#18 Learning Science vs. Learning Technology

“Learning Science(s)” vs. “Learning Technolog(ies)” (the latter replaced Instructional Systems and Technologies in 2005)

When I reviewed Dabbagh et al’s Online Learning-Concepts, Strategies, and Application, the concept of “Learning Technologies” in the book reminds me a curiosity that has been lingering in my mind for a while.

As we understand, to define a term in the era of a burgeon science or a differentiation of knowledge is a challenging if not a daunting endeavor. In the book, they refer "learning technologies" as the various types of interactive technologies, such as hypertext, hypermedia, asynchronous and synchronous communication tools (email, listservs, desktop conferencing, virtual chat, groupware, digital and streaming audio-video/rich media, FTP, web developmental tools and LMS, CMA…and so on. Seemingly, in their “operational” definition, “learning” is designated as an adjective and “technologies” is a noun (instead of treating the phrase as a unit -like a discipline), which refer the physically applicable objects and devices ("pedagogical tools") run on a LAN or a WAN?Generally speaking, they propound via these "learning technologies", open or flexible learning, distributed learning, learning communities, communities practice, and knowledge-building communities that are all becoming possible.

One of my questions is -"Is there potential nuance differentiating “learning technolog(ies)” vs. “Learning Technolog(ies)” where the latter might broaden and enrich the educational technologies beyond the confinements of the “systematic and instructional” concepts and embrace the constructivist epistemology, learning theories and pedagogy/andragogy?"

Then the idea of “Learning Science(s)” in Reiser and Dempsey’s book popping into my mind that might answer part of my aforementioned perplex. From D. Jonasson at als' ideas -“Over the last decade of the 20th century, constructivist epistemologies ushered in the learning science as an alternative to the instructional sciences. The learning sciences examine from a substantively different set of assumptions and scientific perspectives than do instructional sciences, such as instructional design. Learning from a learning sciences perspective, is activity or practice based, rather than communicative. Learning sciences are the convergence of design of activity systems, cognition, and socio-cultural context. The learning sciences apply theories to design of technology-enriched learning environments that engage and support learners in accomplishing more complex, authentic (contextual mediated), and meaningful learning activities with the goal of meaningful learning and conceptual change.”

“From the perspective of learning sciences, the learner is an intentional, active, and reflective agent who is responsible for construction personal mental models, the Learning sciences also rely heavily on social theories of learning and meaning making, such as social cognition, activity theory, motivation, and case-based reasoning that examine the social, organizational, and cultural dynamics of learning processes. The learning sciences also ascribe agency to groups who collaboratively con-construct group mental models. Finally, the learning sciences draw from computer sciences, especially computational modeling an artificial intelligence, as a means for designing technology-enhanced learning environments. Because of different theoretical emphases, learning outcomes from a learning sciences perspective are often of a different nature than the type of learning outcomes often specified in the instructional sciences. The instructional sciences usually emphasize the acquisition of behaviors and discrete skills. In contrast, learning outcome in the learning sciences tend to focus on knowledge building, conceptual change, reflection, self-regulation, and socially co-constructed meaning making.”

In short, there are distinctive themes reflecting the term “Learning Science” which is less ambiguous yet broad (enough for many debates to come) than the term “Learning Technologies” – just from my personal narrow point of view:

1. The learning sciences are theoretically and pragmatically based and research oriented.
2. Reify the basic constructivist epistemology (as long as people or learning cummunities embrace or endorse it!) via its derivative learning theories, pedagogies/andragogies, instructional design theories and practices.Saying this, the “Learning Sciences” versus “Learning Technologies” does remind me the critiques between Merrill and Wilson’s vision (straight vs. broad – on the road wildly vs. less travelled??) on the identity and future development of ID (IDT) at the end of the book.