Re: sigh ... RE: [xmca] What's new in the learning sciences?

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Tony-- There was some discussion of this article not long after it came out,
i believe. I am perfectly happy to engage the article seriously and to seek
to engage the authors as well. But is there a will to do so on xmca?

Note: Polls will be closing on next article for discussion from XMCA at noon
on Wednesday, PST.

mike

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:

> This appeared in Science, which is a widely read and highly regarded
> journal
> for the broader science community in the US.
>
> ... sigh !!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of O'Connor, Kevin
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 2:00 PM
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com
> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; William Penuel
> Subject: Re: [xmca] What's new in the learning sciences?
>
> Mike,
> Iąd say that Bill and I draw our sense of Śhuman scienceą directly from
> those 19th c. discussions and more recent developments along the same
> lines.
> We do make these connections in the intro chapter, and return to them in
> the
> conclusion to locate a human science perspective within contemporary
> learning research.  Iąd also note that Martin Packer directly raises the
> links to Vygotskyąs crisis in his chapter.
> Kevin
>
>
> On 7/6/10 1:35 PM, "mike cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Kevin, that is very helpful.
> > Just from what was in the TC summary, the following question arises for
> me. To
> > what extent is the notion of human science in this overview akin to, or
> derive
> > its theoretical orientation from, discussions about the "humane" "vs" the
> > natural sciences in the late 19th century. I ask because this links to
> > Vygotsky's "crisis" monograph and ongoing discussions in many places
> including
> > xmca. Will read ch1 when the workday has come to an end.
> > mike
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:31 AM, O'Connor, Kevin
> <kevin.oconnor@rochester.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> Hi Mike,
> >> Thanks for asking, Mike!  Below is the original proposal for a special
> issue
> >> that eventually became the NSSE Yearbook ­ this will provide an
> overview.
> >>  Also, with the permission of Teachers College Record, which now
> publishes
> >> the NSSE Yearbooks, Iąve attached the introductory chapter.  Of course,
> >> different authors in the yearbook develop the idea of a human science in
> >> different ways and would emphasize different points.
> >> Kevin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Research on Learning as a Human Science
> >>
> >> Organizers and Co-Editors:
> >> William R. Penuel
> >> Kevin OąConnor
> >>
> >> Theme Overview:
> >> This special issue of Teachers College Record will articulate an
> approach
> to
> >> learning research as human science.  This human science approach views
> >> science as an inherently value-laden social practice, implying different
> >> epistemologies, methodologies, and research foci.  It is concerned not
> just
> >> with what works but also with questions about the goals and purposes of
> >> education; the involvement of different actors and groups in advancing
> those
> >> goals; and the enactment of designs for learning and their consequences.
>  The
> >> papers aim to exemplify this approach, showing how it can inform broader
> >> debates over the nature and purposes of learning, and suggest different
> >> understandings of and approaches to how education can transform social
> >> futures for individuals and their communities.
> >>
> >> Objectives
> >> Recently, both academic research into learning and broader policy
> discussions
> >> over the nature and direction of learning and education have been framed
> by
> >> two largely distinct scientific paradigms.  On one hand is an approach,
> >> modeled on clinical trials in medicine, that promotes controlled
> >> experimentation on learning outcomes as the route to knowledge about
> >> learning, and on the other hand is an approach, modeled on engineering,
> that
> >> promotes detailed in situ studies of learning processes in
> >> theoretically-derived learning environments. A third broad paradigm of
> >> scientific activity, social science as human science, has yet to gain a
> >> unified voice in these discussions, despite the work of many
> individuals.
> >> This special issue aims to articulate and offer exemplars of this human
> >> science approach to studying learning, which we believe can stand
> alongside
> >> and extend currently prevailing approaches to inform broader debates
> over
> the
> >> nature and purposes of learning and education.  Framing learning
> research
> as
> >> a human science implies different epistemologies, methodologies, and
> foci
> of
> >> research than those pursued by many researchers today. In addition, the
> >> approach implies different understandings of and approaches to how
> education
> >> can transform social futures for individuals and their communities.
> >>
> >> Significance of the Proposed Special Issue Theme
> >>
> >> Much attention in recent years has been paid to the status of research
> on
> >> learning as a science, especially with respect to what kind of science
> it
