Journal of Research in Childhood Education

ISSN: 0256-8543 (Print) 2150-2641 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20

Learning Study Guided by Variation Theory:

Exemplified by Children Learning to Halve and
Double Whole Numbers

Mona Holmqvist Olander & Eva Nyberg

To cite this article: Mona Holmqvist Olander & Eva Nyberg (2014) Learning Study
Guided by Variation Theory: Exemplified by Children Learning to Halve and Double
Whole Numbers, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28:2, 238-260, DOI:
10.1080/02568543.2014.884030

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2014.884030

Published online: 26 Mar 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1121

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrc20
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28: 238–260, 2014
Copyright © Association for Childhood Education International
ISSN: 0256-8543 print / 2150-2641 online
DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2014.884030

Learning Study Guided by Variation Theory: Exemplified

by Children Learning to Halve and Double Whole Numbers

Mona Holmqvist Olander

University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, and Kristianstad University,
Kristianstad, Sweden

Eva Nyberg
University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

This study aims to describe how the learning study model can be used to improve lesson design
and children’s learning outcomes by enabling them to perceive and define the critical aspects of the
object of learning, guided by variation theory. Three lesson designs were used with three groups
of children (A = 24, B = 13, C = 14) from two schools. The results of the first design were ana-
lyzed before the second lesson was designed and conducted in a new group, and the results of the
second were analyzed before the third was designed. The patterns of variation were based on simul-
taneous discernment of a base amount and half or double that amount. This was made to prevent
the children from understanding doubling as just copying the original amount without including the
original amount in the total sum, giving the double of 4 is 4 instead of 8. The use of varied original
amounts made the children separate the concepts double and half from the amount, to conceive them
as relative, rather than constant, values. The results show increased learning outcomes in all groups;
however, differences between pre- and posttest were significant only for Group B (p = .015).
Keywords: variation theory, learning study, fractions, double and half, primary school mathematics

This article describes part of a school district’s professional development project using a learning
study as a model to help teachers facilitate children’s mathematics learning (Figure 1). A learning
study (Holmqvist, 2011; Lo & Marton, 2012) is a kind of combination of lesson study (Yoshida,
1999) and design experiment (Holmqvist, Gustavsson, & Wernberg, 2007; Kelly, 2003; Kelly
& Lesh, 2000). Learning study is based on a theory of learning used to design the assessments
of the children’s learning outcome and the intervention. In this study, variation theory is used
(Marton & Booth, 1997) as the theoretical framework. Stigler and Hiebert (1999) described how
teachers in Japan during the last decades used lesson study as professional development. They
claim this might have had an impact on the Japanese high scores in international assessments,

Submitted September 7, 2012; accepted May 7, 2013.

Address correspondence to Mona Holmqvist Olander, University of Gothenburg, IDPP, Box 300, SE-405 30
Gothenburg, Sweden. E-mail: mona.holmqvist@gu.se
 LEARNING STUDY MODEL 239

FIGURE 1 The learning study cycle.

such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMMS) and Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA).
Lesson and learning study use iterative processes, where teachers work in groups often guided
by researchers, to systematically uncover what is needed to help children gain new knowledge.
The analysis of the first intervention is the base line for the development of the next, and so
on. By assessing what the children understood before the intervention, and comparing it with
what they understand after it, the intervention’s significance for the gain is analyzed. The main
difference between lesson study and learning study is that the latter is focused on the content and
its use of learning theory, whereas lesson study also can be focused on methods or other parts
of the lesson not concerning the content and does not need a theoretical framework as a guiding
principle.
This study has as its aim to describe how learning study can be used to develop pre- and
primary school teachers’ knowledge of how children gain mathematical knowledge and in what
way teachers can facilitate this development. The model has been adjusted to young children’s
learning and is also used in preschool settings (Ljung-Djärf & Holmqvist Olander, 2013). The
model has been found to develop teachers’ learning of how to teach students (Holmqvist, 2011)
in a way that students’ knowledge is sustained beyond the lesson itself (Holmqvist et al., 2007).
Several other studies (Marton & Tsui, 2004) have described the teachers’ ways to handle the
content and relate it to the students’ previous knowledge. The results on the learning outcomes,
for the teachers and students, in a learning study are in line with the development of what Hattie
(2012) calls “expert teachers”:
[They] do not differ in the amount of knowledge that they have about curriculum matters or knowl-
edge about teaching strategies-but expert teachers do differ in how they organize and use this content
knowledge. Experts possess knowledge that is more integrated, in that they combine the introduction
of new subject knowledge with students’ prior knowledge; they can relate current lesson content to
other subjects in the curriculum; and they make lessons uniquely their own by changing, combining,
and adding to the lessons according to their students’ needs and their own teaching goals. (p. 25)

In a learning study, the content organization is guided by the variation theory, which means
the teacher searches for aspects not yet discerned by the child that help the child develop new
knowledge. One such example is when small children are supposed to discern geometrical shapes
of wooden blocks but sort them in relation to color instead of shape; the aspect of color as a
distractor could be excluded by giving them blocks of only one color. By separating aspects
that are not important to develop learning from those that are, the teacher becomes more skilled
in assessing and instructing the children’s learning in the classroom. Hattie (2012) wrote that
240 HOLMQVIST OLANDER AND NYBERG

teachers can maximize the impact of their teaching through discussing, planning, analyzing, and
assessing the impact of a series of lessons on student and teacher learning. This is exactly the
way learning study as a model works, by having groups of teachers discuss, analyze, and plan
research lessons to understand and develop children’s learning. He also claims,

The lesson does not end when the bell goes! It ends when teachers interpret the evidence of their
impact on students during the lesson(s) relative to their intended learning intentions and initial criteria
for success—that is, when teachers review learning through the eyes of their student. What was the
impact, with whom, about what, and how efficiently? Often, answering these questions requires help
from others observing and thus providing extra “eyes” into student learning, video analyses to provide
extra “eyes,” and various forms of informal and formal assessment to provide extra “eyes.” (p. 145)

In a learning study, the focus on the object of learning is at three levels: the intended (what
the teachers plan), the enacted (what can be observed in the classroom), and the lived (what the
children learned). To handle the content in a way that challenges the child’s knowledge and then
systematically assess this development puts focus on the mediation of another person in an orga-
nized learning situation who can construct the zone of proximal developmental (Vygotsky, 1978).
Kinard and Kozulin (2008) postulated that powerful mathematical thinking develops through
systematic learning and extrapolation of general structures. In their point of view, the aim for
the teacher is to develop the students’ capacity for systemizing and organizing the content, not
merely to observe and describe such development. The students’ previous knowledge, or lack of
knowledge, must be taken into consideration (Kinard & Kozulin, 2008), as well as the teacher’s
expectations of which aspects will be difficult to teach.
Hattie (2012) stressed the importance of teachers’ collaborative planning for the development
of powerful instruction. Kinard and Kozulin (2008) and Hattie (2012) emphasized assessing the
students’ understanding before and after the lesson. In terms of actor perspective in the transfer
of knowledge, the students’ personal views, which can be found through the iterative processes
of a design experiment, are vital to improving the learning situation (Lobato, 2002). Those ideas
are embedded in a learning study model, and the use of learning study has shown that what
Hattie called “expert teachers” (professional development), and what Kinard and Kozulin named
“guided teaching” (how to challenge the students’ knowledge) can be developed in this model, as
well as the transfer of the gained knowledge (Lobato, 2002), which in this model is called gener-
ative learning (Holmqvist et al., 2007) and refers to learning about the object of learning beyond
the lesson itself. Lee (2008) has also found that several important strategies for professional
development are embedded in the lesson study model:

The lesson study process integrated a number of effective professional development strategies,
including development of subject knowledge and pedagogical skills, ongoing collaboration, peer
observation, group conferencing, self-reflection and heightened awareness of learners’ needs and
difficulties. Teachers had to think carefully about the object of learning, critical features, questions,
activities and approaches to be used in research lessons during a series of meetings. Teachers obtained
feedback on their own teaching and new ideas from watching how their colleagues taught the same
topic through research lessons. This was likely to lead to demand for improvement. (p. 1118)

As Hattie (2012) remarked, the lesson does not end when the bell goes. Kinard and Kozulin
(2008) discussed the transfer of a wanted ability, in the sense of allowing students to use the
 LEARNING STUDY MODEL 241

new knowledge in new situations, as a kind of learning outcome. To develop this transfer, it is
necessary to start with the central, abstract aspects of the subject content and create a model of
those aspects that should be systematically investigated. Instead of starting with concrete aspects
and generalizing them for transfer, it is preferable to start with the abstract, general model and
then discover the important aspects through observation of the concrete (Davydov, 1972/1990).
This view is opposite to that held by Piaget (Piaget, Inhelder, & Szeminska, 1948/1981), who
stated that the child constructs knowledge from the concrete to the abstract level. The idea of
ascending from the abstract to the concrete has been further developed by Engeström and Sannino
(2010):

Davydov developed a theory of learning activity based on the dialectical method of ascending from
the abstract to the concrete. This is a method of grasping the essence of an object by tracing and
reproducing theoretically the logic of its development, of its historical formation through the emer-
gence and resolution of its inner contradictions. A new theoretical idea or concept is initially produced
in the form of an abstract, simple explanatory relationship, a “germ cell.” This initial abstraction is
step-by-step enriched and transformed into a concrete system of multiple, constantly developing man-
ifestations. In learning activity, the initial simple idea is transformed into a complex object, into a new
form of practice. (p. 5)

This article describes one of six learning studies (A–F), conducted at the same time in the
teacher professional development project. Each learning study was conducted with a separate
group of teachers, focusing on different objects of learning, and carried out in the teacher devel-
opment project in one school district in Sweden. The study described here (E) is conducted by
four teachers, their students, and two researchers. The students were in the 1st grade (age 6 to
7 years) and the object of learning was doubling/halving. The aim of this study is to describe
how the learning study model can be used to improve lesson design and children’s learning out-
comes by helping them perceive and define the critical aspects of the object of learning, guided
by variation theory. The research question is: How do children express their understanding of
halving and doubling, and what is necessary to develop their knowledge and increase their test
scores? The question is answered in three different ways: (1) how the children’s learning out-
comes improved during the learning study, (2) how the teachers’ design of the instruction may
have affected students’ increased learning outcomes, and (3) how the results can contribute to
mathematical education by sharing new knowledge on the definition and use of crucial aspects of
the object of learning in instructional situations.
In a learning study, the teachers, not the researchers, define an object of learning that has
been found to be difficult to teach (Marton & Tsui, 2004). Learning study is a sort of action
research (Holmqvist et al., 2007) in that the research problem is raised from practice. In this
study, the teachers had found it difficult to make the children understand what half and double are
in relation to the base amount. As a pilot study, one teacher interviewed three children about half
and double and the interviews confirmed the teaching experience. One experience the teachers
had was that the children usually failed to separate the concepts of half and double from the
base amount. Besides this, the most common mistakes concerned understanding the terms double
and half as constant values to be added to (or subtracted from) any amount and understanding
double to mean the addend instead of the doubled sum. In the first case, a child who learns that
four is doubled by adding four understands that to double any amount it is necessary to add
four (4 + 4 = [double 4], therefore x + 4 = [double x]). This means double of 5 becomes 9
242 HOLMQVIST OLANDER AND NYBERG

(5 + 4). In the second case, the child understands the term double in the sense of what could
be called a “twin” (3 + 3, 4 + 4, 5 + 5, etc.), and so when asked to give the double of any
amount responds with that same amount as the origin instead of the total amount. Another type
of error occurs when the child understands the instruction to “take that amount one more time” or
“take that amount twice” to mean “add 1 to that amount” (4 + 1 = 5 = [double 4]) or “add 2 to
that amount” (4 + 2 = 6 = [double 4]. In this study, the iterative process (Pretest A, Lesson A,
Posttest A, Analysis A, Pretest B, Lesson B, Posttest B, Analysis B, Pretest C, Lesson C, Posttest
C, and Analysis C) of the learning study model allowed us to conduct a microanalysis of how the
content was handled and what implications this had for the children’s learning. Our main focus
is on the relationship between what the children experienced and what they needed to experience
to develop their knowledge of the learning object.

CHILDREN’S UNDERSTANDING OF HALVING AND DOUBLING

Halving and doubling seem to be very simple concepts, but they are obviously difficult for young
children and cover several different topics, such as numbers, geometry, fractions, and so on. In this
study, the focus in on whole numbers, but this short literature review includes studies related to
halving and doubling even if they are not focusing on whole numbers explicitly. According to
Spinillo and Cruz (2004), “Half serves as an anchor for reasoning, helping children to success-
fully perform the addition of fractions, which is something that would not occur in regards to the
other references made available during the solution process” (p. 218). Piaget et al. (1948/1981)
found that doubling was more difficult for children than halving. They found that children could
easily halve a cake and could cut a line into two identical lengths but could not double the length
of the line. This may be because the process of doubling is more intuitive than that of halving,
as the child sees the object that is going to be cut in two pieces but that is not necessarily the
case when doubling. Doubling requires using the imagination, not only for an invisible part, but
also concerning its size as equal to the base. On the contrary, one study (Holmqvist, Tullgren,
& Brante, 2012) found that three small children (age 4, 5, and 6 years) could not imagine the
halves of a whole cake before it was cut; after seeing the cake cut into two halves, they remained
confused about how many halves would be in a whole apple. It seems to be as hard to imagine the
halves in a whole piece as the resulting new piece if you double. More than that, their knowledge
of half, learned in the context of the cake, was not transferred to other representations (Holmqvist
et al., 2012). Or, in other terms, their concept of half referred to the targeted representation and
was not generalized to the definition “one of two equal parts that together constitutes a whole,”
nor was it transferable to other objects. Another finding in that study was that children seemed
to understand “half” to mean cut or broken, rather than one of two identical parts; as soon as the
whole was cut into two halves, the children saw each half as a new whole. Seeing the difference
between whole and half, the foundation of learning to deal with fractions, requires the ability to
understand several different conditions at the same time. Mix, Levine, and Huttenlocher (1999)
noted, “Fraction problems would require . . . rotation, separation, and recombination of various
amounts” (p. 173). Without a clear concept of half, other fractions, such as quarter, which require
reference to the invisible whole, are virtually incomprehensible. Brizuela (2005) found that “chil-
dren in the sample tended to call all fractions ‘halves,’ regardless of whether they were halves,
thirds, quarters, or fifths” (p. 285).
 LEARNING STUDY MODEL 243

Yet another study (Johansson, 2008) on 6-year-olds learning “double” found four children’s
previous knowledge included four different methods of “doubling”: “repeated addition,” “as
many as,” “1 more,” and “more than 2 more.” In Johansson’s (2008) study, the children were
each given three caramels and asked to give double (6) to their sibling from the candy box.
Before the intervention, four out of 14 children gave the correct answer; after the intervention,
all but one child gave the correct answer. These results do not show what exactly was crucial to
developing the children’s improved learning outcomes, but it seems that the different represen-
tations (caramels, dice, fairy tales, lines, sticks, pens, etc.) used in the intervention enabled the
children to separate the concept of “double” from the representation itself, resulting in transfer
of the concept. In the terms of Kinard and Kozulin (2008), this could be seen as an example of
first offering the children a more general or abstract model, and then anchoring the concept with
concrete representations. To focus on the meaning of the concepts halving and doubling, we have
chosen to use whole numbers as representations for this study.

VARIATION THEORY

This study is based on a variation theory (Holmqvist, 2011; Holmqvist et al., 2007; Holmqvist
et al., 2008; Kullberg, 2010; Marton & Booth, 1997; Marton & Tsui, 2004; Runesson, 1999),
which is grounded in phenomenography, the study of how individuals experience a defined
phenomenon (Marton, Dahlgren, Svensson, & Säljö, 1977). The focus is on the experience of
the phenomenon (second order perspective) rather than the phenomenon itself (first-order per-
spective). The qualitatively different ways people see the same phenomenon have contributed to
hypotheses about how people learn, which gradually developed into a theory of learning (Marton
& Booth, 1997). Variation theory is based on three intertwined and interdependent concepts: dis-
cernment, simultaneity, and variation. All phenomena consist of aspects discerned in a specific
way depending upon the specific variation observed. For example, a number can be experienced
in three different ways: cardinal, ordinal, or nominal. This means a child who discerns a number
has to decide if it refers to the order of something, how many it is, or just a name to identify some-
thing. If the child has only encountered numbers as ordinal numbers, the aspect “how many” in
relation to a number is critical for their future learning, as they have not yet discerned that aspect.
To do so, they have to be offered variation regarding the different meanings the same number can
have, both showing that the number 3 could mean an amount (3) and in which order something
is placed (third). Such contrasts are used to design patterns that can be used in the intervention
to help the students distinguish general features in the representations to make generalizations
about the phenomenon. By discerning these essential aspects, the child learns to generalize the
aspects that define what 3 is and can henceforth recognize two different ways to understand the
number 3. From a theoretical point of view, the distinction between the number 3 as a cardinal or
an ordinal figure relies on variation of aspects simultaneously discerned by the child.
Variation theory offers a framework, consisting of parts or aspects to be discerned in an orga-
nized way, reminiscent of Feuerstein’s theory (Kinard & Kozulin, 2008), in which transfer is
embedded in the abstract model, but concrete examples enable learners to extrapolate their new
knowledge to beyond the instructional situation in a process of generative learning. Findings in
generative learning (Holmqvist et al., 2007) and research on variation theory point in the same
direction. The opportunity to discern a certain pattern of aspects of a whole content, instead
244 HOLMQVIST OLANDER AND NYBERG

of separate aspects unframed by a more general concept, results in generative learning and in
learning outcomes sustained for longer periods than other types of lesson plan (Holmqvist, 2011).

LEARNING STUDY

Learning study is a kind of action research (Holmqvist et al., 2007) aimed at changing students’
knowledge rather than observing and describing it. Learning study has its roots in lesson study
(Lewis, Perry, & Friedkin, 2009; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999), which was developed in Japan dur-
ing the late 19th century and in cooperation with universities since the 1960s (Usui, 2011).
The Japanese model is based on an implicit, culturally shared knowledge of learning, and the
Japanese language offers several terms for different learning and teaching activities that do not
have direct parallels in Western languages. Translation can blunt the finer distinctions necessary
to the understanding of classroom learning embedded in the model, making transference of the
model to another culture problematic. Even the translation of kenkyu jugyo to “lesson study” is
a simplification, as the term means not only the lesson that is studied, but also learning itself, as
well as other aspects of the learning situation. The Japanese concept of learning, as a process of
distinguishing difference, contrasts with the Western focus on similarity. In Western classrooms,
students are taught one method to solve a certain kind of problem and given several problems
of that type to solve using the one method. In Japan, however, students are given one problem
and encouraged to solve it using various different methods, each emphasizing a different part of
the problem. This accords well with Kinard and Kozulin (2008) by giving the students a general
model from which they learn to distinguish different parts and how they integrate with each other.
To compensate for the different cultural understandings of learning, lesson study used in a
Western culture can be integrated with a learning theory in what is then called learning study. In a
learning study guided by variation theory, the teachers’ development relies upon their learning a
theoretical framework as an “injection” (Elliott, 2009), which they can use in every subsequent
learning situation after the learning study has been completed. In this study, the learning study
was designed in the following steps:

1. Defining a learning object

2. Assessing all students’ previous knowledge through interviews
3. Design of pre- and posttests
4. Design of the first lesson
5. Implementation of the first Lesson A in the first group of students (A) (the students are
pre-tested, the intervention is videotaped, and the students are given a posttest)
6. The group analyzes the results of the tests in light of the videotaped lesson
7. The lesson is further developed to better meet the students’ needs and the second Lesson
(B) implemented in the second group of students (B)
8. The results of the two first lessons are analyzed and a third design is made for the third
research Lesson (C) in the third group of students (C)
9. The whole cycle is analyzed to find which pattern of variation seemed to have the strongest
impact on the students’ learning.

During all steps, the process is a collaborative one between the teachers and the researchers.
 LEARNING STUDY MODEL 245

METHOD AND MATERIAL

Design

Three different lesson designs (A, B, and C) were each taught to a unique set of children. The
result of the first lesson (A) was analyzed and taken into consideration in the design of the second
(B) lesson, which was implemented in the second sets of students. The result of the second lesson
similarly informed the design of the third lesson (C), which was implemented in the third set of
students. The lessons were designed to answer the research question, “How do children express
their understanding of halving and doubling, and what is necessary to develop their knowledge
and increase their test scores?” The variations in the three research lessons (A, B, and C) were
intended to show which variations were needed to raise scores in the posttests.

The Participants

The participating primary teachers (n = 4) were all women with considerable teaching experience
who worked at two different schools in the area. Each teacher participated in a group introductory
lecture, four team planning and analysis meetings, and a final group meeting. Three taught one
lesson cycle each (pretest, research lesson, and posttest) during the learning study; one, who was
responsible for the development of mathematics instruction in that school district, contributed to
construction of the test, the design of the research lessons, and the data analyses.
The participating children (n = 51) were all between age 6 and 7 years (Table 1). The children
in all three groups were from the same school district in one municipality, of the same age, and
from the same socioeconomic conditions. In the Swedish school system, all children are mixed, or
not streamed, up to Grade 10. All ordinary classes in Sweden include all children of the same age
with mixed abilities and from the same area, divided into groups with between 15 and 25 children
in each; thus, all the groups of children are randomized and there are no significant differences
between them. The children are not graded before the sixth year at school. The children in this
study were in Grade 1, which means they were age 6 or 7 years (depending on whether they had
a birthday before or after the study, during the test year of 2011).
All participants, including parents, teachers, management, and children, were continuously
informed about the aims of the study, the use of the data, and their rights to confidentiality and
to withdraw from participation. The parents also had to sign an agreement letting their children
participate in the study and the researchers to use the data. Learning halving and doubling is part
of the core content in the Swedish curricula at this grade, which makes the object of learning
important for the teachers’ professional development as well as for the children’s learning:

TABLE 1
Participating Children

Cycle A Cycle B Cycle C

(n = 24) (n = 13) (n = 14)

Girls 9 7 8
Boys 15 6 6
246 HOLMQVIST OLANDER AND NYBERG

Relationships and changes

• Different proportional relationships, including doubling and halving.
(National Agency for Education, 2011, p. 61)

The study followed the ethical considerations described by the Swedish Research Council
(Swedish Research Council, 2010).

The Learning Study Process

Before the learning study was implemented, meetings were held with the rectors of the partic-
ipating schools and their dean. All teachers first attended a lecture in August 2011, in which
one of the researchers (Holmqvist Olander) presented variation theory, learning study, and what
was expected of participating teachers. The teachers also received a book on learning study
(Holmqvist et al., 2007) and used the Internet to define the object of learning and design a
screening test on this object, in cooperation with the project leader (Holmqvist Olander). The
learning-study team consisted of four teachers, two researchers, and 51 students from three differ-
ent classes. Six teams took part, but this article focuses on one team only. The first team meetings
took place in October 2011 to design the pre- and posttests and to discuss the initial interviews
with children. Each team met separately 4 times before coming together again as a group. The
purpose of each of the five meetings was to (1) discuss the students’ previous understanding,
design the tests, and design the first lesson; (2) analyze the results of the first research lesson and
design the second; (3) analyze the results of the second lesson and design the third; (4) analyze
the results of the third lesson; and (5) present the results of the delayed posttests and in-depth
analysis of the research lessons. At the final meeting (5) in December 2011, all six groups in the
entire project (teachers and researchers) presented their studies and the researchers presented a
deeper analysis. The empirical material consists of verbatim transcriptions of three videotaped
interventions and 153 individual test forms completed immediately before and after the teaching
activity and 4 weeks later (3 × 51). This material was complemented with field notes taken on all
occasions. During the analyses, the transcripts and test results were scrutinized through a num-
ber of readings and rereadings in which the original video recordings were frequently consulted.
Each intervention lasted between 25 and 30 minutes.

