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

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the ref, David. Wonder what Jim Greeno would have to say.
mike

On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:01 AM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> 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