This article provides reasons why LEARNING SCIENCES is necessary in the shaping of effective language educational experiences. Read on to find out more.
Table of Contents
- 1. When and why was the LEARNING SCIENCES conceptualised as a field?
- 2. What exactly are the LEARNING SCIENCES? How is it different from the SCIENCE OF LEARNING?
- 3. Isn’t Teaching an Art? Why cannot I rely on Intuition and Experience to teach?
- 4. What makes the LEARNING SCIENCES credible? Do researchers even know what is happening in the classrooms?
- 5. How are disciplines not directly related to Education useful for Education?
- 6. To what extent are LEARNING SCIENCES keeping up with the changing world?
- 7. What are the current problems with the LEARNING SCIENCES?
- 8. Are the findings from LEARNING SCIENCES universal for teaching of anything and everything? Is there a section of LEARNING SCIENCES specifically for Language Education?
- 9. What can I do if I really want to learn more about the LEARNING SCIENCES?
- Conclusion
- References
“With more changes in education fuelled by technological advancements and forces from globalisation, discussions on the future of education have intensified and LEARNING SCIENCES have again become a limelight of attention. Notwithstanding such, are LEARNING SCIENCES old wine in new bottles? Is it worth our attention keeping track of the developments? Most importantly, how can LEARNING SCIENCES inform language education?”
In recent years, there have been a stronger push to equip educators on LEARNING SCIENCES. Awkward as it may sound, since we usually assume that teachers in service should have been properly trained for the job and are armed with the necessary skills and knowledge, informed by research, the ground realities can emerge otherwise. Depending on the context of practice and the quality of pre-service and in-service professional development, there are many teachers who have to compromise with their limited scope of prior training and insufficient support to refresh and update their practice.
However, the LEARNING SCIENCES is hardly without ambiguity despite the awakening to its increasing importance. While the field was formally conceived in the 1990s (Sawyer, 2014a), its salience in the attention of teachers was generally a matter in the last decade. There were other competing terms, though related in hindsight, such as “educational psychology” or “instructional systems design”. Even in more recent years, the “science of learning” can also be confused with the “LEARNING SCIENCES”.
With more changes in education fuelled by technological advancements and forces from globalisation, discussions on the future of education have intensified and LEARNING SCIENCES have again become a limelight of attention. Notwithstanding such, are LEARNING SCIENCES old wine in new bottles? Is it worth our attention keeping track of the developments? Most importantly, how can LEARNING SCIENCES inform language education?
Get real-time updates and BE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS by joining LEA’s online communities on your favourite platforms! Connect with like-minded language educators and get inspired for your next language lesson.
1. When and why was the LEARNING SCIENCES conceptualised as a field?
The genesis of LEARNING SCIENCES in the 1990s happened in the context of a dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in education, where the efficacy and effectiveness of the many existing instructional practices and solutions then were relatively plagued with ambiguity. There were strong sentiments from academia that theories and empirical evidence supporting learning and instruction were either lacking or lacked in rigour for substantiation.
This is not to discredit the many scholars, researchers and practitioners that have worked on educational theories and practices in those days. Otherwise, key learning theories like behaviourism and constructivism would not already have been well-known and established back then in teachers’ preparatory trainings.
However, unfortunate as it is, the gap between researchers and practitioners has long been wide and difficult to bridge – both sides of the camp have “long viewed each other with extreme skepticism and little trust” (Nathan & Sawyer, 2014), somewhat causing the dissonance between research and practice. In response, LEARNING SCIENCES was thus established then with the focus to bridge research and practice, to bring together the communities of “basic sciences” and the “use-inspired” (Nathan & Sawyer, 2014).
One of the key beliefs underpinning the field is that Learning is a complicated construct housed in an ecosystem with myriads of driving forces. The distillation of these forces and identification of key leverage points can hardly be the responsibility of a single community, neither possibly achieved by just a group of remarkable scientists. It requires the whole community of researchers from different relevant disciplines, actively participating in partnerships with practitioners (basically your consumers of the scientific research), to make a whole world of difference to education at scale. LEARNING SCIENCES became the eventual source of inspiration and enlightenment.
