Nov 14, 2016 - al., 2015; Sengupta, Krinks, & Clark, 2015). ... Litman, Marple, Greenleaf, Charney-Sirott, Bolz, Richardson, Hall, George & Goldman. (2017/this ...
Journal of the Learning Sciences
ISSN: 1050-8406 (Print) 1532-7809 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hlns20
Outgoing Editors’ Note: The Journal of the Learning Sciences as a Mirror of Trends in the Field Josh Radinsky & Iris Tabak To cite this article: Josh Radinsky & Iris Tabak (2016): Outgoing Editors’ Note: The Journal of the Learning Sciences as a Mirror of Trends in the Field, Journal of the Learning Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2017.1260414 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1260414
Accepted author version posted online: 14 Nov 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 87
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hlns20 Download by: [University of Illinois, Chicago]
Date: 28 November 2016, At: 07:13
EDITORS’ NOTE
Outgoing Editors’ Note: The Journal of the Learning Sciences as a Mirror of Trends in the Field
ip t
It has been our distinct honor to serve as Co-Editors in Chief of JLS, and we thank the ISLS Board for entrusting us with this important service to the learning sciences
cr
community. In addition to four years on the masthead, we were lucky to have the chance
us
to apprentice beside Yasmin Kafai and Cindy Hmelo-Silver, and to continue to work closely with our successors, Jan van Aalst and Susan Yoon, as they transition into the
an
role. Brian Slattery and Jessica Roberts faced the ebb and flow of manuscripts, emails and production details with skill and graciousness, and we appreciate their contributions.
M
We are also grateful to the editorial and production team of our publisher, Taylor & Francis. It has been a privilege to witness the dedication of the JLS team of Associate
ed
Editors, who engage each manuscript with respect, and strive to compose decisions that are exacting, fair and generative. We thank the Associate Editors we have worked with
ce pt
over these five years, with a recognition here to those whose terms are ending along with our own: Kai Hakkarainen, Chee Kit Looi, Chris Quintana and Nikol Rummel. JLS celebrates 25 years as a central venue for scholarship in the learning sciences. The
Ac
impact and success of a journal derives from the manuscripts that it publishes. We have been fortunate to receive record numbers of submissions, from across the globe, and to have the opportunity to publish a corpus of articles that reflect core commitments of the learning sciences, while expanding the contexts, methodologies and theoretical perspectives that the field employs. We extend our gratitude and appreciation to the scholars who have published in the journal.
The evolution of the journal in many ways documents the evolution of the field. JLS two years ago transitioned from single-blind to double-blind review, reflecting not so much a change in philosophy at the journal as a recognition of the growth of the community. A year later we introduced the annual Reviewer of the Year recognition, as a way to
ip t
acknowledge the anonymous service that has shaped the high standard of JLS
publications. We have been pleased to note the ongoing trend toward increasing
cr
internationalization of the journal on multiple fronts. As JLS transitions to its second
us
international team of Editors-in-Chief, it also celebrates an international team of
Associate Editors, Editorial Board, and pool of reviewers. Manuscripts in the past year
an
were submitted to JLS from 38 different countries – more than in any previous year. This internationalization of the journal reflects the increasing internationalization of the
M
learning sciences, and speaks to the vibrant state of the field.
Other trends in the field stand out from recent years of JLS publications. The journal
ed
continues to be home to impactful conversations about research methods, as it has been
ce pt
since the publication of Ann Brown’s seminal “Design experiments” paper 25 years ago (Brown, 1992). The special issue on learning analytics, 22(4), marked an important moment in the adoption of data mining methods in the field (Martin & Sherin, 2013), and has been followed up by other analyses exploring the use of these methods for the study
Ac
of learning (Blikstein et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2015; Roll, Baker, Aleven, & Koedinger, 2014). Hammer & Berland’s (2014) reflection on “confusing claims for data” provided valuable cautions for the quantitative analysis of qualitative discourse codes.
Contributions to the design-based research methods (DBR) have continued unabated, including Sandoval’s (2013) conjecture mapping approach; Penuel, Confrey, Maloney &
Rupp’s (2014) focus on design deliberations; O’Neill’s distinction between designing for the future and designing the future (2016); and Bielaczyk’s (2013) longitudinal study of the uptake of a design experiment. These contributions to DBR culminate in the special issue on CHAT-DBR in 25(4) (Penuel, Cole, & O’Neill, 2016). This issue offered a full
ip t
rethinking of design-based research methods, returning to Vygotsky, Bronfenbrenner,
Davydov and others to review historical roots and unnoticed “branches,” and inviting the
cr
JLS community to delve into the ways cultural historical activity theory has developed
us
sometimes-parallel, sometimes-challenging variations on similar themes of the potential roles of design in research on learning.
