Proposal view
| Proposal Type: | Symposium |
|---|---|
| Domain: | Learning and Cognitive Science |
| SIG: | Phenomenography and Variation Theory |
| Type | Invited SIG Symposium |
| Title | From Phenomenography to Variation Theory |
| Abstract | The phenomenographic movement began by investigating students’ differences in learning and variation in people’s ways of experiencing. This led to the “new” phenomenography, whose aim was to characterise particular ways of experiencing with the use of the theory of variation. Recently, this theory has been extended todescribe and analyse classroom teaching, as well as to design learning environments which create specific patterns of variation in order to bring about learning. This symposium aims at documenting and deliberating the various developments of phenomenography and variation theory since its inception. A number of phenomenographers who come from different parts of the world and who have joined this research tradition at different points of time are invited to share their understandings of the theme. Contributions to the symposium include: Ference Marton, Göteborg University, Sweden & Ming Fai Pang, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, “Two faces of variation revisited”; Lennart Svensson, Lund University, Sweden, “A contextual understanding of educational phenomena”; Ulla Runesson, Göteborg University, Sweden, “The stepwise unlocking of meanings: Constitution of meaning of algebraic expressions seen from the point of view of variation”; and Gerlese Åkerlind, The Australian National University, Australia, “Using phenomenographic research and variation theory to design a postgraduate award course for university teachers”. We have invited Yrjö Engeström, University of Helsinki, Finland to be the discussant of this symposium to provide feedbacks and comments to the papers presented. |
| Equipment |
Overhead projector Internet access PC and projector Video |
| Keywords |
| Chair list | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | |
| Mona | Holmqvist | Kristianstad University | Sweden | mona.holmqvist@bet.hkr.se | |
| Organiser list | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | |
| Ming Fai | Pang | The University of Hong Kong | Hong Kong | pangmf@hkucc.hku.hk | |
| Mona | Holmqvist | Kristianstad University | Sweden | mona.holmqvist@bet.hkr.se | |
| Discussant list | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | |
| Yrjo | Engestrom | University of Helsinki | Finland | yrjo.engestrom@helsinki.fi | |
| Paper Details |
|---|
| Title | Two Faces of Variation Revisited |
|---|---|
| Abstract | Eight years ago we presented a paper arguing for the continuity between “Traditional Phenomenography” and what we labelled "The New Phenomenography"(Marton and Pang, 1999). The theme of the paper was further elaborated by Pang (2003). We argued that an interest in variation is the thread that runs through the phenomenographic movement. To understand how the “New Phenomenography” emerged, we must recognize the different senses of variation that have drawn attention at different times. Phenomenography set out to reveal the different ways in which people experience the same phenomena. This “first face of variation” refers to the variation in ways of seeing something, as experienced and described by the researchers. New phenomenography shifts the primary focus from methodological to theoretical questions, and characterizes a way of experiencing something in terms of the critical aspects of the phenomenon as discerned by the learners. However, learners can only discern a particular aspect when they experience variation in that aspect. This is the “second face of variation” which is experienced by the learners but described by the researchers. In our presentation we are going to develop this line of reasoning further by demonstrating the commensurability of our descriptions of the two kinds of variation mentioned. |
| Summary | Our attempts to build further on our original work ("the Traditional Phenomenography" have led to the early stages of developing a theory of learning ("the New Phenomenography") which offers an alternative perspective to those currently underpinning teaching and learning. As it is still being developed, the status of theory has yet to be attained: what is offered is better thought of as a framework, a way of thinking about learning within educational contexts. Its importance lies in directing the teacher’s attention to the specific object of learning - the actual content of what the student is expected to learn. The theory also suggests in general terms what is needed to make learning possible, and so is a pedagogical theory which has generally been referred to as variation theory, for reasons which will become clear. The work had its roots in the phenomenographic research which described the different ways in which students see and make sense of important concepts, principles, phenomena met in their studying (Marton & Booth, 1996). Typically, these investigations identified five or more distinct conceptions existing among the groups of students interviewed. But at that stage the research was essentially descriptive and did not provide direct help for teachers about the implications of these importantly different conceptions for teaching. The new theory helps to explain how we learn to make sense of the world around us in terms of different phenomena, aspects and categories. It describes how we learn to see the world in different ways and is complementary to both phenomenography and other theories of learning. Above all, it involves teachers in thinking critically about how they present topics and what they have to do to ensure that learning is made easier for the students. One of the problems with traditional ways of thinking about learning is that human memory has been viewed in too mechanistic a way, imagined as various “boxes” which can be accessed as required to transfer previously