2. What exactly are the LEARNING SCIENCES? How is it different from the SCIENCE OF LEARNING?
LEARNING SCIENCES, by virtue of the term “sciences” (instead of “science”), thus refer to a cluster of sciences relevant to learning. In a nutshell, it is an inter-disciplinary field which seeks to understand the phenomenon of learning, in all types of situations (e.g. in and beyond classrooms), and all the possible factors that support or impede learning.
Currently, the cluster of sciences include cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, computer science, education, anthropology, sociology, linguistics and design studies. While primarily supported by the sciences, the field is also informed by traditional disciplines that have shaped education, such as philosophy and epistemology. It might be good to note though, that the disciplines mentioned have also evolved to be largely interdisciplinary (e.g. cognitive science) in the contemporary context – somewhat a further testimony to the understanding that many phenomena requires a more complicated approach to explain and understand.
What then, is the “SCIENCE OF LEARNING” which is also frequently cited in recent educational discourses? As mentioned, LEARNING SCIENCES purposes to answer all questions related to learning scientifically. Learning can be understood directly from the learners’ perspective where the SCIENCE OF LEARNING is the “scientific study of how people learn” (Mayer, 2011).
In relation to the SCIENCE OF LEARNING are the SCIENCE OF INSTRUCTION, “scientific study of how to help people learn” (Mayer, 2011), which investigates learning from the teachers’ and instructional designers’ perspective; and the SCIENCE OF ASSESSMENT, the “scientific study of how to determine what people know” (Mayer, 2011), which investigates learning from the examiners’ perspective (NOTE: Examiners can be neutral parties who are not part of the instruction; or the learners, teachers and instructional designers in question).
3. Isn’t Teaching an Art? Why cannot I rely on Intuition and Experience to teach?
This is something that people tend to argue about. Whether Teaching is primarily an Art, or a Science, or an eternal fluctuation between both, can be something that divides all of us.
When we conceptualise Teaching to be an Art, we are representing teaching as a creative activity where the teacher relies on unique talents in devising meaningful learning methods from his/her repertoire of “artistic moves”, where there are many elements in the process which are immeasurable (e.g. love, flow, relations). When we conceptualise Teaching to be a Science, we are representing teaching as an informed practice anchored on a body of research where the teacher actively keeps abreast of research and collects data in practice to further enhance his/her instructional processes.
I do not wish to argue against Teaching as an Art – there are parts of instruction that may not be well explained and unpacked by scientific research yet, and teachers do need to exercise loads of creativity within every moment of his/her teaching day – even teachers who abide by the mantra of Teaching as a Science may not be able to rationalise his/her every decision with some scientific theory and empirical evidence.
Notwithstanding such, I still want to argue for the case of Teaching as a Science to be an essential component of an educator. Relying on intuition and experience can lead us to false positives and firmly believe in certain methods that might have worked due to luck or randomness. These methods, when applied across other contexts or even with the same learners, may falter and not work consistently.
Intuition and experience can also subject us to unseen biases (e.g. confirmation bias), where we may exhibit the tendencies unknowingly to validate methods positively that we have chosen earlier to favour while ignoring or refuting opposing evidence that contradicts our intuition and experience. These can lead to detrimental consequences if the applied methods are proven to be ineffective in the long run.
New insights from research have revealed that many learning practices that university faculty and students have adopted are “highly inefficient, ineffective, or just plain wrong” (Doyle & Zakrajsek, 2013). The infamous approach of “learning styles” (I hope you are not still adopting such beliefs!), whereby teachers are advocated to align teaching methods to the preferred learning styles of learners (usually labelled as groups such as “visual learners” or “auditory learners”) to achieve optimal learning, have been revealed to be flawed and unreliable (Pashler et al., 2008; Rohrer & Pashler, 2012).
