Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Methods in the Learning Sciences
References

Perspectives on learning from the learning sciences

Profile image of Anna KeuneAnna Keune

2023, Elsevier eBooks

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.14007-2
visibility

…

description

30 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Since the 1980s, the learning sciences have been an emerging field of research that focuses on learning of individuals and groups in authentic social, material, and digital contexts from a multilevel perspective. The learning sciences have substantially advanced theoretical conceptions of learning and its support as well as methodological approaches, for example by introducing designbased research. The article provides an overview of the history, important theories and concepts

Related papers

The Learning Sciences -- What is it?
Mitchell Nathan

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2010

The aims of the learning sciences (LS) are to understand the nature of learning from a broad range of perspectives, and to shape the ways that learning environments and resources are designed and used. LS incorporates both systemic and elemental approaches to investigating questions about learning, as a complement to the primarily elemental approach emphasized in cognitive science research. Thus, its greatest potential is in the integration of systemic and elemental perspectives. Four major themes are central. First, research in LS attempts to bridge the divide between research and practice. Second, research in LS is motivated by limitations of theories of learning and cognition for specifying instruction. Third, research in LS embraces the importance of analyzing and assessing complex interventions through both experimental and design-based research. Fourth, research in LS emphasizes the learning and behavior of the individual in interaction with the physical, social, and cultural world, as well as with semiotic and technical resources. Research in LS can be conceptualized along a continuum of time scales, from the more microscopic to the more macroscopic. The time-scale framework illustrates how disparate research traditions and research methods can function within a unifying framework for the study of learning and complex behavior. The effort to ‘scale-up’ from more elemental findings to more complex, authentic settings has been generative for LS, but faces serious challenges. There is an alternate route to establishing a cumulative scientific knowledge base, namely, ‘scaling down’ from more complex, ecologically valid levels to more elemental levels. Studies of basic learning processes, framed in the context of the larger system, are well positioned to support impact in authentic settings. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website

View PDFchevron_right
Learning and design: Why the learning sciences and instructional systems need each other
Christopher Hoadley

Educational Technology, 2004

View PDFchevron_right
The learning sciences, technology and designs for educational systems: Some thoughts about change
Mary Slowinski, Nancy Vye

… in a Changing Learning …, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
The learning sciences: the very idea
Norm Friesen

Educational Media International, 2006

View PDFchevron_right
Learning Theories and Education: Toward a Decade of Synergy
Pat Kuhl, Jeremy Roschelle, Andrew Meltzoff, Nancy Vye

Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
The Affordances of Designing for the Learning Sciences
Lisa Grocott

What expertise might the design practitioner bring to the interdisciplinary field of the learning sciences? Learning scientists are scholars from educational psychology, cognitive science and anthropology (amongst other disciplines) invested in advancing basic research into how we learn and translating that research into the design of learning innovations. Design-based research, a methodological approach adopted by applied learning scientists, was developed to complement the laboratory studies and randomized clinical trials of traditional educational research. Theoretically the applied, iterative characterization of design-based research closely aligns with design thinking, and yet, in practice there are notable distinctions between the research orientation of a design practitioner and a psychologist working with design-based approach. Drawing on optimizing a designers' expertise in solution seeking and synthesis the research proposition specifically examines the value of taking a systematically expansive approach to phase 1 of a longer term study. The paper is grounded by a case study that explores, through a series of scrappy mini-experiments, the potential of learning interventions into implicit theories of intelligence. In conclusion, the paper presents a framework as an orienteering tool for navigating potential of the research landscape that will inform the more convergent phase 2 iteration of a study.

View PDFchevron_right
Expanding Conceptualizations for the Study of Learning
Kristiina Kumpulainen

Front Learning Research

The background and need for this special issue This special issue is dedicated to expanding conceptualizations for the study of learning in contemporary education. Ongoing social changes in the private, public, and economic spheres create new and various demands for learning and education. As the articles of this special issue propose, reasoning, critical thinking, imagination, and managing emotions in dealing with controversial issues have become increasingly important learning requirements in the pursuit of interests toward learning across diverse settings. Also, the way in which people learn to take part in such practices in contemporary contexts, both in formal education and everyday life, are shifting. For instance, novel kinds of digital tools create continuously evolving spaces for learning that transform social interactions and learning practices across contexts and time (Ritella, Ligorio, & Hakkarainen, 2016). Overall, ongoing changes in society, and the learning requirements they entail, challenge research communities to reconsider how to understand and advance learning in diverse settings. It is also increasingly recognised that there is a need to apply and further develop conceptual and methodological frameworks that are able to account for the complexity of learning in contemporary societal conditions (Kumpulainen & Erstad, 2016). The five articles included here address several important and under-researched topics in contemporary learning and education. Each article also proposes and elaborates on potential conceptual frameworks for expanding conceptualizations for the study of learning in the 21st century. Before introducing the articles, we will describe the impetus for the publication of the special issue. After that we describe each of the contributions including their specific research topics and conceptual frameworks. We then outline and discuss some cross-cutting themes emerging from our reading of the articles and conclude by pointing out some key arguments made by the commentators to further the ongoing dialogue and research in the field.

