I enjoyed the debate between Instructional Science and Learning Sciences because it challenged me to rally behind a certain framework even if it wasn't what I believed entirely. Articulating what I believe on the fly and in public is useful as it helps me think ahead and share conscientiously.
After all of the discussion, I feel the debate is someone tied to egos and that, at the end of the day, it's more about what we can DO instead of what we SAY we are doing. I think there is more appeal to me in the creative process of the Learning Sciences, but I see the value of building off the foundation of the Instructional Science field.
Notes for Paper on Letter Home:
Detail of the name - answer the question, 'So what is that?"
What are technologies? (hard/soft)
Aims of the field,
Behaviorism, Cognitivism,
LS, IT, HPT
Design Science (the essence of what is Learning Sciences)
identify principles that are non-context specific vs. principles embedded in context
they would modify as they are doing it in contrast to experimental research
minor modifications work in scenario
qualitative
aiming for the ideal learning design
design-based research methods to validify design
more realistic in assumptions
gain insights about a particular learning environment so people can learn something meaningful from those environments - but not replicate them.
DEBATE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Tiffany,
ReplyDeleteI like the differentiation on design science that you have mentioned about non-context specific principles versus context specific principles. I think that is the critical differentiator between traditional empirical research and design-based research (DBR). As I have thought about this difference between the two research methods, I have begun to look for reference examples where I could identify a situation in which traditional research and DBR would see the same thing and draw different conclusions. I am still thinking about this. Good point!