> >> ought it to be. Although the debate is hardly new, it is particularly
> pitched
> >> at the moment, with significant resources at stake for both research and
> >> practice. For example, advocates for more experimental research in
> education
> >> (e.g., Cook, 2002) argue that education should be a science that
> advances
> >> through testing of impacts on student achievement of discrete programs.
> Their
> >> view is that educational research should proceed like medical research,
> and
> >> that such tests are best carried out through random assignment studies
> is
> now
> >> reflected in federal law that defines research as the products of
> experiments
> >> and allocates evaluation funds principally to those investigators who
> agree
> >> to conduct randomized controlled trials (Slavin, 2002). An alternate
> view
> >> proposed by researchers in the learning sciences is that research on
> learning
> >> ought to be a design science (Barab & Squire, 2004; Brown, 1992;
> Collins,
> >> 1990; Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004; Kelly, 2003). This work has
> >> received significant federal support itself over the past two decades
> (Suter
> >> & Frechtling, 2000), primarily from the National Science Foundation, and
> its
> >> signature methodology, the łdesign experiment˛ (Brown, 1992), has
> received
> >> prominent attention within major journals in education (e.g., special
> issues
> >> of Educational Researcher and The Journal of the Learning Sciences). The
> >> likening of education to engineering in the learning sciences draws
> attention
> >> to the goal of engaging in the task of developing usable and useful
> curricula
> >> that impact teaching and learning.
> >>
> >> Each of these images of what kind of science research on learning should
> be
> >> obscures some important humanistic aspects of the discipline. The logic
> of
> >> experimentation explicitly treats characteristics of persons and their
> >> contexts as sources of experimental error controllable by random
> assignment.
> >> But teachers, administrators, and policy makers are often very
> interested
> in
> >> context, in łwhat works when, how, and for whom˛ in ways that demands
> >> researchers pay much closer attention to persons and context in
> selecting
> >> programs for adoption (Means & Penuel, 2005). Moreover, the hypothesized
> >> relationship of research to practice‹namely that identification of
> effective
> >> programs will become information that rational actors use to select
> programs
> >> and improve practice (e.g., Dynarski, 2008)‹fails to acknowledge
> inequities
> >> in access to information about programs and resources to support them
> that
> >> exist in systems and overlooks one of the features that makes medical
> >> knowledge so useful, namely its signature pedagogies and methods of
> induction
> >> (Shulman, 2005). The image of education as an engineering science gives
> >> greater primacy to the local context (e.g., Squire, MaKinster, Barnett,
> >> Luehmann, & Barab, 2003), but often either taken for granted or left
> >> underspecified are both the larger educational purposes of curricular
> >> innovations and the probable consequences of those innovations, if
> >> implemented widely, for the long-term social futures of participating
> >> students. Casting educational improvement as a problem of design and
> >> engineering provides few conceptual handles for engaging larger debates
> about
> >> what is worth knowing (Whitehead, 1929), particularly given how the
> world
> is
> >> changing; about how to teach łother peopleąs children˛ (Delpit, 1986);
> or
> >> even for considering who might benefit and who might be harmed if
> designed
> >> innovations were brought to scale.
> >>
> >> An alternative approach is to cast educational research as a human
> science,
> >> distinct from the logic of social experimentation and from design
> science.
> >> Some key ideas of the approach are:
> >> * Educational research is a social practice situated in broader
> institutional
> >> and historical contexts; participants as agents within those contexts
> are
> >> reproducing, adapting, and transforming the social practice of
> educational
> >> research through their research activities.
> >> * In contrast to experimental research, a goal of human sciences
> research
> >> should be to understand why actors do what they do from multiple
> >> perspectives, including their own. This łemic˛ turn in educational
> research
> >> seeks to re-voice the experiences of actors within theoretical frames.
> >> * In contrast to engineering-oriented research, a goal of human sciences
> >> research should analyze design itself as human activity and consider
> what
> >> values designs reflect and deflect, who benefits and who loses from
> >> implementation, and the extent to which particular design activities
> >> reproduce or transform new social futures. Like education, design is
> >> value-laden. Design research approaches have often foregrounded
> engineering
> >> issues and backgrounded the articulation of values and their origins,
> with
> >> important exceptions (e.g., Edelson & Joseph, 2004) that suggest a human
> >> sciences approach may be seen as an extension of or fulfillment of the
> design
> >> research tradition as opposed to a break from it.
> >> * Following from these points, research on learning requires that the