If there is sufficient evidence in supporting the efficacy of a method, we can adopt it with a peace of mind. If the method is proven to be ineffective, or that it should be adapted to achieve effectiveness, we should continue to be flexible to modify our approach too. Taking medical practice as an analogy, who would ever want to take a pill that has not been proven to be safe? All the more we will not subject our children to such medication too (Weinstein, Sumeracki & Caviglioli, 2019).
Last but not least, we do observe extremely skilful and inspirational teachers among us, that have largely relied on intuition and experience to build up their successes. How can those successes be translated to other teachers so that we can all be successful? This is where something more concrete, such as the LEARNING SCIENCES, will then be the pivotal medium to consolidate their practices for others to emulate.
4. What makes the LEARNING SCIENCES credible? Do researchers even know what is happening in the classrooms?
To reiterate, the case for LEARNING SCIENCES is not a case against Teaching as an Art. Many innovations in education, including the creative approaches we have for language education today (e.g. Task-based Learning), have their origins in the intuition and experience of dedicated language teachers.
The key difference is the approach in addressing the fruits of intuition and experience. With an approach grounded in science, the innovation is framed as a hypothesis which is then tested rigorously through various means. Depending on the outcomes, the hypothesis will then be modified and then further tested. With sufficient iterations, where there is sufficient evidence converging in a certain direction, generalisations can then be made and a theory be conceived – the method that was innovated becomes part of an empirical reality and is no more just an artefact of conceptual belief.
Where things are left at the stage of conceptual belief, whether or not a method works is more dependent on the charisma and eloquence of the originator(s) – it will be your unchecked intuition and experience against mine. With the scientific approach, the claims are meant to be verified or falsified – and even these processes can be rigorously assessed. In fact, many scientists recognise the goal of science as a continuous attempt to “disprove ideas, not prove them” (Weinstein, Sumeracki & Caviglioli, 2019). Where scientists continue to do so, the gems found in the residue of invalidated ideas can then guide our way.
The rigour of the LEARNING SCIENCES makes them worth our attention and adoption, especially when we have found that “much of what we take for gospel about how to learn turns out to be largely wasted effort” and that “the most effective learning strategies are not intuitive” (Brown, Roediger & McDaniel, 2014).
Unlike traditional educational research, contemporary learning scientists are generally well-grounded in classroom realities. Many learning scientists were full-time teachers in their previous incarnation, and many continue to be committed to improving classroom practices. They can be working frequently in schools and have extensive direct contact with teachers and students. Even for those who are more laboratory-based or more on the theoretical end, the current field also requires them to work more with others who are more grounded.
Join our mailing list!
Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!
5. How are disciplines not directly related to Education useful for Education?
On the contrary, the inter-disciplinarity of LEARNING SCIENCES is a pivotal characteristic of the field that makes it extremely powerful. Individually, the different disciplines have developed progresses that inform the different aspects of education, sometimes even contributing a monumental opportunity with a breakthrough. Collectively, they form a coherent integration of the knowledge which can then become actionable strategies for the practitioners. For instance, recent advances in neuroscience made it possible for enhanced interventions to develop reading skills of dyslexic children.
Learning remains a complicated phenomenon. The inter-disciplinarity of LEARNING SCIENCES also provides the assurance that mechanisms that influence learning that have yet to be well-coded for practitioners’ understanding are further researched, and the factors that the field has not yet delved deeper can be paid more attention (e.g. power relations). Learning scientists have also formed a strong community of practice over the last 30 years, enabling the tight alignment of purposes.
Personally, I have benefited a lot from the inter-disciplinarity involved in the study of applied linguistics. It provides me the expertise and professional basis to start this website, especially with in-depth understanding of issues that used to stay in the realm of intuition and experience, such as the acquisition processes of language, the social factors that affect language experiences and realities and the many approaches to language education that are flawed or empirically supported. I do invite you, as fellow language educators, to join me on such future endeavours, where we learn from other disciplines to inform our core practices.