coded material from long-term memory into working memory. Our approach is to think in terms of awareness, and to recognize that our perception of past events, and so our memories are continuously being modified, by reflecting on those events in the light of new experiences. So our theory begins by exploring the nature of the awareness involved in coming to see a phenomenon or topic in an importantly new way, and leads to questions about what we need to do in order to learn how to handle new situations in more powerful ways. If we are to be able to handle a situation in a more powerful way, we must first see it in a powerful way, that is discern its critical features and then take those aspects into account by integrating them together into our thinking simultaneously, thus seeing them holistically. And to discern those critical features, we must have experienced a certain pattern of variation and invariance in the object of learning. A medical student, for example, has to listen to the hearts of many different patients before any sense can be made of the differences heard, while to say anything interesting about the taste of a certain wine, we must first have tasted many different wines. The practical meaning of the theory changes with the specific object of learning. The most fundamental thing about learning is that we learn different things. A pedagogical theory which is to be practically efficient must be sensitive to what is learned and this is exactly what variation theory provides. It focuses on the significance of experiencing the variations in an object of learning without which understanding is logically impossible. To learn about the meaning of democracy, for instance, students have to experience a certain pattern of variation and invariance. They must familiarize themselves with forms of government other than democracy, and also with different forms of democracy. To develop empathy, though, a quite different pattern of variation and invariance is necessary. They must have tried to see the same thing from different perspectives and different things from the same perspective, while to understand the idea of the mathematical proof, they must have seen two different proofs, at the very least. The aim of the our theory is to make theoretical tools available for analyzing the extent to which the necessary conditions for achieving specific aims for learning are present in certain situations. Then, these tools can also be used to create necessary conditions to achieve those aims. Discussions on learning and teaching in educational institutions are often about what general conditions are favourable, or not, for learning, but variation theory is different. When questions are raised about why students succeed or not, it is as a rule assumed that it is possible, in principle, for all students to learn what is being taught. But this rarely happens in practice. Nobody can learn to solve new problems if they have never encountered any problem for themselves, without a teacher being there to explain how it is supposed to be solved. Nor can anybody adjust their way of expressing themselves in written language to different situations if they have previously written for only one situation. If the teacher gives a proof of Pythagoras theorem on the board, and does only that, the students will find it impossible to understand the meaning of “To prove a mathematical proposition”, as then the idea of a mathematical proof cannot be distinguished from a single proof for a specific proposition. At least two proofs are needed to do that, and at least two different proofs are required if the same proposition is to evoke the idea that there might be different proofs for the same proposition. |
| Keywords | Phenomenography |
| Appendices | |
| Authors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | Presenting | |
| Ference | Marton | Goteborg University | Sweden | ference.marton@ped.gu.se | * | |
| Ming Fai | Pang | The University of Hong Kong | Hong Kong | pangmf@hkucc.hku.hk | ||
| Title | A Contextual Understanding of Educational Phenomena |
|---|---|
| Abstract | In this paper some general characteristics of a contextual understanding of educational phenomena are outlined. The outline is suggested against the background of previous phenomenographic research and a recent interdisciplinary phenomenographic project on university physics students’ use of language in expressing their understanding of cases of physical motion. The theoretical approach suggested is presented in contrast to some main characteristics of cognitive and socio-cultural theories often referred to in educational research but found to be limited in their focus mainly on cognitive and socio-cultural phenomena and not on educational phenomena. It is suggested that to understand educational phenomena one has to consider the immediate situational context and broader cognitive and socio-cultural contexts based on seeing the learner as an agent mediating the relation to and significance of the contexts. An agent perspective and an intentional expressive view on language use seems to be essential for a contextual understanding in education. |
| Summary | The most common interpretation of the expression ‘contextual understanding of educational phenomena’ would nowadays probably be that it means to see and understand educational phenomena in relation to their socio-cultural surroundings. Of course this is an important aspect of an contextual understanding, but it is too limited and superficial if the aim is to understand education rather than general socio-cultural relations. The understanding of educational phenomena concerns their character and qualities and these cannot be deduced from their relation to their general socio-cultural surrounding. The phenomena themselves, their parts and internal relations, have to be understood in a contextual way, as well as their internal relation to their surrounding. There is an immediate situational context as well as individual contexts to educational phenomena that have to be considered. In educational phenomena the learner has a central position in shaping his/ her education and mediating what is the context of his/her education. Therefore a focus on the learner as an agent is fundamental to a contextual view of educational phenomena. Educational and cognitive psychology focusing on the learner has had a strong position in educational research and practice, however without aiming at a contextual understanding. There is a strong need of a theoretical framework that integrates situational, individual, and socio-cultural contexts in a contextual understanding of educational phenomena. A contextual understanding is not a matter of adding those contexts but concerns their internal relations within their significance to the educational phenomena. Phenomenography with its focus on the character of the understanding of subject matter as a relation between the learner and his/her surrounding is well suited as a basis for such a theoretical development. The use of language is central to education, to the understanding and expressing of subject matter. An understanding of the use of language is helpful in understanding education in a contextual way, in relation to the three contexts mentioned above, the situation, the individual, and the socio-cultural surrounding. Based on previous phenomenographic research and considering the use of language, a contextual phenomengraphic educational theoretical frame-work is outlined in this paper. The assumptions or hypotheses included in this theoretical framework are discussed in relation to main characteristics of cognitive and socio-cultural theories. The discussion draws on a recent research on students’ use of language in expressing their understanding of subject matter. It is argued that the views of the use of language in cognitive and socio-cultural theories are generally too simplistic and especially in relation to educational phenomena. It should not be surprising that cognitive and socio-cultural theories are limited in shedding light on educational phenomena as those are not their main focus. Considering that those theories are widely used in understanding education it is important to clarify which those limitations are and what could be a more full-fledged educational theoretical framework. Here we think that a contextual phenomenographic theory that interrelates situational, cognitive and socio-cultural contexts in the discernment and clarifying of educational phenomena would be very helpful. In this paper some general characteristics of a contextual understanding of educational phenomena are outlined. The outline is suggested against the background of previous phenomenographic research and a recent interdisciplinary phenomenographic project on university physics students’ use of language in expressing their understanding of cases of physical motion. The theoretical approach suggested is presented in contrast to some main characteristics of cognitive and socio-cultural theories often referred to in educational research but found to be limited in their focus mainly on cognitive and socio-cultural phenomena and not on educational phenomena. It is suggested that to understand educational phenomena one has to consider the immediate situational context and broader cognitive and socio-cultural contexts based on seeing the learner as an agent mediating the relation to and significance of the contexts. An agent perspective and an intentional expressive view on language use seems to be essential for a contextual understanding in education. |
| Keywords | Phenomenography |
| Appendices | |
| Authors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | Presenting | |
| Lennart | Svensson | Lund University | Sweden | Lennart.Svensson@pedagog.lu.se | * | |
| Title | The stepwise unlocking of meanings: Constitution of meaning of algebraic expressions seen from the point of view of variation |
|---|---|
| Abstract | This paper describes learning on two levels – students’ learning and teachers’ learning – as a parallel process. A group of teachers worked collaboratively in a Learning study (Pang & Marton, 2005). The aim was to develop their teaching in a way that improved students’ learning. A Learning study involves teachers and researchers working co-operatively as partners in an iterative process, gathering data about teaching and pupils’ learning, analysing the data, planning and revising. It is demonstrated how the teachers successively developed their teaching in a way that unfolded the complexity of an algebraic expressions. This was a result of a successive opening of dimensions of variation in the interaction between the teachers in the learning study group as well in the interaction in the classroom. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate how meaning is constituted in a dynamic process of the opening of dimensions of variation. Pang, M. F., & Marton, F. (2005). Learning theory as teaching resource: Enhancing students’ understanding of economic concepts. Instructional Science, 33, 159-191. |
