Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:37:00 CDT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         Gary Shank <P30GDS1@NIU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ecopy,finally...

thanks for asking --- here it is.     gary


                 The Virtues of an Educational Semiotic

                                     Gary D. Shank
                         Northern Illinois University

                              Donald J. Cunningham
                                 Indiana University


	Between the two of us, we have dedicated a substantial
amount of effort to the topic of semiotics-- some thirty years of
study, several hundred articles, book chapters, and conference
papers; two fellowships; attendance and participation in at least six
major summer long institutes and at least fifty shorter conferences
and sessions; organizing, chairing and fostering over thirty "open"
sessions and special interest groups at various scholarly meetings;
editing and/or contributing to two special issues of journals on
semiotics and education (one in education and one in semiotics); and,
at least, steady work on a collaborative book on the topic that will
be finished.......some day.

	In the face of all this effort, there is a question that many
people in the field feel too polite to ask, but which nonetheless
lingers under the surface of many of our joint and individual
interactions with our colleagues in education:  What is the point of
all this work on semiotics, anyway?  Or, what good is semiotics in
education after all? We would like to help out our friends and co-
workers in education, and raise that question ourselves in this brief
article.  We are working to help define and implement a discipline of
educational semiotic.  Why should anyone do this?  In short, we
argue that educational semiotic deserves to exist, because it is a
virtuous idea.

	Virtue is one of those words which, ironically, have a semiotic
history to them.  In our culture, the term 'virtue' has worn a
puritanical connotation, so that anyone who uses the term risks
triggering images of repression and authoritarian prescription in the
name of some narrowly defined band of 'goodness.' We use the term
'virtue' deliberately, because we want to address that sense of
exclusion and superiority head-on.  Educational semiotic thinking
and practice is virtuous not because it excludes ways of thinking,
but because it inserts and builds upon new ways of thinking.  It is
the virtue of discovery, and not the virtue of verified restricted
action.  The primary virtue in education is clarity, however, and
before we can extol the virtues of semiotics, we need to define it.


Some Preliminaries

	We will not, in this brief space, provide a comprehensive
overview of semiotic theory (see the reference list for papers in
which we attempt this).  But we need to briefly characterize the
central concept underlying semiotics, the sign, before discussing the
virtues of the general approach.  Simply put, the subject matter of
semiotics is semiosis, the action of signs in all domains of life.
Within semiotics, these domains are limitless, from the action of
genes to the co-evolutionary analysis of Gaia.  As educational
semioticians, we are interested in the action of signs in educational
practice and research.

	Signs are things that stand for something else.  A sign is
operating when it brings to mind something other than itself, as
when the word "pencil" brings to mind the object with which we
write, smoke brings to mind the fire that caused it, or the stick
figure on the restroom door brings to mind the gender of the
preferred user.

	Semiotics as a field makes the bold assertion that human
cognition is accomplished entirely with signs, that we have no
direct access to the real world.  Our understanding of the world is
entirely mediated by signs, and therefore to understand human
cognition, we must understand the nature of our signs:  What is a
sign?  How is one sign related to another sign?  What do signs reveal
about the real world?  What do they obscure?  How are signs
formed?  What are the ways in which signs can stand for something
else?

	Traditional approaches to human cognition are grounded on one
side or the other of the classic philosophical conundrum: realism vs.
idealism.  Realist views, the more common in educational circles
today, argue that human cognition has the potential to be a mirror of
reality.  Sign-like processes, if they are considered at all, tend to be
regarded as error - of perception, memory, intelligence, etc.
Idealist approaches posit nothing but sign process, where reality is
that which we construct with our minds.  Semiotics, in our thinking,
constitutes a genuine third alternative, not simply some compromise
between realism and idealism.  While we disagree among ourselves
about the character of this third alternative (this is not the place to
pursue this debate), we agree that the solution is grounded in the
notion that signs are shared, that they exist fundamentally as a
means of communication between organisms, and that we literally
bring forth the worlds in which we find ourselves in a form of
structural coupling with other organisms.

Semiotic Virtues


	While there are many ways that we can describe the 'virtues'
or 'rightness' of an educational semiotic, we feel that there are
three main sources or venues of virtue that an educational semiotic
can foster in our field.