View PDFchevron_right
The Learning Sciences: Where they came from and what it means for instructional designers
Christopher Hoadley

Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 2011

The goal of this chapter is to describe the Learning Sciences perspective. We address questions about how this perspective emerged, what makes it unique, how it goes beyond previous perspectives on learning, and what research findings and practical tools for the instructional designer result from taking this perspective. To start the chapter, we will take a journey back about 40 years ago.

View PDFchevron_right
Reinventing learning: a design-research odyssey
Dor Abrahamson

Design research is a broad, practice-based approach to investigating problems of education. This approach can catalyze the development of learning theory by fostering opportunities for transformational change in scholars’ interpretation of instructional interactions. Surveying a succession of design-research projects, I explain how challenges in understanding students’ behaviors promoted my own recapitulation of a historical evolution in educators’ conceptualizations of learning – Romantic, Progressivist, and Synthetic (Schön 1981) – and beyond to a proposed Systemic view. In reflection, I consider methodological adaptations to design-research practice that may enhance its contributions in accord with its objectives.

View PDFchevron_right
Learning sciences theories and methods for E-learning researchers
Christopher Hoadley

Educational Technology, 2004

C h r i s t o p h e r H o a d l e y The field of e-learning has been informed by a number of both theoretical and methodological traditions, ranging from education, psychology, and communications to computer science, media design, and informatics. Here, we explore the relationship between learning theories and in particular the theories and methods of the Learning Sciences (LS) and e-learning. We focus primarily on the relationship between research in the learning sciences and in e-learning (as opposed to practical design and development strategies). The learning sciences are, as will be discussed later, an interdisciplinary field concerned with the design of learning environments and studying them in context. In what follows, we examine three broad issues. First, what are the goals of e-learning research? Secondly, what are the learning sciences and what theories and methods do they draw upon? Third, how may these theories and methods be useful in e-learning research? GOALS OF E-LEARNING RESEARCH What are the goals of e-learning research? The goals of e-learning practice are relatively clear: producing and evaluating interventions using technology that lead to student learning outcomes in particular applications. E-learning research on the other hand has four more general goals: producing theories that explain

View PDFchevron_right

References (180)