6. To what extent are LEARNING SCIENCES keeping up with the changing world?
Remember the genesis of LEARNING SCIENCES? It was born from the intentions of addressing malpractices in education and to eventually make massive positive impact to education. It rallied against exclusive “instructionism” (Sawyer, 2014a, 2014b) which referred to the teacher-centred practices that dominated educational approaches for as long as we can remember. This movement was mounted fundamentally to address the inadequacy of education then in meeting the demands of the changing world.
The changing world is characterised by “VUCA”, with exacerbating forces such as technological advancements and globalisation. The pandemic that we are still overcoming, the increasing polarisation of the world that we are situated in and the massive disruptions that come alongside automation remind us that the future of education lies in a constant path of reinvention – and the LEARNING SCIENCES community understands that.
The LEARNING SCIENCES was expanded largely from earlier inquiries focusing on the studying the nature of knowledge and the cognitive architecture and processes in learning to develop stronger emphasis on design systems (e.g. space, processes), the use of technology in learning and rising social issues (e.g. power relations, culture).
Of course, LEARNING SCIENCES needs time to develop before conclusive findings and actionable strategies are propagated – that upholds the integrity and rigour of the field and maintains the credibility of their claims. Our responsibility as practitioners, therefore, is to stay connected with their community to update our knowledge and understanding. We must also maintain an open mindset to change to guard against our own biases from familiar practices. And if we have the bandwidth and network to do so, we can continue to experiment and provide the feedback to the community and make an impact on the progress of the field.
7. What are the current problems with the LEARNING SCIENCES?
To claim that the LEARNING SCIENCES is free of issues will be an overstatement. While LEARNING SCIENCES set out to influence education on a broad scale, the impact of the field in scaling up recommendations at district- or national- level implementation has been low. Most recommendations, with the potential to yield deep learning, do not eventually become blockbusters. Many are only adopted under specific projects that address issues at school level or for a specific group of students.
The difficulties faced in scaling up research is not a problem unique to the LEARNING SCIENCES. John A. List, the Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, deliberates on the difficulties faced in scaling ideas due to the Voltage Effect. Yet, scaling problems are generally characterised by the Anna Karenina principle with no easy and general means to address.
As such, in moving forward, the LEARNING SCIENCES community does need to factor in studies on implementation science within relevant projects, so that the field can also consolidate “implementation theories that can guide our analysis of the systems, resources, actors, and mechanisms that are relevant to the practicality and use of learning innovations” (McKenney, 2018).
The good news is that LEARNING SCIENCES has hardly been a static field irresponsive to new demands. We can still look forward to future research projects with more robust findings that can inform implementation at scale.
Join our mailing list!
Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!
8. Are the findings from LEARNING SCIENCES universal for teaching of anything and everything? Is there a section of LEARNING SCIENCES specifically for Language Education?
For the purpose of this website, this is definitely one imperative we need to address. There is a large body of findings from LEARNING SCIENCES which are framed to become applicable across subjects and disciplines. A classic example would be the Cognition Toolbox (Benassi et al., 2014). There are, of course, specific differences in actual applications of the findings in different subjects – the capacity for problem-solving and critical thinking has been found to depend strongly on a rich body of knowledge about the subject matter.
However, the LEARNING SCIENCES community has also recognised the importance of subject matter uniqueness and has committed research to study the “SCIENCE OF LEARNING” in the various subject areas. So, today we do have bodies of research specialising in the discovery of principles in learning languages, mathematics, history, physical education, etc. Particularly relevant for languages, there are specialised research on learning to read, learning to write and learning of second/foreign languages.
In fact, prior to the founding of LEARNING SCIENCES as a specific field, the study of Applied Linguistics and the sub-branches in Language Acquisition or Developmental Linguistics, Educational Linguistics, and Sociolinguistics have made key contributions to the understanding and implementation of language education; and formed part of the wisdom consolidated in LEARNING SCIENCES.Perhaps, the only subtle difference, is the overt intent to bridge research and practice in the case of LEARNING SCIENCES.
9. What can I do if I really want to learn more about the LEARNING SCIENCES?
Day in day out, our practitioners have to manage the colossal burden of synthesising different realms of knowledge to actualise the ground teaching practices. To maintain rigour and certain sparkles of personal creativity is definitely not a stroll in the park.
