Applying Multimodal Discourse Analysis to Learning Objects' User Interface

Abstract

This article presents a framework of semiotic analysis that could be used for interpreting learning objects. Many learning objects are multimodal representations that aim at servicing specific educational objectives. Consequently, an urgent need arises to know what kind of meanings these representations produce and what kind of pedagogic relationships are shaped between students and them. Taking a concrete learning object as an example, we deploy a sample of multimodal discourse analysis in order to elucidate these issues. Finally, we conclude with a few thoughts about the possibility of elaborating such a framework in relation to the effective design and the implementation of learning objects.

Keywords

• Learning objects, Multimodal discourse analysis, Multimodal representations, Ideational metafunction, Interpersonal metafunction, Textual metafunction.

References

1. Baldry, A. (Ed.) (2000). multimodality and multimediality in the distance learning age. Campobasso, Italy: Palladino Editore.
2. Baldry, A. & Thibault, P. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis. London: Equinox.
3. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor and Francis.
4. Black, B., Heatwole, H., & Meeks, H. (2007). Using multimedia in interactive learning objects to meet emerging academic challenges. In A. Koohang & K. Harman (Ed.), Learning objects: Theory, praxis, issues and trends (pp.209-257). California: Informing Science Press.
5. Butson, R. (2003). Colloquium. Learning objects: Weapons of mass instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 667-669.
6. Churchill, D. (2006). Towards a useful classification of learning objects. Educational Technology
7. Research and Development, 55(5), 479-797.
8. Cindy, E.H.M., Ravit, G.D., & Clark, A.C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

9. Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R.E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.
10. Cope, B. & Kalatzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Melbourne: McMillan.
11. Dimopoulos, K., Koulaïdis, V., & Sklaveniti, S. (2003). Towards an analysis of visual images in school science textbooks and press articles about science and technology. Research in Science Education, 33, 189-216.
12. Dimopoulos, K., Koulaïdis, V., & Sklaveniti, S. (2005). Towards a framework of socio-linguistic analysis of science textbooks : The Greek case. Research in Science Education, 35, 173- 195.
13. Djonov, E. (2007). Website hierarchy and the interaction between content organization, webpage and navigation design: A systemic functional hypermedia discourse analysis perspective. Information Design Journal, 15(2), 144–162.
14. Friesen, N. (2004). Three objections to learning objects. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects (pp.59-70), London: Routledge.
15. Friesen, N. & Cressman, D. (2007). The politics of e-learning standarization. In A. Koohang & K. Harman (Ed.), Learning objects: Theory, praxis, issues and trends (pp.507-525). California: Informing Science Press.
16. Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition). London: Arnold.
17. Iedema, R. (2001). Analyzing film and television: A social semiotic account of hospital: An unhealthy business. In Jewitt, C. & T. van Leeuwen (Eds.). Handbook of visual analysis (pp.183-204). London: Sage.
18. IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee. (2003). WG12: Learning object metadata. IEEE LTSC WG 12. Retrieved 5 September 2008 from http:// ltsc.ieee.org/ wg12/
19. Jewitt, C. & Kress, G. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York: Peter Lang.
20. Karalis, T. Sotiropoulos, L. & Kampeza, M. (2007). ‘La contribution de l’éducation tout au long de la vie et de l’anthropologie dans la préparation professionnelle des enseignants : Réflexions théoriques’, Skholê, 1, 149-155.
21. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry- based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
22. Kong, K. (2006). A taxonomy of the discourse relations between words and visual. Information Design Journal, 14(3), 207-230.
23. Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
24. Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.
25. Lemke, J. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communication, 1(3), 299-325.
26. Levine, P. & Scollon, R. (2004). Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
27. Lim, G. (2007). Instructional design and pedagogical considerations for the ins-and-outs of
28. learning objects. In A., Koohang & K., Harman (Eds.), Learning objects and instructional
29. design (pp. 1-38). California: Informing Science Press.
30. Lockyer, L., Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Harper, B. (Eds.). ( 2009). Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications, and technologies. New York: Information Science Reference.
31. Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to multimodal analysis. London: Hodder Arnold.
32. Macken-Horarik, M. (2004). Interacting with the multimodal text: Reflections on image and verbiage in ArtExpress. Visual Communication, 3(1), 5-26.
33. Martinec, R. (2004). Gestures that co-occur with speech as a systematic resource: The realization of experiential meaning in indexes. Social Semiotics, 14(2), 193-213.
34. Martinec, R. & Salway, A. (2005). A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media. Visual Communication, 4(3), 339-374.
35. Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticism examined. International Educational Journal, 6(3), 386-399.
36. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
37. Notargiacomo, M. P., Frango, S. I., Omar, N., Dotto, S. M. (2007). Structure of storyboard for interactive learning objects development. In A. Koohang & K. Harman (Ed.), Learning objects and instructional design (pp.253-279). California: Informing Science Press.
38. O'Toole, M. (1994). The language of displayed art. London: Leicester Universtiy Press.
39. Parrish, P.E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 49-67.
40. Polsanyi, P. R., (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4). Retrieved 14 January 2009 from http://jodi.tamu.edu /Articles/v03/i04/Polsani/
41. Ravanis, K. (1996). Stratégies d'interventions didactiques pour l'initiation des enfants de l'école maternelle en sciences physiques. Spirale, 17, 161-176.
42. Ravanis, K. (1999). Représentations des élèves de l´école maternelle: Le concept de lumière’, International Journal of Early Childhood, 31(1), 48-53.
43. Ravanis, K. (2005). Les sciences physiques à l’école maternelle: Eléments théoriques d’un cadre sociocognitif pour la construction des connaissances et/ou le développements des activités didactiques. International Review of Education, 51(2-3), 201-218.
44. Simbulan M.S., (2007). Learning objects’ user interface. In A. Koohang & K. Harman. (Ed.), Learning objects: Theory, praxis, issues and trends (pp.259-336), California: Informing Science Press.
45. Sotiropoulos, L. (2003). La recherche anthropologique en éducation : Quelques adaptations de la méthode, Spirale, 31, 85-90.
46. Thibault, P. (2000). The multimodal transcription of a television advertisement: Theory and practice. In A. Baldry (Ed.), Multimodality and multimediality in the distance learning age (pp.331-385), Campobasso, Italy: Palladino Editore.
47. Unsworth, L. (2006). E-literature for children: Enhancing digital literacy learning. London and New York: Routledge/Falmer.
48. Unsworth, L. (2007). Image/text relations and intersemiosis: Towards multimodal text description for multiliteracies education. In B. Leila, B. & T. Berber-Sardinha (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd International Systemic Functional Congress (pp.1165-1205), PUCSP, São Paulo, Brazil.
49. Unsworth, L., Thomas, A., Simpson, A., & Asha, J. (2005). Children’s literature and computer based teaching. London: McGraw-Hill/ Open University Press.
50. van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, music, sound. London: Macmillan.
51. van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London & New York: Routledge.
52. Wiley, D. (2002). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. Wiley, D. (Εd.), The instructional use of learning objects. Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology and Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Retrieved 14 March 2009 from http://reusability.org /read/
53. Correspondence: George Vorvilas, Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood
54. Education University of Patras, Greece.