Does filling gaps count as transformation? | W2 Q2 | Discussion

Bransford et al. (2006) provides a valid argument for how these three areas of research could inform each other and result in “a more robust understanding of learning” (p. 19). For example, it is clear that neuroscience affords answers regarding how learning occurs physically in the brain that the other two areas do not (Bransford et al., 2006, p. 20). Similarly, research in the other two areas account for environmental factors in a way neuroscience does not. Thus, it is clear to me how synthesizing these areas could lead to a more comprehensive understanding of learning. However, the claim that these synergies will transform the science of learning and training of researchers and educators is not as convincing. What is not clear to me is how the insights and areas of focus offered by Bransford et al. (2006) are transformative. All areas of focus seem to have been pursued in their individual strands of research, so combining areas of focus seems more like filling gaps than transforming, Perhaps filling gaps is transformative? To make their argument stronger, I think Bransford et al. (2006) could provide more examples that illustrate changes resulting from synthesizing three areas of research in addition to their examples that demonstrate how the areas inform each other.