Object, Sign, and Interpretant

I read an interesting article today: Facilitating Learning-Centered Instructional
Design: A Semiotic Perspective written by Marcy P. Driscoll. The idea is
not new-a topic discussed on ITFORUM in 1994; it’s new to me, though.

Peirce’s theory of signs and how can it be used in
instructional design were discussed in the paper. According to the theory,
there are three universal properties: object, sign, and interpretant. An object
is something existing independently of anything else; signs are symbols that
are related to the object; and interpretant is the effect of a sign on someone
who reads or comprehends it.

For example, swimming itself is an object; a video or
a book describing how to swim can be considered as a sign; and learners’ reorganization
of steps in swimming is a set of interpretants.

When learning is viewed as semiosis, it’s a process
of interpreting meaning and assembling signs and symbols. From instructional
design’s perspective, how to design signs that can be well connected to goals
and guide learners to make desired interpretations is one thing we need to
consider.

My two cents:

1. Less
   is more. Only use the materials that are related to learning objective; don’t
   add unrelated stuff just because you think it’s interesting.
2. Use
   graphics as topic organizers, lesson interfaces or use graphics to teach
   content types and show relationships; don’t use them to decorate pages.
3. Choose
   the right signs to represent an object. For example, a video clip may be a better
   choice than a textbook to teach learners how to play golf (psychomotor skill).
4. Social
   constructivism can be helpful, too. Learners can discuss a learning topic
   (object) with other people and, through the process, get a deeper understanding
   (interpretant) of the topic.

What else? Tell me if you have other thoughts.