This week’s reading introduced us to the learning sciences field. In the first chapter of the handbook, learning sciences is described as an “interdisciplinary field that works to further scientific understanding of learning as well as engages in the design and implementation of learning innovations in methodologies and learning environments intended to improve learning processes and outcomes” (p. 3). Later on, Hoadley distills the primary characteristics of LS to be “interdisciplinary, empirical, contextualized, and action-oriented” (p. 16). The most compelling characteristic of these to me is the interdisciplinarity. I find this characteristic interesting because I think it has been present to lesser degree throughout the history of learning theory, however with LS we see it amplified and it becomes not only much more explicit, but a driver of the field as a whole. In the first chapter, the authors describe that inconsistent evidence and phenomena from different disciplines led to a shift towards interdisciplinary work (p. 3). I also found the table on page 20 helpful because while its described purpose was to outline the evolution of the four characteristics of LS over time, it also simultaneously mapped the different theories, movements and shifts we’ve studied in a new way by breaking it into the LS characteristics.
Spurred by Katie’s observation in her reflection last week, I noticed many papers that we’ve read were mentioned in these initial chapters of the LS handbook and there were many familiar players in chapter 2’s “short history.” I perhaps most strongly noted ties to Vygotsky’s theories involving language, tools and signs, as well as Greeno’s theory of activity systems. On page 1, the authors refer to both of these theories in saying that “By claiming that human learning is a systems phenomenon, we assume that learning is brought about by the coordination of biological learning with socio-cultural knowledge and tool production. (p. 1)” This seems to make sense as LS is self-defined to be highly contextualized and situative. However, the authors of chapter 4 also demonstrate that the field has worked towards some synergy between sociocultural and cognitive approaches, although to be honest I did not find much clarity in their description and examples of synergistic methods.
Although the chapters we read did not focus much on it, I think that the design of learning environments is the aspect of LS that interests me most. In particular, I loved the tenet of “designing with rather than for, of acting with rather than acting on” (p. 7). I think this is closely tied to the action-oriented and use-oriented nature of LS.
A final comment: At the very end of chapter 4, we see what I think is one of the first mentions of equity in the papers we’ve read thus far. The authors make the case that context is closely tied to equity in saying that “… in order to unpack the role of context in learning, we have to recognize and begin to address fundamental issues of equity and access…” (p. 41). I hadn’t previously considering the linkage of context and equity, but I think it could inspire some interesting discussion.
Hi Alexa!
I feel like you definitely picked some great quotes from the reading! I also liked the theme for the future “designing with rather than for, of acting with rather than acting on” (Fischer et al. 2018, p. 7). To me, this idea seems similar to how engineering and architectural projects are not completed in a vacuum separate from those who will be using those structures. The stakeholders should have a part in the discussion about how a theory should be implemented since at the end of the day, they are the ones who will have to deal with the consequences.