  1. References Abrahamson, D. (2009). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Edu- cational Studies in Mathematics 70(1), 27-47.
  2. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education 33(2-3), 131-152.
  3. Ainsworth, S. (2018). Multiple representations and multimedia learning. In Fischer, F., Hmelo- Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 96-105. New York: Routledge.
  4. Alibali, M. W. and Nathan, M. J., 2012. Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evi- dence from learners' and teachers' gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences 21(2), 247- 286.
  5. Alonzo, A. C. (2018). An argument for formative assessment with science learning progressions. Applied Measurement in Education 31(2), 104-112.
  6. Amarasinghe, I., Hernández-Leo, D. and Jonsson, A. (2019). Data-informed design parameters for adaptive collaborative scripting in across-spaces learning situations. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 29(4), 869-892.
  7. Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F. and Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science 228(4698), 456-462.
  8. Anderson, T. and Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?. Educational Researcher 41(1), 16-25.
  9. Baker, M. J., Schwarz, B. B. and Ludvigsen, S. R. (2021). Educational dialogues and computer supported collaborative learning: critical analysis and research perspectives. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 16, 583-604.
  10. Bang, M. (2019). Storywork across the landscapes of home and school: Towards indigenous fu- tures in Thailand (doctoral dissertation). Seattle: University of Washington, http://hdl.han- dle.net/1773/45175.
  11. Bang, M. and Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Stud- ying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction 34(3), 73- 193.
  12. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(3), 307-359.
  13. Barton, A. C., Tan, E. and Greenberg, D. (2017). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record 119(6), 1-44.
  14. Belland, B.R., Walker, A.E., Kim, N.J. and Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 87(2), 309-344.
  15. Bobrow, D. G. and Collins, A. (1975). Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science. New York: Academic Press.
  16. Bodemer, D., Janssen, J. and Schnaubert, L. (2018). Group awareness tools for computer-sup- ported collaborative learning. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Rei- mann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 351-358. New York: Routledge.
  17. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(2), 141-178.
  18. Brown, J. S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18(1), 32-42.
  19. Buchholz, B., Shively, K., Peppler, K. and Wohlwend, K. (2014). Hands on, hands off: Gendered access in crafting and electronics practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity 21(4), 278-297.
  20. Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W. and Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 3(1), 21-29.
  21. Chan, C. K. and van Aalst, J. (2018). Knowledge building: Theory, design, and analysis. In Fi- scher, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 295-307. New York: Routledge.
  22. Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T. and Fischer, F. (2020). Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Re- search 90(4), 499-541.
  23. Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E. and Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learn- ing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 86(1), 79-122.
  24. Clegg, T. and Kolodner, J. (2014). Scientizing and cooking: Helping middle-school learners de- velop scientific dispositions. Science Education 98(1), 36-63.
  25. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R. and Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher 32(1), 9-13.
  26. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper series as an example of an- chored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psy- chologist 27(3), 291-315.
  27. Cook, C. R., Kilgus, S. P. and Burns, M. K., (2018). Advancing the science and practice of preci- sion education to enhance student outcomes. Journal of School Psychology 66, 4-10.
  28. Cress, U. and Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 3(2), 105-122.
  29. Cress, U. and Kimmerle, J. (2018). Collective knowledge construction. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Sil- ver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 137-146. New York: Routledge.
  30. Cress, U., Oshima, J., Rosé, C. and Wise, A. F. (2021). Foundations, processes, technologies, and methods: An overview of CSCL through its handbook. In Cress, U., Wise, A., Rosé, C., & Oshima, J. (Eds.) International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning, pp 3-22. Cham: Springer.
  31. Cress, U., Wise, A., Rosé, C., & Oshima, J. (eds.) (2021). International handbook of computer- supported collaborative learning. Cham: Springer.
  32. Cronbach, L. J. and Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. Irvington: Ardent Media US.
  33. Danish, J. A. (2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for learning about the structure, behavior, and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences 23(2), 100-148.
  34. Danish, J. A. and Gresalfi, M. (2018). Cognitive and sociocultural perspective on learning: Ten- sions and synergy in the learning sciences. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 34-43. New York: Routledge.
  35. De Jong, T., Linn, M. C. and Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 340(6130), 305-308.
  36. De Jong, T. and Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simu- lations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research 68(2), 79-201.
  37. Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher 32(1), 5-8.
  38. Dillenbourg, P., Prieto, L. P. and Olsen, J. K. (2018). Classroom orchestration. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 180-190. New York: Routledge.
  39. DiSessa, A. A. and Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design ex- periments. Journal of the Learning Sciences 13(1), 77-103.
