Education | Cognition and Semiotics
P550 | 5794 | Dr. Don Cunningham


Education P550

Cognition and Semiotics

Introductions

Welcome to the course Education P550, Cognition and Semiotics. Let me
introduce myself. I am Dr. Donald J. Cunningham (Ph.D., University of
Illinois), Professor of Education, Semiotic Studies and Cognitive
Science at Indiana University. That said, I prefer to be called Don
and try not to take my professional titles and credentials too
seriously. I have worked in the field of applying theories of
learning and cognition to education for over 30 years and still find
the topic challenging and rewarding. About 20 years ago, I became
aware of semiotics and have devoted a significant portion of my
scholarly life since then to developing the implications of semiotics
for education. I have taught this class or one like it for many years
but am still in the process of figuring out what are good ways to
organize it to increase its usefulness to students. I shall endeavor
to be sensitive to your needs and I hope you will offer constructive
suggestions for making the course more valuable to you and to those
students who will study it in the future.

The course is designed to provide you with the basic distinctions and
concepts necessary to apply various theories of cognition and
semiotics to educational settings, broadly defined.. These theories
are tools that parents, educators, trainers, counselors and many
others can use to make their endeavors more productive and useful.
This course will introduce and illustrate the proper use of these
tools in providing insights into defining and solving problems. The
emphasis will always be on the use of these theories to solve
realistic and relevant problems drawn either from your own personal
experience or from cases we will study. It is only when you have
experienced applying these theories to actual problems that you can
readily see their strengths and weaknesses.

I have used the word "tool" several times already and it is an
important one to understand in the context of this course. I claim
that theories are tools much like hammers and screwdrivers are tools.
A hammer is a useful and effective tool if your task is to drive a
nail into a board. You can try to use a screwdriver to drive a nail,
but I suspect you will fail and wind up with cuts and bruises.
Likewise, if you try to drive a screw with a hammer, the wood will
split and the bond is unlikely to hold - but a screwdriver will
accomplish the task very well. And despite the best efforts of our
most clever tool makers, there is no such thing as a tool that meets
all of our needs.

Semiotics is a tool unlike most others that you have encountered.
There is no one theory of semiotics, but rather a diversity that
share some central concepts like the sign, semiosis, inference and
reflexivity. We will explore various viewpoints here with an eye to
their application to your interests. A considerable portion of the
class will be devoted to exploring problems that YOU bring to the
class to examine from a semiotic perspective. Theories also carry
with them a world view, a conception of what it means to be human:
what it means to learn something, to teach something, to know
something, to be a person. It is important that we examine these
world views so that we can better judge the appropriateness of using
a particular theory. To extend the analogy, to a two year old child
with a hammer in her hands, everything in the world needs a good
pounding. If we limit ourselves to one or a few theories, or if we
fail to see the kinds of assumptions that theory makes about the
world, we will commit a similar error. If we limit ourselves to a
structuralist approach to semiotics, for example, we run the risk of
regarding all of our behavior (from simple forms like disliking
broccoli to complex forms like understanding quantum mechanics) as a
function of culturally determined structures of meaning. One of my
major aims for the course is that you carry away with you a variety
of tools and a sense of when they are and are not best applied.

Class procedures and assessment.
Class sessions will consist mainly of lecture and class discussion of
basic issues and distinctions necessary to understand the topic of
semiotics. Class sessions and reading assignments will be organized
by topics agreed upon by the class. You are expected to attend class
sessions and to contribute to the discussion of the issues raised in
the readings and in class. If you have questions about the readings,
please raise them in class.

Your grade in this course will be determined in the following ways:

1. Reflexive Papers (3/4 of grade)--Three short (5 double spaced
pages maximum) papers due at various points throughout the semester.
Reflexive papers are unlike the typical course paper. The word
reflexive means "directed or turned back upon itself". In these
papers I want you to turn the approaches we are studying back upon
themselves and examine their assumptions about the nature of
learning, the mind, what it means to know something, the nature of
learners, the character of knowledge, what it means to teach, and so
forth. In these papers I don't want you to simply tell me what a
theorist has said. I want you to evaluate the theorist from some
particular perspective that you feel strongly about (the scientific
method, humanism, a school psychologist, a teacher educator, etc.)
and determine how well the assumptions underlying a theory match
those of your perspective. For example, how well can these models
handle some practical or theoretical problems in your field? On what
basis do you make your judgment? Some examples of reflexive papers
can be found on the web page of a previous P550 class at
http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~cunningh/P550.html. In grading these
papers, I look for your ability to see multiple perspectives,
skepticism grounded in theory and data, juxtaposition of ideas in
unique ways, etc. We will talk more about this in class. Papers are
listed as due four times during the semester. You may select the
three dates you will use, to accommodate to the class presentation
requirement.