However, if you are fairly convinced that you should invest time in frequenting the sanctuary of LEARNING SCIENCES as an approach to review and refresh your personal practices, you may be wondering where you can start and sustain this habit. While the LEARNING SCIENCES community do strive their best to keep research findings accessible, sometimes the starting point is not that obvious.
In support of your endeavours, here are the most recommended resources to start your learning journey:
BOOKS
- Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., & Norman, M.K. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco USA: Jossey-Bass.
- Brown, P.C., Roediger III, H.L., & McDaniel, M.A. (2014). Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Cambridge, Massachusetts USA: Harvard University Press.
- Doyle, T., & Zakrajsek, T. (2013). The New Science of Learning: How to Learn in Harmony with Your Brain. Sterling, Virginia USA: Stylus Publishing.
- Mayer, R.E., & Alexander, P.A. (2011). Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction. New York USA: Routledge.
- Sawyer, K. (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Goodell, J., & Kolodner, J. (2023). Learning Engineering Toolkit: Evidence-Based Practices from the Learning Sciences, Instructional Design, and Beyond. New York USA: Routledge.
WEBSITES
Get real-time updates and BE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS by joining LEA’s online communities on your favourite platforms! Connect with like-minded language educators and get inspired for your next language lesson.
Conclusion
This article has given a brief overview on the field of the LEARNING SCIENCES and answered 9 key questions that can be relevant for language educators in general. I hope you do find the inspiration to stay updated with the field, and uphold the spirit of adopting practices that are theory-grounded and evidence-based. If your bandwidth allows, do get into the networks of the field and contribute your feedback to support the progress of the field, and our fellow educators teaching languages and beyond.
Thank you for reading! If you like what you are reading, do subscribe to our mailing list to receive updated resources and tips for language educators. Please also feel free to provide us any feedback or suggestions on content that you would like covered.
References
Alexander, P.A., & Mayer, R.E. (2011). Introduction to Research on Instruction. In Mayer, R.E., & Alexander, P.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 245 – 248). New York USA: Routledge.
Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., & Norman, M.K. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco USA: Jossey-Bass.
Benassi, V.A., Overson, C.E., & Hakala, C.M. (2014). Introduction. In Benassi, V.A., Overson, C.E., & Hakala, C.M. (Eds.), Applying Science of Learning in Education: Infusing Psychological Science into the Curriculum. Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology website.
Benassi, V.A., Tapping, E.M., Overson, C.E., Lee, M.J., O’Brien, E.J., White, B.P., Stiegler-Balfour, J.J., & Hakala C.M. (2014). Applying the Science of Learning: The Cognition Toolbox. In Benassi, V.A., Overson, C.E., & Hakala, C.M. (Eds.), Applying Science of Learning in Education: Infusing Psychological Science into the Curriculum. Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology website.
Brown, P.C., Roediger III, H.L., & McDaniel, M.A. (2014). Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Cambridge, Massachusetts USA: Harvard University Press.
Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. DOI:10.3102/0013189X032006003.
Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning., Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice., & National Research Council (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington USA: National Academy Press.
Dehaene, S. (2020). How We Learn: Why Brains Learn Better Than Any Machine…for Now. New York USA: Viking (Penguin Random House).
Doyle, T., & Zakrajsek, T. (2013). The New Science of Learning: How to Learn in Harmony with Your Brain. Sterling, Virginia USA: Stylus Publishing.
Esmonde, I., & Booker, A.N. (2017). Introduction. In Esmonde, I., & Booker, A.N. (Eds.), Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and Sociocultural Theories of Learning (pp. 1 – 5). New York USA: Routledge.
Fox, E., & Alexander, P.A. (2011). Learning to Read. In Mayer, R.E., & Alexander, P.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 7 – 31). New York USA: Routledge.
