LS & IS: A Sweet, Sweet Union? | W6 Q2 | Discussion

Carr-Chellman an Hoadley (2004) posit that the LS and IS “have overlapping scope, converging theories, and very different histories” (p.10). Given that their histories are the source of the biggest divide between the two fields and they move further from this divide over time as their theories converge, it is likely (as Carr-Chellman &Hoadley hope) LS and IS will meet. This meeting seems inevitable considering that the two fields share a goal of improving the experiences of learners (Carr-Chellman & Hoadley, 2004).
Currently, each field goes about achieving its goal in different ways. The LS is concerned with *understanding* learning environments by developing better *theories* and science that could lead to better interventions (Sawyer, 2006, Carr-Chellman & Hoadley,2004). IS, on the other hand, takes a “directly interventionist stance” more focused on the best ways to create *systems* that yield learning” (Carr-Chellman & Hoadley, 2004, p.7-8).
Though these approaches differ, the theories guiding each approach, are converging toward a perspective of constructivist learning (Carr-Chellman & Hoadley,2004). This theoretical direction has led LS to adopt a more design-based approach to research (Barab & Squire,2004), not unlike the current approach of IS. In fact, Carr-Chellman & Hoadley (2004) hypothesize that as education research shifts more toward a design-based approach, “the two fields of instructional systems design and the learning sciences will have more and more overlap in goals, methods, and epistemology” (p.11). As they both move away from their different histories, the two become more similar and would likely benefit from a union.