Constructing Interpersonal Meaning in Indonesian Science Classrooms through Language, Space and Gaze
Main Article Content
Abstract
Classroom communication involves the integration of various semiotic modes which is linked to particular meanings, like teacher-student relationships or interpersonal meanings. This study investigates the different semiotic resources used in an Indonesian science classroom and the power relations manifested in the classroom through the analyses of different semiotic modes. The present study employed a qualitative case study based on Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis. The data were recorded videos of a science lesson in a private school located in Lembang, West Java, Indonesia. The data were analysed using the framework of negotiation developed in Systemic Functional Linguistics to investigate language use, spatial pedagogy and gaze. The study found that the observed teacher predominantly produced speech functions in the forms of questions (40 percent), statements (28 percent) and commands (18 percent) while her students predominantly produced answers (49 percent) and questions (26 percent) during the interactions. In terms of space, the teacher occupied authoritative, personal and interactional spaces while the students mostly occupied the interactional space. With regard to gaze, the teacher’s gaze was directed at the students, the objects under discussion and the books, while her students directed their gaze at the teacher, the objects under discussion and the books. These findings reflect a dynamic pedagogy. While the observed teacher maintains her authority most of the time, she focuses on building a rapport or a certain solidarity with her students as reflected in her use of the semiotic resources.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Amundrud, T.M. 2017. Analyzing classroom teacher-student consultations: A systemic multimodal perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Macquarie University.
Barlett, T. 2014. Analysing power in language. London: Routledge.
Bloor, T. and Bloor, M. 2004. The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Brooks, C.F. 2015. Role, power, ritual, and resistance: A critical discourse analysis of college classroom talk. Western Journal of Communication 80(3): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2015.1098723
Creswell, J.W. 2012. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Eggins, S. 2004. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). New York and London: Continuum.
Eggins, S. and Slade, D. 1997. Analysing casual conversation. London: Equinox.
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. New York: Longman.
Goodwin, C. 1980. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4): 272–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.1980.tb00023.x
Halliday, M. 1978. Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. and Matthiessen, C. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
He, Q. and Forey, G. 2018. Meaning-making in a secondary science classroom: A systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis. In Global developments in literacy research for science education, eds. Kok-Sing Tang and K. Danielsson, 183–202. Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_12
Hodge, R. and Kress, G. 1988. Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hood, S. 2011. Body language in face-to-face teaching: A focus on textual and interpersonal meaning. In Semiotic margins: Meaning in multimodalities, eds. S. Dreyfus, S. Hood and M. Stenglin, 31–52. New York: Continuum.
Iedema, R. 2003. Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication 2(1): 29–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357203002001751
Jewitt, C. 2005. Classrooms and the design of pedagogic discourse: A multimodal approach. Culture Psychology 11(3): 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x05055519.
_______2007. A multimodal perspective on textuality and contexts. Pedagogy, Culture and Society 15(3): 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360701601937
Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J. and Tsatsarelis, C. 2001. Exploring learning through visual actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review 53(1): 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910123753
Kendon, A. 2009. Language’s matrix. Gesture 9(3): 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.9.3.05ken
Kenkmann, A. 2011. Power and authenticity: Moving from the classroom to the museum. Adult Education Quarterly 61(3): 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713610392766
Kress, G. 1997. Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J. and Tsatsarelis, C. 2001. Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetoric of the science classroom. New York: Continuum. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.72.1.152
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Ledin, P. and Machin, D. 2018. Multi-modal critical discourse analysis. In The Routledge handbook of critical discourse analysis, eds. J. Flowerdew and J.E. Richardson, 60– 70. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739342-5
Lemke, J.L. 1998. Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In Reading science: Critical and functional perspective on discourses of science, eds. J.R. Martin and R. Veel, 87–113. London and New York: Routledge.
Lim, F., O’Halloran, K. and Podlasov, A. 2012. Spatial pedagogy: Mapping meanings in the use of classroom space. Cambridge Journal of Education 42(2): 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2012.676629
Lim, F.V. 2011. A systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA) approach to classroom discourse. Unpublished PhD dissertation, National University of Singapore.
Lukmana, I., Aziz, A.E. and Kosasih, D. 2006. Makna interpersonal dalam interaksi gurumurid: Sebuah kajian wacana kritis. Linguistik Indonesia 24(1): 11–22.
Machin, D. and Mayr, A. 2012. How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. London: Sage.
Martin, J.R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Martin, J.R. and Rose, D. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Martin, J.R. and White, P.P.R. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
O’Halloran, K.L. 2005. Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London and New York: Continuum.
Rossano, F., Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. 2009. Gaze, questioning and culture. In Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, ed. J. Sidnell, 187–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511635670.008
Royce, T. 2006. Intersemiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. In New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse, eds. T.D. Royce and W.L. Bowcher, 63–109. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357774
Stein, P. 2008. Multimodal pedagogies in diverse classrooms: Representation, rights, and resources. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203935804
Sukiyadi, D., Hermawan, B. and Dallyono, R. 2016. Transduction and transformation of semiotic resources in an English classroom. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research 12(1): 60–72.
Tang, K.-S., Ho, C. and Putra, G.B.S. 2016. Developing multimodal communication competencies: A case of disciplinary literacy. In Using multimodal representation to support learning in the science classroom, eds. B. Hand, M. McDermott and V. Prain, 135–158. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_8
Taylor, R. 2014. Meaning between, in and around words, gestures and postures: Multimodal meaning-making in children’s classroom discourse. Language and Education 28(5): 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.885038
Villanueva, M.G.F. 2016. Using multimodal representations to develop scientific literacy in South African classrooms. In Using multimodal representations to support learning in the science classroom, eds. B. Hand, M. McDermott and V. Prain, 77–96. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_5
Virkkula-Räisänen, T. 2014. Linguistic repertoires and semiotic resources in interaction: A Finnish anger as a mediator in a multilingual meeting. Journal of Business Communication 47(4): 505–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610377315
Walsh, S. 2006. Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge.
_______2011. Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. New York: Routledge.
Wang, J. 2006. Questions and the exercise of power. Discourse Society 17(4): 529–548.
Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. 2009. Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.