  40. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P. and Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and instruction 13(5), 533-568.
  41. Donnelly, D. F., Linn, M. C. and Ludvigsen, S. (2014). Impacts and characteristics of computer- based science inquiry learning environments for precollege students. Review of Educational Research 84(4), 572-608.
  42. Eberle, J. (2018). Apprenticeship learning. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 44-53. New York: Routledge.
  43. Eden, G. F., Jones, K. M., Cappell, K., Gareau, L., Wood, F. B., Zeffiro, T. A., Dietz, N. A., Agnew, J. A. and Flowers, D. L. (2004). Neural changes following remediation in adult developmental dyslexia. Neuron 44(3), 411-422.
  44. Enyedy, N. and Yoon, S. (2021). Immersive environments: Learning in augmented+ virtual reality. In Cress, U., Wise, A., Rosé, C., & Oshima, J. (Eds.) International handbook of computer- supported collaborative learning, pp 389-405. Cham: Springer.
  45. Engle, R. A. and Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cog- nition and Instruction 20(4), 399-483.
  46. Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory and the social construction of knowledge: A story of four umpires. Organization 7(2), 301-310.
  47. Esmonde, I. and Booker, A. N. (2016). Power and privilege in the learning sciences. New York: Routledge.
  48. Evans, M. A., Packer, M. J. and Sawyer, R. K. (eds.) (2016). Reflections on the learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Fields, D. A. and Kafai, Y. B. (2018). Games in the learning sciences: Reviewing evidence from playing and making games for learning. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 276-284. New York: Routledge.
  50. Fishman, B. and Penuel, W. (2018). Design-based implementation research. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 393-400. New York: Routledge.
  51. Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Goldman, S.R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) (2018). International hand- book of the learning sciences. New York: Routledge.
  52. Fischer, F., Goldman, S. R., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Reimann, P. (2018). Introduction: Evolution of research in the learning sciences. Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Goldman, S.R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) (2018). International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 1-8. New York: Routledge.
  53. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K. and Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist 48(1), 56-66.
  54. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press.
  55. Goldman, S. V. and Kabayadondo, Z. (eds.) (2016). Taking design thinking to school. New York: Routledge.
  56. Graesser, A.C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W. and Hesse, F. W. (2018a). Advancing the science of collaborative problem solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 19(2), 59-92.
  57. Graesser, A. C., Hu, X., & Sottilare, R. (2018b). Intelligent tutoring systems. In Fischer, F., Hmelo- Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 246-255. New York: Routledge.
  58. Graesser, A. and McNamara, D. (2010). Self-regulated learning in learning environments with pedagogical agents that interact in natural language. Educational Psychologist 45(4), 234- 244.
  59. Greeno, J. G. (2011). A situative perspective on cognition and learning in interaction. In Kosch- mann, T. (ed.) Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp 41-71). New York: Springer.
  60. Gutiérrez, K. D. and Jurow, A. S. (2016). Social design experiments: Toward equity by design. Journal of the Learning Sciences 25(4), 565-598.
  61. Halverson, E. and Peppler, K. (2018). The maker movement and learning. In Fischer, F., Hmelo- Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 285-294. New York: Routledge.
  62. Herrenkohl, L. R. and Polman, J. L. (2018). Learning within and beyond the disciplines. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 106-115. New York: Routledge.
  63. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. and Barrows, H. S. (2015). Problem-based learning: Goals for learning and strategies for facilitating. In Walker, A., Leary, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E (eds.). Essential read- ings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows. pp 69-84. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
  64. Hmelo-Silver, C.E. and Jeong, H. (2021). Benefits and challenges of interdisciplinarity in CSCL research: A view from the literature. Frontiers in Psychology 11.
  65. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Kapur, M. and Hamstra, M. (2018). Learning through problem solving. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International hand- book of the learning sciences. pp 210-220. New York: Routledge.
  66. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. and Jeong, H. (2021). An overview of CSCL methods. In Cress, U., Wise, A., Rosé, C., & Oshima, J. (Eds.) International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. pp 65-83. Cham: Springer.
  67. Hickey, D. and Harris, T. (2021). Reimagining online grading, assessment, and testing using sit- uated cognition. Distance Education 42(2), 290-309.
  68. Hoadley, C. (2018). A short history of the learning sciences. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 11-23. New York: Routledge.
  69. Holbert, N., Dando, M. and Correa, I. (2020). Afrofuturism as critical constructionist design: build- ing futures from the past and present. Learning, Media and Technology 45(4), 328-344.
  70. Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science 19, 265-288. International Society of the Learning Sciences (2009). The international society of the learning sciences. Retrieved from https://www.isls.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ISLS_Vi- sion_2009.pdf
  71. Jarodzka, H., Skuballa, I. and Gruber, H. (2021). Eye-tracking in educational practice: Investigat- ing visual perception underlying teaching and learning in the classroom. Educational Psy- chology Review 33(1), 1-10.
  72. Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E. and Jo, K. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005-2014. Educational re- search review 28, 100284.
