Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 3
  • Print publication year: 2016
  • Online publication date: February 2016

7 - Mapping the Territory of the Learning Sciences

from PART 2 - PRESENT

Summary

The Learning Sciences (LS) has become an influential approach within educational research. Its popularity has come in part from the maxim that it has taken the study of learning out of the laboratory and into real-world settings. The Learning Sciences has been described as an interdisciplinary approach to the study and the facilitation of learning in real-world settings. But what exactly is the territory of LS? In this chapter we offer an answer to this question.

By any number of measures the LS is now entering the third decade of its existence. The first LS program was founded at Northwestern in 1987 (the same year that the Institute for Research on Learning was created in Palo Alto; cf. Pea, this volume). The Journal of the Learning Sciences (JLS) published its first issue in 1991. If LS were a person we would probably say that now she is engaging in the self-examination, reflection on the past, and planning for the future, even the crisis of identity, that characterize young adulthood. Reflections on the history of LS and of JLS (as its editor-in-chief passed the baton) have being published (e.g., Kolodner, 2004, 2009), two editions of a massive Handbook have summarized the state of the art (Sawyer, 2006, 2014), and at the 2010 meeting of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), for example, a workshop was convened on “Growing the Learning Sciences” to consider what to do “as the field of Learning Sciences matures.” LS is indeed “growing up” (Kolodner, 2009).

This chapter aims to make a contribution to these reflections and debates over the character of LS. We focus on the question of what and where is the territory of LS. The chapter is organized as follows. First, we describe several ways in which we mapped LS using textual materials. Here, our focus is the conceptual territory of LS. Second, we identify, and reflect on, three distinctions that seem to us to constitute the places in which LS research is conducted: the laboratory versus the real-world; formal and informal settings; and authentic and inauthentic instruction. Here, our focus is the investigative territory of LS.

Mapping the Conceptual Territory of LS

First, we obtained textual data of several different kinds. We identified LS programs to draw material from their websites.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Banks, J. A., Au, K. H., Ball, A. F., Bell, P., Gordon, E. W., Gutiérrez, K. D., et al. (2007). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep. Seattle: Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4–12.
Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, A., & Bielaczyc, K. (1999). The enculturation of educational thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(1), 129–138.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265–282). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Greimas, A. J., & Courtes, J. (1976). The cognitive dimension of narrative discourse. New Literary History, 7(3), 433–448.
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in Science Education, 28(1996), 87–112.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 35–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kolodner, J. L. (1991). The Journal of the Learning Sciences: Effecting changes in education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 1–6.
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). The “neat” and the” scruffy” in promoting learning from analogy: We need to pay attention to both. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 139–152.
Kolodner, J. L. (2004). The learning sciences: Past, present, and future. Educational Technology: The Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 44(3), 37–42.
Kolodner, J. (2009). Note from the outgoing Editor-in-Chief. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 1–3.
Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In Knorr, K. & Mulkay, M. (Eds.), Science observed (pp. 141–170). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lave, J. (1982). A comparative approach to educational forms and learning processes. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 13(2), 181–187.
Lave, J., & Packer, M. (2008). Towards a social ontology of learning. In Nielsen, K., Brinkmann, S., Elmholdt, C., Tanggaard, L., Musaeus, P., & Kraft, G. (Eds.), A qualitative stance (pp. 17–46). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. Educause learning initiative, ELI Paper 1, 1–12.
Nathan, M. J., & Alibali, M. W. (2010). Learning sciences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(3), 329–345.
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8–12.
Packer, M. (2001a). Changing classes: Shifting the trajectory of development in school. In Packer, M. & Tappan, M. B. (Eds.), Cultural and critical perspectives on human development. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Packer, M. (2001b). The problem of transfer, and the sociocultural critique of schooling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 493–514.
Packer, M. J. (2001c). Changing classes: School reform and the new economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Packer, M. (2010). Educational research as a reflexive science of constitution. In Penuel, W. R. & O'Connor, K. (Eds.), Learning research as a human science (pp. 17–33). National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 109(1).
Packer, M. J. (2011). Schooling: Domestication or ontological construction? In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice, Vol. 1 (pp. 167–188). New York: Springer.
Packer, M., & Greco-Brooks, D. (1999). School as a site for the production of persons. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 12, 133–149.
Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227–241.
Papert, S. (2006). Afterword: After how comes what. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 581–586). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Educational psychology at the millennium: A look back and a look forward. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 221–226.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.
Rourke, L., & Friesen, N. (2006). The learning sciences: The very idea. Educational Media International, 43(4), 271–284.
Sawyer, K. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, K. (Ed). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1999). Looking toward the 21st century: Challenges of educational theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 4–14.
Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In Lave, J. & Rogoff, B. (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 9–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Strauss, C. (1984). Beyond “formal” versus “informal” education: Uses of psychological theory in anthropological research. Ethos, 12(3), 195–222.
Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428.
Wren, D. J. (1999). School culture: Exploring the hidden curriculum. Adolescence, 34(135), 593–596.