Sorry to be losing your voice, but the tenure packet demands
cannot be
ignored--good luck.
The methodological stricture you noted in connection with design-
based
research is laudable: "theory must be tested in real-world
(mainly in-
and out-of-school) environments." But it is the goals of the
research
that need attention with respect to those of sociocultural theory.
Theory is instrumental in design science. The interests are
centered
on
creating and understanding effective learning environments, not
organizing an extendable coherent theoretical approach. Here's the
opening paragraph of a section titled "A Design Science" from
Keith's
introduction to the Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences:
"As scientists who are focused on creating effective learning
environments, learning scientists ask questions like: How can we
measure
learning? How can we determine which learning environments work
best?
How can we analyze a learning environment, identify the innovations
that
work well, and separate out those features that need additional
improvement? In other words, how can we marshal all of our
scientific
knowledge to design the most effective learning environments? These
questions are fundamental to scientific research in education." (p.
13)
David
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
]
On Behalf Of michael a evans
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 7:13 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] From Keith Sawyer on learning sciences
I think David (and Tony) have raised some wonderful questions about
the learning sciences and have called out inconsistencies that
demand
further investigation - as I believe I've hinted, I'm going to
identify a couple of these as I work through my course this
fall...nevertheless, I thought Keith's contribution was accurate as
far as I understand the history and position of this new domain...
A methodological principle, based on a technique that is referred
to
as "design-based research," that I resonate with in the learning
science literature is that theory must be tested in real-world
(mainly
in- and out-of-school) environments - as I tell my students, no
"arm
chair, purely descriptive" theory is allowed...I take that a bit to
the extreme for demonstrative purposes, but want to convey the idea
that the learning sciences are pragmatic (and so some might label
it
"applied)...
I'm going to caution again that neither How People Learn nor a
Google
search result can fully capture the principles of the learning
sciences - I highly recommend a close read of Sawyer's chapter
forwarded by me via Tony...
One last thing: I'm going to have to reduce my contribution to the
list as I prepare my dossier for promotion and tenure - it's been a
difficult choice, but absolutely necessary...
If anyone would like to take up my offer for a symposium on this
topic
at ICLS 2010, please drop a line off list...
Cheers,
Michael~
On Sep 18, 2009, at 7:02 AM, David H Kirshner wrote:
Mike,
Thanks for bringing in Keith's authoritative voice.
I think there is a natural way in which socioculturalists are in
sympathy with learning sciences goals. Both are interested in
dealing
with learning in a full-bodied way that honors the complexity of
the
full human being. And I suppose it is a kind of good news that
Vygotskyan scholarship is considered fundamental to the LS effort.
But
the differences of purpose may be more significant than the
commonalities. Learning scientists are interested in managing
theoretical heterogeneity. As you pointed out earlier, the
methodological co-development of "design experimentation" is an
important window into the learning sciences. Missing from LS is
the
central effort toward theoretical synthesis that characterizes
sociocultural psychology.
This raises broader questions about the status of these
enterprises
as
socio-historical movements. The sociocultural movement, broadly
considered, is a scientific search for explanation--well,
perhaps we
aren't quite deeply enough determined by data to be a science--
maybe a
blend of science and philosophy. The status of LS is more
ambiguous.
Perhaps "applied science" would be the correct rubric. Perhaps a
postmodern variant of science. Or perhaps an (unwitting?)
hegemonic
extension of cognitive psychology.
It really is unclear the extent to which the computational
metaphor
remains central to LS, particularly when the status of the
enterprise is
unclear--perhaps ambiguous. In Keith's construal, computation is
just
one of the orienting theoretical tools. But as Martin noted a
couple
of
days ago:
"further Googling discloses 'three principles [of the New
Science of
Learning] to guide the study of human learning across a range of
areas
and ages: learning is computational- ...; learning is
social-...; and
learning is supported by brain circuits linking perception and
action.'
I suppose two out of three aint bad, but the fact that the first
is
first speaks volumes."
