The Instructional Systems and Learning Science fields share the common aims of (1) promoting in-school-and-out-of-school learning and (2) exploring how educational technology can be used to support learning. The deepest divide between these two fields stem from contrasting philosophies on the nature of learning, and the instructor-student roles during the learning process. The IS field stems from the instructions philosophies of pedadgogy (Sawyer, 2006, p1). IS researchers tend to take on a design-oriented lens to improve curricula and instructional material (Carr-CHellman & Hoadley, 2004, p. 8). Educational technology, in the IS field, is positioned as a medium for delivering instructional content. IS seems to emphasize the role of the teacher/teaching materials in the process of learning. In contrast, the LS is primarily concerned with the learning process as experienced from the perspective of the learner. LS researchers are more concerned with the observing the learning process in naturalistic setting; the field is concerned with developing theories about how people learn, with respect to context and generalizability to real-world settings (p. 8). LS emerges from a constructivist philosophy– in this field, educational technology serves as a tool for learners to construct knowledge or create shared communities of practice/knowledge.
Despite the deep epistemological divides, the readings advocate for an alliance between IS and LS fields, and are optimistic about the potential for cross-disciplinary collaboration between the two fields. Both the Charr-Chellman (2004) and Barab & Squire (2004) readings posit design-based research as a means of unifying the LS and IS fields. Design-based research merges the two fields by using the design-oriented expertise of the IS field to test or generate theory about learning, as emphasized in the LS field (Barab & Squire, 2004). The practice-theory alignment in the design-based research methods allows researchers to generate findings that will advance the IS and LS fields.
The readings seem to suggest that the DBR methodology can allow IS and LS researchers to collaborate in a way that capitalizes on the expertise of both fields while side-stepping epistemological differences in pursuit of a research agenda that may yield fruit for both instructional design and learning science theory.
Interesting take! I hadn’t thought about the difference between IS and LS in terms of an emphasis on teaching versus learning, but I see where you are coming from. IS is generally about the design of an intervention — a teaching focus. LS is generally about developing theories of learning — a learning focus. I’m not sure, however, that I agree with your claim that IS stems from instructionist pedagogies. As I understood it from Sawyer (2006), the instructionism vision says that students are passive in the process of education. Isn’t it possible for an IS intervention to assume students are active in their learning, even if the focus is on how the intervention stimulates that action rather than explaining the process or result of that action?
I Katie, I guess the way I interpreted Sawyer’s description is that instructionist approaches generally emphasize the “instructor” role, which seems to shift the focus away from the learner. In that sense, I don’t think IS researchers only design instructional activities/environments where students are engaged in passive forms of learning– I suppose that, from an IS perspective, students are “passive” in the sense of being the benefactors of the Instructional System. Even in activities that foster active learning and participation from students, it’s the instructional system that facilitates the “active” learning, not so much the student’s initiative or in the sense that students are actively directing their learning experience (as characteristic of LS perspective).
That being said, while IS may have had its stems from a more instructionist approach, I think the IS field has shifted away from that. I think design-centered fields in general are moving towards a more user-centered approach, and i’m sure that IS has taken on more of a user-centered focus as well.
Hi Marissa (and Katie!) – I also had not considered IS to be emphasizing instruction and LS to be emphasizing learning! My interpretation was that IS was interested in practical application/interventions, while LS focused on gathering knowledge pertaining to learning processes and building theories.
Additionally, you seem to be in agreement that LS embraces the idea that students are active participants in the learning process, while IS gives a less enthusiastic acknowledgement (but still and acknowledgement) and instead pursues its primary focus of instruction. Comparing the two after reading your comments to each other made me realize that there could be problems with both. LS’s embrace of the idea that students are active learners is great, but focusing on the learner alone does not capture the dynamic and complex interplay of the learner and his/her environment. Similarly, when focusing on instruction (even with acknowledging the existence of an active learner), it is important to realize that teaching is not enacting a plan, but rather constantly adapting a plan as the environment changes and students’ needs are assessed and reassessed. Revisiting Barab and Squire’s (2004) description of DBR as “account[ing] for and potentially impact[ing] learning *and* teaching in naturalistic settings,” I am now better able to understand why Carr-Chellman and Hoadley (2004) see DBR as the meeting ground for the two fields.
Kimberly,
“it is important to realize that teaching is not enacting a plan, but rather constantly adapting a plan as the environment changes and students’ needs are assessed and reassessed”. I so agree! We talk so much about active learning and not enough about (inter)active teaching. You helped me see how DBR could be well-equipped to take this into account.
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:
3 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)