an
Methodological contributions have gone hand in hand with theoretical ones. Core learning processes have been theorized in novel ways, such as conceptual change (e.g., in
M
terms of catastrophe theory, Roth, 2014); knowledge construction (e.g., via a systemicconstructivist framework, Oeberst, Halatchliyski, Kimmerle, & Cress, 2014); complex
ed
systems learning (e.g., through the lens of activity theory, Danish, 2014); and the theory-
ce pt
practice gap (e.g., in terms of principled practical knowledge, Bereiter, 2014). Studies of learning across multiple levels of analysis have included Langer-Osuna’s (2015) study of identity processes across microgenetic, ontogenetic and sociogenetic levels; Akkerman & Bruining’s (2016) study of boundary crossing at intrapersonal, interpersonal and
Ac
institutional levels; and Jurow & Shea’s (2015) study of scale-making projects at individual and sociogenetic levels. The retirement of the Learning Outside of School strand at JLS corresponds with an increasing diversity of contexts in which learning scientists study learning – such that “outside of school” is no longer seen as a necessary descriptor. There has been a notably
broad range of disciplinary contexts of learning in the past four volumes, including traditional school subjects, but also music lessons (Kupers, van Dijk & van Geert, 2017/this issue), amateur astronomy (Azevedo, 2013), a fish hatchery and laboratory (Roth, 2014), an online fandom community for a television show (Matthews, 2016), a
ip t
Wikipedia entry (Oeberst et al., 2014), and multiple gaming environments (e.g., Martin et al., 2015; Sengupta, Krinks, & Clark, 2015).
cr
While disciplinary diversity has continued to be a hallmark of JLS, the increasing
us
prominence of historical thinking, teaching and learning in the field has been clearly reflected in recent JLS publications. These have included a wide range of types of
an
scholarship. Monte-Sano & Budano (2013) examined the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching history. Herrenkohl & Cornelius (2013) examined
M
relationships between epistemic cognition and classroom argumentation in history, contrasted with science. Lopez, Carretero, & Rodriguez-Moneo (2015) used clinical
ed
interviews to study the formation of historical concepts. Matthews (2016) investigated
ce pt
affordances of an informal online environment for developing historical thinking skills. Nilsen (2016) examined design approaches for building historical perspective taking, while Sakr, Jewitt & Price (2016) used digital augmentation with mobile devices to study relationships between historical empathy and historical analysis. In the present issue,
Ac
Litman, Marple, Greenleaf, Charney-Sirott, Bolz, Richardson, Hall, George & Goldman (2017/this issue) look at intertextual analysis in classrooms, contrasting the ways opportunities to learn vary among literature, science, and history. Clearly, historical learning has come into its own as a central area of learning sciences research.
Finally, we would like to note the rapid growth of another area of scholarship that is coming into its own in the learning sciences: social justice as a context of learning. For example, JLS papers in recent years have included studies of racialized and gendered identities in disciplinary learning processes, particularly for marginalized groups (e.g.,
ip t
Archer et al., 2016; DiSalvo, Guzdial, Bruckman, & McKlin, 2014; Langer-Osuna, 2015; Raes, Schellens, & De Wever, 2014). Other articles have focused on learning through
cr
participation in social change movements or organizations (e.g., Conner, 2014; Jurow &
us
Shea, 2015), and learning about social inequality and oppression (e.g., Conner, 2014; Esmonde, 2014). Recent learning sciences conference sessions, including the first-ever
an
Learning Sciences Graduate Student Conference held in Chicago this year, featured indepth explorations of different conceptualizations of social justice research, while CSCL
M
2017 has as its theme Making a Difference: Prioritizing Equity and Access in CSCL. These developments point to the strength of these strands of scholarship in the field, and
ce pt
learning sciences.
ed
the desire for developing a range of approaches to social justice research within the
Much has happened through the pages of JLS over the past five years, a reflection of the advancements, changes and trends in the field. We are thankful not only for the trust of the community, but for the incredible gift to be part of this journey. We are fortunate to
Ac
be taking with us another, treasured gift: the friendship and camaraderie that has grown out of our collaboration as co-editors. We wish continued success to Susan, Jan, the excellent team of Associate Editors, and the whole JLS community in the coming years. It is an exciting time to be part of the learning sciences, and we look forward to reading the papers that will continue to shape and change the field.
