systems in teaching sci-
ence 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
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

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.

Introduction

Teaching through English in contexts where English is not the dominant language
for many of the learners is a reality for teachers and learners around the world.
Also, there are a number of terms which are in use to discuss and represent the
role language plays in education with the two main fields being Language Across
the Curriculum (LAC)1 (Shoenberg & Turlington 1998; Straight 1994) and Content
and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (Bonnet 2012; Dalton-Puffer 2007).
It seems that one of the main differences between LAC and CLIL is that LAC
has been developed in contexts where English is the primary language of many

1. More recently the term Cultures and Languages Across the Curriculum (CLAC) has also
been adopted, see <[Link]
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
doi 10.1075/lllt.47.09for
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
© 2017 John Benjamins Publishing Company
 146 Gail Forey and John Polias

speakers, while CLIL identifies contexts where English is the additional language
for many (Dalton-Puffer 2007; Marsh & Meyer 2012). However, both share a con-
cern for the value and importance of language for learning “since education largely
takes place through language, and educational performance, as Bernstein’s work
makes clear, is closely related to linguistic development” (Halliday 1967, reprinted
2007, p. 34).
Our current position in writing this chapter is that, irrespective of the con-
texts, we support the view that knowledge of the patterns in the specialised lan-
guage of the specific subject they are teaching is beneficial for all teachers and,
hence, all students. In addition, we take disciplinary knowledge as a given for the
teacher and argue that best practice in the classroom happens when the teacher
draws on a systematic pedagogy that is underpinned by an understanding of the
language patterns in the target subject, how those patterns vary in terms of the
register of classroom activities and how the patterns construe the common genres
constituting that subject (Martin & Veel 1998). In recent research into teaching
through language and in studying language in a range of subject areas, the theoret-
ical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday & Matthiessen
2014), combined with a Vygotskian-inspired model of pedagogy that systematizes
the approach to teaching through a teaching and learning cycle (Christie 2005;
Christie & Martin 1997; Martin & Rose 2008; Polias 2016; Rothery 1996) and a
Bernsteinian understanding of knowledge (Martin & Maton 2013) provide valu-
able insights into the development of pedagogy, regardless of the language back-
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

ground of the students. These studies demonstrate the importance of a pedagogy

that is underpinned by the role of language in the development of knowledge
in the classroom.
Adopting a holistic theory of language when focusing on teaching through
a second language (in this case English) enables in-depth investigation of how
teachers use linguistic and other semiotic resources to scaffold the learner into
disciplinary knowledge. It also allows researchers to systematize and mod-
el best practice. SFL (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014) is a theory that incorpo-
rates a framework that accounts for the range of choices language users make,
from the smaller linguistic features such as a word or phoneme (see Halliday &
Greaves 2008) to more abstract constructs such as context and genre (see Martin
& Rose 2008; Rose & Martin 2012).
Research in Sydney in the late 1980’s with the Disadvantaged Schools Program
(1996) identified a range of recurrent genres whose schooling purposes were to
use language to, for example, recount, narrate, instruct, describe and organise,
explain, and argue. Within this research context, genre was defined as “a staged,
goal-oriented social process” (Martin & Rose 2008, p. 6) – staged in that there may
be a number of steps in any one text; goal oriented in that each text is constructed
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English 147

