The Sciences of Learning and Instructional Design

Constructive Articulation Between Communities

Lin Lin,J. Michael Spector

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317409175
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Éducation
• Categoria: Éducation inclusive

There are two distinct professional communities that share an interest in using innovative approaches and emerging technologies to design and implement effective support for learning. This edited collection addresses the growing divide between the learning sciences community and the instructional design and technology community, bringing leading scholars from both fields together in one volume in an attempt to find productive middle ground. Chapters discuss the implications of not bridging this divide, propose possible resolutions, and go on to lay a foundation for continued discourse in this important area.

1

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

J. Michael Spector and Lin Lin

Background and Terminology

The motivation for this volume is the existence of two professional communities (the sciences of learning, and instructional design and technology) that are largely aimed at similar goals (e.g., improving learning, making effective use of educational technologies) and that conduct related research. In some parts of the world, there is not a strong distinction between these two communities and academics involved in them commonly exist in the same academic department and often collaborate and conduct collaborative research. In other parts of the world, separate departments exist and scholars who associate with one or the other area only participate in conferences targeted to that professional community and typically only publish in a journal associated with that professional community. Some members of one or the other group tend to ignore and sometimes disparage the research methods and findings of the other group.

Given common goals (improve learning) and limited resources and funding support from local, state, national, and non-profit organizations, it would seem reasonable for the two groups to be more collaborative and engage in more synergistic research and development. Several attempts have occurred in recent years to bring about increased collaboration and articulation among these communities. For example, a book series edited by Spector and Lajoie entitled “Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems, and Performance Technologies” published by Springer attempted to create meaningful dialogue and collaboration among these communities (see www.springer.com/series/8640). While that series generated six high quality volumes and is still open for new submissions, none of the published volumes included the kinds of collaboration that the series editors sought.

As a result, one of those series editors organized a multidisciplinary panel at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) in 2014 that addressed the title of this volume. A recording of that session is available from AECT (see http://aect.site-ym.com/news/news.asp?id=209885&hhSearchTerms=%22recorded+and+sessions%22). That session was designed to have established scholars from both disciplines. Immediately following the session, a senior editor from Routledge approach the session facilitator and asked if an edited volume based on that session could be developed for publication. This volume is a direct result of that 2014 AECT Presidential Panel on this topic.

The thread that runs throughout this volume is that the barriers that apparently separate the two communities are somewhat arbitrary and inhibit constructive articulation and the progressive development of the sciences of learning and instruction. The bridges that can be constructed to promote dialogue and collaboration include (a) interpersonal involvement (as best exemplified by our departed colleague, David H. Jonassen), (b) sharing research tools and instruments (see, for example, http://stelar.edc.org/ and www.teleurope.eu/pg/front page), (c) joint publications (as exemplified by this volume), (d) framing or establishing research projects in a way that requires the participation of both communities, which has also been done by some authors in this volume, and (e) simple recognition that each professional community has much to offer that can serve to improve learning, teaching, and instruction. That is our hope. As a first step, a brief overview of each approach is provided next, followed by a review of the challenges to collaboration which we hope will be addressed by researchers in both communities.

Historical Overview of the Sciences of Learning

The learning sciences (LS) community is relatively young dating back to the early 1990s. LS evolved as cognitive science and technologies such as the Internet, intelligent tutors, and simulations were gaining prominence in the broad area of educational technology. Contributing disciplines to the emergence of LS included cognitive psychology, computer science, educational technology, anthropology, and applied linguistics, resulting in a professional community that is interdisciplinary and interested in designing and implementing innovative technology-facilitated solutions aimed at improving life-long learning and both formal and non-formal instruction.

The academic home for the learning sciences professional community is the International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS; see www.isls.org/). ISLS sponsors two journals—the Journal of the Learning Sciences ( JLS, first published in 1991) and the International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL, first published in 2006). ISLS also sponsors two conferences—the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ILS, which was first held in 1992) and the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL, which was first held in 1995).

The most prominent publication to date is the seven-volume Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (Seel, 2012; see www.springer.com/us/book/9781441914279#aboutBook). A second prominent journal is Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, also published by Springer (see http://link.springer.com/journal/11251). It is worth noting that contributors to these two publications also contribute to publications associated with the much older instructional design and technology professional community.

Historical Overview of Instructional Design and Technology

What is currently considered the instructional design and technology (IDT) community can be dated back to the early decades of the 20th century with the interests of prominent behavioral psychologists such as John Watson and Ivan Pavlov in explaining learning and emerging audio and visual technologies. One outcome of that synergy was the formation of the Division of Visual Instruction (DVI) by the National Education Association in 1923. As the IDT community has a much longer history, this section is an attempt to present an overview of that history.

Many date the origins of the instructional design community to World War II when there was a requirement to develop effective and efficient instruction on a large scale (Reiser, 1987, 2001a, 2001b; Spector & Ren, 2015). In the postwar era, DVI became the Department of Audio-Visual Instruction (DAVI) and eventually emerged as an independent professional association called the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) in 1969.

The postwar period witnessed the first edition of Gagné’s (1965) influential Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction. That volume was strongly influenced by behaviorial learning theory and experimental psychology. By the publication of the fourth edition in 1985, cognitive learning theory was Gagné’s dominant perspective informing that and subsequent works. The seminal work by Reigeluth (1983; see www.indiana.edu/~idtheory/green1_toc.html) reviewing instructional design theories and models has a very strong cognitive perspective and includes chapters on technology applications and research approaches as well as collaboration and a perspective that is now regarded as socio-constructivist.

Primary journals associated with instructional design and technology are Educational Technology Research & Development (ETR&D; see www.springer.com/education+%26+language/learning+%26+instruction/journal/11423), the British Journal of Educational Technology (BJET; see, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-8535), Educational Technology (see www.asianvu.com/bookstoread/etp/), and the Journal of Research on Technology in Education ( JRTE; see www.iste.org/getinvolved/ed-tech-research). ETR&D dates back to 1953. It is sponsored by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT; see http://aect.site-ym.com/) and represents the merger of two journals—Educational Technology Research and the Journal of Instructional Development (archived at AECT.org). BJET is sponsored by the British Educational Research Association (BERA) and dates back to 1970. Educational Technology is a magazine published by Educational Technology Publications that dates back to the 1960s and covers both research and practice. The Journal of Research on Technology in Education is sponsored by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE; see www.iste.org/).

There are many other relevant journals that support both communities. AECT has a tenure and promotion guide (see http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/aect.site-ym.com/resource/collection/AD6CAA0B-8342-40E4-AB23-641A7078802B/The_AECT_Tenure_and_Promotion_Guide-v12.pdf) that contains a list of many journals. Trey Martindale maintains a list of lists for journals in instructional design and technology (see http://treymartindale.com/journals/). Gloria Natividad’s (2016) dissertation examined what was being published, where, and by whom in ten top journals in the last 20 years, and that study has been submitted for publication in Springer’s Lecture Notes in Educational Technology (see www.springer.com/series/11777).

AECT is the leading professional association for the international instructional design and technology community. Other associations related to this professional community include BERA, ISTE, and SITE (Society of Information Technology and Teacher Education) along with a number of associations around the world affiliated with AECT (see http://aect.site-ym.com/?page=affiliates_left_rai).

Challenges to Collaboration

The previous historical overviews are far from exhaustive and present only a small glimpse of the richness of both communities. A superficial view of that history suggests that many things are held in common—namely, a dedication to the goal of improving learning and instruction, especially through innovative and effective uses of technology, and a deep understanding of the variety of learning environments, situations, tasks, and technologies. Many of the same questions are investigated—for example, which pedagogical approaches, learning activities, instructional designs, and uses of technology work in different contexts and circumstances. Both communities are (a) firmly grounded in cognitive psychology, (b) share a strong interest in socio-constructivist and collaborative approaches, (c) recognize the role of non-cognitive factors, (d) emphasize life-long learning and both formal and informal learning, (e) draw on multiple disciplines, and (f ) stress the importance of ongoing professional development, especially for teachers.

