Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:54:55.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Education Policy and the Learning Sciences: The Case for a New Alliance

from PART 3 - FUTURE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

By
Mary Kay Stein ,
Kevin Crowley  and
Lauren Resnick
Edited by
Michael A. Evans ,
Martin J. Packer  and
R. Keith Sawyer
Mary Kay Stein
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Kevin Crowley
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Lauren Resnick
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Michael A. Evans
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
Martin J. Packer
Affiliation:
Universidad de los Andes, Colombia
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access

Summary

Learning is at the heart of every country's efforts to advance the standing of its youth and its economic competitiveness. Nations promote better learning through education policies that establish standards for student achievement, guidelines for textbooks, and requirements for testing. National standards, national curricula, and national exams are all, in principle, aimed at improving the kind and extent of learning in a nation's schools. Coupled with state- or province-level policies and the decisions of local leaders, national policies are intended to work across entire nations, improving student learning on a broad scale.

But what does it take to improve student learning on a broad scale? The history of education reform in the United States offers few insights. Although past reforms have tried to change patterns of learning in our schools, few, if any, have penetrated the “core” of educational practice: teachers’ ideas about the nature of knowledge and about student's role in learning, and how these ideas are manifested in teaching and classwork (Elmore, 1996). So, for example, although access to education has continually broadened – through the creation of the common school, the development of the comprehensive secondary schools, the introduction of kindergartens – actual teaching practice has scarcely changed in a systematic or sustained way in more than a century (Cuban, 1993; Tyack, 1995). Most instruction is still teacher centered; most students work most of the time by themselves on discrete tasks that require little independent thought or collaboration with others; and most tests and assessments focus on factual recall and aptitude rather than on reasoning and inquiry (Stigler & Hiebert, 2004). Yet, learning sciences (LS) research demonstrates that these practices result in ineffective learning (Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014; Sawyer, 2014).

Here, we argue that improving student learning on a large scale will require a new set of education policies that challenge the dominant paradigm on which the US educational system is based and that support a new vision of education that is rooted in LS. In addition, federal and state policymakers need to reach beyond evidence produced by one particular research design (experimental) and action guided by a limited set of policy instruments (mandates and incentives) to a variety of research traditions (as exemplified by LS) and a broader set of instruments (e.g., capacity building).

Type
Chapter
Information
Reflections on the Learning Sciences , pp. 210 - 233
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is – or might be – the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–14.Google Scholar
Barab, S. (2014). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 151–170). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). The Rand change agent study, Vols. 1–8. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. C., Roediger III, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Center on Education Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects, Washington, DC: Author.
Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2012). Analyzing educational policies: A learning design perspective. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P., McClain, K., de Silva Lamberg, T., & Dean, C. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P., Zhao, Q., & Dean, C. (2009). Conducting design experiments to support teachers’ learning: A reflection from the field. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 165–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coburn, C. E., Russell, J. L., Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 137–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coburn, E., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional community in policy implementation. In Honig, M. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 25–46). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (Eds.). (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1880–1990, 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. Jossey-Bass Education Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Desimone, L., Porter, A., Birman, B., Garet, M., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the professional development that districts provide to teachers?Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1265–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Educational Testing Service. (2015). America's skills challenge: Millennials and the future. Princeton, NJ: The ETS Center for Research on Human Capital and Education. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/s/research/30079/asc-millennials-and-the-future.pdf
EEPA. (1990). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12(3), 233–353. Retrieved from http://epa.sagepub.com/content/12/3.toc
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning. In Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263–292). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598–610.Google Scholar
Fishman, B. J., Davis, E. A., & Chan, C. K. K. (2014). A learning sciences perspective on teacher learning research. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 707–725). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers, grades 3–6: Teaching comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Westport, CT: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Teaching as learning within a community of practice: Characterizing generative growth.” In Wood, T., Nelson, B., & Warfield, J. (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy in teaching elementary mathematics: The nature of facilitative teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gallucci, C. (2003). Communities of practice and the mediation of teachers’ responses to standards-based reform.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(35). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research-based instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 445–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, R., Zahn, C., & Derry, S. J. (2014). Frontiers of digital video research in the learning sciences: Mapping the terrain. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 213–232). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Harris, D. N. (2009). Teacher value-added: Don't end the search before it starts. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(4), 693–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, T. C. (2002). When improvement programs collide. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 626–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikemoto, G. S., & Honig, M. I. (2010). Tools to deepen practitioners’ understanding of research knowledge: The case of the Institute for Learning. In Coburn, C. E. & Stein, M. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Jennings, N. E. (1996). Interpreting policy in real classrooms: Case studies of state reform and teacher practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Kahlenberg, R. D. (Ed.). (2008). Improving on No Child Left Behind: Getting education reform back on track. Washington, DC: The Century Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, J., Martin, W. G., & Schifter, D. (Eds.). (2003). A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2011). More to do, but less capacity to do it: States’ progress in implementing the Recovery Act education reforms. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. (2014). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945.Google Scholar
Majone, G., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1977). Implementation as evolution. Policy Studies Review, 2, 71–87.Google Scholar
Markoff, J. (2013, December 29). Brainlike computers, learning from experience. The New York Times., p. A1.
McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, M. W., & Mitra, D. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: Going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2(4), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nelson, I. A., London, R. A., & Strobel, K. R. (2015). Reinventing the role of the university researcher. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penuel, W. R., Frank, K. A., Sun, M., Kim, C., & Singleton, C. (2013). The organization as a filter of institutional diffusion. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 306–339.Google Scholar
Penuel, W., Riel, M., Krause, A., & Frank, K. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. The Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124–163.Google Scholar
Penuel, W. R., & Spillane, J. P. (2014). Learning sciences and policy design and implementation: Key concepts and tools for collaborative engagement. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 649–667). New York,: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Porter, A. (1994). National standards and school improvement in the 1990s: Issues and promise. American Journal of Education, 102(4), 421–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, A. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiser, B. J., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 44–62). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Resnick, L. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2006). From individual learning to organizational designs for learning. In Verschaffel, L., Dochy, F., Boekaerts, M., & Vosniadou, S. (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends. Sixteen essays in honor of Erik De Corte. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. (pp. 259–276). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1991). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, L. (2003). The hazards of high-stakes testing. Issues in Science and Technology, (Winter, 2002–2003), 53–58.Google Scholar
Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherin, M., & van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475–491.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1990). Systemic school reform. Journal of Education Policy, 5(5), 233–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smylie, M. A., & Hart, A. W. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A human and social capital development perspective. In Murphy, J. & Louis, K. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 421–441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 401–425.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 449–481.Google Scholar
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 583–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, M. K., & D'Amico, L. (2002a). Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning: A study of a district-wide literacy initiative. The Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1313–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, M. K., & D'Amico, L. (2002b.) The district as a professional learning laboratory. In Hightower, A. M., Knapp, M. S., Marsh, J. A., & McLaughlin, M. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 61–75). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Stein, M. K., Silver, E., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematics reform and teacher development: A community of practice perspective. In Greeno, J. & Goldman, S. V. (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 17–51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12–17.Google Scholar
Sun, M., Frank, K. A., Penuel, W. R., & Kim, C. M. (2013). How external institutions penetrate schools through formal and informal leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(4), 610–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tekkumru Kisa, M., & Stein, M. K. (2014). Using contrasting video cases of enactment of cognitively demanding science tasks in professional development. Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the learning sciences, Vol. 2 (pp. 808–815). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology: The psychology of learning. New York. Teachers College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tyack, D. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. Research monograph no. 18. University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, A. (2004). A guide to implementation research. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Winne, P. H., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 63–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×