International Handbook of the Learning Sciences

Frank Fischer, Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver, Susan R. Goldman, Peter Reimann, Frank Fischer, Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver, Susan R. Goldman, Peter Reimann

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781317208358
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Educational Psychology

The International Handbook of the Learning Sciences is a comprehensive collection of international perspectives on this interdisciplinary field. In more than 50 chapters, leading experts synthesize past, current, and emerging theoretical and empirical directions for learning sciences research. The three sections of the handbook capture, respectively: foundational contributions from multiple disciplines and the ways in which the learning sciences has fashioned these into its own brand of use-oriented theory, design, and evidence; learning sciences approaches to designing, researching, and evaluating learning broadly construed; and the methodological diversity of learning sciences research, assessment, and analytic approaches. This pioneering collection is the definitive volume of international learning sciences scholarship and an essential text for scholars in this area.

p.1

1

Introduction

Evolution of Research in the Learning Sciences

Frank Fischer, Susan R. Goldman, Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver, and Peter Reimann

Over the past 25 years, the interdisciplinary field of learning sciences has emerged as an important nexus of research on how people learn, what might be important for them to learn and why, how we might create contexts in which such learning can occur, and how we can determine what learning has occurred and for whom. At the same time this emergence has prompted repeated attempts to probe and elucidate how learning sciences is similar to, as well as differentiated from, long-established disciplinary research areas, such as anthropology, cognitive psychology, cognitive sciences, curriculum and instruction, educational psychology, and sociology. This is a difficult question to answer, in part because the learning sciences builds on the knowledge base of many of these disciplinary research areas while at the same time taking a “use oriented” perspective on the knowledge base. That is, much as Stokes (1997) distinguished between basic research and research oriented toward solving practical problems, (i.e., research in Pasteur’s quadrant), research in the learning sciences is often situated in problems of practice that occur in a range of “learning” contexts, including formal or informal settings dedicated to schooling, workplace, or leisure/entertainment goals.

Because the learning sciences are “use oriented,” they are also holistic; practically useful knowledge needs to be coherent (Bereiter, 2014). When we speak of the learning sciences as aiming for a holistic understanding of human learning, we take both epistemic and systems views. The epistemic perspective is that learning can be studied from multiple perspectives. By claiming that human learning is a systems phenomenon, we assume that learning is brought about by the coordination of biological learning with socio-cultural knowledge and tool production. Just imagine—and this means asking for the impossible—how different human learning would be if we would not have language to communicate, would not have writing systems, including those for mathematics and music, would not have invented technologies, from tables to tablets. None of these essential elements of (and for) human learning depend on a particular brain function; instead, each extends the brain—the biological system—into a bio-socio-cultural hybrid system that is the locus of human learning, and generally for human cognition (Clark, 2011).

In a similar vein, concerning methodology, the learning sciences have resisted crude reductionism. Instead, what is often practiced is a kind of dialectical reductionism, for lack of a better word. To produce good explanations for learning, the learning process(es) under study needs to be decomposed into parts, and the explanation runs ‘upwards’ from the components, and their configurations and coordinations, to the process that gets explained. At the same time, the lower level processes get meaning only when seen from the higher level: moving an arm up or down is part of a dance move or directing traffic cannot be determined from analyzing the motor control processes in the brain, as little as from analyzing the muscle contractions in the arm. Any human action, other than reflexes, can serve multiple—indeed, infinitely many—purposes. Furthermore, most of our actions are tool-mediated, which makes them mediated by the culture that provides the tool and the community of practice in which a specific way of using the tool makes sense (Wertsch, 1998). Although learners may neither be aware of the body and brain processes, nor of the cultural pedigree of their actions, to understand human learning, and to shape it, all of these need to be taken into account.

p.2

Purposes

The overarching purposes of this handbook are to bring together international perspectives on theoretical and empirical work (1) that has informed the research agenda of the learning sciences, with its emphasis on design and how learning technologies (computer and internet based and otherwise) can support learning and its assessment; (2) that comprise signature and unique contributions of learning sciences design research cycles to understanding how, what, why, and for whom learning is happening; and (3) that comprises the multiple and complementary methods of examining learning and how it happens within learning sciences research traditions. In so doing, we hoped to create an internationally oriented up-to-date resource for research and teaching in the learning sciences.

We intend the handbook to serve as a resource to the burgeoning number of post-baccalaureate programs in the learning sciences. In the past decade, the numbers of programs describing themselves as providing advanced degrees in learning sciences has gone from just a handful to more than 50 worldwide (see isls.naples.com). Many more programs in education, psychology, and related fields include specializations or subprograms in learning sciences. The programs are geographically distributed across North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, with emerging interest from South America and Africa.