David Kirshner
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:03 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
Subject: [xmca] From Keith Sawyer on learning sciences
Keith is not currently subscribed to xmca. Here is his response to
some
of
the recent posts. I will collate relevant replies and send along
to
him
as
seems useful.
mike
I read through the thread. But rather than subscribe (I have been
subscribed before and I can't afford to have that many messages
in my
inbox)
I will send you this note which you have my permission to post
on my
behalf.
If in a week or two you think I need to return to the thread
again,
please
email and let me know.
<Beginning of quotation for you to post>
The most comprehensive view of the interdisciplinary field of the
learning
sciences is the 2006 handbook that I edited, THE CAMBRIDGE
HANDBOOK
OF
THE
LEARNING SCIENCES. This follows on and is compatible with the
2001
HOW
PEOPLE LEARN book, but that earlier book is more directed towards
education
practitioners and policy makers. My introduction chapter to the
handbook,
based on interviews with several founding figures of the learning
sciences,
answers a lot of the questions that have appeared in this thread.
Here
are
my answers to some of the thread questions:
1. In the early 1990s, the learning sciences emerged from several
historical
trends:
(a) the Artificial Intelligence and Education conferences that
were
taking
place through the 1980s. These were very much production
systems in
the
Anderson mold. Those who became learning scientists rejected
the AI
and
Education approach for the most part, so the concern with
production
systems
in some XMCA thread postings is misplaced. The AI and Education
conferences
continue to take place today but there is basically no interchange
with
the
learning sciences.
(b) cognitive developmental research (conceptual change,
continuations
of
Piagetian studies of developmental stages of various cognitive
abilities;
think Lauren Resnick, Andy DiSessa)
(c) the broad 1980s shift in the cognitive sciences from a narrow
mentalist
focus on cognition, to a more situated/distributed notion of
cognition.
Vygotsky was only one of many influences in this movement, which
was
part
of the 1980s zeitgeist in AI and in cognitive science; that may be
why
you
don't see more explicit citation to Vygotsky in the Handbook. (I
chose
not
to have a series of "theoretical foundations" chapters in the
handbook;
if I
had, Vygotsky would have been one of them.) So situativity has
been
built
into the learning sciences from its very beginning almost 20 years
ago.
2. It's a complicated question to ask, what distinguishes the
learning
sciences from educational psychology more generally (or, from
cognitive
development, or from instructional design, or from
constructivism in
IT,
or
from situated cognition, or from human-computer interaction, or
from
serious
games research, or from science education research, or from math
education
research). Learning sciences has links to all of these. So what
unifies it
as a distinct perspective warranting its own name? That's not a
simple
answer, but my handbook introduction attempts to answer this
question by
summarizing the epistemology that is generally shared by those who
call
themselves learning scientists. If I try to elaborate that here
my
posting
will get too long.
3. LS is absolutely not the same thing as neuroeducation. Most
learning
scientists do not neuroimaging, and most of us are quite
skeptical of
the
present capabilities of cognitive neuroscience to impact
educational
practice. (See John Bruer's "A bridge too far" ER article.)
However,
we
are receptive to benefiting from neuroscience, once the
methodologies
become
more advanced...perhaps unlike some LCHC-ers whom I suspect in
principle
are
opposed to neuroscience and education. The NSF news story about
Meltzoff
that started off this thread may have given some of you an
unfortunate
misimpression of the field. Meltzoff is one of the co-PIs of
the NSF
science of learning center along with John Bransford and Roy Pea
(Stanford)
and several others, and none of the other PIs are doing
neuroscience.
The
reason why the story refers to the "science of learning" rather
than
the
"learning sciences" is because the NSF grant program had that
name.
And yes, I am the same Keith Sawyer that does research on
creativity
and
collaboration. My own chapter in the handbook (other than the
introduction
and conclusion) is titled "Analyzing collaborative discourse."
mike coole wrote:
Keith-- A discussion of learning sciences, its history and its
functions,
has erupted
on xmca. You are right there in the middle. It would be great
if you
could
find time to
help in the discussion and educational process.
mike
--
R. Keith Sawyer
Associate Professor
Washington University
Department of Education
Campus Box 1183
St. Louis, MO 63130
www.keithsawyer.com
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca