Introducing Young Children to Expository Texts through Nonverbal Graphic Representations
Résumé
Expository texts represent reality in a logical-scientific way. They often consist of written language and nonverbal graphic representations, such as tables and graphs, each conveying some of the text meanings (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). Expository texts are prevalent in the academic world and the educational system, and are challenging at all levels of education (Berman & Nir, 2009).
The current study explores preschool children’s production of expository texts: when they need them, what resources they choose, and how these contribute to text meaning. Method: Participants were four Israeli preschool teachers and their students, aged 3-6 years. In each preschool, the teacher documented text production events, describing the context of text production, transcribing children’s conversations and adding comments explaining the photographed texts. Text analysis included identifying genre markers (Coutinho & Miranda, 2009), text functions (Donald, 1991), verbal and nonverbal representations and text layout (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006).
Findings: The children produced texts of six genres: a definition, an observation table, a bird guide, an information sheet, an instruction manual, and a bi-lingual dictionary. These helped them store and retrieve information, monitor their own behavior and communicate with others. Diverse types of representations were used: written words for naming, drawing for shapes, numerals for quantity and length, and tables for organizing data. The study shows that nonverbal graphic representations enrich children’s text producing resources, and may help them gradually grasp and appropriate expository text genres.
Références
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. http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200309/DrawingtoLearn.pdf
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:
Rotterdam.
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: http://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/spring-2003/filling-great-void.
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.
Los autores/as que publiquen en esta revista ceden los derechos de autor y de publicación a "Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios de Diseño y Comunicación", Aceptando el registro de su trabajo bajo una licencia de atribución de Creative Commons, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que de el crédito pertinente a los autores y a esta revista.