We also intend the handbook to provide a compendium of past, current, and future research trends. The contributors to this handbook are actively participating in learning sciences research and graduate preparation programs; have served as editors or editorial board members of the premier journals of the learning sciences, the Journal of the Learning Sciences and the International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning; or have played key roles in the activities of the International Society of the Learning Sciences, including the annual meetings. They are thus well positioned to both introduce newcomers to the learning sciences to its major theories, methods, and empirical findings, as well as to provide for more seasoned members of the learning sciences communities well-informed and reflective perspectives on major trends and future directions in their specific areas of expertise. In soliciting authors, we provided content guidelines that we hoped would provide some consistency across a diverse set of topical areas. We asked that the authors provide a brief historical introduction to the topic and discuss the relevance or intersection of their topic with the learning sciences. They were asked to refer to empirical studies and their findings to support claims and/or provide examples of the application of particular research methods or analytic strategies. We encouraged the authors to avoid the “not invented here” syndrome and seek out international scholars working on the specific topic.

Given the limited length of each chapter, we asked the authors to include four or five further readings with a brief annotation, along with the citations included in the body of the chapter. In addition, most of the chapters include a section with links (URLs) to specific video resources, most of them part of the NAPLeS (Network of Academic Programs in the Learning Sciences) collection of webinars, interviews, and short videos. We encourage you to take advantage of these additional resources.

p.3

As editors of the volume our purpose in the remainder of this introduction is to provide an overview of the three sections from the perspective of what we hoped to capture and reflect in each. We focus on overall trends across sets of chapters rather than providing summaries of each. We conclude with several emergent trends and directions for learning sciences, including greater attention to social responsibility and research that speaks to issues of equity.

Organization of the Handbook

Learning sciences is an interdisciplinary field that works to further scientific understanding of learning as well as engages in the design and implementation of learning innovations in methodologies and learning environments intended to improve learning processes and outcomes. Conceptions of learners, learning spaces and places, the time span over which learning occurs, what manner of processes and outcomes are defined as evidence of learning all reflect the interdisciplinarity of the learning sciences. The first section of the handbook, ‘Historical Foundations and Theoretical Orientations of the Learning Sciences,’ endeavors to reflect foundational contributions to this interdisciplinarity as well as the particular way in which the learning sciences has taken up these contributions and then used them to create its own brand of use-oriented theory, design, and evidence. The second section, ‘Learning Environments: Designing, Researching, Evaluating,’ turns to various configurations of places, spaces, time frames, tasks, processes, and outcomes that constitute the what of learning sciences research, design, and evaluation. The third section, ‘Research, Assessment, and Analytic Methods,’ reflects the methodological diversity of the learning sciences. We discuss each section in turn and conclude with the themes and trends that emerge for the future.

Section 1: Historical Foundations and Theoretical Orientations of the Learning Sciences

The history of science is replete with paradigm shifts stimulated by the accumulation of evidence that simply did not “fit” extant theoretical paradigms. Such was the case with the “cognitive revolution” in psychology during the 1960s (see Miller, 2003). Similarly, the learning sciences emerged in part as a response to evidence and phenomena of learning emanating from different disciplines. However, rather than a paradigm shift within a single discipline (e.g., psychology), the seemingly inconsistent evidence and phenomena were emanating from different disciplines, leading to a shift to a more interdisciplinary conception of learning. For example, the juxtaposition of sophisticated quantitative reasoning in everyday situations seemed at odds with data indicating that people were far less successful in such reasoning in formal school mathematics (Lave, 1998; Saxe, 1991). As Hoadley indicates in his “short history,” four themes emerged as characteristic of the learning sciences and form the foundations of the epistemology as depicted in Chinn and Sandoval. The next set of three chapters (Danish & Gresalfi; Eberle; Reimann & Markauskaite) detail productive tensions of efforts to look at learning, development, and expertise from individual “in the head” as well as socio-cultural perspectives. Two chapters draw attention to the importance of looking at multiple systems in which learning occurs, in particular the neural system (S. Varma, Im, Schmied, Michel, & K. Varma) and the motor/kinesthetic system reflected visibly in action and gesture (Alibali & Nathan). This work points to productive future directions for work in the learning sciences in attempting to understand learning as a multi-level phenomenon.

A theme of the next four chapters reflects the increasing consideration in the learning sciences of the purposes and goals for which people interact with and try to make sense of the various forms of information that are ubiquitous in the 21st century. Why do people turn to certain information resources whether in everyday life, academic, or professional endeavors? This theme runs through the next four chapters—by Goldman and Brand-Gruwel; Ainsworth; Herrenkohl and Polman; and Renninger, Ren, and Kern—from different perspectives, ranging from general interest to disciplinary inquiry in formal and informal settings. They discuss the influence and interconnections between learners’ perspectives on the purposes and functions of their efforts, how they define and how deeply they engage with information they decide is relevant to their purposes, and what they learn. Furthermore, epistemic goals and values emerge in interaction with others, as a collaborative and collective activity, whether in educational or workplace settings (Järvelä, Hadwin, Malmberg, & Miller; Cress & Kimmerle; Ludvigsen & Nerland). Learners do not operate in isolation from the people and objects in their worlds. They build shared understandings via processes that require regulation and modulation in interaction with others and as shaped by and shaping the contributions, knowledge, and beliefs of self and others. Section 1 concludes with a very apropos chapter on complex systems (Yoon), addressing the issue that many of the properties of complex systems (e.g., emergence, structure/function relationships, causality, scale, and self-organization) pose substantial teaching and learning challenges in K-12 education.