with a goal in mind; and social because each text involves writers and readers and/
or speakers and listeners.
An SFL theory of language has enabled a topological description of genres and
their linguistic features that are specific to different areas of the curriculum, such
as science (Halliday & Martin 1993; Martin & Veel 1998; Polias 2016; Veel 1997,
2006), geography (van Leeuwen & Humphrey 1996) and history (Coffin 2006;
Coffin & Derewianka 2008). O’Halloran (2005) applies the SFL model to under-
standing mathematics texts and O’Halloran et al. (2014) have pioneered investi-
gation into multimodality through developing software to support such analysis.
In all these fields, the analysis of how one means is used to emphasise the value
of knowledge about the role of language and other semiotic resources in learning
and its relationship with pedagogy. Genre-based pedagogy has now been extended
to other parts of the world, such as the USA, where Schleppegrell and Colombi
(2002), Schleppegrell (2004), Gebhard et al. (2007), Gebhard and Harman (2011)
and Byrnes (2013) report on the application of SFL to first, second and foreign lan-
guage education. In contexts where both the teacher and the students have the me-
dium of instruction as an additional language, such as the majority of Hong Kong
secondary schools, there is a limited number of studies. A few Hong Kong studies
(Evans 2013; Polias 2011) have focused on language across the curriculum, while
Shum (2006) uses Chinese-language Hong Kong data to provide an overview of
the genres found in the science curriculum. In Europe, CLIL has been at the heart
of a range of studies (Dalton-Puffer 2007; Llinares, Morton & Whittaker 2012). As
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

suggested by Llinares, Morton and Whittaker (2012), CLIL would benefit from a
greater systemised theory of language, such as SFL.
The SFL model also offers a principled way of thinking of the instances of
language use and this is crucial for pedagogical concerns at micro-levels, where
there are continual shifts in language in any one lesson as the activities change. The
language choices in these instances can be analysed as varying according to reg-
ister. Register can be defined as a configuration of the three variables making up
the situational context. Halliday identifies these variables as field, tenor and mode
(Halliday & Matthiessen 2014). Field represents the reality, or the ideas, that are
constructed. Tenor represents the roles and relationships that hold between those
who are involved in the situation. Mode can be seen as representing the chan-
nel of communication and the role that language plays in the situation. We can
represent these choices, as does Halliday, as a continuum (Fig. 1). Field can shift
along the continuum between concrete and commonsense reality and technical or
abstract meaning; tenor can shift between the more informal, subjective roles and
close relationships and the more formal, objective and distant; while mode can
shift between spoken language accompanying action and written language that
constitutes the meaning. This register continuum provides a metalanguage to talk
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 148 Gail Forey and John Polias

about semiotic choices and pedagogy. Through an understanding of the register

continuum and the related semiotic choices, teachers are able to design activities
and lessons that scaffold students. Teachers are also able to model and deconstruct
explicitly the value of these choices for students.

everyday, commonsense, concrete Field technical, abstract

personal, informal, familiar people Tenor impersonal, formal, unfamiliar people

language accompanying action, spoken Mode language constituting meaning, written

Figure 1. Register continuum

For the shifts backwards and forwards along the register continuum to be scaf-
folding opportunities, they need to be of a certain magnitude, one that moves the
students forward in their learning but also provides opportunities to consolidate
understanding. Scaffolding has been considered at two major levels: macro-scaf-
folding (van Lier 2004), which refers to strategically sequenced activities over a
large span of time such as several lessons or a unit of work; and micro-scaffolding,
which refers to the contingent minute-by-minute interaction in the classroom.
Van Lier (2004) has also considered another level, meso-scaffolding, which he sees
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

as being below but close to the macro-level. However, Polias suggests that it would
be more useful to see meso-scaffolding as lying somewhere between macro-scaf-
folding and micro-scaffolding and being able to be achieved through
incremental shifts in the register by taking small steps backwards and forwards
across the register continuum in the myriad interactions that happen in the un-
folding of a lesson. In each step is an associated shift in language, a shift that we
want to be not so great that it is not accessible to the students but challenging
enough for there to be new learning (Polias 2016).