2. Class project presentation & paper (1/4 of grade)--Either alone or
with classmates of your choice, conduct a semiotic analysis in an
area of interest to you. You (or your group) should schedule an
appointment with me sometime near mid semester to discuss your topic
and the appropriate methods for researching it. Sample topics will be
discussed in class

3. Class Participation--My subjective estimate of your contribution
to class discussions, attendance, etc.. This factor will be
considered in the case of borderline grades (e.g., a B+ might get
raised to an A- ).

Grades
I detest assigning grades but it is the Policy of the School of
Education that every student be assigned a grade for the course. I
will follow the grading policy adopted for graduate courses in the
School of Education found on lucky page 13 of the Bulletin of the
School of Education Graduate Program:
A = Outstanding achievement, exceptionally high level
A- = Excellent achievement, very high level
B+ = Very good achievement, thorough command
B = Good achievement, solid, acceptable performance
B- = Fair achievement, acceptable
etc.

These words are very subjective and therefore grades will be
determined based on my best judgment. Grades of A and A- will usually
be less common than grades of B+, B or B-.

NOTE: I do not give incompletes except under extraordinary
circumstances. Keep up with the reading and attend classes and you
will have no trouble succeeding.

P550
Cognition and Semiotics
Tentative Schedule
Spring, 2003

Date
Topic
Readings

Jan 14, 16
Introduction, overview
Cunningham (EPR)
Danesi -Chapter 1
Innis (vii-xvi)

Jan 21, 23   Theories of Semiotics I   Danesi - Chapter 2
Innis - 1-46
Cobley & Jansz - all
Houser paper (supplied)

Jan 28, 30
Non-Verbal Signs
Danesi - Chapter 3, 10

Feb 4, 6
Visual Signs
Danesi - Chapter 4, 13

Feb 11, 13
Verbal Semiosis I
Danesi - Chapter 5
Innis - 47-65
Lakoff & Johnson

Feb 18, 20
Verbal Semiosis II
Danesi -Chapter 6, 7
Innis - 145-175
Lakoff & Johnson

Feb 25, 27
Popular Culture: Clothing, Food
Danesi - Chapter 8, 9

Mar 4, 6
Popular Culture: Media
Danesi, 11, 12
Innis 190 - 206

Mar 11, 13
Theories of Semiotics II
Cunningham (T&P)
Danesi - your choice
Innis - your choice

Mar 18, 20
SPRING BREAK!

Mar 25, 27
From this point on, the topics and

Apr 1, 3
readings are up to you. I would

Apr 8, 10
like you to form teams and give

Apr 15, 17
a class presentation. We might

Apr 22, 24
have some guest presentations
AERA in Chicago
A 29, M1   as well.


Reflexive papers due 1/30, 2/27, 3/27, and 5/1. Final paper is due
Dec 5/2 at 5:00 pm

* This all looks very organized and structured. I reserve the right
to change this at a whim. And I encourage you to individually and
collectively to structure the course to best suit your own self
chosen goals. ALL IS NEGOTIABLE. If you are not prepared to assume
major responsibility for your own learning, I strongly encourage you
not to take this class.

TEXTS
Ordered for class:

Cobley, P. & Jansz, L. (1997). Introducing Semiotics . New York:
Totem Books

Danesi, M. ( 1998). Sign, Thought and culture. Toronto: Canadian
Scholars' Press Inc.

Innis, R. (Ed.). (1983). Semiotics: An introductory anthology.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Some others:

Buchler, J. (Ed.). (1955). Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New
York: Dover.

Deely, J. (1982). Introducing Semiotic. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

Deely, J. (1990). Basics of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

Deely, J., Williams, B. and Kruse, F. (Eds.). (1986). Frontiers of
Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

Eco, U. (1990). The Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.

Fiske, J. (1982). Introduction to Communication Studies. London,
England: Methuen.

Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind's New Science. New York: Basic Books.

Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Lemke, J, (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. New
York: Ablex

Maturana, H. R. & Varela, (1987). The tree of knowledge: The
biological roots of human understanding. Boston: New Science Library.