Semiotics restores discovery/invention in inquiry

	The first virtue of an educational semiotic is based on the fact
that it is a powerful tool for the basic researcher in education.
Basic research in education has fallen upon hard times lately.  We
are living in practical times, and it has become the mission of the
educational researcher to tell us what is happening in schools today,
why these things are happening, and what ought to be done next.

	We are supportive of the notion of applied research in
education, but we are nervous about the naivete underneath the
theoretical base of these applied actions.  For instance, there is a
great deal of effort in the area of improving reading in our schools.
Researchers, to their credit, are going into the schools to find out
what is actually happening when children learn to read.  But the gist
of the approach is that the researchers, whether they realize it or
not, are actually trying to confirm or disconfirm whether certain
theoretical things are going on in the reading process (i.e., whether
reading is behavior change, information processing, etc.).

	Why is confirmation/disconfirmation such an important part of
the research process?  Simply put, research is built upon the logic
of verification.  When we do research, we try to see if our
empirically formulated theories can be confirmed by more directed
empirical evidence gathering and analysis.  The implication of this
position is to push the venue of basic research into the arena of
building theories, while applied research becomes the act of trying
to confirm, deny, or modify those theories, based on what actually
happens in ecologically valid settings of inquiry. We feel that the
logic of verification inserts certain virtues into the research
process.  First of all, it makes the link between theory and practice
clear.  Second, it allows for independent and non-subjective means
to confirm/disconfirm theories.  Finally, it should allow researchers
to use the acts of confirmation and disconfirmation to correct,
based on the findings of research,  flawed practices that go on in the
schools.

	The virtues of verification are not the same as the virtues of
discovery, though.  The educational semiotician goes into the schools
with an entirely different mission, and armed with an entirely
different logic.  The educational semiotician (hereafter called the
ES) looks at the setting on its own terms, as an environment imbued
with layer after layer of meaning.  The act of the ES is to uncover,
reveal, and examine those layers of meaning, and in particular, to
articulate meaning patterns that have, until then, been only covert.
This logic of discovery is based on the need to treat the objects of
experience as signs:  signs to the people involved in the setting,
signs to the researcher, and signs to others who come to experience
these settings.  Furthermore, these signs point to powerful trends of
meaning which often derive much of their power from being
unarticulated.

	Let us try to characterize this virtue with a concrete example.
Suppose we stroll into a second grade classroom, and observe a
reading circle in progress.  The verificationist researcher will
immediately monitor this reading circle to see which basic theory of
reading instruction is being instantiated.  Once she discerns this,
her next move is to determine how well the theory has been applied.
Then, and finally, she determines how much effect, if any, this
applied version of the theory, has had on the improvement of reading
skills of these second graders, using the techniques and measures
consistent with that theory.

	The discovery researcher, armed with an educational semiotic
perspective, is up to something entirely different.  She is more
interested in monitoring the situation as a complex of experiences.
What are the children doing?  Are they paying attention to the task?
Are they daydreaming?  If we ask them, what will they say that
reading, and reading circles, mean to them?  What are the underlying
assumptions about teaching that seem to inform the teacher, and
how does the teacher feel about second graders?  Are there any
behaviors, or actions, or material cultural artifices, in the setting
that draw our curious attention to them?  If we apply a metaphorical
frame to the reading circle, what do we find? What do we find when
we apply several different metaphorical frames, such as 'reading
circles are like factories', or 'reading circles are like clubs', or
'reading circles are like corporate board meetings' and on and on, up
to the creative discretion of the discovery inquirer?

	Treating the world as a panoply of signs allows the discovery
inquirer the justification to do her research, without having to
twist and turn the research to make it look like an example of
verification research.  In other words, the fundamental virtue of an
educational semiotic in basic research is that it gives the
researcher permission to do a style of work that has no place in a
world where only verificational research is allowed.  Note that this
does not replace the need to do verificational research; it expands
the process of inquiry.

Semiotics increases the bandwidth of educational thinking

	Currently, educational theory, research and practice is derived
from a fairly narrow band of theory and method.  Most research is
grounded on psychology, some anthropology, some sociology, and a
smattering of field wisdom and common sense.  Theory is based on
verificational research findings and a fairly narrow range of
philosophical and policy works.  Finally, practice filters these prior
effects through an inertial system of administrative and grassroots
practices.