| Summary | The stepwise unlocking of meanings: Constitution of meaning of algebraic expressions seen from the point of view of variation Extended Summary This paper describes learning on two levels – students’ learning and teachers’ learning – as a parallel process. A group of teachers worked collaboratively in a Learning study (Pang & Marton, 2005). The aim was to develop their teaching in a way that improved students’ learning. A Learning study involves teachers and researchers working co-operatively as partners in an iterative process, gathering data about teaching and pupils’ learning, analysing the data, planning and revising. It is demonstrated how the teachers successively developed their teaching in a way that unfolded the complexity of an algebraic expressions. This was a result of a successive opening of dimensions of variation in the interaction between the teachers in the learning study group as well in the interaction in the classroom. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate how meaning is constituted in a dynamic process of the opening of dimensions of variation. In this paper I discuss how meaning is constituted in a dynamic process of opening of dimensions of variation. The discussion is based on the results of a Learning study (Pang & Marton, 2005) about algebraic expression in grade six (Kullberg & Runesson, 2006). A Learning study involves teachers and researchers working co-operatively as partners in an iterative process, gathering data about teaching and pupils’ learning, analysing the data, planning and revising the lessons in order to improve the teaching. It aims at enhancing students’ learning by identifying that which is critical for learning. The cyclic process of a learning study enables the group of teachers to learn from their teaching and from students’ learning. In the study reported here, variation theory was used both as a guiding principle for designing the learning situation and for analysing the data. The principles of variation theory (Marton & Tsui, 2004) say that it is necessary to notice or discern certain features of that which is learned and that which is varied is likely discerned. An aspect is more likely discerned if it is changed than if it remains invariant. If something varies and something else remains constant there is a possibility to notice that which is varied. Runesson (2006) demonstrated how meaning is constituted in the learning process on an individual level when the subject opens up dimensions of variation in a learning situation. In this paper it is described how the teachers in the Learning study group successively developed their understanding of algebraic expression and that which is critical for students’ learning by learning from their teaching their students’ and each other. This process was a result of a dynamic process of the opening of dimensions of variation. The results are based mainly on video recordings from three lessons, audio recordings from pre- and post sessions with the teachers and pre- and post test of the students’ performance. References Kullberg, A., & Runesson, U. (2006) Exploring teaching and learning of letters in algebra: A report from a Learning study. In Novotná, J., Moraová, H., Krátká, M. & Stehlíková, N. (Eds.) Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1, p.273. Prague: PM Marton, F., & Tsui, A. B. M. (Eds.). (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah: N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pang, M. F., & Marton, F. (2005). Learning theory as teaching resource: Enhancing students’ understanding of economic concepts. Instructional Science, 33, 159-19 Runesson, U. (2006). What is possible to learn? On variation as necessary conditions for learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, (50)4,397-41 |
| Keywords | Phenomenography |
| Appendices | |
| Authors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | Presenting | |
| Ulla | Runesson | Goteborg University | Sweden | ulla.runesson@ped.gu.se | * | |
| Title | Using phenomenographic research and Variation Theory to design a postgraduate award course for university teachers |
|---|---|
| Abstract | Traditionally, Phenomenography has been best known as an empirical research approach for investigating variation in conceptions of different educational phenomena -- including learning, teaching, and particular disciplinary concepts, such as price in economics and motion in physics. It is less well-known for its theoretical basis, in terms of its epistemological and ontological claims (Marton and Booth, 1997), and the Variation Theory of learning that has developed out of phenomenographic research and theory (Marton and Tsui, 2004). This paper discusses what ‘conception’ and ‘conceptual development’ mean from a phenomenographic perspective, and how phenomenographic epistemology and its associated Variation Theory of learning can be combined with empirical research on academics' conceptions of teaching to inform the design of a postgraduate award course for university teachers, aimed at encouraging conceptual development in participants' understanding of the nature of teaching and learning. The course design described is informed by phenomenographic research that highlights more and less sophisticated conceptions of university teaching and learning, and the key dimensions distinguishing these different conceptions (Dall’Alba, 1991; Martin & Balla, 1991; Martin and Ramsden, 1992; Åkerlind and Jenkins, 1998; Prosser & Trigwell, ch. 7, 1999; Wood, 2000; Åkerlind, 2003; 2004). Approaches to the conceptual development of course participants are then described in terms of Variation Theory's strategies of contrast, generalisation, separation and fusion (Marton et al, 2004). This paper illustrates the practical implications of Phenomenography and Variation Theory for curriculum design aimed at developing academics’ conceptual understanding of the nature of teaching and learning. Course assessment based on participants’ self-reflective analysis of their approach to teaching in a defined setting, undertaken at both the beginning and end of the course, provides data that indicates the success of the course design in encouraging the desired conceptual development. |
