Introducing Young Children to Expository Texts through Nonverbal Graphic Representations

  • Ainat Guberman
Palabras clave: Educación inicial ; escritura expositiva ; modalidades de aprendizaje ; aprendizaje activo


Los textos expositivos representan la realidad de acuerdo a una modalidad lógico-científica. Frecuentemente consisten en lenguaje escrito y representaciones gráficas no verbales, tales como tablas y gráficos, cada uno de los cuales transmite algunos de los significados del texto (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). Los textos expositivos son predominantes en el mundo académico y el sistema educativo, y resultan desafiantes en todos los niveles educativos (Berman & Nir, 2009).

El presente estudio explora la producción de textos expositivos por parte de niños en nivel inicial: cuándo necesitan este tipo de textos, qué recursos eligen, y cómo estos recursos contribuyen al significado textual.

Método: Los participantes fueron cuatro docentes de nivel inicial en Israel y sus alumnos, de tres a seis años de edad. Cada docente documentó eventos de producción textual, incluyendo para ello la descripción de la producción textual, la transcripción de las conversaciones de los niños y fotografías de los textos con comentarios explicativos. El análisis textual se basó en la identificación de los marcadores de género (Coutinho & Miranda, 2009), funciones del texto (Donald, 1991), las representaciones verbales y no verbales y la disposición del texto (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006).

Resultados: Los niños produjeron textos correspondientes a seis géneros: una definición, una tabla de observación, una guía de aves, una planilla informativa, un manual de instrucciones y un diccionario bilingüe. Estos textos les resultaron útiles para almacenar y recuperar información, monitorear su propio comportamiento y comunicarse con otras personas. Los niños utilizaron diversos tipos de representación: palabras escritas para nombrar, dibujos para formas, numerales para representar cantidad y longitud, tablas para organizar datos.

El estudio mostró que las representaciones gráficas no verbales enriquecen los recursos de producción textual de los niños, y pueden ayudarlos a aprehender y apropiarse gradualmente de los géneros textuales expositivos.


Bakar, K. (2017) Young Children’s Representations of Addition in Problem Solving. Creative Education, 8(14), 2232-2242.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In: C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (V. McGee, Trans., pp. 60–102). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barthes, R. (1981). Camera lucida: Reflections on photography. New York: Hill and Wang.

Bazerman, C. (2009). Genre and cognitive development: beyond writing to learn. In: C.

Bazerman, C. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds). Genre in a changing world (Ch. 14, pp. 279-294). Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse.

Bazerman, C. (2013). Understanding the lifelong journey of writing development. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 36 (4), 421-441.

Benelli, B., Belacchi, C., Gini, G., & Lucangeli D. (2006). ‘To define means to say what you know about things’: the development of definitional skills as metalinguistic acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 33(1), 71-97.

Berman, R. A., & Nir, B. (2009). Cognitive and linguistic factors in evaluating text quality: global versus local? In: V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds). New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 421-440). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bezemer, J. & Kress, G. (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication. London: Routledge.

Bleijenbergh, I., Korzilius, H., & Verschuren, P. (2011). Methodological criteria for the internal validity and utility of practice oriented research. Quality & Quantity 45(1), 145–156.

Brooks, M. (2003). Drawing to learn. NAEYC Beyond Journal.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111.

Correia, M. P. (2011). Fiction vs. informational texts: Which will kindergartners choose? YC Young Children; 66(6), 100-104.

Coutinho, M. A., & Miranda, F. (2009). To describe genres: problems and strategies. In: C. Bazerman, A. Bonini & D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a changing world (Ch. 3, pp. 35-56). Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse.

Dockrell, J., & Teubal, E. (2007). Distinguishing numeracy from literacy: evidence from children’s early notations. In: E. Teubal, J. Dockrell, L. Tolchinsky, & J. E. Dockrell (Eds.), Notational knowledge: developmental and historical perspectives (pp. 113-158). Sense:


Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. Glasgow, UK: Fontana / Collins.

