Dear Ken:
You said:
"In essence, a progressive research program in design
1) builds a body
of generalized knowledge, 2) improves problem solving
capacity, 3)
generalizes knowledge into new areas, 4) identifies
value creation
and cost effects, 5) explains differences in design
strategies and
their risks or benefits, 6) generates learning on the
individual
level, 7) generates collective learning, and 8)
generates
meta-learning.

There are striking parallels between the features of a
progressive
research program and the features of a situated
learning cycle
embedded in the context of design practice."

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.

You also said:
"It is clear that many aspects of design learning are
much the same as
other kinds of learning. It also seems that there is
value in
designating some forms of activity as design
learning."

I believe that all learning is the same, it just
occurs in different contexts to serve different
purposes and has different histories for those
involved. When one thinks of designing architecture or
designing fashion it is the domain of application that
circumscribes learning not modes of learning. There is
of course the emphasis on artifactual creation and the
limitations imposed by that intent. i.e. design is
most often about creating useful artifacts or
environments, but I like to think it is how poetry,
music or even a sentence is created.

and you said
"The concept of design learning involves teleological
issues along
with epistemological and ontological issues."

So it seems does every other kind of learning if you
accept thought as purposeful, informed by prior
experience, and disciplined through linguistic means.

Best regards,

Chuck

Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]