References
- Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in england. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035–1055. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21036
- Abrahams, I., & Saglam, M. (2010). A study of teachers’ views on practical work in secondary schools in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 753–768. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902777410
- Antin, T. M. J., Constantine, N. A., & Hunt, G. (2015). Conflicting discourses in qualitative research:The search for divergent data within cases. Field Methods, 27(3), 211–222. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X14549926
- Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. J. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis. Equinox Pub.
- Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe half-way: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
- Buxton, C. A., & Lee, O. (2014). English learners in science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 204–222). Routledge.
- Candlin, F. (2010). Art, museums and touch. University Press Manchester.
- Chen, S. F., Chang, W. H., Lai, C. H., & Tsai, C. Y. (2014). A comparison of students’ approaches to inquiry, conceptual learning, and attitudes in simulation-based and microcomputer-based laboratories. Science Education, 98(5), 905–935. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21126
- Cranny-Francis, A. (2011). Semefulness: A social semiotics of touch. Social Semiotics, 21(4), 463–481. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2011.591993
- Danielsson, K. (2016). Modes and meaning in the classroom – the role of different semiotic resources to convey meaning in science classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 35, 88–99. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.07.005
- Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225). Academic Press.
- Ge, Y.-P., Unsworth, L., Wang, K.-H., & Chang, H.-P. (2018). What images reveal: A comparative study of science images between Australian and Taiwanese Junior High School Textbooks. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1409–1431. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9608-9
- Givry, D., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Toward a new conception of conceptions: Interplay of talk, gestures, and structures in the setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(10), 1086–1109. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20139
- Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Arnold.
- Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. Arnold.
- Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Hand, B., McDermott, M., & Prain, V. (2016). Using multimodal representations to support learning in the science classroom. Springer.
- He, Q., & Forey, G. (2018). Meaning-Making in a secondary science classroom: A systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis. In K.-S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 183–202). Springer International Publishing.
- Hetherington, L., Hardman, M., Noakes, J., & Wegerif, R. (2018). Making the case for a material-dialogic approach to science education. Studies in Science Education, 54(2), 141–176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2019.1598036
- Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest. Research in Science Education, 40(5), 743–757. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9142-0
- Jakobson, B., Danielsson, K., Axelsson, M., & Uddling, J. (2018). Measuring time. Multilingual elementary school students’ meaning-making in physics. In K. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 167–181). Springer.
- Jones, M. G., Andre, T., Kubasko, D., Bokinsky, A., Tretter, T., Negishi, A., Taylor, R., & Superfine, R. (2004). Remote atomic force microscopy of microscopic organisms: technological innovations for hands-on science with middle and high school students. Science Education, 88(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10112
- Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
- Kirk, J. (2015). Using manipulatives in the Chemistry classroom as a tool to increase the understanding and knowledge of the law of conversation of matter. St. John Fisher College. Rochester, N.Y.
- Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
- Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. Continuum.
- Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
- Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
- Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.
- Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Ablex.
- Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87–113). Routledge.
- Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson (Ed.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215–234). Legas.
- Lim, V. F. (2019). Analysing the teachers’ use of gestures in the classroom: A systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis approach. Social Semiotics, 29(1), 83–111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1412168
- Lundqvist, E., Almqvist, J., & Östman, L. (2009). Epistemological norms and companion meanings in science classroom communication. Science Education, 93(5), 859–874. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20334
- Martin, S. F., Shaw, E. L., & Daughenbaugh, L. (2014). Using smart boards and manipulatives in the elementary science classroom. TechTrends, 58(3), 90–96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0756-3
- Martinec, R. (2000). Types of process in action. Semiotica, 130(3-4), 243–268. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2000.130.3-4.243
- Milne, C., & Scantlebury, K. (2019). Material practice and materiality: Too long ignored in science education. Springer.
- Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and situation analysis. The Sociological Review, 31(2), 187–211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1983.tb00387.x
- Moro, L., Mortimer, E. F., & Tiberghien, A. (2020). The use of social semiotic multimodality and joint action theory to describe teaching practices: Two cases studies with experienced teachers. Classroom Discourse, 11(3), 229–251. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1570528
- O’Halloran, K. L. (1998). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359–388. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(99)00013-3
- Olohan, M. (2016). Science, translation and the mangle: A performative conceptualization of scientific translation. Meta, 61(special issue), 5–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7202/1038682ar
- Osborne, J. F. (2019). Not “hands on” but “minds on”: A response to furtak and penuel. Science Education, 103(5), 1280–1283. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21543
- Peirce, C. S. (1986). Writings of charles S. Peirce: A chronological edition. Indiana University Press.
- Perin, S. M., Carsten Conner, L. D., & Oxtoby, L. E. (2019). How various material resources facilitate science identity work for girls in a research apprenticeship program. Journal of Geoscience Education, 68(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1700594
- Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. University of Chicago Press.
- Roehl, T. (2012). From witnessing to recording – material objects and the epistemic configuration of science classes. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.649415
- Roth, W. M. (1999). Discourse and agency in school science laboratories. Discourse Processes, 28(1), 27–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545068
- Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Cambridge University Press.
- Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed, pp. 435–454). Sage.
- Tang, K. S. (2017). Analyzing teachers’ use of metadiscourse: The missing element in classroom discourse analysis. Science Education, 101(4), 548–583. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21275
- Tang, K. S. (2020). Discourse strategies for science teaching and learning: Research and practice. Routledge.
- Tang, K. S., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. B. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98(2), 305–326. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21099
- Tang, K. S., Won, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2019). Analytical framework for student-generated drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 41(16), 2296–2322. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1672906
- Ünsal, Z., Jakobson, B., Wickman, P.-O., & Molander, B.-O. (2019). Jumping pepper and electrons in the shoe: Using physical artefacts in a multilingual science class. International Journal of Science Education, 42(14), 2387–2406. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1650399
- Vande Kopple, J, W. (2012). The importance of studying metadiscourse. Applied Research on English Language, 1(2), 37–44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2012.15453
- Van Rooy, W. S., & Chan, E. (2017). Multimodal representations in senior biology assessments: A case study of NSW Australia. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(7), 1237–1256. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9741-y
- Varelas, M., Pieper, L., Arsenault, A., Pappas, C. C., & Keblawe-Shamah, N. (2014). How science texts and hands-on explorations facilitate meaning making: Learning from Latina/o third graders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1246–1274. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21173
- Weinstein, M. (2010). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Science Education, 94(6), 1123–1125. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20406
- Williams, M., & Tang, K. S. (2020). The implications of the non-linguistic modes of meaning for language learners in science: A review. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1041–1067. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1748249
- Wu, S. C., Silveus, A., Vasquez, S., Biffi, D., Silva, C., & Weinburgh, M. (2019). Supporting ELLs’ Use of hybrid language and argumentation during science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1529520