Overlooking the Obvious: How to Use Semiotics and Metaphors to Reinforce E-Learning
Abstract
This article addresses the historic and cultural influences of semiotics on human learning. In reviewing over thirty studies conducted since the 1950s, semiotic tools, such as pictures, graphics, metaphors and stories,have positively influenced student’s learning. These studies suggest acritical role of semiotics in higher education courses taught in online learning environments. Semiotic tools can positively influence students in online courses, as in the cases where course completion rates of courses containing strategic semiotic elements were higher than comparable online courses without those semiotic elements. The implications for course design is the inclusion of strategic semiotic elements as part of course design addressing content, system navigation, and technologies to deliberately and intentionally plan semiotic features that appeal and not alienate reluctant online students. Features which bridge students’ prior knowledge and cultural contexts to new content materials and academic success should be considered to better enlist and retain learners. Observing successful semiotic marketing practices could shed light on how these tools could be best incorporated into online courses and provide important cultural elements to mediate new learning. Ultimately, more than technology, management systems, and content should be studied when working with online students; human factors, like historic and cultural experiences, must also be considered.
Keywords
References
- Allen, I.E., Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC., p.34.
- Anglin, G. J., Towers, R. L., Levie, W.H. (1987). Visual message design and learning: The role of static and dynamic illustrations. Retrieved on September 16, 2015 from http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/pdf/26.pdf
- Anstey, M. (1988). Helping children learn how to learn. Australian Journal of Reading, 11(4), 269-277.
- Arnheim, R. (1954). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
- Arnheim, R. (1974). Virtues and vices of the visual media. In D. R. Olsen, ed. Media and symbols: The forms of expression, communication, and education. The 73d Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Arnheim, R. (1986). New essays on the psychology of art. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
- Barthes, R. (1977). Rhetoric of the image, in Image/Music/Text, translated by Steven Heath. NY: Hill & Wang.
- Behizadeh, N. (2014). Mitigating the dangers of a single story: Creating large-scale writing assessments aligned with sociocultural theory. Educational Researcher, Vol.43 No.3, pp.125-136. DOI:10.3102/0013189X14529604.
- Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
- Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). The contextual nature of teaching: Mathematics and reading instruction in one second-grade classroom. The Elementary School Journal Volume 90, Number 5.
