IS is to LS as Squares are to Rectangles | W6 Q2 | Discussion

Learning Sciences (LS) and Instructional Systems (IS) are related fields finally uniting. Much like Carr-Chellman and Hoadley (2004) describe historical discoveries being replicated because of groups’ isolation (p. 7), LS and IS have been isolated, yet have naturally grown together.

Both LS and IS aim to improve education; they include educational technology in scope, and take constructivist views on learning (Carr-Chellman & Hoadley, 2004). Their theories/goals are converging, so despite their separate histories, I argue that LS and IS have more commonalities than differences. IS is more narrow in scope than LS because of its focus on technology, while LS broadly looks at learning environments. IS are part of LS, but not all LS are part of IS. Something reminiscent of the old adage: All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

Ultimately, the movement towards design-based research (DBR) is the magnetism pulling the two fields together. As Barab and Squire (2004) describe, LS look at “learning, cognition, knowing, and context [as] irreducibly co-constituted” with the goal of improving the immediate learning environment as well as informing generalizable theory (p.1). Sawyer (2006) also grounds LS in the classroom itself, emphasizing the importance of research in the wild, despite the challenges classroom settings imply. This increasing emphasis on LS as interventionist brings this broad field into alignment with the frequently application-based work (DBR) traditionally associated with IS (Carr-Chellman and Hoadley, 2004). Hopefully LS and IS unite like long-lost family, celebrating their shared future rather than lamenting their disjointed pasts.