I agree with Bransford et al.’s belief in synergy across informal, formal, and implicit learning. In fact, my interest in researching learning on social media might make my view on this issue seem obvious; both readings for this week align well with the theoretical framework I will build around my own work (Thanks, Chris!).
Although I readily accept Bransford et al.’s concept, I am more cynical about its timeline. The authors posited that a “decade of synergy” was coming in 2006, and I am not convinced that that actually happened. I couldn’t trace a “transformation” in the science of learning across the literature. However, I would not imagine quick changes in theoretical views, as we’ve seen with other academic “camps” (e.g. self-sorting by methodology). I think synergy will take longer and require healthy conflict.
That said, I do think educational research is inevitably trending towards synergy. Sawyer’s description of learning sciences is broad and inclusive, describing both micro- and macro-level research as essential (2006). This invites the synthesizing of research strands. How else will we grasp a comprehensive picture, both internally and externally, of moment-to-moment and longitudinal learning? (Sawyer, p.13-14). For example, Bransford et al. cite Scribner and Cole’s description of informal learning as particularisic and describe formal learning as more like instructionism (p. 23-24); looking at either type of learning in isolation is woefully incomplete. A movement towards synergy is a movement towards learning sciences and a movement towards “providing a sound scientific foundation for education” (Sawyer, p. 15).
I also thought about how researchers sort themselves into “camps,” in relation to the potential for transformation, first thinking it might prevent transformation from happening. Immediately after reading your post, I wondered if instead the camps were only slowing the pace of transformation. Now I’m onto a third theory: theoretical camps might shift the location of the transformation. Perhaps transformation will never occur within core research, but rather in how core research is applied in design and practice. I was looking for evidence of transformation within studies, but maybe I am looking in the wrong place. As you point out, Sawyer (2006) says the learning sciences will provide a “foundation for education” (p. 15), and there’s much more to education than core research.
Hi Sarah – What especially stood out to me from your post was the idea of slow progress that will need considerable trial and error. Like yourself, I also tend to agree that Brandford et al. was onto something great when they wrote this and I generally agree that the synergy between implicit, informal, and formal learning is better than just having one. As you mentioned that looking at simply “one type of learning feels incomplete,” I agree that we need to consider how each contribute to learning individually and find the areas that they intersect for an enhanced learning experience. Not only will this take time, but it will require testing and re-testing in various academic contexts.
Hi Katie,
I’m really intrigued by your idea of shifting the location of the transformation from core research to its applications in research design and practice. I think you are right that we will be more able to identify change here as it transitions slowly and new trends develop. I would imagine that ultimately a new paradigm will emerge even within core research, but perhaps this final step will take much longer than anticipated.
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:
4 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)