[quoting Kleinman, 12 Nov 94] First, how does semiotic evaluation add greater strength to Instructional Designer efforts (in terms of focusing on the learner) than the current demands for learner-centered evaluation of prior knowledge and characteristics before designing?
I think semiotic "evaluation," can strengthen instructional designer efforts by providing a better understanding of the contextual meanings of words and performance of subject matter experts and learners than is available from a traditional analysis of learner characteristics and prior knowledge. Perhaps an analogy can help illustrate this point.
Consider the task of making shoes. In a traditional instructional design world, we would first analyze the objective of designing shoes, interview a number of cobblers (shoe-makers), and then study feet--including the wants and needs of people that walk in them. Next we would design and develop a shoe, and evaluate the fit. We might make some improvements, or include a free shoehorn (motivational strategy?) to make sure that the shoe gets on the foot right. Certainly a systematic and self-consistent process, but more "shoe-oriented" than "foot-oriented."
A semiotically-informed approach might involve the same players, but the design process would be significantly different. Following an assumption that we don't know the representations of reality by either the cobblers or the customers, we would study how cobblers understand AND perform the making of shoes that the customers like. To do this, we would hire a few expert cobblers to build shoes for a few typical customers. We would observe the process and ask questions about the reasons for tasks, and meanings of performances, during shoe-making. We might identify subtleties in the cobbler's processes, such as how the cobbler looked at the gait (walk) of the customer and determined which part of the sole would need reinforcement. We would also ask meaning-oriented questions of the customer. We might identify, for example, that the customer is anxious about getting blisters while breaking the shoe in. Or, we might find out that the customer would really prefer a few features of a more expensive shoe.
Based on the knowledge gained, we would then design and build our shoes. We might still use a traditional instructional design-like approach at this point, but the process would be streamlined. We would already know what will be accepted by customers, and we would have a better understanding of how the processes of shoe-making work, and why the cobblers work the way they do. We would begin with the knowledge of how to satisfy the customer, and perhaps less revision or debugging would be required during any follow-up design and development.
The main point is that even if we study the prior knowledge and characteristics of our learners, we may miss the meanings of words used, and subtleties in the performances of subject matter experts and the customers. Without an open inquiry into "authentic" learning and performance processes, we are insulated from teachers' and learners' representations of reality and may put our own meanings into their words and in our instructional products. Thus, semiotics suggests a refocusing of systematic instructional design processes to a process DRIVEN by a learner-centered evaluation, rather than INFORMED by one. Perhaps designing instruction based on the customer's representations of reality and how they change during learning also reflects a change of ownership of the design process from designer to customer.
Second, from the constructivistic point of view, isn't detailed knowledge of the individual's learning strengths and weaknesses a necessary component in providing a learning environment that promotes the transference of data into knowledge? If so, how does semiotic evaluation differ, and why put ourselves through the acquisition of a different set of verbalizations, in armchair philosophical discussions, if the existing paradigms provide effective guides?
I think much of this question is addressed in the prior answer. Certainly I would agree that detailed knowledge of learning strengths and weaknesses is useful in promoting transfer, in any learning situation, from open-ended environments to tutoring, or even programmed instruction. However, how much knowledge about the learner do we need to have? I don't know the answer to that question, but I believe that no analysis, no matter how well informed, can match the efficiency of a simple semiotic inquiry into an authentic learning or performance situation.
The semiotic concept of individual representations of reality suggests to me that not only do we not need a detailed knowledge of a learner's strengths and weaknesses, we may never obtain such knowledge anyway. The complexity and individualization of each individual learner's representations of reality may defy all our attempts at obtaining a detailed knowledge of learning strengths and weaknesses, at least given our current technologies. But we do not need a detailed knowledge of learner characteristics to perform the type of analysis defined under naturalistic inquiry tools and recent cognitive psychology tools. A general knowledge of learner characteristics should be adequate and would help us set up the learning and performance context sufficiently to elicit the desired responses. By recording and analyzing the meanings and interpretations of the responses, the shifting of typical representations of reality with our subject matter experts and our learners could then be identified, and for the basis of the design.
Therefore, while there are some similarities between the tenets of existing paradigms and this view of a semiotic paradigm, in particular the similarity of learner characteristics, such as strengths and weaknesses, and individual representations of reality, or some similarities of job-task analysis and semiotic analysis, these are only superficial similarities. I believe that the fundamental underlying assumptions, and differences in the implicit processes of instructional design, remain dissimilar enough to merit closer examination.
Third, what does semiotic philosophy and/or viewpoint contribute to our current requirements for efficiency and effectiveness in encouraging and developing strategies, for the enhancement of learning, that we can take with us into the twenty-first century?
I think this question has been answered for the most part in the proceeding discussion. My own feeling is that one of the most important merits of semiotic philosophy and/or viewpoints is that it forces us to focus on the gritty details of human representations of reality. As computers and hard technologies become more accepted, even passé, many futurists expect that our collective focus on human perceptions will increase ("high-touch"). Semiotics suggests an analytical approach to the human communication process of the making of meaning that I believe can inform the design of all of our instructional systems now and into the foreseeable future.