How can these incremental shifts be achieved by teachers either in planning les-
sons or during a lesson itself? Polias (2016) proposes that four variables can be
used to determine the magnitude of the shift: people, space, time and media. With
the first three variables, as each is increased, the shift in register is typically to the
right on the continuum. In other words, increasing the number of interactants in
the communication, or increasing the physical space between the interactants, or
increasing the temporal space between the time of an event and when it is dis-
cussed shifts the register to the right. When the changes in these variables are
not too great, meso-scaffolding is achieved. The optimum situation, as the lesson
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English 149

unfolds, is that the teacher has addressed the needs of the students by designing
activities that provide those incremental shifts, but, if the demand on the students
has been found to be too great, it is also possible to make contingent choices and
reduce one or more of the variables. While increasing any of the features of people,
space, and time typically shifts the register to the right on the register continuum,
the same cannot be said of media. The direction in which the register shifts de-
pends on the type of medium and how it is used.
We have collected data from a wide range of classrooms (Polias & Forey
2016), and similar pedagogic practices have been observed in classrooms where
the teachers have been identified within and by the school as exemplifying best
practice. For the purpose of the present study, we focus on science. In offering pro-
fessional development to teachers and working with the education authorities in
Melbourne, Australia and in Hong Kong (and elsewhere), science has been identi-
fied as a challenging subject, where students often tend to under-achieve (Hubber
et al. 2010; Lemke 1998, 2004). Research on the language of science using SFL
allows for a focus on the language needed for scientific processes such as classify-
ing, explaining, and reasoning (Dalton-Puffer 2013; Halliday & Martin 1993; Veel
1997). In addition, a number of recent studies using case-study research based
in the classroom have examined the interaction of the complex multi-semiotic
resources teachers draw on to make meaning and scaffold learning (Jaipal 2010;
Tang et al. 2014). These studies adopt a multimodal analytical framework based on
SFL, as outlined by Lemke (1998).
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Since the present chapter is concerned with the multi-semiotic resources af-
forded in the science classroom, we go beyond language and refer to research into
the grammar of visual images (Kress & van Leeuwen 2006) and the application
of that grammar as an analytical tool in the science classroom (Kress et al. 2001).
With these multi-semiotic tools, we can interpret critical resources in teaching and
learning science such as: scientific diagrams, geometric figures, formulas, graphs,
and charts (Halliday & Martin 1993; Lemke 1990; Polias 2016). We also consider
other modalities such as: textbooks, digital projection, videos, movement, voice
quality, gestures and facial expressions.

Examining some characteristics of best practice

Current research suggests that best practice in student learning happens when
teachers are explicit about curriculum goals and instruction within a systematic
pedagogy that is underpinned by an understanding of the language patterns in
their discipline area (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009; Hammond 2012; Hattie 2003,
2006; Polias & Forey 2016). Using these characteristics of best practice, this chapter
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 150 Gail Forey and John Polias

aims to reveal the associated language patterns and, hence, knowledge patterns in
video-recorded data of science teaching in two contexts: Hong Kong and Australia.
The data this study draws on are taken from one of a series of professional
development (PD) projects that the authors are involved in as the designers and
deliverers. In Hong Kong, the projects encompass a general introduction to aca-
demic literacy, as well as specialised courses in mathematics, humanities, and sci-
ence. In Australia (Melbourne), the workshops have focused solely on science.
Typically, the courses are attended over an intensive period of 3 to 5 days and they
involve an in-depth study, discussion and application of pedagogy and patterns
of meaning-making. The model adopted in the PD works best when there is one-
to-one post-course support for teachers, where individual teachers plan a lesson,
either with peers or with the PD mentor (as in the Melbourne case-study), who
then attends the school to observe the lesson and provide feedback.
The two data sets analysed here come from two science classrooms. The first
set comes from the first year (11–12 years of age) of a secondary school in Hong
Kong. So far, the students’ experience with being taught in English has typically
been in English language lessons in primary school. The students’ science curricu-
lum in the first year combines biology, chemistry and physics. The school is one
of many secondary schools in Hong Kong that used to be classified as a Chinese
Medium of Instruction school but which have recently implemented a policy in
which certain classes and subjects are taught in English (Polias 2011). The school
in this data set has chosen to have all science lessons taught in English beginning
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