Josh Radinsky and Iris Tabak Outgoing Co-Editors-in-Chief
ip t
REFERENCES
Akkerman, S., & Bruining, T. (2016). Multilevel boundary crossing in a professional
us
284. doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1147448
cr
development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240-
Archer, L., Dawson, E., Seakins, A., DeWitt, J., Godec, S., & Whitby, C. (2016). “I’m
an
being a man here”: Urban boys’ performances of masculinity and engagement with science during a science museum visit. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
M
25(3), 438-485. doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1187147
Azevedo, F. S. (2013). The tailored practice of hobbies and its implication for the design
ed
of interest-driven learning environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3),
ce pt
462-510. doi:10.1080/10508406.2012.730082 Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4-17. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.812533
Bielaczyc, K. (2013). Informing design research: Learning from teachers' designs of
Ac
social infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258-311.
doi:10.1080/10508406.2012.691925
Blikstein, P., Worsley, M., Piech, C., Sahami, M., Cooper, S., & Koller, D. (2014). Programming pluralism: Using learning analytics to detect patterns in the learning
of computer programming. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 561-599. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.954750 Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning
ip t
Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
Conner, J. (2014). Lessons that last: Former youth organizers’ reflections on what and
us
doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.928213
cr
how they learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(3), 447-484.
Danish, J. A. (2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for
an
learning about the structure, behavior, and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 100-148. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.856793
M
DiSalvo, B., Guzdial, M., Bruckman, A., & McKlin, T. (2014). Saving face while geeking out: Video game testing as a justification for learning computer science.
ed
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(3), 272-315.
ce pt
doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.893434 Esmonde, I. (2014). “Nobody’s rich and nobody’s poor … it sounds good, but it’s actually not”: Affluent students learning mathematics and social justice. Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 23(3), 348-391. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.847371
Ac
Hammer, D., & Berland, L. K. (2014). Confusing claims for data: A critique of common practices for presenting qualitative research on learning. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 23(1), 37-46. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.802652
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Cornelius, L. (2013). Investigating elementary students' scientific and historical argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 413-461. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.799475 Jurow, A. S., & Shea, M. (2015). Learning in equity-oriented scale-making projects.
ip t
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(2), 286-307. doi:10.1080/10508406.2015.1004677
cr
Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2015). From getting “fired” to becoming a collaborator: A case of
us
the coconstruction of identity and engagement in a project-based mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 53-92.
an
doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.944643
Lopez, C., Carretero, M., & Rodriguez-Moneo, M. (2015). Conquest or reconquest?
M
Students’ conceptions of nation embedded in a historical narrative. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(2), 252-285. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.919863
ed
Martin, T., Petrick Smith, C., Forsgren, N., Aghababyan, A., Janisiewicz, P., & Baker, S.
ce pt
(2015). Learning fractions by splitting: Using learning analytics to illuminate the development of mathematical understanding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(4), 593-637. doi:10.1080/10508406.2015.1078244
Martin, T., & Sherin, B. (2013). Learning analytics and computational techniques for
Ac
detecting and evaluating patterns in learning: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 511-520. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.840466
Matthews, J. C. (2016). Historical inquiry in an informal fan community: Online source usage and the tv show the tudors. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(1), 4-50. doi:10.1080/10508406.2015.1112285 Monte-Sano, C., & Budano, C. (2013). Developing and enacting pedagogical content
ip t
knowledge for teaching history: An exploration of two novice teachers' growth over three years. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 171-211.
cr
doi:10.1080/10508406.2012.742016
us
Nilsen, A. P. (2016). Navigating windows into past human minds: A framework of
shifting selves in historical perspective taking. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
an
25(3), 372-410. doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1160830
O’Neill, D. K. (2016). When form follows fantasy: Lessons for learning scientists from
M
modernist architecture and urban planning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(1), 133-152. doi:10.1080/10508406.2015.1094736
ed
Oeberst, A., Halatchliyski, I., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2014). Knowledge construction
ce pt
in wikipedia: A systemic-constructivist analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 149-176. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.888352
Penuel, W. R., Cole, M., & O’Neill, D. K. (2016). Introduction to the special issue. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 487-496.
Ac
doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1215753
Penuel, W. R., Confrey, J., Maloney, A., & Rupp, A. A. (2014). Design decisions in developing learning trajectories–based assessments in mathematics: A case study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 47-95. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.866118
Raes, A., Schellens, T., & De Wever, B. (2014). Web-based collaborative inquiry to bridge gaps in secondary science education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(3), 316-347. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.836656 Roll, I., Baker, R. S. J. d., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2014). On the benefits of
ip t
seeking (and avoiding) help in online problem-solving environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 537-560. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.883977
cr
Roth, W.-M. (2014). Learning in the discovery sciences: The history of a “radical”
us
conceptual change, or the scientific revolution that was not. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 177-215. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.893435
an
Sakr, M., Jewitt, C., & Price, S. (2016). Mobile experiences of historical place: A multimodal analysis of emotional engagement. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
M
25(1), 51-92. doi:10.1080/10508406.2015.1115761
Sandoval, W. (2013). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design
ed
research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18-36.
ce pt
doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.778204 Sengupta, P., Krinks, K. D., & Clark, D. B. (2015). Learning to deflect: Conceptual change in physics during digital game play. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
Ac
24(4), 638-674. doi:10.1080/10508406.2015.1082912
