We are especially interested in proposals that develop emerging areas of research and conceptual/methodological innovations that will shape the future of the field and increase its impact on practice and policy.  For example, we welcome proposals that address topics including – and not limited to – teacher learning and design; learning and development as part of social activism; changing notions of expertise in transforming technological and relational contexts; analyses of learning at the intersection of race, equity, and technology development; methodological innovations foregrounding the ethical, political, cognitive, and socio-emotional dimensions of learning across the lifespan, possibly linking to new approaches to data analytics; and synergy-building across disciplinary perspectives and frameworks to understand key dimensions of learning.

 We encourage proposals that include and reflect international concerns and perspectives. Towards this end, proposal submissions may include names of suggested authors as well as their institutional affiliations and/or brief description of their geographic areas of expertise.

 Susan Jurow and Jianwei Zhang

Incoming Co-Editors in Chief

2021-2024

• Are you a PhD or Postdoc?
• Are you interested in Learning Sciences?
• Are you up for meeting peers and experts in the field?

1. Gutierrez, K. D. & Jurow, A. S. (2016). Social Design Experiments: Toward equity by design. 49 citations and 3268 views. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204548
2. Akkerman, S., & Bruining, T. (2016). Multilevel boundary crossing in a professional development school partnerships. 42 citations and 3656 views. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1147448
3. Sannino, A. et al. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. 38 citations and 3542 views. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204547 

Congratulations to all the authors!

The biggest change is the introduction of structured abstracts for regular and special issue articles (not Reports and Reflections). From now the structured abstract should be less than 200 words and have the following elements: Background, Methods, Findings, and Contribution. We hope that structured abstracts will help bring out the significance of the paper. "Background" can help to link the article to previous work in the field of the learning sciences and beyond it. "Contribution" goes beyond a conclusion based on empirical findings to what the article adds to the literature (i.e., why would future research refer to the findings? What are the implications).

For Reports and Reflection submissions we do not require a structured abstracts because these vary a lot in approach and are usually not empirical; the same for introductions to, and discussions of, special issues.

The second big change is that along with the abstract the article history is published: that is, the date the first version was received, and the date the final version was accepted by the editor. The editorial team will strive to keep the time to acceptance as short as possible, but authors also have na important role to play. Decision letters already ask for revised manuscripts to be submitted within the following timeline: 3 months for revise and resubmit decisions; 2 months for major revision; and 1 month for minor revision.

The first article using this new format has already been published. Example

As noted by the editorial team at JLS, there are always some reviewers who go above and beyond the expected commitment. Sometimes that is in the form of putting in extra effort to mentor a junior scholar with support and explanation to scaffold the process of authoring a journal manuscript. Sometimes it takes the form of providing reviews that are not only thorough but also timely. Sometimes a reviewer who has already completed multiple reviews for the journal will agree to do just one more review, despite the press of many other commitments. These acts of generosity and collegial dedication are generally invisible to all but the members of the editorial team. There is a solid core of such reviewers for JLS, and each year some new ones emerge.

This year we would like to recognize two members of the community whose reviewing stands out as exceptionally productive and generous. Criteria for election are: (1) completing multiple reviews for the journal that are (2) thorough and (3) timely; that (4) provide mentorship to authors; and (5) reflect core values and practices of the field.

We are very pleased to recognize as this year’s JLS Reviewers of the Year:

Edna Tan, PhD

School of Education

UNC Greensboro

Carrie Allen, PhD

College of Education

University of North Texas

Congratulations!

In general, we are interested in proposals on emerging themes in the field. For example, proposals that take up the call for research that has impact on teaching and policymaking that was elaborated in a guest editorial in issue 27 (1); on the intersection of the learning sciences and the future of work; on novel methodological and technological approaches to teaching and learning; on artificial intelligence and learning, and so on. This list is not meant to limit the range of possibilities, but to provide some examples of possible themes. We are interested in receiving proposals that reflect the global membership of the ISLS community. This may include multiple suggested authors, a guest editor, or a discussant from outside of the United States.

Jan Van Aalst and Susan Yoon
Co-editors in Chief

Join the online conversation with the Cambridge Educational Dialogue Team Christine Howe, Sara Hennessy, Neil Mercer, and panelists - Christa Asterhan, and Antonia Larrain on Nov 13. #JLSWebinar #dialogicteaching #educationaldialogue

Register at https://bit.ly/2qmUIp6
Read at the paper at https://bit.ly/2oWUuF5 

IN THIS ISSUE: In Rosemary Russ and Leema Berland use activity theory to demonstrate how the pervasive tension between learning correct ideas and constructing one’s own ideas often results in unacknowledged slippage between competing activity systems within reform efforts. Marc Clarà investigates how discursively symmetric dialogue develops across lessons in collective inquiry. Doris Chin et al. test choice-based assessments (CBAs), which measure how people learn when there is minimal guidance and they must make decisions as independent learners, in the context of teaching design-thinking strategies to 6th-graders. Christina Barbieri et al. examine the effectiveness of self-explanation prompts, visual signalling cues, and a combination of the two features on middle school students’ algebra learning.

We are excited to announce that for 2018 the editorial team has selected Angela Calabrese Barton and Anna Sfard for the recognition.