Dear Chuck,
Thanks for your response.
Your wrote,
"I hope both you and Tore will forgive me if I also reinterpret a
progressive research/learning model: Design learning to me, involves
learning to initiate, guide and manage intention; learning to access
and develop relevant information; learning to develop and analyze
conjectural models; learning to interactively resolve and communicate
responses to situations; learning to act on proposed responses
efficiently; learning to assess success in terms of intention; and
learning to acquire and adapt knowledge for future use. (For me,
design learning is related to the seven modes of thought that are the
basis of my theory of design thinking. Design learning is role
related and modal even as it is holistic, autobiographical, cultural
and concerned with learning about learning).
"There is a correlated teaching/learning model. Briefly summarized:
Scaffolding (Learning through Coaching); Researching (Learning by
Defining); Exploring (Learning through relating); Communicating
(Learning through expressive interaction); Producing (Learning by
Doing); Assessing (Incidental learning and valuing), and Storytelling
(Case based learning). (I highly recommend Engines for Education by
Schank and Cleary for their articulation of similar 'teaching
architectures'.) I can provide a more detailed account of design
related teaching architectures if anyone is interested."
I tend to agree with your model and I share your views on these issues.
To write that a progressive research program has striking parallels
to design learning is not to say that they are the same. The
parallels involve some cognate elements, along with suggestive
similarities and distinct differences.
In response to your model, I have reorganized the eight elements into
three classes:
A progressive research program in design
Creates generalize knowledge for the field by
1) building a body of generalized knowledge,
2) generalizing knowledge into new areas,
Improves professional practice by
3) improving problem solving capacity,
4) identifying value creation and cost effects,
5) explains differences in design strategies and their risks or benefits,
Circulates and develops knowledge by
6) generating learning on the individual level,
7) generating collective learning, and
8) generating meta-learning.
Two of the eight elements of a progressive research program in design
differ from a teaching and learning model. A progressive research
program requires generalization. This is usually not the case in
teaching and learning. Teaching and learning require application.
This is usually not the case in basic or general research, though it
is usually the case in clinical research. Since applied research
involves developing applications for classes of cases, application is
implied in applied research even though an applied research program
may not directly apply its own findings.
Another distinction between a progressive research model and an
embedded model of teaching and learning is the issue of
meta-learning. Meta-learning involves shaping a wider range of
learning options for the field as whole, often - but not always -
including learning about how to learn.
While some teaching and learning generates knowledge for the field,
teaching and learning is not required to do so. Most teaching and
learning takes place in the clinical or local context. Many studio
activities in education and in professional practice involve
significant teaching and learning without reaching beyond the local
context to generate meta-learning.
I can see a number of further distinctions, as well as some potential
overlapping areas in clinical research. Perhaps I will post a few
later.
Best regards,
Ken
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management
Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University
|