	The worldview of education reflects the prevailing worldview
of our entire culture, which is one of specialization, or narrowidth
thinking.  Specializaiton is not a fundamental property of reality,
but is a cultural-historical accident of the fact that the institution
of education flourished during the industrial revolution, where
specialization was the order of the day. Now that we have moved
into the information age, we see that specialization needs to be
constantly tempered with a more broad bandwidth of thinking and
modeling.  Narrowcast applications of educational theories are in
fact being replaced, more or less unsystematically, with broadcast
patterns of thought and insight. Our system is in need of some way
to get a handle on this problem, and we feel that educational
semiotic is part of the answer.  The secret lies in the fact that the
'sign' is strictly a formal concept and so is not dependent on content
per se.  Therefore, a system of signs can be as broadcast as we
might want it to be, and if the elements all function as signs, they
can be incorporated into a larger and systematic frame.

	Again, let us conclude this section with a concrete example.
The ES is back in front of the reading circle.  What avenues of
learning and understanding can the ES bring to bear in this sit-
uation?  Well, he can draw from a vast domain of related fields.
How is reading like singing?  They both involve the decoding of
written symbols to vocal sounds.  How is reading like playing a
musical instrument?  They both involve the means to interpret
existing text and to construct new texts.  Are the similarities and
difference informative?  Here, we have the ability to create a
complex interplay between the reading, the singing, and the playing.
Both singing and playing a musical instrument are often done in
group settings, typically requiring a complicated coordination of
separate but related actions.  What might reading look like if similar
conditions were imposed in the instructional setting?  Note that
there is no a priori requirement that the question raised should make
immediate sense:  this is discovery, even invention research, after
all, and not verification research.  In short, the link between the
discovery aspects of the inquiry and the abstract nature of the sign
act to invite, rather than exclude, correlated and even non-
correlated avenues of inquiry.

	We are not arguing for a completely "free-form" mode of
inquiry.  The extent to which a consideration of alternative means of
interpreting a situation (of applying an alternative sign system) is
useful must always be submitted to some sort of instrumentality
criterion:  Does this analysis inform our understanding of the
complex social situation which typifies the educational process?  Do
the insights stand up to the test of more traditional verification
research?  In essence, we are proposing that educators and
educational researchers heed Sherlock Holmes' warning, that it is
premature to theorize before all the "facts" are in.  We must collect
as many observations as we can from as many perspectives as seem
relevant, and then hypothesize a theoretical state of affairs in
which the observations make sense.  Unlike Holmes. however, we
educators seldom have anything as concrete as a dead body or a
smoking gun on which to ground our theorizing.  This makes our task
at once both more frustrating and rewarding.

Semiotics redefines pedagogy

	So far we have stressed the openness of semiotics, its ability
to entertain a variety of perspectives in a seemingly ecumenical,
self-reflexive manner.  But semiotics also entails a set of values of
what are appropriate virtues to be pursued in various applied
settings:  medicine, science, music, and education.  That is,
semiotics also has a prescriptive side:  Given that human semiosis
is the action of signs, what is the purpose of education?  If semiosis
is an ongoing process (and may even be thought of as a definition of
life), what role is left to the educator?

	Again, we have written extensively on this topic elsewhere
and can only briefly summarize our view here.  Since semiosis is the
action of signs and our knowlege of the world is always mediated by
signs, one overriding goal for eduaction is to provide experience
with the semiosic process.  How do the signs we use color or
influence our world view?  What are the consequences of using
alternative signs?  A pervasive and largely benign effect of
semiosis is that we tend to use those signs through which the world
makes good sense to us, that seem "right".  And we tend to assume
that others see things in roughly the same way we do.  That our
worldview is constructed from signs is largely invisible.  Providing
experience which elevates our world view to a conscious level
typically entails bringing up alternative views for comparison, as
when children study cultures different from their own.

	In a classroom with which we have worked, the teacher is
exchanging material (stories, letters, photographs, HyperCard
stacks, etc.) with a similar classroom in Northern Ireland.  The
children in both cultures are constantly surprised by the differences
that have been revealed, from simple things like the way a date is
written or the likelihood that the family owns a car, to the extreme,
as when the children in Northern Ireland talk about the "Troubles"
(the sectarian violence).  The children in both cultures are invited to
put themselves in the perspective of the other, and examine their
own cultural practices based upon this new perspective.  What would
it be like to live in a town where Army patrols can be seen several
times a day?  To come upon a policeman with a cocked semi-
automatic weapon?  On the other hand, what is it like to live in a
culture where personal crime is common (such crimes are rare in
Northern Ireland in comparison to the U. S.)?