with the cohort in the first year. Both the teacher and the students are native-
speakers of Cantonese, and English is a second language although, for many of
them, it is more like a foreign language.
In the second data set, the students are 16 years of age and attend a suburban
girls’ school which has a large number of students from families for whom English
is not the majority language. Two teachers are team teaching in this lesson and
there are 26 girls in the class. Usually, both teachers share the teaching but are not
in the classroom at the same time.
We have chosen two contexts in order to demonstrate that the semiotic re-
sources chosen by teachers are irrespective of national location, and whether the
teacher and students have English as a first language. Due to space, our focus in
the Hong Kong context is on the shift from abstract to congruent meaning and the
wide range of multi-semiotic resources used to scaffold learning in a five-minute
stretch of the science. With the Australian data, we expand on the idea of registe-
rial shift and learning and illustrate, using three extracts from the lesson, how this
is developed through meso-scaffolding.

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English 151

Classroom context 1
The students in this Hong Kong secondary classroom have read their English-
language textbook about the changes that happen in the body during puberty and,
during five minutes of intensive interaction with students, several of these changes
to the body are discussed.

Table 1. Semiotic resources in the science classroom

T: Any other point, yet?
S: (Reading from a written text) The boy and girl both
will grow pubic hair.
T: Sorry, shhh, can you listen her. Can you listen her.
What did she say?
SS: (not discernible)
T: OK, now, listen carefully. Yes, please, again.
S: The boy and girl both will grow pubic hair.

Figure 2. Teacher identifies

where hair is found (29:47)
T: Pubic hair. OK, do you know what is pubic hair?
T: Do you know what is hair? Pubic hair is meaning
the hair grown in your genetic … genital area. OK?
Inside your underwear (points to the general area of
his underpants), the place under your underwear,
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

OK? Pubic hair. Pubic hair. That is the hair (points to

hair on his head) but in the genital area (indicates to
below his belt again but does not maintain focus).

Figure 3. Teacher identifies

where pubic hair is found (30:12)
T: Do you know what is acne? Acne is in your face, you
have very, some like small pots in your face that’s
acne.

Figure 4. Teacher identifies

where acne is found (32:14)
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 152 Gail Forey and John Polias

T: Because the development of this (places his thumb

and forefinger on either side of his larynx). Do you
know what is this? In Chinese, of course, you know
this. This is 喉核 but in English this is the larynx.
Larynx, OK? The development of larynx. So it will
deepen the voice. Deepen the voice of boys.

Figure 5. Teacher identifies

where the larynx is found (32:44)
T: She said that the body shape of the girl. There will be
the development of the breasts.

Figure 6. Teacher identifies

where breasts are found (33:50)
T: This is a curiosity. You want to know more about,
more friends about the opposite sex, OK? This is one
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

of the curiosities.
T: Curiosity … that means, (teacher looks at a student
and dramatizes) ‘Aha …, I like you.’ (and nods his
head)
SS: (Embarrassed laughter)

Figure 7. The teacher represents

sexual curiosity (34:08)

Some of the concepts are easily understood but, when the class starts to struggle
with the written meanings, the teacher identifies the need for strong scaffolding
and uses other semiotic resources. We see in Figures 2–7 (29:47–34:27) that the
teacher adopts a range of semiotic resources to scaffold meaning, bridging the
technical meanings (e.g., pubic) with the more commonsense physical pubertal
changes (e.g., hair and breasts). The more abstract phenomenon of sexual curiosity
requires the teacher to use more complex meaning-making resources.

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English 153

However, working multi-semiotically is not sufficient in itself to scaffold learn-

ers. It is necessary also to provide the resources in a timely manner. So it is not the
quantity but the kind of meaning-making and its timing which is of importance
to scaffold successful learning. If these all work together so that the meanings are
resonating (Polias 2010; Polias 2016), then the teacher is providing multiple access
points for the students to understand.
By beginning with a written text in this science lesson, the teacher has chosen
to start on the right hand side of the register continuum (Fig. 9). So, when the
students struggle with particular concepts or linguistic resources, he is forced to
not only provide more concrete representations but also change where he is in
relationship to the student. For example, when a student cannot pronounce acne
and utters it instead by sounding out each letter, the teacher walks over to the
student, listens to her response, checks the textbook and then clearly models the
word acne followed by gestures to his face to show spots, or pimples. By reducing
the space between the teacher and the student and thereby reducing the interac-
tion to a more pair-like interaction, the teacher provides the meso-scaffolding this
student and probably the other students require. The success of this could help
explain why the teacher consistently teaches in English and only once (Fig. 5) does
he code-switch to include a Cantonese word for larynx, accompanied by a gesture.
Another example is the shift in tenor, as happens when the teacher is referring
to sexual curiosity and says Aha …, I like you. He role-plays a student by choosing
a raised, higher-pitched, adolescent-like voice accompanied with marked facial
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

expressions and body gestures, and, by doing so, he shifts the register to the left to
incorporate more subjective interpersonal meanings. The abstractness of sexual
curiosity demands a lot of the teacher and he does this well with a stereotypically
coy, big-eye gaze, with head tilted to the side and quizzical placement of the index
finger and thumb on his chin. An additional visual resource would be to write the

larynx

pubic hair

hair, breasts acne sexual curiosity

everyday, commonsense, concrete technical, abstract impersonal,

personal, informal, familiar people formal, unfamiliar people
language accompanying action, spoken constituting meaning, written

Semiotic resources
mediating meaning

Figure 8. Unpacking technical and abstract meanings

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 154 Gail Forey and John Polias

key words on the board in order to make explicit and archive the language, which
would enable students a greater opportunity to recycle such language at a later
stage in the lesson.
In this extract from Classroom context 1, our aim has been to illustrate the
kind of work a teacher might need to undertake in order to scaffold students into
discipline knowledge. In what follows, we review how register shift and meso-
scaffolding can be successfully used over a number of phases in a lesson.

Classroom context 2
This context extends the notion of using the register continuum to scaffold the stu-
dents in the shift from concrete to technical meanings through different phases in
the lesson. It illustrates how two teachers design and sequence activities in order to
provide meso-scaffolding. The data are from a Melbourne school where two teach-
ers collaborated in teaching a class focusing on the lock-and-key hypothesis of en-
zyme-controlled reactions and identifying them as catabolic biochemical reactions.
The data from the classroom consist of three extracts from a videoed lesson.
The lesson begins with the teachers establishing the objectives of the lesson and
then discussing with the students previous work on enzymes. The next stage of
the lesson (Activity 1) requires the students to work in small groups to assemble
their kit of seven cut-outs – each group is provided with a different kit illustrating
the lock-and-key hypothesis. Figure 9 shows one example: it has three cut-outs
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Figure 9. Sets of shapes illustrating the lock-and-key hypothesis

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English 155

(light red) representing the same enzyme (protease), two shapes representing the
substrate (protein), and two representing the products of the reaction (two differ-
ent amino acids). The students are then required to paste these cut-outs together
onto a poster sheet to show the three phases of the enzyme-controlled reactions.
Finally, each group presents their poster to the class (Activity 2).
Activity 1 – Phase 1 records one group of students beginning the hands-on
activity, initially with the help of a teacher (Figures 10–11), and then without the
teacher, Activity 1 – Phase 2. Activity 1 – Phase 3 comes at the end of the first
activity, where the teacher’s role is to confirm and consolidate the students’ under-
standing (Figure 12). Activity 2 is one group’s class presentation at the end of the
lesson (Figure 13).

Activity 1 – Phase 1
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Figure 10. Teacher and group of students consolidating aspects of the task (Activity 1 –
Phase 1).

T2: … You might want to put some arrows in to show us the direction of flow …
and you might want to give us the general names as well, in brackets, so
amylase is your …
SS&T: Enzyme.
T2: OK, fantastic.
SS: Thanks, Miss. (Teacher leaves the group.)

Analysing Activity 1 – Phase 1 with respect to the meso-scaffolding variables of

people, space and time, we have three students working very closely together with
concrete objects needing to be moved into specific places in the immediate situation.
The arrangement of variables in this task affords the selection of language patterns
on the left-side of the register continuum. The physical interaction, the movement
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 156 Gail Forey and John Polias

of the components of the enzyme-controlled reaction extends the cognitive aware-

ness and development that may not be possible in a regular textbook lesson. With
the students taking responsibility for their learning and the task involving language
accompanying the action of arranging the cut-outs to design their poster, the lan-
guage used is very congruent and, therefore, very do-able by the students.
What are these linguistic choices? Activity 1 goes through three phases. In
Activity 1 – Phase 1, a person, a teacher in this case, who has high status and au-
thority has taken on the role of confirming that the students understand the task
and making recommendations metaphorically through declarative clauses (“You
might want to put some arrows in…”). As the teacher chooses to command using
a low degree of modality with declarative mood rather than the congruent impera-
tive mood, the ultimate choice belongs to the students. Another resource that the
teacher chooses is an incomplete clause, requiring the students to complete the
utterance, “so amylase is your…”. This incomplete clause is not a false start but a
conscious choice made by the teacher. Normally, this device might be asking for
students to guess what is in the teacher’s head. However, what we see is that the
teacher here has prepared them for what they need to complete the clause with by
stating that they need to give the general name for the enzyme (“give us the general
names as well, in brackets, so amylase is your…”). The teacher gives enough of a
pause for the students to confirm their understanding with a choral response from
the three students in the group and confirmation by the teacher herself, “enzyme”.
The teacher hands over responsibility for learning to the students in Activity 1 –
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Phase 2 by reaffirming the action (“OK, fantastic”).

Activity 1 – Phase 2

Figure 11. Students arranging cut-outs (Activity 1 – Phase 2).

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English 157

S3: … So, that’s starch. Is that a…? Sub … substrate …

S1: Wait, isn’t …
S3: Yes, substrate … that is starch.
S1: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
S2: Do the arrows go in towards the enzyme?
S3: Is that how you spell it?
S1: Yeah. … So then that and the arrows go …
S2: … Wait, do we go like that or…?
S3: Yeah, you go (points with her hand)
S1: (sarcastic) No, you go like up and down and …
S3 … and just go around like that (points again).
S2: (not discernible)
S3: Done!
S1: Oh, you just put in like brackets …
In terms of the register continuum, Phase 2 is slightly to the left of Phase 1 as the
students self-regulate the process (“Do the arrows go in towards the enzyme?”).
The more informal tenor combined with fewer people and closer space – in Phase
1 the students stood upright, while in Phase 2 they often hunched over their work
– allow the student the confidence to ask a peer a simple question. The self-assur-
ance demonstrated by Student 1 (“Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah” and “So then that and
the arrows go…”) also helps the student feel positive about herself and her knowl-
edge. The turn-taking choices demonstrate the close social distance and equal-
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

ity between the speakers. We even see Student 1 initiating humour through her
sarcastic comment, “No, you go like up and down and…”. Often, with respect to
humour, it is the teacher who initiates jokes, sarcasm or other humorous choices.
That a student has the space and the confidence to joke in class about a catabolic
biomechanical reaction demonstrates that the student knows that the procedure
does not happen in an arbitrary manner and that there is a particular sequence
and movement involved in the reaction.

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 158 Gail Forey and John Polias

Activity 1 – Phase 3

Figure 12. Teacher and students consolidating and confirming understanding of the task
(Activity 1 – Phase 3).

T: So, can you identify the enzyme? Which one’s the enzyme?
S3: Lipase.
T: Lipase. Right. Which one is it in the diagram?
S1: Is it the dark one? (student points to the cut-out)
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

T: Yep, that’s correct. OK, and your substrate?

S1: Lipid.
T: Lipid. So where’s the lipid there?
S1: This one. No, this one (student points to the cut-outs)
S3: We don’t have any.
T: Yes you have. There’s your lipid. What have you actually formed there?
(teacher points to the cut-out)
S1: It’s the lock and key so they fit.
T: Yeah.
S2: (not discernible)
T: What do you call that specifically? … (Teacher points to the enzyme-sub-
strate complex)
S3: … We call that …
T: … where they’ve locked in together (teacher moves fingers and thumb to
enact locking), what do you call that?
S3: … the lipase-lipid complex.
T: Well done. And what’s a general term we use for that?

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English 159

S3: Substrate complex.

T: No. Enzyme …
S3: Enzyme substrate complex.
T: Excellent. And what have you formed there? (teacher points to the final
cut-out)
S3: Lipase and fatty acid complex and glycerol.
T: Well done. Has the actual enzyme changed?
S1&3: No.
T: No. That’s a really important thing about enzymes, isn’t it? All right, so
glue it down and label it. (teacher steps away from the group and students
stop leaning over the ‘knowledge’)
S2: So that’s right?
At the end of the activity, Activity 1 – Phase 3, we can see how the teacher’s role is
to not only confirm the students’ understanding of the science but to ensure they
are thinking in the right sequence; that is, that their knowledge is organized sci-
entifically. This is achieved by shifting the register incrementally to the right along
the continuum through again including the teacher as key interlocutor in the in-
teraction. The teacher micro-scaffolds in this instance by controlling the sequence
of questions and responses in order to organize the students’ understanding of the
knowledge (van Lier 2004). We can say that the meso-scaffolding is providing op-
portunities for successful micro-scaffolding.
Activity 1 – Phase 3 in contrast to Activity 1 – Phase 1 has the teacher and
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

students at the same eye level and leaning forward together around the poster. So,
even though the teacher’s aim is to test the students’ understanding, by positioning
herself in the less dominant viewing position and by facing the poster upside down,
she reduces the stress of the test and underlines the fact that the students should
now be in charge. This group was probably perceived by the teacher as the students
who needed stronger scaffolding and so working knowledgeably with the variables
of people and space, the teacher was able to successfully provide meso-scaffolding.
In terms of language choices, the teacher in Phase 3 uses interrogatives to
guide the students. The presence of the teacher and the series of interrogatives
asked require the students to respond more technically (“It’s the lock and key so
they fit.”) and with clauses that are more lexically dense than in Phase 1. From the
teacher’s first question, the sequencing of interrogatives requires the students to
respond in increasingly extended nominal groups (“Enzyme substrate complex.”)
By asking these questions in this way and using a range of semiotic resources,
such as pointing to identify the parts of the enzyme, the students can retrieve the
answers as all the information has been provided and is accessible to the students.
Importantly, it is this kind of exchange structure that scaffolds and prepares the

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 160 Gail Forey and John Polias

students for the next task, Activity 2, which is their presentation of the required
technical meanings to the whole class, keeping in mind that each group has differ-
ent reactions to present on.

Activity 2

Figure 13. A group of students presenting their poster to the class (Activity 2)

S1: This chemical reaction is a catabolic reaction as it broke down uhm the sub-
strate. And uhm it’s a biochemical reaction, too. (student stands alongside the
poster and refers to it at times)
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

S2: Our enzyme is cellulase. (student takes an initial look at the poster and then
faces class)
S3: Our substrate is cellulose. (student faces the teacher rather than the class and
also checks with the poster)
S1: So, in the reaction, the cellulase and the cellulose become the cellulase-cellu-
lose complex, which was the enzyme substrate complex. (student continues to
stand alongside the poster, not facing the class, and refers to the poster constantly)
S4: And the product of our reaction was glucose and the enzyme remained un-
changed. (student refers to the poster initially but also turns to face the class)
Activity 2 requires each group to present, at the front of the classroom, while
standing next to their poster. Their classmates are also standing close by. In their
presentations, the students need to verbalise their visual representations, adding
what kind of reaction it is and whether the enzyme remains unchanged or not. As
can be seen in the transcript of Activity 2, the students are talking scientifically
and we see the accurate use and utterance of technical terms in specific nominal
groups such as “the cellulase-cellulose complex” and the more generalised “the en-
zyme substrate complex”. They have taken the chunks of language from the phases

