206 Kamini Jaipal Jamani
Second, it may also have pedagogical implications for science educators striving to
diversify instruction, solicit multiple modalities as expressions of learning, directed toward
clarifying students' understandings of scientific knowledge while broadening their
understandings of the nature of science.
Third, another fruitful area of investigation is the application of the Semiotics Discourse
Analysis framework to other Science Discourse settings such as a research laboratory. Such
an analysis may yield insights that might enhance the process of research, the communication
of research findings, and the manner research can be appropriated.
Fourth, the proposed analytical framework has the potential to guide semiotics research
in the Science Education field and illuminate meaning making in Science Education
Discourse. Lastly and conversely, it may, as well, because of its unique application to Science
Education, further the field of semiotics as suggested by considering how epistemology also
conveys meaning.
REFERENCES
Airey, J., and Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science
learning: achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 46 (1), 27 – 49.
Cutnell, J.D., and Johnson, K.W. (2001). Physics (5th Edition). New York, NY: John Wiley
and Sons.
Danesi, M. (2007). The quest for meaning: A guide to semiotic theory and practice. Toronto:
Toronto University Press.
Danesi, M., and Santerno, D. (1999). What is semiotics? In M. Danesi, and D. Santerno
(Eds.), The sign in theory and practice: An introductory reader in semiotics (pp. 3 – 22).
Toronto: Canadian Scholar‘s Press.
Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Eco, U. (1984). Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Gee, (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd edition). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edition). London:
Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticing experience as technical
knowledge. In J.R. Martin, and R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: critical and functional
perspectives on discourses in science (pp.185-235). London: Routledge.
Jaipal, K. (2010). Meaning making through multiple modalities in a biology classroom: A
Multimodal semiotics discourse. Science Education, 94 (1), 48-72.
Jewitt, C., and Kress, G. (Eds.) (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York: Peter Lang.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., and Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and
learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Kozma, R., Chin, C., Russell, J., and Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in
the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 9(2), 102-143.