Many people who have brief encounters with variation theory come away with the idea that it is about employing examples and non-examples when teaching. Examples are given to students to show what something is, and non-examples to show what something is not.
I often find this is the case when people are already familiar with the concept of examples and non-examples. They see similarity with something they already know and this interferes with them seeing anything new. According to variation theory, learning something new requires perceiving something new. In other words, learning comes from perceiving a difference that makes you draw a distinction.
This is a central tenet of variation theory: Learning occurs with perceiving difference first, and then similarity after. The difference between the concept of examples and non-examples and variation theory is that one is an activity, whereas the other is theory of learning and awareness.
As a pedagogical activity, the concept of examples and non-examples has little underpinning it to help teachers choose the most effective examples (what constitutes a non-example?) and doesn’t advise on the order of examples (should examples or non-examples come first?). It’s useful, but limited.
As a theory of learning, variation theory provides a way of seeing learning and interpreting what students are thinking. That’s because it isn’t a theory of how memories are stored or remembered. Nor is it a theory of how learning can be impeded, such as cognitive load theory. Instead, it's a theory of how concepts and ideas must be experienced by students so that they become aware of them.
To become aware of an aspect you must experience difference (change, or variation) in that aspect.
Imagine a very isolated settlement a thousand years ago. Maybe in the middle of Siberia, and they've been told that they speak Russian. But the people have never encountered—heard, or heard of—any other language. What is their concept of language? Language to them equates to the word Russian and no matter how many times they hear Russian (hearing similarity), they don't differentiate between language and Russian.
Yet one day, some nomads happen to explore new areas and meet the Russian-speaking people. They immediately perceive that they speak a different language, and the idea of language takes a new form and gains meaning: “Russian is a type of language”. To discern "language" as a concept and make it distinct from Russian, the aspect of language itself needed to vary.
There are two salient points here. Variation theory is about learning that changes a person's awareness of aspects of the world—rather than storage, it's about perception. Only when you perceive a difference (change, or variation) within a concept does it gain any meaning. The meaning is in the possible variety.
In our lives, we have these conversations all the time when we ask “hold on! What’s the difference between X and Y?”. It’s obvious that someone is talking about something in a way you don’t quite understand. They see something you don’t, and to see like them, you ask them to share the distinction they’ve made.
So what about similarity? Similarity is really important, and its what helps us generalise. The people in the example above could come to see similarities in speaking a language with other things, such as sign language (non-oral), or computer code. This adds more meaning to the understanding of “language” as a concept.
The key to understanding variation theory is that it states that you first perceive a difference to understand something new—to make meaning of a new concept. And then, you must perceive similarity to generalise that concept to other examples. In that order. Difference before similarity.
Often, I hear people talk of the concept of examples and non-examples as the showing of examples showing similarity first, then the showing of non-examples after. This goes contrary to variation theory. Because, if you show examples of similarity first they are likely to pay attention to surface features that change (show difference) from one example to another—learning via induction isn't easy or certain.
Another discrepancy, is that the concept of examples and non-examples treats difference as an antonym of similarity. Whereas in variation theory, the difference refers to varying a specific aspect, making it change, to make it discernible.
But variation theory doesn’t impose that every lesson must show difference first followed by examples of similarity. If we are confident our students are already aware of a concept, we may use analogy (similarity) as our first resource. Sometimes a lesson's objective is simply generalisation.
The idea that differences are what make the difference is much deeper than the development of variation theory. However, Ference Marton’s work in developing variation theory (over decades) was turning this idea into a theory of learning that is pedagogically effective.
In a nutshell, Marton realised that if “discerning” (“telling apart” or “distinguishing”) was key to perceiving difference, then logically, you would try to make the difference super obvious to students.
When perceiving new experiences, or new examples, there’s so much to be aware of. When I want students to see the deep difference between a living organism and a dead one, I could show examples of both in photos. But, different organisms, and different environments, represent so much noise that if I ask students what the difference is, they’ll point to all sorts of differences.
If I want them to perceive a particular difference, I should make everything else the same, except for the aspect I want them to perceive. For example, I can show a video of a cell, before and after it lyses (dies). The environment and composition of the cell are the same. The only difference between them is the organisation of the parts.
The key then, is to show examples that change only in the aspect you want students to perceive—keeping all other aspects the same (as best you can, of course). This important aspect is called the "critical aspect". And is something variation theory differentiates from the content of a lesson, such as the facts, vocabulary, and technical details.
It works from the simple to the complex—just like when teaching natural selection we contrast it with Lamarck's theory. We keep the organism, its traits, and environment the same, but contrast how each theory plays out with the same starting conditions. And, of course, this technique inherently reduces cognitive load.
Variation theory suggests that it's not a good idea to simply “teach it as it is” and then “define it”. Varying examples of the critical aspect are essential. As a theory of learning, it posits that perceiving difference and similarity is key to understanding—or making meaning—of anything. A student may be able to “remember” the definition given to them, but without understanding it.
For a teacher it isn't that hard either. Often it's simply asking “what if I change this one part and leave the rest the same, what difference does it make”.
Having a theory in mind—of what my students are likely to learn and be aware of—helps me teach. But it also helps me interpret what my students are learning. And this means that it enables me to be a much more adaptive teacher than if I didn’t understand the theory. Both my books are based on variation theory, check them out.
My books: Difference Maker | Biology Made Real, or my other posts.
Download the first chapters of each book for free here.
References
Marton, F. 2014. Necessary Conditions of Learning. London: Routledge.