  73. Kafai, Y. B. (2012). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children's learning. New York: Routledge.
  74. Kafai, Y., Searle, K., Martinez, C. and Brayboy, B. (2014). Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: Culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American Indian youth and communities. In Nagel, K. and Dougherty, J. D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. pp 241-246. Atlanta, GA: ACM.
  75. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational psychology review 19(4), 509-539.
  76. Keune, A. and Peppler, K. (2019). Materials-to-develop-with: The making of a makerspace. British Journal of Educational Technology 50(1), 280-293.
  77. Keune, A., Peppler, K. and Wohlwend, K. (2019). Recognition in makerspaces: Supporting op- portunities for women to "make" a STEM career. Computers in Human Behavior 99, 368- 380.
  78. Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., Lefler M., Andreasen, L., Walker, A. & Axelrod, D. (2020). Computer- based scaffolding targeting individual versus groups in problem-centered instruction for STEM education: Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review 32, 415-461.
  79. Koedinger, K.R. and Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review 19(3), 239-264.
  80. Kolodner, J.L., (2004). The learning sciences: Past, present, future. Educational Technology 44(3), 34-40.
  81. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S. & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. Journal of the Learning Sci- ences 12, 495-547.
  82. Kumar, R. and Kim, J. (2014). Special issue on intelligent support for learning in groups. Interna- tional Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 24(1), 1-7.
  83. Lang, C., Siemens, G., Wise, A. and Gasevic, D. (eds.) (2017). Handbook of learning analytics. New York, NY: Society for Learning Analytics and Research (SOLAR).
  84. Laurillard, D., Alexopoulou, E., James, B., Bottino, R. M., Bouhineau, D., Chioccariello, A., Cor- reia, S., Davey, P., Derry, J., Dettori, G. and Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2007). The Kaleidoscope scientific vision for research in technology enhanced learning. TELEARN Open Archive. Re- trieved from https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190011
  85. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  86. Lee, V. (2017). A short history of the learning sciences. Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. In West, R. E. (ed.) Foundations of learning and instructional design technology -historical roots and current trends. ch. 4. EdTech Books. Retreived from https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/history_of_learning_sciences.
  87. Linn, M.C., Clark, D. and Slotta, J.D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science education 87(4), 517-538.
  88. Litts, B. K., Searle, K. A., Brayboy, B. M. and Kafai, Y. B. (2021). Computing for all?: Examining critical biases in computational tools for learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 52(2), 842-857.
  89. Ludvigsen, S. and Nerland, M. (2018). Learning at Work. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Gold- man, S. R., & Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 147- 156. New York, NY: Routledge.
  90. Lyons, L. (2018). Supporting informal STEM learning with technological exhibits: An ecosystemic approach. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R., & Reimann, P. (eds.) Interna- tional handbook of the learning sciences. pp 234-245. New York, NY: Routledge.
  91. Ma, J. Y. (2016). Designing disruptions for productive hybridity: The case of walking scale geom- etry. Journal of the Learning Sciences 25(3), 335-371.
  92. Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., Holappa, J., Haataja, E., Huang, X. and Siipo, A. (2019). Going beyond what is visible: What multichannel data can reveal about interaction in the context of collab- orative learning?. Computers in Human Behavior 96, 235-245.
  93. Manathunga, K. and Hernández-Leo, D. (2018). Authoring and enactment of mobile pyramid- based collaborative learning activities. British Journal of Educational Technology 49(2), 262- 275.
  94. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. Mayer, R. E (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. 2nd ed, pp 43-71. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  95. McKenney, S. and Reeves, T. C. (2021). Educational design research: Portraying, conducting, and enhancing productive scholarship. Medical Education 55(1), 82-92.
  96. Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in cognitive sci- ences 7(3), 141-144.
  97. Molenaar, P. C. and Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current directions in psychological science 18(2), 112-117.
  98. Nathan, M. J. and Alibali, M. (2010). Learning sciences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(3), 329-345.
  99. Nathan, M. J., Rummel, N. and Hay, K. E. (2016). Growing the learning sciences: Brand or big tent. Evans, M. A., Packer, M. J. and Sawyer, R. K. (eds.). Reflections on the learning sci- ences. pp 191-209. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  100. Newell, A. (1994). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  101. Norman, D. A. (1993). Cognition in the head and in the world: An introduction to the special issue on situated action. Cognitive science 17(1), 1-6.
  102. O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., Hall, R. H. & Rocklin, T. R. (1987). Cognitive, social/affective, and metacognitive outcomes of scripted cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psy- chology 79(4), 431-437.
  103. Oshima, J., Oshima, R. and Matsuzawa, Y. (2012). Knowledge Building Discourse Explorer: a social network analysis application for knowledge building discourse. Educational technology research and development 60(5),903-921.
  104. Papert, S. A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic books.
  105. Papert, S. & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism 36, 1-11.
  106. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.
  107. Pea, R. D. and Linn, M. C. (2020). Personal Perspectives on the Emergence of the Learning Sciences: 1970s-2005. Frontiers in Education 5, 130.