Noth, Winfried. (1990). Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.

Solomon, J. (1988). The Signs of Our Time. Los Angeles: Jeremy P.
Tarcher.

Sebeok, T. (1994). Signs: An introduction to semiotics. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press

Sebeok, T. (1991). A Sign is Just a Sign. Bloomington, In: Indiana
University press.

I neither expect nor encourage you to purchase all of these. There
are many alternatives that can be checked out of the library,
purchased used, etc. depending on your particular interests and
background. The Danesi, Innis, and Sebeok books are relatively
inexpensive paperbacks of varying rigor, clarity and quality.

P550

Cunningham

Selected References
Anderson, M., Deely, J., Krampen, M., Ransdell, J., Sebeok, T. and
von Uexkull, T. (1984). A semiotic perspective on the sciences: Steps
toward a new paradigm. Semiotica, 52, 7-47.

Barthes, R. (1964). Elements of Semiology. Annette Lavers and Colin
Smith (trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York:
Ballentine.

Bouissac, P., Herzfeld, M. and Posner, R. (Eds.). (1986). Iconicity.
Tubingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Buchler, J. (Ed.). (1955). Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New
York: Dover.

Culler, J. (1988). Framing the Sign. Norman, OK: University of
Oklahoma Press.

Deely, J. (1982). Introducing Semiotic. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

Deely, J. (1990). Basics of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

Deely, J., Williams, B. and Kruse, F. (Eds.). (1986). Frontiers of
Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Derrida, J. (1984). Languages and the institutions of philosophy.
Researches Semiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry, 4, 91- 154.

Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

Eco, U. (1983). The Name of the Rose. William Weaver (trans.). New
York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.

Eco, U. (1984). Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Eco, U. (1990). The Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.

Eco, U., Santambrogio, M. & Violi, P. (1988). Meaning and Mental
Representations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Fiske, J. (1982). Introduction to Communication Studies. London,
England: Methuen.

Freire, P. (1970). The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder
and Herder.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind's New Science. New York: Basic Books.

Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.

Heisenberg, W. (1960). The representation of nature in contemporary
physics. In Symbolism in Religion and Literature, Rollo May (Ed.).
New York: George Braziller, p. 215-232.

Houser, N. (1987). Toward a Peircean semiotic theory of learning.
The American Journal of Semiotics, 5, 251-274.

Innis, R. (Ed.). (1983). Semiotics: An Introductory Anthology.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In
T. Sebeok (Ed.). Style in Language (pp. 350-377). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Krampen, M. (1981). Phytosemiotics. Semiotica, 36, 187-209.

Krampen, M. (1986). Developmental semiotics. In Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Semiotics. Berlin and New York: Mouton

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Lemke, J. (1984). Semiotics and Education. Toronto: Toronto Semiotic
Circle.

Lemke, J. (1987). Social semiotics and science education. The
American Journal of Semiotics, 5, 217-232.

Lemke, J, (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values.
New York: Ablex

Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Maturana, H. R. (1978). Biology of language: the epistemology of
reality. In G. A. Miller & E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Psychology and
biology of language and thought: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg.
NY: Academic Press.

Maturana, H. R. & Varela, (1987). The tree of knowledge: The
biological roots of human understanding. Boston: New Science Library.

Mertz, E. and Parmenter, R. (Eds.). (1985). Semiotic Mediation:
Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives. New York: Academic
Press.

Morris, C. (1946). Signs, Language and Behavior. New York: Prentice
Hall.

Murphy, J. (1984). Dialogue as semiosis: Paulo Freire's adult
literacy program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Semiotic Society of America, Bloomington, IN.

Noth, Winfried. (1990). Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.

O'Loughlin, M. (1990). Teachers' ways of knowing: A journal study of
teacher learning in a dialogical and constructivist learning
environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Boston.

Perry, W. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in
the College Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Roth, W. (1990). Collaboration and constructivism in the science
classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Boston.

Saussure, F. de (1959). Course in General Linguistics. New York:
Philosophical Library.

Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals
Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

Solomon, J. (1988). The Signs of Our Time. Los Angeles: Jeremy P.
Tarcher.

Sebeok, T. (1976). Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs. Lisse:
Peter de Ridder Press.

Sebeok, T. (1979). The Sign and its Masters. Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press.

Sebeok, T. (1981). The Play of Musement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

Sebeok, T. (1986). I Think I am a Verb. New York: Plenham.

