Western education faces a multifaceted crisis marked by fragmented knowledge, value-neutral practices, and lingering Cartesian dualisms. Edusemiotics – an emerging philosophy of education grounded in semiotic theory – offers a unifying alternative. Drawing on Charles Peirce’s semiotics, John Dewey’s pragmatism, and process ontology, edusemiotics reconceptualizes learning as an interpretive, sign-mediated process. It explicitly challenges representational thinking and mind–body dualism while reintroducing meaning and ethics into education pdfcoffee.com. What follows is an exploration of how edusemiotics addresses six key dimensions of this educational crisis: its philosophical foundations, approach to moral education, epistemology of knowledge, curriculum design, institutional practices, and concrete pedagogical implementations.
Philosophical Foundations: Process Semiosis vs. Representational Dualism
Edusemiotics rests on a semiotic-process ontology that departs from conventional representationalism and dualism. In classical Western thought, knowledge is often seen as an internal re-presentation of an external reality (a “mirror of nature”), and mind is split from body (Cartesian dualism). Edusemiotics breaks with these assumptions. Instead of treating thought as a passive mirror, it views cognition as active semiosis – an ongoing process of interpretation where meaning is made through signs. As Semetsky explains, reasoning in this paradigm “involves active interpretation… versus direct representation; it… connects what are otherwise doomed to remain isolated substances of body versus mind [and] a separation of knowledge and action”philpapers.org. In other words, knowing is not copying reality into the mind, but engaging with the world through signs.
By adopting Peirce’s triadic model of the sign (sign–object–interpretant) and a process-oriented metaphysic, edusemiotics collapses rigid dualisms. Mind and matter, subject and object, self and world are no longer absolute separations but interrelated elements within the continuum of semiosis. Andrew Stables argues that despite explicit rejections of dualism, education has remained haunted by its legacy. He calls for a “post-Cartesian settlement” in which the distinction between mindless “signals” and meaningful “signs” is collapsed, so that “all living (and learning) [is] semiotic engagement”eric.ed.gov. Edusemiotics answers this call by treating everything as sign processes – human experience, the physical environment, and even the self are interpreted as part of an ongoing web of meaning edusemiotics.org. This anti-dualist philosophy prioritizes dynamic processes over static substances: reality is not a collection of inert objects to be represented, but a network of evolving signs in which learners participate. In sum, edusemiotics provides a new philosophical foundation for education that overcomes representationalist “mind-as-mirror” models and the Cartesian splits, replacing them with a holistic, processual view of learning-as-meaning-making philpapers.orgeric.ed.gov.
Moral and Ethical Education: Reclaiming Meaning and Character Formation
One symptom of the contemporary crisis is the moral relativism and value-neutrality pervading many schools. Traditional Western educational philosophy often brackets out questions of virtue or the good life, aiming to be “objective” or leaving values to personal choice. Edusemiotics offers a corrective by re-centering ethical meaning-making as a core educational process. It contends that education cannot be separated from values because knowledge itself carries an ethical charge when understood semiotically (through the unity of knowing and acting pdfcoffee.com). Rather than avoiding moral formation, edusemiotics engages students in the interpretation of signs with an eye toward character and ethical insight.
Moral education in an edusemiotic framework is not about drilling fixed doctrines or, conversely, shrugging that “anything goes.” It is about cultivating the capacity to interpret and respond to the world’s signs in ethical ways. Semetsky notes that a pedagogy informed by edusemiotics “aims to enrich experience with meanings and values” beyond mere factual transmission edusemiotics.org. This means classrooms deliberately surface moral and existential questions inherent in subject matter, prompting students to consider the ethical implications of knowledge. For example, a science lesson might explore environmental data as signs that carry ethical significance about stewardship, rather than treating them as neutral facts.
Importantly, edusemiotics resists both absolute moral certitude and facile relativism. It emphasizes a “relational ethics” grounded in semiotic processes edusemiotics.org. Because understanding grows through interpreting others’ signs, students learn empathy and moral reasoning by engaging with diverse perspectives. Edusemiotic educators encourage dialogue about values, helping students form habits of character such as openness, critical reflection, and compassion. As a result, the classroom becomes a space for ethical inquiry – a community where teacher and students interpret moral “texts” (stories, historical events, personal experiences) together, rather than a value-neutral zone.