> >> researcher stipulate, explicitly or implicitly, the endpoint or telos
> toward
> >> which learning and development are directed.  Thus, human science is an
> >> inherently value-laden endeavor (Kaplan, 1983).
> >> * Relationships between researchers and research participants are
> implicated
> >> in operations of power, locally and beyond the immediate situation. This
> >> provides an additional warrant for arguing that a human science approach
> >> merits more extensive discussion and articulation as a Śthird wayą in
> >> educational research ­ beyond both the medical-model and the engineering
> >> model.
> >>
> >> Such perspectives are not entirely new.  Indeed, the idea that the human
> >> sciences represent a distinct kind of science, distinguished from the
> natural
> >> sciences, has a long tradition in Western social science and philosophy
> of
> >> science, originating in Vicoąs New Science, which argues for a science
> of
> >> human society based not on an understanding of universal laws but rather
> on
> >> those sensibilities that govern different communities in different human
> >> ages. More recent formulations draw attention to the fundamental role of
> >> language and interpretation in social scientific accounts (Taylor,
> 1985),
> to
> >> the vital uses of reasons and arguments in human affairs that consider
> the
> >> particulars of situations rather than a Cartesian timeless and
> context-free
> >> rationality (Toulmin, 1990), and of the need to explicate operations of
> power
> >> within such accounts (Flyvbjerg, 2001)
> >>
> >> What is new in this series of papers is the articulation of a linked set
> of
> >> perspectives for guiding programs of research based on the idea that
> >> educational research should be concerned not just about what works but
> with
> >> questions about the goals and purposes of education; the involvement of
> >> different actors and groups in advancing those goals; and the enactment
> of
> >> designs for learning and their consequences. We anticipate that many
> design
> >> researchers agree with such a perspective; others argue explicitly that
> >> design research and experimental aims are both similar to the goals for
> the
> >> natural sciences (Collins et al., 2004; diSessa & Cobb, 2004). But in
> both
> >> the design-based and experimental tradition, practitioners, communities
> of
> >> parents, and students rarely get to define the goals for endeavors
> >> (Engeström, 2008). Needed within the learning sciences are perspectives
> and
> >> methods that lead to research that can guide practical action and that
> opens
> >> questions about purpose to public dialogue; to designs that enable
> learners
> >> and communities to advance new social futures; and to organizational
> settings
> >> that allow for broad participation in debates about the ends of
> education.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/6/10 12:53 PM, "mike cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com
> >> <http://lchcmike@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Looks wonderfully interesing, Kevin. McDermott got me to read Moll
> Flanders
> >>> recently in connection with his contribution which is the only one I
> recall
> >>> seeing.
> >>>
> >>> Is there somewhere in the volume or elsewhere where you and your
> colleagues
> >>> lay out for the reader what is meant by a human science?
> >>> Could that be made available to xmca readers?
> >>> mike
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:44 AM, O'Connor, Kevin
> <kevin.oconnor@rochester.edu
> >>> <http://kevin.oconnor@rochester.edu> > wrote:
> >>>> (this time with attachment)
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Mike,
> >>>> Bill Penuel and I have co-edited an NSSE Yearbook, just published, on
> the
> >>>> topic of 'Learning Research as a Human Science.'  I was not at ICLS,
> but
> >>>> the
> >>>> perspective was well-represented there by a number of contributors to
> the
> >>>> yearbook who qualify as both 'learning scientists' and 'XMCA-o-types'.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've attached the table of contents for those who might be interested.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm looking forward to others' reports of the conference!
> >>>>
> >>>> Kevin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Kevin O'Connor
> >>>> Assistant Professor
> >>>> School of Education, 249 UCB
> >>>> University of Colorado
> >>>> Boulder CO 80309
> >>>>
> >>>> kevin.oconnor@colorado.edu <http://kevin.oconnor@colorado.edu>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/5/10 11:33 AM, "mike cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com
> >>>> <http://lchcmike@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> > Dear XMCA-o-types,
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Several of you have visited the charming city of Chicago and
> attending a
> >>>>> > convocation of "learning
> >>>>> > scientists."
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > *WHAT NEWS? WHAT'S INTERESTING? WHAT'S HOT? ONLY LEARNING, NO
> >>>>> INSTRUCTION?
> >>>>> > :-)
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > MIKE*
> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>>> > xmca mailing list
> >>>>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <http://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