Disruption Precedes Transformation | W2 Q2 | Discussion

Bransford et al. present a sound philosophical argument for the convergence of these 3 strands of research. The field of educational research, as a whole, has been shifting towards a holistic integration of multiple approaches such as behavioral-cognitivism, social-constructivism, and more recently, neurocognition/neuroscience. While these recent shifts reflect more of a philosophical “transformation” that begins with a reconception of the way researchers define and measure “learning”– moving away from knowledge acquisition towards becoming knowledge “workers”– the major transformation that will significantly alter the training and practice of educational research is unlikely to occur until the field develops instruments of assessments and analyses that capture the metacognitive and innovation dimensions of learning. Currently, most of the research funding is based on standardized assessment outcomes– outcomes that measure the efficiency dimension of expertise development/knowledge acquisition (Bransford et al, 2006, p. 26). Once the field fully articulates the distinction between “adaptive expertise” and “routine expertise”, we may see a transformation in the way researchers/educators design and analyze their studies/learning environments to integrate these 3 major strands. Major paradigm shifts occur when previous paradigms are disrupted or are revealed to be obsolete. To that end, the next step is to articulate a cohesive model/framework that positions “adaptive expertise” as a distinct and superior standard of learning from “routine expertise”.