  108. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C. and Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational research review 14, 47-61.
  109. Pellegrino, J. W. (2018). Assessment of and for learning. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Gold- man, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 10- 421. New York: Routledge.
  110. Penuel, W. R., Bell, P., Bevan, B., Buffington, P. and Falk, J. (2016). Enhancing use of learning sciences research in planning for and supporting educational change: Leveraging and build- ing social networks. Journal of Educational Change 17(2), 251-278.
  111. Peppler, K. and Glosson, D. (2013). Stitching circuits: Learning about circuitry through e-textile materials. Journal of Science Education and Technology 22(5), 751-763.
  112. Peppler, K., Halverson, E. and Kafai, Y.B. (eds.) (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1). New York: Routledge.
  113. Phillipson, N., & Wegerif, R. (2016). Dialogic education: Mastering core concepts through think- ing together. New York: Routledge.
  114. Plass, J. L. and Pawar, S. (2020). Toward a taxonomy of adaptivity for learning. Journal of Re- search on Technology in Education 52(3), 275-300.
  115. Politics of Learning Writing Collective (2017). The learning sciences in a new era of US national- ism. Cognition and Instruction 35(2), 91-102.
  116. Postle, B. R. (2020). Essentials of cognitive neuroscience. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  117. Prieto, L. P., Sharma, K., Kidzinski, Ł., Rodríguez-Triana, M. J. and Dillenbourg, P. (2018). Multi- modal teaching analytics: Automated extraction of orchestration graphs from wearable sen- sor data. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 34(2), 193-203.
  118. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D. and Soloway, E. (2018). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences 13(3), 337-386.
  119. Radkowitsch, A., Vogel, F., & Fischer, F. (2020). Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta- analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 15(1), 5-47.
  120. Reimann, P. & Markauskaite, L. 2018. Expertise. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 54-63. New York: Routledge.
  121. Reiser, B. J. and Tabak, I., 2014. Scaffolding. In Sawyer, R. K. (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. 2nd ed, pp 44-62. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  122. Renkl, A. and Atkinson, R.K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15-22.
  123. Romero, C. and Ventura, S. (2020). Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 10(3), e1355.
  124. Roque, R. (2016). Family creative learning. In Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (Eds.). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1). pp 47-63. New York: Routledge.
  125. Roschelle, J. (1998). Activity theory: A foundation for designing learning technology?. Journal of the Learning Sciences 7(2), 241-255.
  126. Roschelle, J. and Teasley, S.D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O'Malley, C. (ed.) Computer supported collaborative learning. pp 69-97. Heidelberg: Springer.
  127. Rosé, C. P. (2018). Learning analytics in the learning sciences. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 511-519. New York: Routledge.
  128. Rummel, N., Walker, E. and Aleven, V. (2016). Different futures of adaptive collaborative learning support. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 26(2), 784-795.
  129. Sandoval, W.A. and Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in con- text: Introduction. Educational Psychologist 39(4), 199-201.
  130. Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design re- search. Journal of the Learning Sciences 23(1), 18-36.
  131. Sawyer, R. K. (ed.) (2005). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  132. Sawyer, R. K. (ed.) (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. 2nd ed. Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  133. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge build- ing: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences 1(1), 37-68.
  134. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (2021). Knowledge building: Advancing the state of community knowledge. In Cress, U., Wise, A., Rosé, C. and Oshima, J. (eds.) International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. pp 261-279. Cham: Springer.
  135. Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  136. Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I. and Yew, E. H. (2011). The process of problem-based learning: what works and why. Medical Education 45(8), 792-806.
  137. Shaffer, D.W., 2017. Quantitative ethnography. Morrisville, NC: Lulu.com.
  138. Shapiro, L. (2019). Embodied Cognition. New York: Routledge.
  139. Shapiro, B. R. and Garner, B. (2021, advance online publication). Classroom interaction geogra- phy: visualizing space & time in classroom interaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1-15.
  140. Slotta, J. D., Quintana, R. M. and Moher, T., 2018. Collective inquiry in communities of learners. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 308-317. New York: Routledge.
  141. Sommerhoff, D., Szameitat, A., Vogel, F., Chernikova, O., Loderer, K. and Fischer, F. (2018). What do we teach when we teach the learning sciences? A document analysis of 75 graduate programs. Journal of the Learning Sciences 27(2), 319-351.
  142. Sommerhoff, D., Kollar, I. and Ufer, S. (2021). Supporting mathematical argumentation and proof skills: Comparing the effectiveness of a sequential and a concurrent instructional approach to support resource-based cognitive skills. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 3664.
  143. Sousa, D. A. (ed.) (2010). Mind, brain, & education: Neuroscience implications for the classroom. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
  144. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Com- puter Assisted Learning 21(2), 79-90.
  145. Stahl, G. and Hakkarainen, K., (2021). Theories of CSCL. In Cress, U., Wise, A., Rosé, C., and Oshima, J. (eds.) International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. pp 23-43. Cham: Springer.