Honey, R.C., & Murphy, R.A. (2010). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Learning: Introduction and Intent. In Murphy, R.A., & Honey, R.C. (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook on the Cognitive Neuroscience of Learning (pp. 1 –4). Chichester UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kolodner, J.L. (1991). The Journal of the Learning Sciences: Effecting Changes in Education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 1-6. DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls0101_1.
Kolodner, J.L. (2004). The Learning Sciences: Past, Present, Future. Educational Technology, 44(3), 34-40.
Khine, M.S., & Saleh, I.M. (2010). New Science of Learning: Exploring the Future of Education. In Khine, M.S., & Saleh, I.M. (Eds.), New Science of Learning: Cognition, Computers and Collaboration in Education (pp. 593 – 604). New York USA: Routledge.
La Paz, S., & Mccutchen, D. (2011). Learning to Write. In Mayer, R.E., & Alexander, P.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 32 – 54). New York USA: Routledge.
Lee, C.D. (2017). Foreword: Critical Learning Opportunities for the Learning Sciences. In Esmonde, I., & Booker, A.N. (Eds.), Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and Sociocultural Theories of Learning (pp. vii – xi). New York USA: Routledge.
Leighton, J.P., & Gierl, M.J. (2011). The Learning Sciences in Educational Assessment: The Role of Cognitive Models. New York USA: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R.E. (2010). Foreword: Applying the Science of Learning to College Teaching. In Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., & Norman, M.K. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching (pp. xiii – xvi). San Francisco USA: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the Science of Learning. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Mayer, R.E., & Alexander, P.A. (2011). Introduction to Research on Learning. In Mayer, R.E., & Alexander, P.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 3 – 6). New York USA: Routledge.
McKenney, S. (2018). How Can the Learning Sciences (Better) Impact Policy and Practice?. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 1-7. DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2017.1404404.
Nasier, N.S., Lee, C.D., Pea, R., & De Royston, M.M. (2021). Rethinking Learning: What the Interdisciplinary Science Tells Us. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 557–565. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X211047251.
Nathan, M.J., & Sawyer, K. (2014). Foundations of the Learning Sciences. In Sawyer, K. (Ed), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 21 – 43). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington USA: The National Academies Press.
Ormrod, J.E. (2012). Human Learning (Sixth Edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey USA: Pearson Education.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119.
Pritchard, A. (2009). Ways of Learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. Abingdon UK: Routledge.
Roberts, R., & Kreuz, R. (2015). Becoming Fluent: How Cognitive Science Can Help Adults Learn a Foreign Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts USA: The MIT Press.
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning styles: Where’s the evidence?. Medical Education, 46, 34–35.
Sawyer, K. (2014a). Introduction: The New Science of Learning. In Sawyer, K. (Ed), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1 – 20). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, K. (2014b). Conclusion: The Future of Learning: Grounding Educational Innovation in the Learning Sciences. In Sawyer, K. (Ed), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 726 – 746). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schunk, D.H. (2012). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. Boston USA: Pearson Education.
Schwartz, D.L., Tsang, J.M., & Blair, K.P. (2016). The ABCs of How We Learn: 26 Scientifically Proven Approaches, How They Work, and When to Use Them. New York USA: W. W. Norton & Company.
Seel, N.M. (2012). History of the Sciences of Learning. In Seel, N.M. (Ed), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1433 – 1442). New York USA: Springer Science + Business Media.
Smagorinsky, P., & Mayer, R.E. (2014). Learning to Be Literate. In Sawyer, K. (Ed), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 605 – 625). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2019). The Learning Sciences Framework in Educational Leadership. Frontiers in Education, 4, 136. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00136.
Wang, M. (2011). Learning a Second Language. In Mayer, R.E., & Alexander, P.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 127 – 147). New York USA: Routledge.
Weinstein, Y., Sumeracki, M., & Caviglioli, O. (2019). Understanding How We Learn: A Visual Guide. Abingdon UK: Routledge.
Willis, J. (2008). How Your Child Learns Best: Brain-Friendly Strategies You Can Use to Ignite Your Child’s Learning and Increase School Success. Naperville, Illinois USA: Sourcebooks.
