The Learning Sciences and Instructional Systems are two fields which, although having different histories and somewhat different ways of pursuing improved education and learning, have much in common in terms of their overarching long-term goals. The Learning Sciences “….requires us to develop models of learning in real-world situations.”, while Instructional Systems is focused on determining the best situation and time to use specific instructional methods (Carr-Chellman & Hoadley, 2004).
Another way in which the Learning Sciences and Instructional Systems differ is their approach to research and design. Learning scientists seek to seek to use scientific principles in the creation of instructional practices which take into account the context and environment in which learning is taking place, while Instructional Systems seek to use existing theories to design instructional approaches to solve specific educational problems (Carr-Chellman & Hoadley, 2004; Sawyer, 2006).
One area in which the Learning Sciences and Instructional Systems seem to be converging is on the agreement that design-based research methods are useful for reaching shared goals. Design-based research is an approach to research with the dual goals of: (1) impacting learning in the local context of its implementation, and (2) helping to shape and test the viability of theory (Barab & Squire, 2004). Both the Learning Sciences and Instructional Systems have started to use design-based research in an effort to understand the meaning of learning, instead of just the implementation of instructional methods.
Hi Matthew, I’m wondering what your thoughts are on the merits of design-based research (DBR). As you discuss, this seems to be the unifying direction of learning sciences (LS) and instructional systems (IS). However, I’ve been thinking about the pros and cons of this method. As Barab and Squire (2004) point out, “If a researcher is intimately involved in the conceptualization, design, development, implementation, and researching of a pedagogical approach, then ensuring that researchers can make credible and trustworthy assertions is a challenge” (p. 10). This reminded me of our discussion in CEP 933 the other day regarding how to decide what amount of evidence is enough to influence policy. Is DBR too tainted to ultimately present policy-impacting evidence? DBR research offers critical insight into classroom phenomena, but is this the most productive direction for LS and IS? I think my answer is still “yes,” but what’s your perspective?
I identify with what you say about LS and IS having overarching similarity in goals. You mention that “to use scientific principles in the creation of instructional practices which take into account the context and environment in which learning is taking place,”. I wonder though if LS starts of using scientific principles in an attempt to confirm it or in an attempt to further inform it? Perhaps it approaches the situation with an open mind, but since ‘theory building/shaping/viability’ seems to be a core aspect of LS, I wonder if researchers attempt to do the latter. If that’s indeed the case, I wonder when they feel an LS theory is saturated/informed enough to not be developed further!
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)