  146. Stahl, G. and Hesse, F. (2006). ijCSCL -a journal for research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1(1), 3-7.
  147. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instruc- tional Science 40(2), 297-323.
  148. Svihla, V. and Reeve, R. (eds.) (2016). Design as scholarship: Case studies from the learning sciences. New York: Routledge.
  149. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. and Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10(3), 251-296.
  150. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences 13(3), 305-335.
  151. Teasley, S. D. (2019). Learning analytics: where information science and the learning sciences meet. Information and Learning Sciences 120 (1/2), 59-73.
  152. Tissenbaum, M. and Slotta, J. (2019). Supporting classroom orchestration with real-time feed- back: A role for teacher dashboards and real-time agents. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning 14(3), 325-351.
  153. Tofel-Grehl, C. and Searle, K. (2017). Critical reflections on teacher conceptions of race as related to the effectiveness of science learning. Journal of Multicultural Affairs 2(1), 4.
  154. Tzou, C., Meixi, Suárez, E., Bell, P., LaBonte, D., Starks, E. and Bang, M. (2019). Storywork in STEM-art: Making, materiality and robotics within everyday acts of Indigenous presence and resurgence. Cognition and Instruction 37(3), 306-326.
  155. Ufer, S., & Neumann, K. (2018). Measuring competencies. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 433-443. New York: Routledge.
  156. Uttamchandani, S., Bhimdiwala, A. and Hmelo-Silver, C. E., 2020. Finding a place for equity in CSCL: Ambitious learning practices as a lever for sustained educational change. Interna- tional Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 15(3), 373-382.
  157. van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2018). Example-based learning. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 201-209. New York: Routledge.
  158. van Horne, K. and Bell, P. (2017). Youth disciplinary identification during participation in contem- porary project-based science investigations in school. Journal of the Learning Sciences 26(3), 437-476.
  159. van Leeuwen, A. (2015). Learning analytics to support teachers during synchronous CSCL: Bal- ancing between overview and overload. Journal of Learning Analytics 2(2), 138-162.
  160. van Merriënboer, J. J. and Kirschner, P. A. (2018). 4C/ID in the context of instructional design and the learning sciences. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 169-179. New York: Routledge.
  161. Varma, S., Im, S.-H., Schmied, A., Michel, K., & Varma, K. (2018). Cognitive neuroscience foun- dations for the learning sciences. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International handbook of the learning sciences. pp 64-74. New York: Routledge.
  162. Varma, S., McCandliss, B.D. and Schwartz, D.L. (2008). Scientific and pragmatic challenges for bridging education and neuroscience. Educational Researcher 37(3), 140-152.
  163. Voet, M. and De Wever, B. (2016). History teachers' conceptions of inquiry-based learning, beliefs about the nature of history, and their relation to the classroom context. Teaching and Teacher Education 55, 57-67.
  164. Vogel, F. and Weinberger, A. (2018). Quantifying qualities of collaborative learning processes. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) International hand- book of the learning sciences. pp 500-510. New York: Routledge.
  165. Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I. and Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer- supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review 29(3), 477- 511.
  166. Vossoughi, S., Escudé, M., Kong, F. and Hooper, P. (2013). Tinkering, learning & equity in the after-school setting. In Proceedings of the Annual FabLearn conference. Palo Alto, CA: Stan- ford University.
  167. Vygotsky, L. S. and Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological pro- cesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  168. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K. and Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior 26(4), 506- 515.
  169. Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: Computational and cognitive ap- proaches to the communication of knowledge. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
  170. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  171. Wise, A. F. and Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: Eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 12(4), 423-467.
  172. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 17(2), 89-100.
  173. Yoon, S.A. and Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2017). What do learning scientists do? A survey of the ISLS membership. Journal of the Learning Sciences 26(2), 167-183.
  174. Zhai, X., Yin, Y., Pellegrino, J.W., Haudek, K.C. and Shi, L. (2020). Applying machine learning in science assessment: a systematic review. Studies in Science Education 56(1), 111-151.
  175. Further Readings Cress, U., Wise, A., Rosé, C., & Oshima, J. (Eds.). (2021). International handbook of computer- supported collaborative learning. Cham: Springer.
  176. Evans, M. A., Packer, M. J. and Sawyer, R. K. (eds.) (2016). Reflections on the learning sciences. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  177. Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R. and Reimann, P. (eds.) (2018). International handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
  178. Sawyer, R. K. (ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. 2nd ed. Cam- bridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  179. Sommerhoff, D., Szameitat, A., Vogel, F., Chernikova, O., Loderer, K. and Fischer, F. (2018). What do we teach when we teach the learning sciences? A document analysis of 75 graduate programs. Journal of the Learning Sciences 27(2), 319-351.
  180. Yoon, S. A. and Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2017). What do learning scientists do? A survey of the ISLS membership. Journal of the Learning Sciences 26(2), 167-183. Relevant Websites Homepage of ISLS -https://www.isls.org/ ISLS Committees -https://www.isls.org/members/committees/ Network of Academic Programs in the Learning Sciences (NAPLeS) -https://www.isls.org/naples/

