What you want and what you may need may not seem to be the same thing (but I feel compelled to answer because you mentioned "learning sciences" -- and I am trying to help). Here's my answers for foundations and UNITS: "Getting there" will involve a good admixture of the known (e.g. some of the basic properties of the various Memories -- based on the best well-established BEHAVIORAL science) _AND_ important, clearly unknown, foundational behaviors (simultaneously: innate/overt-behavioral/environmental-aspect(s) behavioral change events, several, progressively emerging during ontogeny) -- which MUST BECOME KNOWN and, once known, will provide a true foundation (INCLUDING THE UNITS OF ANALYSIS) for needed refinement of outlook and methodology and for clear findings and for discovery. Until then, we are really "screwed" (as they say) because we really do NOT have a good understanding of the ways/types of (qualitatively different) learnings, or really of any "learning" at all. (The most basic types of learning need to be properly contextualized.) (AND: Even the classical and operant 'types' may not be clear types, and perhaps not only because they are not appropriately contextualized: I long ago read a great writer/thinker/behavioral scientist who showed how operant learning instances can be seen as "classical" and "classical" learning instances (events) as operant; perhaps this is an issue of proper contextualization, but maybe (at least at times), a matter of conceptualization. [ I read this good well-founded essay several decades ago and thus cannot provide a citation -- but this is some fun, important "stuff". ])

Psychology may be just now able to start anew and correctly with new technologies (e.g. eye-tracking and computer-assisted analysis) -- finding an empirical foundation; in a sense a good science of psychology may have not yet begun (and, as indicated, I believe this is likely). Outside of my many, many explications in Questions and Answers, here on researchgate, see as the core my "A Human Ethogram ... "

( Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...

Even if it "sounds crazy", at least as briefly or superficially described, it is my learned point of view: something I am willing to identify myself by even at the end of (or after) my career.

Good luck otherwise, not so much on finding, but on finding even conceivably useful "comprehensive theoretical overview[s] from the field and/or systematic literature reviews" on the topics (you cited) "from methodological perspective[s] " . Delusions can be believed (as we know), but it is not advisable.

Hi,

I am focused on one topic - on unit of analysis.

Thank you for the response.

Dear Maka Eradze

... And, I am basically telling you: THERE ISN'T ONE (there isn't A well-defined "unit of analysis"). Thus, I was on-topic, though you may not have liked my answer. [ I was also trying to indicate, constructively and realistically, how we "get there". ]

You will no doubt get other answers, but they will likely not be better than what you could quickly find on the Internet. The fact you are still seeking may be a good sign -- but don't get your hopes up on anything "we" have at present. We have a LOT of real and hard work to do; it is doable (and this is the only hope).

Thank you for your interest and time for answering but you have misunderstood and misinterpreted what I said.

I know there isn't one and I am not searching for the one and only. I am searching for a methodological discussion (call it philosophical) on the issue contextualised in educational research and learning sciences. I am not looking for THE unit of analysis, especially without context.

Dear Maka Eradze

I thank you for your most recent response, and I understand. Good. BUT, I also give a way to HAVE THE CONTEXT and see the emerging bases of new sorts of learnings. In a big way, this is introduced in "A Human Ethogram ...", but for a short version (and showing that I may have a unique view here), see my Answer under: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Will_intelligent_robots_have_imagination_and_if_so_what_kinds_of_thing_will_they_imagine_and_why

@Maka: The question is indeed not easy to answer. One source that may come close to what you were asking is an edited volume from a group of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) scholars. But I would still hesitate to call it comprehensive because the field(s) is fast-evolving. Another source that might be helpful is NAPLES webinars focusing on methodologies in Learning Sciences: http://isls-naples.psy.lmu.de/intro/4-methodologies/index.html

Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Teplovs, C., & Law, N. (Eds.). (2013). Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions. Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3

Yes, not easy indeed :)

Thank you for the response.

I have Suthers's reference and there is Stahl's interesting overview http://gerrystahl.net/pub/clhandbook.pdf

Also very good piece from Matusov from socio-cultural approach

Matusov, E. (2007). In search ofthe appropriate'unit of analysis for sociocultural research. Culture & Psychology, 13(3), 307-333.

Dear Maka Eradze

I would very much caution against "the/a" socio-cultural approach. I/we may not know the "unit of learning", but in a most-basic sense, we DO know the "unit of analysis" (this is the biological, organism unit; behavior, like the functioning of any other organ, IS BIOLOGICAL and must follow biological principles -- things are "incorporated" at the level of the individual). I hope this is what Matusov came up with in his "search" (something -- or some things -- OF the individual). (IN my experience you can ONLY gain, as you always remain able to relate things clearly "back to this level".)

@Maka: That G Stahl paper is very informative. It reminds me of one of his editorial that you may want to check out.

Stahl, G. (2013). Learning across Levels. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 1–12.

the assessment cycles by purpose from Heritage might be an interesting perspective to consider for this inquiry: https://www.cde.ca.gov/Ci/rl/cf/documents/elaeldfwchapter8.pdf

and if time becomes interesting to you then there are some looking into spaced learning:

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/projects-and-evaluation/projects/spaced-learning

I think it really depends on what you are going after

The below paper discusses how the unit of analysis within different sub-disciplines is related to why we see potentially conflicting results. It also tries to resolve this issue by proposing a framework at a specific unit of analysis that they call a knowledge component.

Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5), 757–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245.x

Carrie Demmans Epp Brilliant. Thank you so much!

Maka, I recommend the following book - it talks about many units of analysis (including countries, systems, times, cultures etc) from methodological perspective.

Editors: Bray, Mark, Adamson, Bob, Mason, Mark (Eds.)

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781402061899