Sebeok, T. (1991). A Sign is Just a Sign. Bloomington, In: Indiana
University press.

Sebeok, T., Lamb, S. and Regan, J. (1987). Semiotics in Education: A
Dialogue. Clairmont, CA: College Press.

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

Shank, G. (1988). Three into two will go: Juxtapositional strategies
for empirical research in semiotics. In J. Deely (Ed.). Semiotics
1987 (pp. 123-127). New York: University Press of America.

Shank, G. (1989). The impact of semiotics on educational psychology:
Theory and practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Siegel, M. and Carey, R. (1989). Critical Thinking: A Semiotic
Perspective. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and
Communication Skills.

Solomon, J. (1988). The Signs of Our Time. Los Angeles: Jeremy P.
Tarcher.

Suhor, C. (1984). Toward a semiotics-based curriculum. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 16, 247-257.

Thomas, D. (1985). Educational semiotics: A timely reminder. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.

Thomas, D. (1987). Semiotics: The pattern which connects. The
American Journal of Semiotics, 5, 291-302.

von Uexkull, J. (1982). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42, 25-82.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Recent Papers by Yours Truly
Cunningham, D.J. (1986). Good guys and bad guys. Educational
Communication and Technology Journal, 34, 3-7.
Cunningham, D.J. (1986). Empirical semiotics: Oxymoron or essential
for semiotics? In Deely, J. (Ed.) Semiotics 1985. New York:
University Press of America.

Cunningham, D.J. (1986). Essay review. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 19, 74-79.

Cunningham, D.J. (1987). Organic schooling: A semiotic approach. In
Deely, J. & Evans, J. (Eds). Semiotics 1982. New York: University
Press of America.

Cunningham, D.J. (1987). On representation. In Evans, J. & Deely, J.
(Eds). Semiotics 1983. New York: University Press of America.

Cunningham, D. J. (1987). Semiotics and education--Strands in the
web. In Sebeok, T. & Umiker-Sebeok, J. (Eds.) The Semiotic Web: A
Yearbook of Semiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 367-378.

Cunningham, D. J. (1987). Semiotics and education: An instance of
the "new" paradigm. The American Journal of Semiotics, 5, 195-199.

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

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.

Cunningham, D. J. (1989). J. J. Gibson and theories of semiosis. In
Prewitt, T. (Ed.) Semiotics 1988. New York: University Press of
America, 27-33.

Cunningham, D. J. (1990). Semiotic teaching methods. In Deely, J.,
Haworth, K. & Prewitt, T. (Eds.) Semiotics 1989. New York: University
Press of America, 299-304.

Cunningham, D. J. (1990). Is cognitive science possible? In Deely,
J., Haworth, K. & Prewitt, T. (Eds.) Semiotics 1989. New York:
University Press of America, 323-327.

Cunningham, D. J. (1991) Assessing constructions and constructing
assessments. Educational Technology, 31, 13-17.

Cunningham, D. J. (1991). Tools for semiosis. Semiotic Scene, 3, 1-
3.

Cunningham, D. J. (1991). In defense of extremism. Educational
Technology 31(9), 26-27.

McMahon, H., O'Neill, W. & Cunningham, D. J. (1992). "Open" software
design: A case study. Educational Technology, 32.(2), 43-55.

Cunningham, D. J. (1992). Beyond educational psychology: Steps
toward an educational semiotic. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 165-
194.

Cunningham, D. J. (1992). Everything said is said by someone.
Educational Psychology Review , 4, 261-267.

Shank, G. & Cunningham, D. J. (1992). The virtues of an educational
semiotic. Midwestern Educational Researcher, 6, 1-7.

Cunningham, D. J., McMahon, H., & O'Neill, W. (1992). Bubble
dialogue: A new tool for instruction and assessment. Educational
Technology Research and Development. 40, 59-67.

Cunningham, D. J. (1992). On the need for an education semiotic. In
Tarasti, E. (Ed.), Center and Periphery in Representations and
Institutions. Imatra, Finland: International Semiotic Institute, 423-
450.

Cunningham, D.J. (1992). Carpe diem? Semiotica, 90, 267-277.

Cunningham, D. J., Duffy, T., & Knuth, R. (1993). The textbook of the
future. In McKnight, C., Dillon, A. and Richardson, J. (Eds)
Hypertext - A psychological perspective. Chichester: Ellis Horwood,
19-50.