Duke N. K., Bennett-Armistead S., & Roberts E. M. (2003). Filling the great void: Why we should bring nonfiction into the early-grade classroom. American Educator. Retrieved from:

Duke, N.K. & Block, M.K. (2012). Improving reading in the primary grades. The Future of Children, 22(2), 55-72.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In: N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, (4th ed., pp. 301–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fox, J. & Lee, J. (2013). When children draw vs when children don’t: exploring the effects of observational drawing in science. Creative Education, 4, 11-14.

Gallenstein, N. L. (2005). Never too young for a concept map. Science and Children, 43(1), 44-47.

Guberman, A., & Teubal, E. (2014). The potential contribution of graphic texts to the education of preschool children in multi-cultural settings. In: P. M. Rabensteiner & G. R. Rabensteiner (Eds.) Internationalization in teacher education (Vol. 7: Near-East, pp. 60-72). Hohengehren, Germany: Schneider.

Hammer, D., Elby, A, Scherr, R., & Redish, E. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In: J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives (Ch. 3, pp. 89-119). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K & Martin, J. R (1993). Writing science: literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press.

Heidmann, U., & Adam, J. M. (2007). Text linguistics and comparative literature: towards an interdisciplinary approach to written tales. Angela Carter’s translations of Perrault. In: D. R. Miller & M. Turci (Eds.), Language and verbal art revisited: linguistic approaches to the study of literature (Ch. 7, pp. 181- 196). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.

Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review, 26, 55–88.

Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: the multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53(1), 5-18.

Kenner, C. (1999). Children’s understandings of text in a multilingual nursery. Language and Education, 13(1), 1-16.

Kress, G. (2015). Semiotic work: applied linguistics and a social semiotic account of multimodality. AILA Review, 28, 49–71.

Kress, G., & Jewitt, C. (2003). Introduction. In: G. Kress & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (Ch. 1, pp. 1-18). NY: Peter Lang.

Kress, G., & Selander, S. (2012). Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 265-268.

Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (second edition). NY: Routledge.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Livnat, Z. (2012). Dialogue, science and academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mitchelmore, M. (1998). Young students’ concepts of turning and angle. Cognition and Instruction, 16(3), 265-284.

Murnane, R., Sawhill, I., & Snow, C. (2012). Literacy challenges for the twenty-first century: Introducing the issue. The Future of Children, 22(2), 3-15.

Olson, D. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Preston, C. (2016). Try this: Draw like a scientist. Teaching Science, 62, 4-8.

Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Raedts, M., Van Steendam, E., Toorenaar, A., & Van den Bergh, H. (2008). Observation of peers in learning to write, Practice and Research. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 53-83.

Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: evidence, theory and practice. In: S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds). Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97-110). NY: Guilford.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 431-459.

Snow, C.E. (2017). The role of vocabulary versus knowledge in children’s language learning: a fifty-year perspective. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 40(1), 1-18.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Snow, C.E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In: D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy (pp. 112-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. Guilford Publications. New York: Guilford.

Teubal, E., & Guberman, A. (2014). Graphic texts: Literacy enhancing tools in early childhood. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

Tversky, B. (1999). What does drawing reveal about thinking? In: J.S. Gero & B. Tversky (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design (93-101). Sydney, Australia: Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition.

Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In: M. Gattis, M. (ed).. Spatial schemas and abstract thought (Ch. 4, pp. 79-112). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD

UNESCO EFA Global Monitoring Report Team (2005). Why literacy matters. In: Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006 (ch. 5, pp. 135-145). Paris: UNESCO.

Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21(1), 14-23.

Yopp, R.H., & Yopp, H.K. (2006). Informational text as read-alouds at school and home. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 37-51.

Cómo citar
Guberman, A. (2020). Introducing Young Children to Expository Texts through Nonverbal Graphic Representations. Cuadernos Del Centro De Estudios De Diseño Y Comunicación, (89).