Talk:Learning sciences

Modifications - Paul's edit in question
Looking for clarification about Paul Baker's edit and have reverted to previous edits. It was not just a spelling change, it was a page change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleneVolk (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Relation to ed psych
I replaced the link to ed psych in the See Also section because there is a close connection between the two disciplines. For example, the recently published Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences features many chapter contributors who have educational psychology backgrounds. Nesbit 19:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of notable learning scientists
The list of learning scientists looks 1. pretty biased towards Northwestern and excludes non-Americans, and 2. would appear to be a much more controversial list that might defy management... so I deleted it. If somebody wants to revert it, please try to provide some justification or criteria for who's on the list and why they rank above others who might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.220.35 (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ISLS quote
Similar to the comment above, Northwestern is notable for LS but other notable LS places define it differently, so I added in an ISLS quote as a more general way to define the field. However, it seems that quotes are not used particularly often in Wikipedia, so is my move appropriate? It seemed that using an actual quote was better than rephrasing it, since LS *is* so different from place to place, and by using their exact definition I avoid misinterpreting it accidentally. Therealcaro (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Modification to History Section
The history has two of the three founding officers from 2002. I served as the founding financial officer from 2002-2004 (in charge of budgeting, finances, and membership). So to be historically accurate and in keeping with the other material that is in this section, I added myself to the list. -- Amspay. —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

Sweller emphasis?
While Sweller's work and accomplishments are impressive, it seems very odd to trace the origins of Learning Sciences to him. Keep in mind that ISLS says the field was born during the 1990s. Sweller's cited work is from the 80s. Arguably, seminal events could also be identified in the Cognitive Revolution, in technological advances associated with Artificial Intelligence, in the work of Yrjo Engstrom, Seymour Papert, John Bransford, Ann Brown, Lev Vygotsky, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.137.131 (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't think either Sweller or Mayer's works are impressive; neither are these considered actually part of Learning Sciences. Whoever is constantly putting it back in, please refrain from doing so - citing works like this make our field appear really "mediocre". - PMVAN

PMVAN, it seems odd to call researchers with thousands of cites "mediocre". Surely this is well above the average for ICLS or JLS. Sweller in particular routinely gives seminars at Learning Science programs. Is this legitimate criticism or a personal vendetta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.241.98 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

UNSIGNED: Please note that almost none of the leading learning sciences researchers cite Sweller. Also, much of the citations of Sweller's work comes form Instructional Technology, which is a VERY different field from the field of Learning Sciences. I am also yet to see Sweller being invited to any of the top learning sciences programs (i.e., I am not sure how accurate your statement is). What I think is fundamentally dishonest is the attempt to hijack the real history of the discipline that in reality does not owe anything to Sweller, but rather, to foundational researchers such as Papert, Vygotsky, Engestrom, etc. Perhaps if you do not realize these things then you should not be editing this article anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmvan (talk • contribs) 01:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Science or Sciences
why is the title plural? why not "Learning scince"? --78.162.158.223 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

that is what is the field is called. Please don't change it - that would be simply ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.214.16 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that plural name is problematic. Name of a field can not be plural. You can say "social sciences" or "natural sciences" because these are not addressing a field but addressing a group of fields. If the field which is outlined in this article is "the study of learning" then it should be "Learning science" -a singular expression. If you want to keep using the plural expression then you have to explain which fields are grouped under this "learning sciences" umbrella term.--98.196.234.69 (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)