The common interest in collaboration is worth highlighting. Within the LS community, when a collaborative approach to learning is studied, the tendency is to emphasize specific aspects and particular examples, as if to say “look at what happens when these learners start to collaborate.” Within the IDT community, with regard to the same collaborative approach, there is a tendency to look for a principle that might generalize to other situations, as if to say “here is what we can learn from this situation.”

Given that there is so much in common, it seems odd that more cross-fertilization has not occurred between these two communities. There are, of course, differences as well as lingering biases. Learning scientists tend to consider each case investigated as somewhat unique and place particular emphasis on the design of learning activities and generally perceived outcomes. The LS community is actively multidisciplinary and strongly focused on learning and that which enables and facilitates learning in various situations. One result of that orientation is a tendency to resist claims about generalizing findings across multiple contexts or drawing conclusions about principles related to instructional design, which is often perceived as overly formulaic.

The IDT community is also an interdisciplinary enterprise. However, many IDT researchers focus on outcomes and solutions that are scalable, broadly effective, and affordable. While the IDT community does place emphasis on learning outcomes, there is also strong emphasis on instructional design principles and models (for example, see Reigeluth, 1983). Some IDT researchers build on case findings in LS research, use those findings to construct models, and then test those models in controlled studies, which are rarely found in the LS literature.

These and other differences, however, are not good reasons to ignore or denigrate the other community. Both have much to offer to improve learning and instruction, and both could benefit from more collaboration and articulation across the artificial boundaries between the communities. Assuming that to be the case, what then are specific challenges to address and overcome, and what specific steps might be taken to increase collaboration and articulation?

Challenges

One challenge is to have those involved recognize the biases they might have concerning those in the other community. Making biases explicit might be one way to overcome those biases. For example, some are inclined to believe that IDT research is based on a narrow behaviorist view of learning, and that instructional design models are formulaic and inflexible. If such a bias is put forward explicitly, then there are ways to determine if what IDT professionals are doing support such a bias. For example, a dominant theme of the 2016 AECT conference involved creativity, with a number of invited and keynote speakers addressing that theme, including a presentation by Cirque du Soleil on how technology, human performance, and art can be interwoven in creative ways. There was also a keynote address on play and creativity in classrooms and another one on visual understanding. These presentations involved professionals outside the normal IDT community who could have easily presented at an LS conference.

Likewise, some might be inclined to believe that LS researchers are only interested in case studies. However, if one looks at a recent issue of The Journal of the Learning Sciences, one will find studies that lead to instructional principles, such as fading concreteness in algebra instruction or using dialogue rather than monologue in video instruction. In other words, LS researchers do have interest in instructional design principles. Keynote speakers at the 2015 International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning included a computer scientist addressing face-to-face and virtual collaborations, another computer scientist who stressed support for discovery learning, and a third speaker addressing neuromarketing and a need to understand how ordinary objects affect our lives. These talks would of course have been of interest to many i...

Indice dei contenuti

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• 1 Historical Introduction
• 2 The Sciences of Learning
• 3 Finding a Middle Ground: Wars Never Settle Anything
• 4 Comparing the Goals and Methodologies of Learning Scientists and Educational Technology Researchers
• 6 Learning Sciences and Instructional Design: Big Challenges and Multi-field, Multidisciplinary Solutions
• 6 Implications: Cherishing the Middle Ground
• 7 Reconsidering Design and Evaluation
• 8 Learning Science Applications for Research in Medicine
• 9 An Asian Perspective on the Divide
• 10 The Collaboration Imperative
• 11 Synthetic Environments for Skills Training and Practice
• 12 Instructional Design and Learning Design
• 13 Learning Analytics Design
• 14 Continuing the Discourse
• List of Contributors
• Index