p.4

Section 2: Learning Environments: Designing, Researching, Evaluating

Much of the work in the learning sciences is concerned with designing learning situations that are challenging for learners, that ask them to grapple with situations, tasks, and problems for which they do not have rote solutions or for which they cannot simply call upon a memorized factoid. They are asked to work just beyond their comfort zones, in what Vygotsky (1978) referred to as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). To be successful working in the ZPD, learners require supports. The second section contains chapters describing approaches to designing learning environments that support learners’ engagement in ways that lead to knowledge and dispositional outcomes that prepare them to be able subsequently to use what they have learned in conditions different from those of the original learning. Learning activities typically have an inquiry or problem-solving orientation and more often than not involve both independent and collaborative work.

Learning environment designs reflect a variety of learning contexts, pedagogical approaches, and supports for learning. Contexts range across formal and informal educational institutions; informal, opt-in spaces and places (e.g., sports clubs, after school, affinity groups); home, work, and other institutional settings. Pedagogically, designs run the gamut from prescriptive to co-designed to learner-centered. Supports for learners, broadly referred to as scaffolds, may be built into tasks and task sequences provided to do the task, guidance or other forms of coaching and feedback. Scaffolding requires the presence of a “more knowledgeable other”, a role that may be played by humans (e.g., peers, tutors, teachers, parents), computers, or a mix of the two. The chapters in this section attempt to reflect the diversity of designs that result from various combinations of contexts, pedagogies, and forms of support.

The first four chapters present relatively broad, big picture-perspectives on pedagogical designs (van Merriënboer & Kirschner; Dillenbourg, Prieto, & Olsen), scaffolding (Tabak & Kyza), and one specific genre of scaffolding, examples (van Gog & Rummel). These four chapters provide some general considerations for design across a variety of tasks and disciplinary contexts. The focus then shifts to particular forms of inquiry learning, raising considerations of the timing and specificity of guidance and feedback (Hmelo-Silver, Kapur, & Hamstra; Linn, Gerard, McElhaney, & Matuk). Both chapters imply important roles for technology. Indeed, the subsequent chapters in this section involve technologies for supporting learning in a variety of different contexts, disciplines, and learner configurations (individual, small group, whole class). Specifically, Lyons examines issues that arise in introducing technologies in different types of informal learning institutions and the importance of considering the institution as an ecosystem. Computers as intelligent tutoring systems (Graesser, Hu, & Sottilare) and vehicles for providing learners with experiential learning through simulations, games, and modeling (de Jong, Lazonder, Pedaste, & Zacharia) have been used to support learning in a variety of content areas, most frequently in the sciences and mathematics, sometimes focusing on individual learners and sometimes supporting multiple learners working together. The contexts and situations reflect design characteristics of inquiry and problem solving.

p.5

Design activities as a vehicle for learning are the focus of the next three chapters in this section. Recker and Sumner discuss how teachers’ learning through their instructional design efforts is enabled and supported by resources available on the internet. Fields and Kafai review major findings from research on game-based learning, showing that designing games can be highly effective for learning, especially if learners engage in scaffolded design activities. Halverson and Peppler analyze the maker movement and identify two characteristics as core features: authenticity and purpose in making, and self-selection and agency in choosing a particular maker activity. These features of Makerspaces may make them particularly interesting sites for attending to equity and diversity in learning.

The next eight chapters discuss various ways in which collaboration and knowledge building have been major goals of design efforts in the learning sciences from its inception. Indeed, a seminal computer-based system to support collaboration around the development of ideas, CSILE (Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment), arose out of Scardamalia and Bereiter’s efforts to foster knowledge-transforming rather than knowledge-telling learning opportunities (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987a, 1987b; Chan & van Aalst). Since this seminal work and the profusion of design and research projects that it has spawned internationally, there have been a number of parallel design and research efforts that emphasize creating and generating knowledge in scaffolded communities of inquiry (Slotta, Quintana, & Moher) or through dialogic and dialectic argumentation (Schwarz). After a theoretical and methodological overview of these efforts in CSCL research (Jeong & Hartley), the following two chapters discuss approaches that have attended to more specific issues. The designs are typically realized in computer- or internet-based systems and provide various types of support for collaborative knowledge construction, including scripting and scaffolding for groups (Kollar, Wecker, & Fischer) or group awareness information supposed to ...