	This example embodies many of the principles of a semiotic
pedagogy about which we have written elsewhere:  Specifically, we
have proposed the following guidelines:


1.  Provide experience with the semiosic process
2.  Provide experience with and appreciation for multiple
         perspectives
3.  Embed learning in realistic and relevant contexts.
4.  Encourage ownership and voice in the learning process.
5.  Embed learning in social experience.
6.  Encourage the use of multiple modes of representation (alternate
         sign systems).
7.  Encourage self-awareness of the semiosic process (reflexivity).

	Earlier we proposed that at the heart of semiotics lies the
notion that signs are shared, that they emerge from a communicative
coupling between individuals.  This theme pervades all of the
guidelines listed above.  But we want to be clear.  We are not
proposing that education is largely a process of transmitting a
message from a source to a destination, from a teacher to a student.
Rather, the process is one of dialogue, negotiation of meaning from
shared social experience.  The teacher, as mentor, becomes a person
who attempts to extend the range of experience from which the
learner can construct knowledge, serving a scaffolding function like
that described by Vygotsky.  The "message" or the "meaning" emerges
from both the source and the destination in a dynamic process:
semiosis.  Thus, it is impossible to think of semiosis, and therefore
learning, as an isolated process, taking place within the confines of
any individual (any individual mind).  Education, as all forms of
semiosis, takes place in the dynamic interplay of sign structures
between individuals.

Signposts for the Future

 	As we have said throughout this article, the purpose of an
educational semiotic is to make the entire process of education
better.  We feel that the virtues of controlled discovery, broad
domains of inquiry, and meaning-oriented pedagogy will, if put in
place, modify our field for the better.  We recognize that other
positions (e.g., constructivism) hold similar goals, but argue that
they do so without the advantage of a well developed, formal
doctrine of signs.

 	What then, would the future hold for the educational
semiotician?  We see three areas of particular promise over the
horizon (semioticians like to think in terms of triads!).  First of all,
an educational semiotic base would allow for an educational system
where specialities become less departmental, and more inter-
disciplinary.  Can you imagine children studying the aesthetics,
history, and biophysics of dance?  Or the poetics and philosophies of
government?

 	Second, a system grounded in an educational semiotic would
allow for teachers to witness their philosophies of teaching, rather
than simply transmit them.  When we focus reflexively on our impact
as a sign of learning, we become more vibrant and alive as teachers,
instead of being simple conduits of knowledge.

 	Third, and most importantly, we see that an educational
semiotic could help us restore a world of learning where the
questions are just as important, and actually even more important,
than the answers.  One way of characterizing semiotics is to say
that it is a view of the world where every experience is the answer
to at least one unstated or unknown question.  In a sense, life is one
big game of Jeopardy, where our roles as educators is to help
learners ask more and more interesting and sophisticated questions.

 	In the final analysis, we could say that the role of an
educational semiotic is to reassert the fact that curiosity is a noble
human trait, whether expressed by researchers, teachers, or
students. If we can advance the cause of curiosity in education, then
the future of the field will be bright and the virtuous status of
educational semiotics will be permanently ensured.


                                                   References


Cunningham, D. J.  (1987).  Outline of an education semiotic.  The
American Journal of Semiotics, 5, 201-216.

Cunningham, D. J.  (in press).  Beyond educational psychology: Steps
toward an educational semiotic. Educational Psychology
Review.

Cunningham, D. J. & Shank, G. D.  (1984).  Semiotics: A new foundation
for education?  Contemporary Education Review, 3, 411-421.

Cunningham, D. J.  and Shank, G. D.  (1989).  Semiotics,  a short
course.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, New Orleans, August.

Shank, G. D.  (1987).  Abductive strategies in educational research.
The American Journal of Semiotics, 5, 275-290.

Shank, G. D.  (in press).  Educational semiotic:  Threat or menace?
Educational Psychology Review.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU