Thomas J.
Bussey
a,
MaryKay
Orgill
*a and
Kent J.
Crippen
b
aUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Chemistry, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway, Box 4003, Las Vegas, NV 89154-4003, USA. E-mail: marykay.orgill@unlv.edu; Tel: +1 702-895-3580
bUniversity of Florida, School of Teaching and Learning, 2423 Norman Hall, PO Box 117048, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
First published on 11th December 2012
Instructors are constantly baffled by the fact that two students who are sitting in the same class, who have access to the same materials, can come to understand a particular chemistry concept differently. Variation theory offers a theoretical framework from which to explore possible variations in experience and the resulting differences in learning and understanding. According to variation theory, there are a limited number of features of a given phenomenon to which we can pay attention at any given time. Our experience of that phenomenon depends on the specific features to which we direct our attention. Two individuals who experience the same phenomenon may focus on different features and, thus, come to understand the phenomenon differently. The purpose of this article is to present variation theory as (1) a useful way for instructors to think about student learning and (2) a potentially powerful theoretical framework from which to conduct chemical education research.
While those two students are both physically present during the same event, their experiences—or, more accurately, their perceptions—of that event will be shaped by a huge number of factors. Any phenomenon will present an individual with innumerable features to which they could attend. One cannot possibly attend to all of them at the same time (van Merriënboer and Sweller, 2005); so the question then becomes, to which features does that person pay attention? The limited number of features to which one attends and the meaning one ascribes to those features will determine an individual's perception of a given event (Marton and Booth, 1997).
If we want people to experience a phenomenon in a particular way, then we need them to attend to certain critical features of that phenomenon. In the chemistry classroom, if we want our students to come to a shared understanding of a given chemical concept, we must then cue them to focus on certain critical features of that concept. Variation theory not only provides a useful way to explain the differences in students' understanding of a particular concept, but also a theoretical perspective from which qualitative educational research studies can be designed in order to identify the differences between what instructors intend for their students to learn about a particular concept and what their students actually learn about that concept.
Variation theory, sometimes referred to as “new phenomenography,” reflects a shift within the phenomenographic research tradition that occurred in the 1990s (Orgill, 2012). During that time period, phenomenography was criticized as being a purely descriptive and atheoretical framework. In other words, although phenomenography and its methods could be used to identify and describe the range of experiences a particular group of people had with a given phenomenon, it could not explain why that variation in experience existed. Variation theory can be seen as a more theoretical extension of phenomenography, in that it attempts to explain how people—particularly students—can experience the same phenomenon differently and how that knowledge can be used to improve classroom teaching and learning (Tan, 2009).
While there are many potential examples of variation in the teaching and learning of chemistry—some of which we will discuss later in this article—we will begin with a more commonplace example. As noted by Orgill (2012), in order to learn the concept of a ripe banana, one can focus on many features. One such critical feature associated with ripeness is the color of the banana (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 Stages of banana ripeness. |
In order to understand how the feature yellow relates to the concept of ripe banana, one must also experience under-ripe, green bananas as well as over-ripe, brown bananas. This experience of variation in the critical feature of banana color allows the individual to create meaning related to the concept of banana ripeness. It should be further noted, that the gradation of color, from green to yellow to brown, represents a specific continuum in variation within which future experiences will be judged. As such, a blue banana would have no meaning with regards to the concept of banana ripeness within this context.
Banana color is by no means the only critical feature related to banana ripeness. Taste, for example, would be another important feature for one to experience in order to develop a deeper understanding of the concept of banana ripeness. Similarly, one could experience variation in banana size; however, the feature of size is not necessarily related to the concept of banana ripeness. In this way, an individual must filter out some features from others in order to create a meaningful conception. Thus, the individual's perceptions of certain critical features based on experienced variation within and between features allows that individual to construct a mental model of a given concept that is unique to that individual. The overall aim of variation theory is to explain differences in learning and understanding based on the experience of variation in these critical features.
An individual's experience of a given phenomenon depends on the particular set of features to which they attend. In order to experience a phenomenon in a particular way, an individual discerns and assigns meaning to certain aspects of that phenomenon. “The aspects of the phenomenon and the relationships between them that are discerned and simultaneously present in the individual's focal awareness define the individual's way of experiencing the phenomenon” (Marton and Booth, 1997, p.101).
For example, as chemical educators, it is our goal to help our students construct a shared (and, hopefully, scientific) understanding of a given concept. To do so, we need them to experience a given learning environment and the material presented in that environment in a particular way, i.e., we need them to notice, recognize the importance of, and make meaning from certain critical features of the concept to be learned (referred to as the object of learning in variation theory). Noticing critical features of a given phenomenon, however, is not a simple process. Variation theory describes this noticing as being related to several key processes and concepts that underlie learning, including awareness, discernment, and simultaneity.
In experiencing a phenomenon, we are unable to be aware of all aspects of the phenomenon. Instead, we are only able to attend to certain aspects of the phenomenon. Marton and Booth (1997) note that “[i]f we consider an individual at any instant, he or she is aware of […] certain aspects of reality focally while other things have receded to the background” (p. 108). So which features do we notice and which fade into the background? Experiencing variation in a particular feature may serve to call attention to that feature, thereby allowing it to be noticed while other features may fade into the background.
The particular features brought into focal awareness form the basis of the subsequent construction of knowledge for that experience (Marton and Booth, 1997). “[Q]ualitatively different ways of experiencing something can be understood in terms of differences in the structure and organization of awareness at a particular moment” (Marton and Booth, 1997, p. 100). To readdress the opening question of this article, two students may be sitting in the same classroom at the same time and exposed to the same instructional materials and pedagogies; however, each individual student may attend to different features of the learning event and, thus, come away with a different experience and understanding of that phenomenon. The educational challenge lies in directing students to focus on those aspects deemed critical for experiencing the learning event in a particular manner and doing so in a way that does not excessively tax working memory; in the case of science education, this manner would be the scientifically accepted conception of a given topic.
Based on experienced variation and prior knowledge, several aspects of a given phenomenon may be discerned (Marton and Tsui, 2004). However, cognitive load limits our ability for simultaneous focal awareness. Thus, again, “the aspects of the phenomenon and the relationships between them that are discerned and simultaneously present in the individual's focal awareness define the individual's way of experiencing the phenomenon” (Marton and Booth, 1997, p. 101).
Variation theory allows us, as chemistry education researchers, to examine the learning event—and the object of learning—from three different perspectives by asking the following research questions: (1) according to instructors, what should students learn about a particular object of learning?, (2) what is possible for students to learn about a particular object of learning (based on what they experience during a learning event)?, and (3) what did students actually learn about a particular object of learning? Variation theory examines and triangulates the object of learning from these three different perspectives, each of which will be described below: the intended object of learning, the enacted object of learning, and the lived object of learning.
A learning event involves the interaction of two spheres of knowledge and experience, the teacher and the student (Fig. 2). The teacher facilitates learning and may represent a specific person in the case of a formalized classroom environment or more of an abstraction of expert thought and intention in the case of informal or non-formal learning environments. In all cases, the teacher enters the learning event with some intention for student learning. Similarly, the student represents any individual who enters the learning event in a position to experience and perceive an object of learning and develop a new or altered conception of that object. The overlap in these spheres represents not a shared experience of the learning event but rather the interaction between the teacher and student during that event. This constitutes a space within which learning can take place. This region of overlap is known, appropriately, in variation theory as the space of learning.
Fig. 2 The objects of learning within variation theory. Note: this representation of variation theory has been modified from the model proposed by Rundgren and Tibell (2009, p. 230). |
Knowledge of all three aspects of an object of learning can be particularly useful to instructors who wish to improve their instructional materials or practices (e.g., Marton and Tsui, 2004). Comparisons between the intended and lived objects of learning can be used to identify differences between what instructors hope students will learn and what students actually learn about a given concept. A comparison between the intended, enacted and lived objects of learning can illuminate why students are not learning what their instructor wanted them to learn about a given concept, since the enacted object of learning—and not the instructor's intentions—creates possibilities for learning. The results of a study informed by variation theory, taken as a whole, can ultimately be used by instructors to revise or design instructional materials and experiences that can be integrated or implemented into a new learning event (a new enacted object of learning) that will ideally lead to their students' developing a desired understanding of a particular object of learning (a new lived object of learning from that future learning event). Similarly, an examination of both the enacted and lived objects of learning may influence an instructor's intended object of learning for a future learning event. In Fig. 2, we have chosen to represent the fact that each object of learning potentially influences the other objects of learning in a future learning event as bidirectional arrows between those objects of learning.
While educators and educational researchers may deem certain features as critical for developing correct understanding about a given phenomenon, it is possible that those critical features will not be noticed by students or that students will notice some features that the instructors do not deem to be critical. Thus, students will come to a unique understanding of a learning event based on the features, critical or otherwise, to which they discern and hold in their focal awareness. If we, as educators, can get our students to attend to certain critical features of the object of learning, we can help our students construct a more directed understanding of a given object of learning. Variation theory suggests that students' awareness can be focused on these critical features when they are allowed to experience variation in those features.
“Typically, we select a few details to which we attend” (Gerow and Bordens, 2000, p. 119). The question then becomes, which details are salient? In order to discern a particular feature from the cacophony of background information, that feature must be presented as different or varied from the background. Thus “[a]ccording to variation theory, a phenomenon and/or its critical features are made visible in a teaching context through variation” (Orgill, 2012, p. 3392). Contrast, generalization, separation, and fusion have been defined by Marton and colleagues (e.g., Marton and Pang, 2006; Marton and Tsui, 2004) as four significant patterns of variation (Guo et al., 2012; Orgill, 2012).
Contrast allows the individual to compare an object of learning or a feature of that object with something it is not. This allows the individual to create meaning for an object or feature by defining it against things that are different from it. As a child, we learn the concept of dog not simply by recognizing dogs but also by noting that they are not cats, or hamsters, or any number of other childhood pets. Similarly, in a chemistry class, a student could develop a concept of an acid by noticing that when the acid is added to a solution containing phenolphthalein, the resulting solution is colorless while the solution that results when a base is added to the same phenolphthalein solution turns pink. The contrast between the color changes of the two solutions serves to call a student's attention to the fact that the acid and base solutions behave differently. Once the student notices the difference in the color of the two solutions, he or she could construct meaning for the concept of acid using both their prior knowledge and other information provided during the learning event. For example, students could add “acid solutions do not turn pink when phenolphthalein is added to them” to their concept of acid based on this described experience of contrast. Their understanding of why acid solutions do not turn pink when phenolphthalein is added to them may then develop during future learning events. It is worth noting that while the contrast between color changes does not ensure that a student will interpret the phenomenon in a scientifically accurate manner, it does serve to draw student's attention, creating the possibility that learning could occur. Ideally, then, the contrast in the behavior of the acid/phenolphthalein and base/phenolphthalein solutions will allow a student to develop their concept of acid as they learn that acids do not behave like bases.
Generalization allows the individual to compare similar instances of the object of learning. “To fully understand an object of learning, the learner must experience many other examples to generalize the meaning” (Guo et al., 2012). Generalizing provides learners experiences that allow them to distinguish between essential and irrelevant features. With regard to the concept of dog, a child might experience large dogs, small dogs, medium sized dogs, brown dogs, grey dogs, multicolored dogs, nice dogs, mean dogs, etc., all of which are generalized to form the child's concept of dog. In the chemistry class, a student might experience strong acids, weak acids, Arrhenius acids, Bronsted–Lowry acids, Lewis acids, etc. By experiencing the same object of learning or feature of an object of learning in multiple contexts, the student is able to develop a broad, robust, and transferable meaning for that concept.
Separation allows the individual to discern one feature of an object of learning from other features by varying only the feature of interest while holding all other features constant. This allows the individual to experience and construct meaning for a particular feature of the object of learning, critical or otherwise, independent of each other. Each part is separated from the whole. This pattern of variation may not easily lend itself to a real world example. However, an example of separation would be exposing a child to several dogs each of which are identical in all features except size. One dog would be small. Another dog would be larger, and so on. By keeping all other features constant, the child would be able to discern the feature of dog size and separate that feature from all other features of the concept of dog. The separation of variables lends itself much more easily to the more controlled environment of the classroom. When learning about pH, a teacher might ask students to solve several problems in which the student must solve for the pH of a solution when different volumes of a 1 M strong acid are added to an acetic acid buffer. All other features of the buffer problems would be the same. Thus, the student would be able to separate the influence of the volume of acid being added on the pH of a buffer system from all other variables in the buffer problems.
Lastly, fusion allows the individual to discern variation in several features of an object of learning simultaneously. The experience of multiply varied features facilitates the discernment of relationships between the features of an object of learning. Each part is fused together to create the whole. This is often the child's experience of the concept of dog. The size, smell, color, body shape, and demeanor of the dog are all perceived together and fused to create a unique conception of a dog. In the classroom, the pH of a buffer system might be observed when the volume, concentration, and type of acid added are all varied. All of the individual parts interact to form a specific whole. The students' ability to perceive each component and its specific contribution to the whole can foster a more coherent conception of the concept.
The type of data collected in a study informed by variation theory depends on the specific research question being asked. The intended object of learning “consists of the concepts and their features that the teacher […] aims to communicate” (Rundgren and Tibell, 2009, p. 229). As the intended object of learning is internalized within the teacher, a retelling of the teacher's perceptions of the object of learning offers insight into the intention behind the curricular and instructional design. The intended object of learning is unique to the individual and can only be expressed as “a second-order description, a description of the phenomenon as experienced” (Marton and Booth, 1997, p. 163). A second-order perspective means that the information received by the researcher is expressed by another party. Thus, teacher interviews and artefacts are used to assess the intended object of learning.
Similar to the intended object of learning, the lived object of learning is unique to the individual student and is expressed as a second-order description. Salient features and students' understanding of the learning event are accessed through students' retelling of the learning experience. This individual retelling of experience may come in the form of individual interviews, written artefacts, or group discussions (e.g., Rundgren and Tibell, 2009).
In contrast to both the intended and lived objects of learning, the enacted object of learning is expressed from a first-order perspective (Marton and Booth, 1997). “It is described by the researcher from the point of view of what is afforded to the learners” (Runesson, 2005, p. 70). Researcher observations of the enacted object of learning are often the primary (and sometimes only) source of data in variation theory literature (e.g., Runesson, 1999). The classroom usually defines the context within which the possibilities for student learning are enacted. This enactment of the object of learning is often captured as audio and video data (e.g., Ingerman et al., 2009). However, the classroom is not the only forum in which an object of learning could be enacted. For example, an ongoing research study is using variation theory to explore student learning from external representations, i.e., in that study, students' interactions with pictures and animations—and not a classroom learning event—are defined as the enacted object of learning (Bussey, 2013). However, in all venues, the enactment of the object of learning is assessed from the researcher perspective and focuses on identifying the variation of features of the object of learning presented to students.
“People live in a world which they—and not only the researchers—experience. They are affected by what affects them, and not by what affects the researchers. What this boils down to […] is taking the experiences of people seriously and exploring the physical, the social, and the cultural world they experience.” (Marton and Booth, 1997, p. 13).
The main assumption of phenomenographic theoretical frameworks, like variation theory, is that a person's conceptions and experiences of a given phenomenon are accessible through language (Svensson, 1997). Thus, variation theory looks to capture this experience through the re-telling of experience.
“…[T]he only route we have into the learner's own experience is that experience itself as expressed in words or acts. We have to ask learners what their experiences are like, watch what they do, observe what they learn and what makes them learn, analyse what learning is for them.” (Marton and Booth, 1997, p. 16).
In doing so, the underlying assumption is that an individual's retelling of an experience is synonymous with the original experience. This is not to say that the individual is expected to recall every detail of their experience. As noted previously, working memory has a limited capacity. Thus, no one is able to attend to all details and features of an event. Instead, variation theory assumes that the individual's retelling is analogous to their unique experience of the event. It is quite possible that, because an individual will pay attention to certain features of their experience and not to others, the individual's interpretation and retelling of an event will not be the same as what would be described by an outside observer. Thus, some would argue that the main assumption of phenomenographic theoretical frameworks—that conceptions and experiences are accessible through language—is not a valid one (Richardson, 1999; Saljo, 1997). To counter this argument, however, one could acknowledge that although an individual may not—and probably never could—recall all features of an experience that were salient to them at the time they experienced it, the features that remain salient over time are the ones that anchor and continue to structure their understanding of the event and, thus, are the most important, or critical features of that event to the individual that experienced it.
A further limitation of the ‘individual retelling’ methodology lies in the limitations of language. An experience and the words used to describe that experience are not synonymous. As language is socially constructed and individually understood, the audience may understand the vocabulary used by an individual differently from its intended meaning. Furthermore, an individual's ability to articulate their experienced and conceptualized understanding may be significantly different from their actual experience and understanding. Thus, what an individual experienced during an event, what the individual perceived and understood about the event, what the individual recalled about the event, and what the individual said about their recollection of the event might all be different. It should be noted that this critique is not meant to invalidate the personal narrative of an individual's perception of the world, but only to point out the possible discrepancies between the phenomenon, the perception of the phenomenon, and the articulation of the perception of the phenomenon for which the researcher should attempt to account.
Specific applications of variation theory to the study of chemistry learning are even more limited. As noted earlier, Park et al. (2009) have examined college students' conceptions of atomic structure. Using variation theory and learning progressions, they note that students were able to progress towards the target model of atomic structure by being aware of variations between their own conceptual models and the target model. A more recent study is using variation theory to explore the possibilities for student learning from external representations—pictures and animations—of biochemical concepts (Bussey, 2013).
Overall, in both science education and chemistry education research, variation theory is a potentially powerful, but underused, theoretical framework. Other theoretical frameworks—including conceptual profiles (e.g., Mortimer, 1998), cognitive resources (e.g., Hammer, 2004; Taber and Garcia Franco, 2010), and learning trajectories (e.g., Petri and Neidderer, 1998)—have attempted to answer the question we posed at the beginning of this article, i.e., how is it that two students experience the same leaning event differently? Each of these frameworks offers a unique perspective from which to answer this question. For example, Mortimer (1998) attempts to answer this question from a student perspective through an analysis of student discourse. We find variation theory to be a particularly valuable theoretical framework because it attempts to answer our initial question not just from one perspective but from three perspectives through an examination of the intended object of learning (the teacher perspective), enacted object of learning (the researcher's perspective of the potential for student learning created by the learning environment), and lived object of learning (the student perspective). With this article, we hope to inform the field of variation theory's potential and encourage its use in future chemistry education research studies. In using this framework, however, researchers need to be aware of some of its limitations.
Based on the extensive literature on expert/novice differences and the influence of prior knowledge on learning outcomes, we have chosen to acknowledge and integrate students' prior knowledge into a modified model of variation theory, as a key component in assessing students’ lived object of learning (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 The relationship between prior knowledge and the objects of learning within variation theory. Note: this representation of variation theory has been modified from the model proposed by Rundgren and Tibell (2009, p. 230). |
We argue that students' lived object of learning is informed not simply by the features of the enacted object of learning to which students attend but also by their prior knowledge of the concept and related features and concepts. In fact, the features to which students attend in the first place and the subsequent meaning they make may be influenced by their experience with similar objects and features in addition to the situational experience of variation in those objects or features. We also argue that the relationship between prior knowledge and the lived object of learning is unidirectional and temporally bound when seen from a variation theory perspective (see Fig. 3). In other words, a student's prior knowledge upon entering the space of learning will influence the lived object of learning; however, the lived object of learning cannot retroactively alter the base of knowledge the student had prior to the specific learning event under examination in a study informed by variation theory. In making this claim of the unidirectional relationship between prior knowledge and the lived object of learning, we also acknowledge that students' lived object of learning from the learning event under examination in a study informed by variation theory becomes part of the students' prior knowledge for a future learning event and a future study informed by variation theory.
We consider variation theory's failure to explicitly address the effect of students' prior knowledge on the lived object of learning to be a significant limitation of the original conception of variation theory. However, this limitation can be easily addressed by chemistry education researchers. We suggest adding a fourth research question to studies informed by variation theory: What do students know about the object of learning before the learning event takes place? This could be thought of as a pre-lived object of learning, while students' understanding of the object of learning after the learning event takes place could be considered to be a post-lived object of learning. We suggest that researchers assess this pre-lived object of learning through an interview that is implemented prior to the learning event, although such information may also be collected through a questionnaire or pre-test.
The influence of the act of assessing students' prior knowledge—a pre-test of sorts—must be addressed within the research design. By nature, a pre-test makes a student aware of the content they are expected to learn and, thus, potentially influences the learning event (McMillan and Schumacher, 2009). Some of this influence can be diminished by masking the target content in the assessment of prior knowledge by including additional questions or items that are not closely related to the specific concepts under examination (e.g., including questions about equilibrium when bonding is the target concept). Further, as a statement of good practice, we suggest using the same assessment prior to and following the enacted object of learning (i.e., pre-post). By using such a repeated measure, the researcher can assess any learning gains that occur as a result of the learning event while accounting for students' prior knowledge.
It is true that the act of assessing prior knowledge could potentially influence student learning. However, this limitation and threat to internal validity exists for all forms of pre-assessment and cannot be accounted for entirely or completely controlled. Instead, researchers must make note of this potential influence and give it due consideration when developing conclusions. Given that prior knowledge has a significant effect on how students construct new knowledge (Novak, 1990), we believe that the value gained through an understanding of students' knowledge prior to a learning event outweighs the potential limitations caused by an assessment of that prior knowledge.
Consider, for example, the situation where an instructor is assigned to teach a course that uses a context-based curriculum; these materials, organized by the context in which chemistry is applied (e.g., water quality, sustainable living), typically involve a collection of learner-centered activities that have been designed by someone other than the person who is implementing the materials (Pilot and Bulte, 2006; Vos et al., 2010). In this situation, a lecture topic approach to instruction potentially puts the instructor at odds with the instructional materials. Student learning would be influenced by the nature of the students and some combination of the approach of the instructor, the instructional materials design, and the interaction among all components. This potential for instructional materials to influence the different objects of learning should be addressed as an expansion of variation theory.
Since instructional materials—including both physical and virtual resources—are designed for the purpose of facilitating learning (Grossman and Thompson, 2004), they have a unique relationship with the enacted object of learning. These resources, as created by some combination of curriculum designers, textbook authors, instructors, etc., represent a consensus of all responsible parties and are designed with a specific philosophy and purpose. For example, in the case of a publisher's textbook, the team of individuals responsible for producing that volume have written the narrative, sequenced the content and exercises, constructed pictures and diagrams, and added additional learning supports that emanate from their design frameworks (e.g., worked examples, concept maps, glossary, etc.). The instructor may or may not have been part of this team and may or may not share in their philosophy or fully understand how to implement the materials that have been specifically designed to support learning. Thus, the enacted object of learning has the potential to be a hybrid of the instructor's intent and the unintended influence of the instructional materials design. This unintended effect is acting as a confounding variable by influencing the enacted object directly and subsequently affording or constraining the lived object of learning. Understanding the nature and magnitude of this unintended consequence for both the enacted and lived objects of learning represents a fruitful area of potential research, especially given the popularity and availability of digital resources and interactive, digital learning objects for chemical education (e.g., ChemEd Digital Library).
That there is a potential influence of instructional materials design on both the enacted object of learning and the lived object of learning seems clear; however, we also claim that instructional materials design can affect the intended object of learning. In other words, the instructional materials available to an instructor might change the instructor's intentions for a learning event. Take, for example, a general chemistry instructor who is preparing to teach a class about the kinetic molecular theory. One of her original intentions is to help her students develop an understanding of the random motion of gas molecules. During her preparations, the instructor might come across a simulation that will allow students to visualize that random motion. One feature of that simulation allows the teacher to show a graph depicting a Boltzmann distribution of the velocities of the gas molecules. Because of this affordance of the simulation, the teacher's goals expand to include the intention that students will understand that, in a sample of a gas, the molecules are moving at different speeds. In this case, the teacher's intentions, and what eventually happens in the classroom, are affected by the instructional materials design. It is worth noting that the relationship between instructional materials design and the intended object of learning is, for the most part, unidirectional. That is, while the instructional materials design may influence an instructor's intentions for a learning event, the instructor's intentions do not often have an influence on the instructional materials design—unless the instructor happens to be a part of an instructional design team.
Recognizing the potential influence of instructional materials design on all three objects of learning, we have chosen to include it as a feature in our modified model of variation theory (Fig. 4). Because the instructional materials are designed to facilitate learning and represent an abstraction of expert thought about a given object of learning, we place instructional materials design in the teacher sphere of variation theory.
Fig. 4 The relationship between instructional materials design and the objects of learning within variation theory. Note: this representation of variation theory has been modified from the model proposed by Rundgren and Tibell (2009, p. 230). |
As previously described, instructional materials design has potential effects on each of the objects of learning. The influence of instructional materials design on the intended object of learning is unidirectional. Because this influence is often an unacknowledged one (i.e., the instructor may not acknowledge or recognize that instructional materials design can affect their intentions for instruction), we have chosen to represent this relationship as a dashed arrow.
The influence of instructional materials design on the enacted object of learning, on the other hand, is direct and explicit. Moreover, the possibility exists that a design team operating independently from the instructor could garner feedback from the enacted object of learning that could then be used to modify the instructional materials for a future learning event. For this reason, we present the relationship between instructional materials design and the enacted object of learning as a bidirectional arrow.
The influence of instructional materials design on the lived object is indirect and mediated through the enacted object of learning. As such, the model does not show a direct link between instructional materials design and the lived object of learning.
This expansion of variation theory to include the influence of instructional materials design adds to its utility for chemical education research. When researchers recognize the influence of instructional materials design, unintended or otherwise, on both teaching and learning, they can examine each of the objects of learning from this new perspective by asking such additional research questions as: (1) what did the instructional designers intend for students to learn from their materials?; and (2) in what ways might the instructional materials design and the instructor's intent be interacting?; (3) what influence does the interaction between the instructional materials design and the instructor's intent have on the enacted object of learning?; and (4) what influence does the interaction between the instructional materials design and the instructor's intent have on the lived object of learning?
Using variation theory with the added perspective of the potential impact of instructional materials design on teaching and learning supports research questions that more fully recognize the elements of the learning environment that are influencing student learning. As researchers, we can deepen our understanding of how students learn chemistry and how to better design supportive learning environments by recognizing the instructional materials design as well as the intent and actions of the instructor as separate, but related, entities. In today's classes that are increasing dependent on digital technologies as mediating tools for the teaching and learning process, a model of variation theory that acknowledges the influence of instructional materials design is a particularly useful tool for chemical education research as well as for improving instructional practice.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013 |