Learning Sciences (LS) and Instructional Systems (IS) each study the design and use of technology in classrooms. In considering differences between the fields, I recalled our discussion about the goals of LS as intellectual or practical. I started on the intellectual side, largely due to this quotation from Sawyer (2006): “[W]hen learning scientists went into classrooms, they discovered that schools were not teaching the deep knowledge that underlies intelligent performance” (p. 4). From this I concluded that the goal of LS is not to create interventions that facilitate learning, but to understand the kinds of learning goals that are useful in the current world.
Hoadley (2004) brought this distinction into greater focus: “The instructional-systems design field has a fundamentally design-oriented, and thus interventionist, stance, while the learning sciences has a goal of … better theories and science leading to better interventions” (p. 8). Ergo, when learning scientists study an intervention, they might ask, “What do learners do with this tool? What does that tell us about processes of learning and the importance of our learning goals?” IS researchers, studying the same intervention, might ask, “How do I make a tool that helps students reach this learning goal? How well did my intervention work?”
Interestingly, Barab and Squire’s (2004) description of design-based research (DBR) clearly highlights theory- *and* intervention-development goals, lending credence to Hoadley’s (2004) claim that DBR could bring LS and IS together.
I noticed in your response that you pointed out DBR is one of the contributing factors to the union of LS and IS. While I agree that DBR is a point of commonality between these two fields I question the feasibility of DBR reaching a level of respectability in educational research so that it becomes a large enough part of the research landscape to make an impact. Indeed, in the Barb & Squire (2004, Page 3) article the authors admit that “…there are many unresolved questions that we as a community must address if our assertions are going to be deemed credible…”. I wonder if it might be possible that LS and IS are kept artificially separate because of the lack of acceptance of DBR.
Hi Katie, I loved your connection to our discussion about intellectual vs. practical goals in learning sciences (LS) earlier in the semester. I think that differentiating LS and instructional systems (IS) is ultimately the same conversation.
I agree with Barab and Squire’s (2004) take on design-based research (DBR) as the resolution to this debate. Good teaching requires recursive thoughtful application of strategies and reflection on theory/best practice; why wouldn’t educational research take a similar approach? Carr-Chellman and Hoadley (2004) discuss the converging goals and theories of LS and IS, and this seems like more than enough to justify bringing them together. Isolation is certainly not the most effective way to incite progress, and I would argue that while labels are useful and important, they can be misused: they are intended to provide vocabulary for discussion across groups, not barriers for separation between them.
Hi Katie – I like that you provided examples of questions learning scientists and IS researchers might ask when looking at the same example – this helped me to see the difference in their orientations. You note that Barab and Squire’s (2004) description of DBR seems to encompass the goals of both LS and IS as well as Carr-Chellman and Hoadley’s (2004) argument that DBR could be the meeting point. I’m wondering if you agree? Considering the example questions you provide, do you think it would be beneficial to ask *both* sets of questions when thinking about an intervention or are there benefits to asking these questions in isolation? Furthermore, do you agree that DBR is meeting point for these questions? For example, is DBR the place where a researcher might ask “What does that tell us about processes of learning and the importance of our learning goals?” *and* “How well did my intervention work?” or would DBR result in different questions entirely?
Hi Matthew and Kimberly,
This string of posts is interesting because I feel like Kimberly wrote a lot of what I would say in response to Matthew’s point. I agree with him that the lack of DBR’s impact on education research is a point of concern. I would further speculate that one of the reasons DBR is struggling for footing is because of its desire to do two things at once: improve a specific thing and contribute to generalizable knowledge. In quantitative research we sample widely in hopes of generating knowledge that generalizes, but know we lose detail and traction in specific locales in the process. In qualitative research, we sacrifice generalizability for the sake of deeper understanding of specific instances. By focusing on one intervention and aiming for generalizability, DBR is trying to do both.
This line of thought leaves me wondering if there’s any value in the idea of trying to draw some parallels between DBR and mixed methods research. I don’t know how it would work, exactly, but that is my response to Kimberley’s question. I think DBR has to ask both questions and also think carefully about the methodological routes to answering each.
Hi Sarah — I completely agree with your point about vocabulary. Sometimes I think our need to categorize and label hinders our thoughts about the big picture. I think a lot of these discussions would benefit from being put on pause while the field thinks carefully about the pragmatic consequences (or lack thereof) of the outcomes of these debates.
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)