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

["David H Kirshner" <dkirsh@lsu.edu>]

This raises an issue we've discussed before, whether the putative interest of cognitivists in socioculturalism should be appreciated as a possible reaching out toward a social ontology, or as a hegemonic move toward capturing the sociocultural flag within an individualist paradigm. Without alleging bad faith--many cognitivists do struggle--there seems to have been very little foundational movement of cognitivism over the 25 years since the flirtation with situated cognition theory started in earnest. Perhaps the reconciliation of Greeno with Anderson, Reder, and Simon following their principled disagreements was the end of the line for fundamental movement of cognitive science. 
David

Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11-23.


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 10:33 AM
To: Tony Whitson
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; William Penuel
Subject: Re: sigh ... RE: [xmca] What's new in the learning sciences?

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

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca