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.
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 a pedagogical 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 also doesn’t lend itself easily to much more than the showing of examples. 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”, and “language is a means of oral communication”. To discern "language" as a concept, 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—their way of seeing the world. And variation theory assumes that concepts are hierarchically organised. Only when you perceive a difference (change, or variation) within a concept (or category) does that concept gain any meaning.
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 deal first with difference and then with 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 be aware of—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.
When planning a lesson, you have to think what the critical aspect is as well as the content. This is planning the object of learning. Another way of seeing the object of learning, is planning for what you want students to become aware of.
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.
The same trick is used for helping students generalise the concept—transfer it—to other examples. Now we want students to see how the critical aspect is always the same in these examples and to do that, we allow all the other aspects to change. Students are already aware of the concept, and now notice how it remains the same.
They see the deep structure despite the noise.
As such, 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. Without being aware of it.
In fact, I have heard people suggest that you need so many examples that it’s not efficient. However, once you see how variation theory works, you realise that you don’t need many examples at all. But, if it's just examples and non-examples, then you may end up needing a lot if there is too much noise, too many differences in too many aspects, and maybe few, if any, differences in the critical aspects.
In contrast to the activity of showing examples and non-examples, variation theory helps you act in every instance of a lesson. I can plan to show and discuss difference and similarities. And, during the lesson, when I perceive that students are struggling with an idea, I can offer them examples of difference and similarity.
Often this is simply asking “what if I change this one part and leave the rest the same, what difference does it make”. And from their responses, I can decide whether they need more discussion of difference or similarity.
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. There is much more to variation theory than this. So if you've enjoyed this and teach science—check out my book which discusses variation theory in detail and with lots of examples. Download chapter 1 here—English edition—edición española—or check out my other posts.
@CMooreAnderson (X)
References
Marton, F. 2014. Necessary Conditions of Learning. London: Routledge.