| Summary | Over the last decade, there has been an expanding number of phenomenographic studies of academics' conceptual understanding of the nature of university teaching and learning (Dall’Alba, 1991; Martin & Balla, 1991; Martin and Ramsden, 1992; Åkerlind and Jenkins, 1998; Prosser & Trigwell, ch. 7, 1999; Wood, 2000; Åkerlind, 2003; 2004). These studies consistently distinguish between a teacher-centered and a student-centred understanding or conception of teaching. With a teacher-centered understanding, academics' attention is focused on what the teacher is doing in any teaching-learning situation; what is happening for the students is taken-for-granted and not explicitly attended to. Conversely, with a student-centered understanding, academics' attention is focused on what the students are experiencing in any teaching-learning situation, and the potential impact of teachers’ actions upon student experience. A student-centred understanding of teaching is consistently regarded as more sophisticated than a teacher-centred understanding, and more likely to lead to better learning outcomes for students. This has led to an increasing number of researchers suggesting that an essential component to improving academic teaching is the development of academics' conceptual understanding of the nature of teaching and learning (Martin and Ramsden, 1992; Gibbs, 1995; Trigwell and Prosser, 1996; Prosser and Trigwell, 1997; Kember, 1997; Wood, 2000; Åkerlind 2003; 2004). Aims, theory and approach Phenomenography and Variation Theory provide a strong empirical and epistemological basis for designing course curricula to optimise students’ conceptual development. They are most effectively used to inform curriculum design when integrated in the following two stages:
Phenomenography argues that individuals understand the world differently because experience is always partial. At any one point in time and context, people discern and experience different aspects of any phenomenon to different degrees. Thus, different ways of understanding a phenomenon may be understood in terms of which aspects or dimensions of the phenomenon are discerned, and not discerned, in people's awareness of the phenomenon. Awareness of an aspect is indicated by the perception of the potential for variation in that aspect; lack of awareness is indicated by an implicit, taken-for-granted assumption of uniformity in that aspect of the phenomenon (Martin and Booth, 1997). At the same time, each way of understanding may be seen as part of a larger whole, the collective sum of ways of understanding the phenomenon. It is assumed that these different conceptions of a phenomenon would typically be structurally related, in a part-whole relationship, through shared discernment of some of the same aspects of the phenomenon. Thus, during phenomenographic data analysis, the different ways of experiencing that emerge are not constituted independently, but in relation to each other. These different ways of experiencing may commonly be ordered in terms of inclusivity of awareness, where more inclusive ways also represent more complex ways of experiencing the phenomenon, indicated by an increasing breadth of awareness of different dimensions of the phenomenon. Thus, from a phenomenographic perspective, conceptions of teaching may be categorised according to the awareness shown of key dimensions of the phenomenon of teaching, where awareness of a dimension is indicated by the perception of the potential for variation in that dimension. For example, a student-centered understanding of teaching is marked by awareness of the potential for variation in different students' responses to the same teaching situation, including different interpretations of the same spoken words or written text. In contrast, a teacher-centered understanding of teaching implicitly assumes a uniform response on the part of students, except in aberrant circumstances. Failures in student learning are attributed to lack of ability, lack of motivation, lack of attention, etc., with no awareness of the potential for variation in what students learn as being a normal consequence of the learning process itself. Phenomenographically, conceptual development is seen as requiring the expansion of individuals' awareness of a phenomenon, to include discernment of aspects of the phenomenon not currently discerned. This has led to the Variation Theory of learning, based on the argument that attempts to facilitate conceptual development should focus on optimising opportunities for individuals to experience variation in key dimensions of the phenomenon under study (Marton and Tsui, 2004). This process can be facilitated by curriculum design that explicitly introduces variation in the phenomenon into the teaching of the phenomenon, keeping some aspects of the phenomenon constant while varying others. As described above, previous phenomenographic investigations have highlighted that the most critical aspect of variation in academics' understanding of university teachings lies in the distinction between teacher-centered and student-centred ways of understanding teaching. This has clarified that a key dimension or feature of teaching that may or may not be discerned by teachers is the potential for variation in student experience of ostensibly the same teaching and learning situation. In the course design described in this paper, I use Variation Theory's strategies of contrast and generalisation, combined with separation and fusion, (Marton et al, 2004) as complementary approaches to encourage expanding awareness of the nature of teaching and learning, with a particular focus on providing opportunities for course participants to notice the potential for variation in student response to ostensibly the same teaching methods and content. Outcomes At both the beginning and end of the course, participants are asked to select a particular situation in which they teach, and to describe their goals for teaching and learning in that situation, how these goals are enacted in practice and why they do things that way. A comparison of these first and final descriptions for each participant indicates the success of the course design in achieving the desired conceptual development. |
| Keywords | Phenomenography |
| Appendices | |
| Authors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | Presenting | |
| Gerlese | Akerlind | The Australian National University | Australia | gerlese.akerlind@anu.edu.au | * | |