Stewart, R. & Cunningham, D. J. (1993). Semiosic relativity. In
Deely, J. (Ed.) Semiotics 1990. New York: University Press of
America, 256-264.

Cunningham, D. J. & Smith-Shank, D. (1993). Semiotic teaching
methods: A report of results. In Deely, J. (Ed.), Semiotics 1990, New
York: University Press of America, 64-69.

Cunningham, D. J. (1993). A semiotic critique of cognitive science.
In Bernard, J., Deely, J.., Voight, V. & Withalm, G. (Eds.),
Symbolicity. New York: University Press of America, 71-76.

Knuth, R. & Cunningham, D. J. (1993). Tools for constructivism. In
Duffy, T., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D. (Eds.), Designing environments
for constructive learning: Berlin: Springer Verlag, 163-188.

Cunningham, D. J., Knight, B. and Watson, K. (1994). Instructional
prescriptions can be hazardous to your pedagogy. Journal of
Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 19, 17-44.

Cunningham, D. J. (1994). Discussion and dialogue in education for
mutual understanding. In Gamagi, S. (Ed.) Assimilation, Pluralism and
Multiculturalism. Armidale, Australia: University of New England
Press, 195-205.

Cunningham, D. J. (1994). The limits of the semiotic self. The
American Journal of Semiotics, 11, 57-67.

Bednar, A., Cunningham, D. J., Duffy, T. & Perry, D. (1995). Theory
into practice: How do we link? In Anglin, G. (Ed.), Instructional
Technology: Past, Present and Future (2nd. Ed.). Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited, 100-112.

Cunningham, D. J. (1995). Been there. Done that. Semiotics SIG
Newsletter, 1, 1-2.

Cunningham, D. J. & CREAM (1995). Teaching in Context (compact
disk). Armidale, Australia: Centre for Research into the Educational
Application of Multimedia

Cunningham, D., Knight, B., & Watson, K. (1995). Tools for literacy
in the new millennium. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy,
18, 181-189.

Shank, G. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Mediated phosphor dots: Toward
a Post-Cartesian Model of Computer-Mediated Communication via the
Semiotic Superhighway. In Ess, C. (Ed.) Inter-Views: Philosophical
Approaches to Computer Mediated Communicatio n. New York: SUNY Press,
27-41.

Duffy, T. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications
for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.)
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology.
New York: Macmillan, 170-198.

Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Time after time. In Spinks, W. (Ed.)
Semiotics 95. New York: Lang Publishing,, 263-269.

Shank, G. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Modeling the six modes
ofPeirceanabduction for educational purposes. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Midwest AI and Cognitive Science Conference,
Bloomington, IN, April.

Cunningham, D.J., Angeli, C., Morton, M.L. and Cunningham, M.L.
(1998).  Language awareness support structures: Tools for literacy.
In Z.L. Berge  and M.P. Collins (Eds.)  Wired Together: The Online
Classroom in K-12.  Volume 4: Writing, Reading and Language
Acquisition. Cresskill, NJ:  Hampton Press,  27-39.

Cunningham, D. J. & Clark, K.  (1998).  Wherever you go, there you
are.  Educational Researcher, 27, 26-28.

Angeli, C. & Cunningham, D. J.  (1988).  Bubble dialogue:  Tools for
supporting literacy and mind.  In Bonk, C. & King, K.  (Eds.)
Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy,
Apprenticeship, and Discourse.  New York: Erlbaum, 81-101.

Bonk, C. & Cunningham, D. J.  (1998).  Searching for constructivist,
learner-centered and sociocultural components for collaborative
educational learning tools. .  In Bonk, C. & King, K.  (Eds).
Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy,
Apprenticeship, and Discourse.  New York: Erlbaum, 25-50.

Cunningham, D. J.  (1998).  Cognition as semiosis: The role of
inference.  Theory and Psychology, 8, 827-840.

Cunningham, D. J.  (in press).  We have met the tricksters and they
are us.  The American Journal of Semiotics..

Cunningham, D. J. & Sugioka, H.  (in press).  Education, culture and
semiotics.  Semiotica, 123-1/2,

Cunningham, D. J. & Shank, G.  (in press).  Semiotics,  an
introduction.  Opcion

Cunningham, D. J.  (in press).  Semiotic aspects of pedagogy.  In
Posner, R.(Ed.) The Handbook of Semiotics.  Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.

I have some more recent ones that I will make available in class.