The learning sciences emerged in the early 1990s, at a time when many scientists worldwide considered that basic and applied research were mutually exclusive endeavors. In the fields of learning and instruction, those concerned with basic research typically conducted controlled laboratory experiments, often using undergraduates as human subjects. It was usually a very different group of researchers who worked in real schools and classrooms to inform the development of curricula and resources that would facilitate teaching and learning. Gradually, both basic and applied researchers experienced frustration with the shortcomings of such isolation in their work to improve teaching, learning, and instructional resources.

From their own perspectives, each group began calling for integration of fundamental and applied research. Those who developed curricula and instructional resources led the way from the applied camp, citing the need for empirically derived principles to underpin development. At the same time, the cognitive scientists were those who strongly advocated for change from the basic research tradition. They were especially concerned with finding ways to derive empirical insights that were ecologically valid, and thus had the potential to inform everyday teaching and learning practices. They did so boldly, by defining a new field: the Learning Sciences (LS).

From the beginning, learning scientists were centrally concerned with bridging the research–practice gap, and having an impact in schools (Kolodner, 1991, editorial introduction to first issue of the Journal of the Learning Sciences [JLS]). The desire to contribute to practice positioned LS in stark contrast with the field of Cognition & Instruction (represented by the journal Cognition and Instruction). At the same time, the desire to ground technological developments in cognitive research distinguished LS from the field of instructional technology.

Starting with seminal articles by Brown (1992) and Collins (1992), learning scientists have frequently pointed toward integrated research and design cycles as a promising approach for studies that are methodologically robust and yield relevant knowledge that can be put to use in real-world settings. These arguments, together with those from curriculum and instruction experts in favor of scientifically underpinned design practices, have given rise to a wave of educational design research, especially in the last decade (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012).