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English 161

in Activity 1, which was in essence jointly constructed by the student group and
the teacher, and have now recontextualised them into full clauses that represent
the discourse of science. The students are confident that their scientific knowledge
is accurate and so speak fluently, with all the students taking on the responsibility
of participating. The transcript for Activity 2 is the first group’s presentation and
their successful presentation also acted as a model for the remaining groups.
The shift in language across the activities represents an ultimate shift to the right
of the register continuum. We could conclude that all the groups were prepared for
the development of the linguistic resources and, hence, knowledge required to be
successful in their presentations through the meso-scaffolding achieved through
the sequencing of the tasks that were set, the multi-semiotic resources in the tasks
themselves and how they were deployed in the micro-scaffolding by the teacher
and collaboration with their peers.

Conclusion

The two contexts and the various teaching and learning moments in each illustrate
the interrelationship between language and other semiotic resources and ways in
which this can be applied so that there is maximal input; in other words, where
there are multiple access points to the meanings provided in a timely manner and
learning is maximised. We can see the need for this clearly in situations where the
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

linguistic pressure is great, as in the Hong Kong example, where the students and
teacher do not have the language of instruction, English, as their primary lan-
guage. This situation is similar to science classrooms in CLIL contexts. However,
we can also see it very clearly in contexts, as in the Australian example, where
the knowledge pressure is great due to the high degree of technicality. Language
in both cases is the primary resource for making meaning, regardless of whether
English is the teacher and learners’ dominant language. Our key concerns here in
providing maximal input in teaching are whether:
a. explicit curriculum goals are drawn on in offering direct instruction within a
systematic pedagogy,
b. the specific language patterns of the discipline are clearly understood,
c. multiple semiotic opportunities are provided to afford meaningful develop-
ment,
d. notions of meso-scaffolding can help attune teachers’ understanding of scaf-
folding.
Each of these four conditions need to be addressed in CLIL and other content-
based pedagogies. It is through the combination of explicit teaching of disciplinary
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 162 Gail Forey and John Polias

literacy with the appropriate level of scaffolding, which is organised coherently

through an informed pedagogy, where we believe best practice is achieved.

References

Bonnet, A. (2012). Towards an evidence base for CLIL: How to integrate qualitative and quantita-
tive 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 introduc-
tion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 95–106. ​doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.03.004
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 textur-
ing 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) class-
rooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/lllt.20
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising con-
tent-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 1(2), 1–38.
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

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. <[Link]
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.​
doi: 10.1017/S0267190513000019
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.​
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.12.007
Gebhard, M., Harman, R., & Seger, W. (2007). Reclaiming recess in urban schools: The poten-
tial 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., & Greaves, W. (2008). Intonation in the grammar of English. London: Equinox.

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English 163

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.
Hattie, J. (2006). Cross-age tutoring and the reading together program. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 32(2), 100–124. ​doi: 10.1016/[Link].2006.04.003
Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representa-
tional focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5–28.​
doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9154-9
Jaipal, K. (2010). Meaning making through multiple modalities in a biology classroom: A mul-
timodal 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.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lemke, J. L. (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.
Lemke, J. L. (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
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Llinares, 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 solu-
tions 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. ​doi: 10.1016/[Link].2012.11.003
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
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.

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].
 164 Gail Forey and John Polias

Polias, J. (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.
Polias, J. (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 – Grammar, 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.​
doi: 10.2104/aral0606
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 mul-
tiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science
Copyright © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Education, 98(2), 305–326. ​doi: 10.1002/sce.21099

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.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.​
doi: 10.1007/1-4020-7912-5
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean-scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific
discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie, & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institu-
tions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell.
Veel, R. (2006). The Write it Right project: Linguistic modelling of secondary school and the
workplace. In R. Whittaker, M. O’Donnell, & A. McCabe (Eds.), Language and literacy:
Functional approaches (pp. 66–92). London: Continuum.

Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by Ana Llinares, and Tom Morton, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, [Link]
Created from bath on 2018-09-11 [Link].

View publication stats