This approach contrasts sharply with value-neutral schooling. Instead of pretending to have no stance, edusemiotics makes the formation of moral meaning explicit. It treats ethical dilemmas and even contradictions as valuable learning material, not as issues to be ignored edusemiotics.orgedusemiotics.org. In fact, the semiotic view holds that genuine signs often contain an “included middle” – they can be interpreted in multiple ways – which teaches students to navigate ambiguity and develop principled judgments. Through iterative interpretation, learners internalize that knowledge carries responsibilities. Semiotically, a belief is a habit of action; thus, coming to “know” something implies being disposed to act on it. Edusemiotics builds on this Peircean insight by fostering habits of ethical thinking and action in tandem. Ultimately, edusemiotics envisions moral education as character formation through semiosis: students and teachers continuously interpret signs of right and wrong, refine their values in community, and in doing so “posit new ethics oriented to… mutual understanding and sharing each other’s values”edusemiotics.org. This stands in stark contrast to moral relativism – instead of leaving students rudderless, edusemiotic education guides them to construct meaning within an ethical context, reclaiming a central aim of education that had been sidelined in the name of neutrality.
Epistemology and Knowledge: Semiosis as Interpretive Growth and Truth-Seeking
Modern education also faces an epistemological crisis: knowledge has become fragmented into isolated disciplines, and postmodern skepticism has eroded confidence in truth claims. Edusemiotics directly addresses this by reconceiving knowledge itself as semiosis – the continuous process of meaning-making – thereby offering a way to reunify knowledge and rehabilitate the idea of truth as an evolving interpretive achievement.
In contemporary curricula, students often encounter a disjointed array of subjects and facts, leading to a “fragmentation of knowledge” and a sense that there is no coherent truth, only bits of information. Edusemiotics counters this by providing a unifying epistemological paradigm edusemiotics.org. All knowledge, whether in science, art, or humanities, is seen as part of the same fabric of signs. Rather than teaching subjects as sealed silos, edusemiotic education emphasizes the connections and underlying semiosis that run through different domains of inquiry. Semetsky and Stables describe edusemiotics as an integrative framework precisely “in defiance of the fragmentation of knowledge… prevalent in education”, uniting learning under the common process of sign-interpretation edusemiotics.org. In practical terms, this means students are encouraged to draw links across disciplines – for instance, understanding a historical event might involve scientific data (climate signs), artistic representations, and ethical interpretations, all as part of one meaningful whole.
Crucially, edusemiotics does not abandon truth; it redefines what it means to know something. In place of absolute, static truth or mere subjective opinion, it posits truth as the outcome of ongoing inquiry and interpretation. Knowledge is never final in a semiosic view – it is always provisional and open-ended, subject to growth as new signs emerge and old signs are interpreted in new contexts edusemiotics.org. This resonates with Peirce’s pragmatic notion that truth is what the community of inquirers would eventually agree upon in the long run. Edusemiotics thus teaches students to see learning as a “process… subject to evolution and development”, where understanding deepens through interpreting evidence and context rather than just accumulating facts edusemiotics.org.
By framing learning as interpretive growth, edusemiotics restores meaning to the concept of truth. Students learn that facts are not brute, meaningless data points; they are signs that require interpretation. For example, a set of statistics in a civics class is not “truth” on its own – it must be interpreted (semiotically) within social and ethical contexts to yield meaning. This counters the nihilistic sense that “anything can be true” or that truth doesn’t matter. Instead, learners engage in a continuous truth-seeking dialogue, testing interpretations against experience and alternative signs. Edusemiotics also encourages epistemological pluralism without chaos: since “everything is a sign” but “nothing is a sign unless interpreted” edusemiotics.orgedusemiotics.org, students appreciate that different perspectives (different interpretants) can enrich understanding, yet through reasoned dialogue and evidence, more adequate interpretations can emerge.
In sum, edusemiotics heals epistemic fragmentation by teaching that knowledge is a web of meaning rather than a heap of data. It confronts the loss of truth by showing students that truth is not a fixed commodity to be delivered, but a goal of inquiry – something we approach through collaborative interpretation of signs. Learning becomes “the growth of signs” in Peirce’s sense edusemiotics.org, and education is the nurturing of this growth. This stands as an antidote to both the factoid-driven curriculum and the postmodern shrug, instilling in learners a sense that understanding is achievable through semiotic inquiry even if it is never absolutely final. In edusemiotics, knowledge regains its unity and purpose: it is semiosis oriented toward meaning and truth, continually evolving but grounded in a community’s shared interpretive efforts.
Curriculum: Integrating Meaning Through Interdisciplinary, Relational Inquiry
A practical manifestation of edusemiotics’ philosophy is a reimagined curriculum that reintegrates meaning across subjects. Traditional Western curricula often compartmentalize learning into separate disciplines (science vs. art, etc.) and emphasize rote factual knowledge, leading to what many describe as a loss of meaningful learning. Edusemiotics proposes to redesign the curriculum as a network of signs and relations, fostering interdisciplinary inquiry and situating knowledge in context so that it is rich with meaning for learners.
Interdisciplinarity and integration are hallmarks of an edusemiotic curriculum. Because it views all knowledge domains as part of the semiosphere, edusemiotics naturally encourages crossing boundaries between fields. This is in line with contemporary “STEAM” initiatives (integrating Arts into STEM) and other holistic approaches, but edusemiotics provides a strong philosophical rationale for it. Scholars note that semiotic educators “embrace epistemological fluency, or the value of all communication systems and ways of knowing as a vital goal for education”researchgate.net. In practice, this means a curriculum might blend literature with history, or science with visual art, to explore how different symbol systems convey meaning. For example, a unit on the environment could include scientific data (as signs of ecological change), artistic expressions of nature, and ethical discussions – thereby combining STEM and the humanities in a unified learning experience. Indeed, the semiotic perspective has “already been heralded in the STEAM debate” which merges arts with sciences researchgate.net, illustrating edusemiotics’ call for subjects to “work across discipline areas” rather than in isolation.
Such a curriculum is organized around meaning rather than just content. Instead of lists of topics to cover, an edusemiotic curriculum might be structured by themes, questions, or real-world problems that inherently require multiple ways of knowing. Relational learning is emphasized: students see connections between what they learn in different classes and connect academic knowledge to their own lives. This resonates with John Dewey’s idea that learning should grow out of experience and be directed toward the “continuity of experience.” For instance, rather than teaching mathematics and art separately with no overlap, a relational curriculum might have students explore geometric patterns in Islamic art, thus finding mathematical concepts as meaningful signs within cultural-artistic contexts.
Moreover, edusemiotics advocates for student-centered inquiry in the curriculum. Learning topics are not merely delivered by the teacher but co-constructed through dialogue and interpretation. A lesson becomes a semiotic exploration – perhaps students investigate a concept like “freedom” by interpreting historical documents, literary metaphors, and political cartoons, integrating insights from history, language arts, and civics. This approach not only builds interdisciplinary knowledge but also makes learning personally meaningful, as students actively create the connections (sign relations) themselves.
The curriculum under edusemiotics also welcomes multiple forms of representation and expression. Since meaning can reside in images, gestures, narratives, and other sign systems (not just in verbal text or numbers), an edusemiotic classroom might include rich media and expressive projects. For example, alongside writing essays, students might create concept maps, draw diagrams or symbols to represent ideas, engage in role-plays or storytelling – all viewed as valid semiotic means of learning. This multi-modal approach helps reintegrate creative and affective dimensions into the curriculum, countering the overly rationalistic bent of traditional models. As one description puts it, edusemiotic pedagogy “examines how signs and symbolic systems affect knowledge and learning, emphasizing the use of visual resources, interactive practices, and technologies to facilitate the construction of meanings” researchgate.net. Thus, a science class might use simulations and visual models (iconic signs) to deepen understanding, or a literature class might incorporate artwork and music of the period to contextualize a novel – all these are ways to engage different regimes of signs in learning edusemiotics.org.
In summary, edusemiotics advocates a curriculum of connection and meaning. It seeks to overcome the disconnected, test-driven curriculum by designing learning experiences that are interdisciplinary (bridging subject silos), thematic and relational (organized around meaningful wholes), and multimodal (using various sign systems). The ultimate aim is a curriculum that reflects the unity of knowledge and life: it “opens up a range of opportunities for human development and transformative education”edusemiotics.org by treating every subject as part of a larger signifying process. This reintegrated curriculum not only conveys information but also inducts students into a living web of meaning, better preparing them to navigate and make sense of the complex world beyond the classroom.
Institutional Practices: Relational Pedagogy, Assessment, and Learning Environments
Edusemiotics extends its reformist vision to the very structure of schooling and the teacher–student dynamic, promoting institutional practices that are relational, dynamic, and dialogical. In contrast to the factory-model of education – with its top-down teacher authority, standardized testing, and rigid classroom structures – an edusemiotic approach reconfigures these elements to align with the idea of learning as a sign-mediated dialogue.
Teacher–student relationships in edusemiotic education are reconceived as a partnership in meaning-making. The teacher is not merely a transmitter of pre-packaged knowledge but a fellow interpreter and facilitator of semiosis. This implies a more dialogical classroom culture: teachers and students engage in open-ended inquiry together, each contributing perspectives as interpreters of subject matter. The hierarchy flattens somewhat into a community of inquiry, reminiscent of pragmatist philosopher John Dewey’s vision and semiotician Charles Peirce’s “community of inquirers.” In practical terms, a teacher might pose problems and genuinely invite students’ interpretations, modeling how an expert thinker navigates signs rather than simply delivering answers. The authority of the teacher shifts from commanding obedience to guiding interpretation – leading students in discussion, asking probing questions, and providing contexts, while also learning from students’ unique insights. This fosters a relationship of mutual respect and intellectual trust. As one edusemiotic principle suggests, education should be about “creating reconciling relations between ourselves and others” edusemiotics.org – in the classroom, this translates to teachers and students seeing each other as partners in a common search for meaning.
The structure of learning spaces also becomes more flexible and interactive. A traditional classroom with rows of desks facing a lectern embodies a one-way flow of information. Edusemiotic learning spaces, by contrast, might be arranged to promote communication (circles, clusters for group work, interactive centers), reflecting the belief that knowledge emerges in dialogue and exchange of signs. The environment itself is considered part of the semiosis – wall displays, learning materials, digital media, and even the architecture act as signs that influence learning. Schools may incorporate more open and collaborative areas, where students from different backgrounds can cross paths and exchange ideas (breaking the isolation of classes and grades). Some edusemiotic-inspired educators draw on the concept of the “semiosphere” – the idea that the classroom is an ecosystem of signs – and thus design spaces rich in symbolism, whether it’s through artwork, nature integration, or multicultural elements, to stimulate interpretive engagement.
A particularly transformative area is assessment and evaluation. Western education’s fixation on standardized testing and quantifiable outcomes is at odds with the process-oriented, qualitative nature of semiosis. Edusemiotics argues for reimagining assessment in line with the view that learning is an ongoing process of growth. Rather than relying solely on multiple-choice tests that treat knowledge as static right-or-wrong answers, edusemiotic practice favors more formative and interpretive assessments: portfolios of student work, reflective journals, project performances, dialogues, and other ways to gauge how students are making meaning. This approach recognizes that understanding develops in stages and often through trial and error. In fact, edusemiotics “reformulates the notion of progress” in education – progress is not a linear march toward preset standards, but the evolution of a student’s interpretive abilities and habits edusemiotics.orgedusemiotics.org. In this spirit, failures or mistakes are not merely penalized; they are seen as integral signs in the learning process, to be interpreted and learned from. As Semetsky notes, a semiotic perspective “changes the perception of standards” and even allows failure to “turn into its own opposite” – that is, a positive learning opportunity – by virtue of the insight gained from it edusemiotics.org. In an edusemiotic classroom, a teacher might encourage students to analyze errors (their own or historical examples) as meaningful signs that point the way to deeper understanding, rather than stigmatizing mistakes. Assessment thus becomes more holistic and dialogical, focused on feedback and growth over time rather than one-time scores.
Additionally, institutional policies and curricula organization are made more dynamic. Edusemiotics supports cross-grade mentoring, interdisciplinary teaching teams, and curricular fluidity to respond to student interests – all reflecting a “process-structure” rather than a fixed assembly line edusemiotics.org. The schedule might allow longer blocks for exploratory projects (since semiosis does not unfold in 45-minute fragments neatly), and extracurricular activities could be woven into academic learning (for instance, museum visits or community projects interpreted back in class). Even teacher training is affected: preparing educators in an edusemiotic paradigm means training them to be reflective interpreters of classroom signs (student behaviors, cultural contexts, etc.) and adept at adjusting their strategies in a dynamic way, rather than simply technicians delivering a script. There is an ethical dimension as well – teachers are encouraged to develop self-knowledge and a relational orientation, understanding that their own beliefs and actions are signs that students interpret. This echoes the edusemiotic emphasis on the “relational self” where self and other (teacher and student) are in continuous, cooperative interaction edusemiotics.org.
In summary, edusemiotics advocates for an educational environment that is collaborative, adaptive, and meaning-rich. The teacher-student relationship becomes a dialogical partnership, classrooms transform into interactive semiospheres, and assessment evolves into a qualitative insight into the learner’s interpretive journey. By making these structural changes, edusemiotics aligns the practice of schooling with its philosophy: if learning is indeed the ongoing negotiation of meaning, then the institutions of education should be organized to support communication, creativity, and the continuous evolution of understanding, rather than enforcing static, dualistic, or purely quantitative measures edusemiotics.orgedusemiotics.org.
Practical Implementation: Edusemiotic Pedagogy in Action (K–12 and Higher Education)
Finally, what does edusemiotics look like in practice? Though it is a relatively new movement, examples from both K–12 and higher education illustrate edusemiotic principles at work – in classrooms, teacher education, and even school design. These examples demonstrate edusemiotics as not only a philosophy but an actionable reform movement in education.
Classroom practices (K–12): An edusemiotic pedagogy often involves students actively interpreting a variety of sign systems and contexts. For instance, in a language arts class, instead of simply analyzing a text for predetermined meanings, students might compare a novel with its film adaptation, interpret symbolism in both, and relate themes to current events – essentially treating literature study as a semiotic inquiry where multiple media (words, images, sounds) convey meaning. A science teacher might implement “diagrammatic teaching,” using iconic signs and visual models to help students grasp abstract concepts researchgate.net. Students could be tasked with creating their own diagrams or metaphors for a scientific principle, thereby engaging in expressive semiosis (not just consuming information). Such practices align with the description of edusemiotics as “centered on meaning and communication” and emphasizing visual and interactive resources to help students construct meanings researchgate.net. In elementary schools, a simple example could be a storytelling exercise where children use pictures (drawn or from magazines) to sequence and narrate a story. They learn language, but also learn that images are signs that carry narrative meaning, and they collaboratively interpret each other’s stories, guided by the teacher. This playful activity embodies edusemiotic pedagogy: it’s interdisciplinary (art and literacy), relational (done in groups, sharing meanings), and interpretive (no single “right answer,” but multiple possible stories from the same images).
Another concrete example comes from geography education: a recent study had high school students participate in “counter-mapping” their city – creating alternative maps that highlight cultural and social dynamics (such as community landmarks, personal experiences in places, etc.). The students weren’t just learning cartography; they were treating the city as a text to be interpreted, using maps as a sign system to express and discover meaning in their urban environment researchgate.netresearchgate.net. This is edusemiotic in that it merges social studies, art, and personal narrative, and turns mapping into a dialogue about cultural signs. Across subjects, a unifying theme of edusemiotic practice is that students construct knowledge rather than receive it, by engaging with diverse signs – be they linguistic, numeric, visual, or kinesthetic – and continually discussing and refining their interpretations.
Teacher training and higher education: Edusemiotics also informs how new teachers are prepared and how higher education can embrace these ideas. In teacher education programs, an edusemiotic approach might involve training teachers to become reflective interpreters of classroom life. For example, during practicums, teacher candidates could use semiotic analysis to reflect on classroom interactions: instead of just noting whether a lesson “went well” by test outcomes, they might analyze the signs of student engagement (body language, questions asked, creative work produced) to gauge deeper learning. They learn to see classroom events (even disruptions or student misconceptions) not as problems to suppress, but as meaningful signs of students’ thinking that can guide teaching. Some programs encourage teacher candidates to maintain interpretive journals, recording observations and then parsing them using theories of semiosis – effectively treating teaching itself as an object of semiosis to improve their practice.
In universities, edusemiotics has given rise to courses and research that blend semiotics and education. For instance, a university seminar on “Edusemiotics and Educational Theory” might bring together students of philosophy, education, and linguistics to analyze how sign systems (like language, media, or even architectural design of schools) influence learning. Students in such a course might examine case studies—say, how introducing a school garden (with its natural signs and cycles) impacted children’s science learning and sense of responsibility. Through an edusemiotic lens, they would discuss how the garden functions as a sign environment that teaches interdependence and growth in ways traditional classrooms might not. This kind of inquiry trains future educators and policymakers to think beyond standard models and consider the broader semio-cultural environment of education. In fact, edusemiotic scholars like Inna Semetsky and Andrew Stables have been involved in developing such interdisciplinary programs and workshops globally, indicating a growing influence in higher education edusemiotics.orgedusemiotics.org.
Institutional design: On a school-wide level, some pioneering schools incorporate edusemiotic principles in their design and culture. For example, a K–12 school inspired by edusemiotics might implement thematic “learning communities” instead of strict age-based grades – students of different ages working together on projects (signifying a break from the usual structure and encouraging peer-learning signs). The timetable could be more flexible, allowing longer periods for dialogue-based learning and cross-curricular projects. The school might also engage with community “signs” by inviting local artists, scientists, or elders to share knowledge, thus treating the community as an extension of the classroom semiosphere. One could liken this to the Reggio Emilia approach (in early childhood education), which also treats the environment as the “third teacher” and values symbolic expression; edusemiotics provides a theoretical backbone to such practices, extending them through all levels of schooling.
In higher education, we see trends like transdisciplinary research labs and project-based courses that align with edusemiotic ideals. For instance, a university might host a “Semiosis Lab” where educators, computer scientists, and designers collaborate to create educational games that leverage signs and symbols to teach (turning learning content into interactive sign systems that students play with and interpret). Winfried Nöth, a renowned semiotician and contributor to edusemiotics, has highlighted the importance of such ecological and interactive dimensions – for example, exploring how digital media (as new sign environments) can be used pedagogically without losing the richness of face-to-face dialogue flusserstudies.netresearchgate.net. Practical implementations influenced by Nöth’s ecosemiotics include outdoor education programs where students learn about biology not just from textbooks but by reading the “signs of nature” (tracks, plant indicators, weather patterns), thereby integrating ecological literacy with cultural meaning.
In conclusion, these examples – from classroom activities to teacher training and innovative schools – show that edusemiotics is moving from theory to practice. It serves as both a philosophical worldview and a reform movement pushing for concrete change in education. Key figures like Inna Semetsky, Andrew Stables, and Winfried Nöth have been instrumental in articulating this vision and inspiring educators to experiment with semiotic approaches. As a result, edusemiotics stands as a promising alternative paradigm amid educational crisis: it offers a way to re-enchant education with meaning, by seeing learners not as empty receptacles but as interpreters, by treating knowledge not as inert information but as living semiosis, and by structuring schools not as factories but as vibrant communities of sign-makers and sign-readers. This holistic approach addresses the philosophical shortcomings of Western education and provides practical pathways to reform, suggesting that the future of education could be one where learning and life are reunited through the power of meaning pdfcoffee.comresearchgate.net.
Sources:
- Semetsky, I., & Stables, A. (2014). Edusemiotics: Semiotic philosophy as educational foundation. [Routledge]. (overview of edusemiotics, its philosophical stance against dualism and knowledge fragmentation pdfcoffee.com)
- Semetsky, I. (2016). “Introduction: A Primer on Edusemiotics.” In Edusemiotics – A Handbook. (discusses overcoming Cartesian dualism and learning as growth of signs link.springer.comlink.springer.com)
- Stables, A. (2006). “Sign(al)s: Living and Learning as Semiotic Engagement.” Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4). (argues for post-Cartesian view of learning and collapse of sign/signal distinction eric.ed.gov)
- Semetsky, I. (2017). “Edusemiotics to Date: An Introduction.” Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. (outlines edusemiotics as an anti-dualist, process-oriented philosophy, emphasizing relational ethics and the unity of knowledge and action edusemiotics.orgedusemiotics.org)
- Deely, J., & Semetsky, I. (2017). Semiotics, Edusemiotics and the Culture of Education. (explores the cultural and interdisciplinary implications of edusemiotics, e.g. STEAM integration and epistemological fluency researchgate.net)
- Nöth, W., Stables, A., Olteanu, A., et al. (2018). Semiotic Theory of Learning: New Perspectives in the Philosophy of Education. (collection that extends edusemiotic ideas into ecosemiotics, ontology of learning, etc., reflecting Nöth’s contributions)
- Various authors in Inna Semetsky (Ed.) (2017). Edusemiotics – A Handbook. (practical and theoretical essays on edusemiotic pedagogy, e.g. use of metaphors, diagrams in teaching researchgate.net, and case studies on meaning-centered education)
Abderrazak Behhar 