Related papers

Introduction: Principles of a Human Sciences Approach to Research on Learning
Kevin O'Connor
View PDFchevron_right
Learning System Development - A Review of Approaches to Rethink Learning in Different Contexts
Marja Naaranoja

2018

Learning systems during last decades are about to transform from isolated and specific singular ego-systems [30] with closely defined and clearly measurable learning-inputs and – outputs into networked environments for guidance and innovation, to develop holistic competences and to create future as social development. Connecting interdisciplinary contexts, larger amounts of very heterogeneous learners from formerly independent cultural contexts and developments, and building on technology and digitalization, they become a specific cultural space and environment of their own [36]. Traditional learning-scenarios are called into question and new cultures of learning are formed. Also, boundaries between science and organizations weaken and dissolve. This paper pursues to use the potential of combining theories of learning and change, to analyze innovative learning-approaches, to separate the contrast of incremental (sustaining) versus disruptive innovations and to use examples from the ...

View PDFchevron_right
Learning Sciences. Nathan, M. J. & Alibali, M. W. (2010). Learning Sciences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews – Cognitive Science, 1 (May/June), 329-345.
Mitchell Nathan

The aims of the learning sciences (LS) are to understand the nature of learning from a broad range of perspectives, and to shape the ways that learning environments and resources are designed and used. LS incorporates both systemic and elemental approaches to investigating questions about learning, as a complement to the primarily elemental approach emphasized in cognitive science research. Thus, its greatest potential is in the integration of systemic and elemental perspectives. Four major themes are central. First, research in LS attempts to bridge the divide between research and practice. Second, research in LS is motivated by limitations of theories of learning and cognition for specifying instruction. Third, research in LS embraces the importance of analyzing and assessing complex interventions through both experimental and design-based research. Fourth, research in LS emphasizes the learning and behavior of the individual in interaction with the physical, social, and culturalworld, aswell aswith semiotic and technical resources. Research in LS can be conceptualized along a continuum of time scales, from the more microscopic to the more macroscopic. The time-scale framework illustrates how disparate research traditions and research methods can function within a unifying framework for the study of learning and complex behavior. The effort to ‘scale-up’ from more elemental findings to more complex, authentic settings has been generative for LS, but faces serious challenges. There is an alternate route to establishing a cumulative scientific knowledge base, namely, ‘scaling down’ from more complex, ecologically valid levels to more elemental levels. Studies of basic learning processes, framed in the context of the larger system, are well positioned to support impact in authentic settings.

View PDFchevron_right
The Learning Sciences: Past, Present, and Future
Janet Kolodner

2010

How can we accurately define the differences between Instructional Systems Design and the Learning Sciences? I can’t tell you for sure, mostly because I am another one of those people who couldn’t pass an Instructional Systems Design qualifier if my life depended on it. On the other hand, I’ve been Editor in Chief of the Journal of the Learning Sciences since its inception, was a founder of the International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS; www.isls.org), and am Executive Officer of that organization. So I have a pretty clear view of how the journal and field came to be and how they’ve evolved. Perhaps that will shed some light. 1 A history of the Learning Sciences As several of the writers of the articles in this collection point out, the learning sciences got its start as a cognitive science. I remember a discussion I had with Allan Collins when I was on sabbatical in Boston during the 1987-88 academic year. I told him I was growing bored with the Cognitive Science journal ...

View PDFchevron_right
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (R. Keith Sawyer, ed., 2005)
Cheryl Madeira

Curriculum Inquiry, 2008

The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences offers an authoritative summary of a relatively new field that draws from cognitive science, educational psychology, computer science, anthropology, neuroscience, education, and several other disciplines. The learning sciences broadly address all matters of teaching and learning in formal and informal settings. This volume provides an indispensable history of the trajectory of ideas across several decades, and an excellent reference for current research and future directions. It is an ideal resource for seminar and lecture courses at the undergraduate and graduate level, and is required reading for anyone involved in this area of scholarship. While it is difficult to provide a detailed account of such a comprehensive and eclectic volume, this review provides an overview of the main ideas found within its many chapters. The book is organized into six parts, with chapters written by researchers who are highly respected within their disciplines. The chapters are concise and well written, with ample citations for further reading. The volume begins with an introduction to the learning sciences, written by the editor, R. Keith Sawyer. He describes the field in terms of five core influences: constructivism, cognitive science, educational technology, sociocultural research, and the study of disciplinary knowledge. He also highlights the methodology of design research as one that is well suited for the study of how specific innovations influence learning and instruction. Part One of the volume is titled "Foundations," and includes six chapters that represent the core theoretical perspectives of the learning sciences over the past 2 decades. John Bransford and his colleagues lead off the section by discussing the promise of an interdisciplinary approach, addressing three major dimensions of learning: implicit, informal, and formal

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved