Bransford et al (2006, pg 19) proposed a “transformative theory of learning” which happens when the three strands (research on implicit learning and the brain; research on informal learning; designs for learning – formal learning and beyond) converge and have an “integrated, coherent conversation”. I believe that it is true that looking at these strands coherently would lead to a positive change in teaching and learning processes. I believe that this ‘transformation’ will be slow, it will be an evolution, a slow but constant change in the desired direction. Indeed, the fact that Bransford et al (2006, pg 28) mention that “…..these strands can inform one another and, **in the process**, create more coherent and useful theories…..” Using ‘process’ leads me to believe that they too acknowledge the slow brewing nature of the ‘transformation’ that will happen
I am, however, a bit skeptical about a few lines of thoughts mentioned in this paper and wish to talk about one of them: “Each of these research traditions has operated relatively independently **up to this point**” (Bransford et al, 2006, pg 28). Upon examining some literature, I came across Hofstein and Rosenfeld (1996) who had said ten years prior that “There is no clear agreement in the literature regarding the definition of informal science learning…The major difficulty in defining informal science learning is determining whether or not informal science learning can take place within formal settings. In other words, does the term have distinct, clear-cut attributes of its own (in which case it may occur in formal as well as informal settings) or must this term be understood as necessarily contrasted with formal learning (in which case it cannot occur in formal settings)?” (pp. 88–89).
It seems like there always had been blurred boundaries between the three strands, but perhaps *how to effectively* (Bransford et al, 2006, pgs 28-29) have the integrated conversation is the more significant contribution of this paper rather than just the proposal of *having the integrated conversation*.
Hi Sukanya,
I enjoyed your thoughts on how the three strands of research may have blurred prior to the authors’ predicted transformation and reflected on the space between educational research and education practice itself. I’m willing to believe that it’s possible that the synergy of these research approaches was not a new idea before this text, but I predict that movement towards synergy in the classroom was new. As we discussed in our methods class, it’s difficult to disseminate research findings to teachers. And as you stated, the change in research that then impacts pedagogy will be a slow evolution, and probably the authors envisioned a gradual change too; rather than “a grand theory,” they’re simply hoping to “better illuminate” our understanding of learning (p. 28).
Hi Sukanya,
Originally, I was hung up on Bransford et al.’s (2006) argument for transformation. If these three areas of research aren’t going to be combined to create something new, then what is transformative? Your conceptualization of transformation as a slow process of evolution made me rethink my own perception. Previously, I thought of evolution and transformation as separate and thus was not convinced by Bransford et al.’s (2006) claim. Your response caused me to consider if a change can be both an evolution and a transformation and question my original stance. I am interested to hear others’ thoughts on what constitutes an evolution or transformation in the learning sciences, if it is possible to have both simultaneously, and what each of these means for the field.
Hi Sarah,
Yeah, what you say about contextualizing the synergy in classrooms makes sense. I guess the previous papers/researchers may have started questioning some of these hard boundaries, but this paper does make a significant impact in terms of trying to channelize it in an as fruitful way as possible.
Hi Kimberly,
That actually is interesting to look into, is evolution different from transformation? It’s a gray area actually. I did consider evolution as a means for eventual transformation, but as I was reading some more responses I guess I’d also like to add the words ‘widespread’ and perhaps ‘irreversible’ (to an ‘unfavorable state’ that is: I think I should stop thinking in chemistry and life-sciences terms but now that I’ve started, it’s hard not to. lol!)
” I am interested to hear others’ thoughts on what constitutes an evolution or transformation in the learning sciences, if it is possible to have both simultaneously, and what each of these means for the field.” — Yes! I agree with you completely. That would a very interesting discussion to have. I’m sure there might never be a consensus, but I guess a discussion at least would be nice/crucial because this conversation is related to things like ‘measuring effectiveness’ which is yet another important topic to consider.
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
Rand
cainwil1
Ming
Top Posters:
galvins1: 51
richkat3: 50
albertsk: 43
moudgal1: 43
schellma: 41
liraamal: 39
Emilia: 35
zhumengd: 34
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 19
Topics: 97
Posts: 339
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 77
Moderators: 0
Admins: 5
Most Users Ever Online: 58
Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)