Identifying Critical Aspects

An initial screening test was designed to discover what critical aspects of the chosen object of
learning children could be expected to discern. The screening, designed as an individual practical
test with cubes as manipulatives, was conducted by two of the teachers. In total, three children
were asked by one of the teachers to answer the question: “If I doubled 4, what would I get?”
Two common incorrect answers were 4 (the same as) and 5 (1 more). Analysis showed two
major conceptual difficulties for the children. First, some children interpret double to mean “the
same as” rather than “twice as many,” and so fail to distinguish between the amount to be added
(identical to the base amount) and the new doubled amount. Second, some seem to confuse the
number 1 with the concept of “one more (of the base quantity),” and so continue to add 1 to
any quantity they are asked to double. Piaget et al. (1948/1981) postulated that these difficulties
originate in children’s undeveloped ability for abstract thinking: they cannot imagine the new
 LEARNING STUDY MODEL 247

amount (if I double 4, what would I get?) because it is invisible. Even if they did have access to
manipulatives, such as cubes or blocks, when they solve the problem, the children in this study
seemed to find it difficult to answer such a question.

Constructing the Test

One written test was constructed for use as a pre-, post-, and delayed posttest completed by each
child before and after the research lesson. Background information was date of birth and date of
test and all children were coded. The children were informed that the results would be used only
to help the teachers understand how students learn. Individual test scores were never presented
to the students but used solely for the teachers’ formative assessment, guiding them to further
develop their teaching.
The test (Table 2) was constructed in collaboration with the teachers. Some items were drawn
from the Swedish National Agency for Education (2010) but adapted according to the theory of
variation (Marton & Booth, 1997). In the tests from the Swedish National Agency for Education,
the items were focused on either halving or doubling; according to the pattern of contrast, we
chose to focus on halving and doubling simultaneously.

TABLE 2
Pre-, Post-, and Delayed Posttest

1a. Color twice as many cats. (two pictures with two cats of four colored in the first and four
uncolored in the second)
1b. Color half as many cats. (two pictures with two cats of four colored in the first and four
uncolored in the second)
2a. What is double as much as 4?_________
2b. What is half as much as 4?_________
3a. Color double the shaded part.

3b. Color half the shaded part.

4a. I have 10 Swedish Crowns. You have double that much. Paint or write how much you have.
4b. I have 10 Swedish Crowns. You have half as much. Paint or write how much you have.
5a. Paint apples and bananas.
Paint double as many bananas as apples.
5b. Paint apples and bananas.
Paint half as many bananas as apples.
248 HOLMQVIST OLANDER AND NYBERG

The pretest was given just before the research lesson and the posttest just after it. The test situa-
tions were videotaped to ensure that all students, no matter what research lesson they participated
in, were given the same instructions.

RESULTS

During the research lessons, different patterns of variation were used to make the contrast of
critical aspects of the object of learning, halving and doubling, discernible to the children.
Representation, base amount, and mode varied between the interventions in the patterns sum-
marized in Table 3. In the first lesson (A), the manipulatives used to represent the numbers
changed (blocks and cubes) and the original amounts varied. This was done to make the children
separate the general idea of halving and doubling from the representations and the numbers. But
the children were not asked to discern halving and doubling simultaneously. Instead, the teacher
separated them and handled them one by one. This was changed in the second lesson (B), as the
children were asked to discern halving and doubling the same original amount simultaneously.
Due to a lack in communication, the pattern of variation used in the third lesson (C) included no
variation of original amount in the teacher-led discussion, and the simultaneity regarding halving
and doubling was used by the teacher in the teacher-led discussion but not when the children
worked with their group activities.
The teachers varied the same representations in lessons A and B, and different representations
in Lesson C. In Lessons B and C, variations of representations used by the teacher in one were
also used by the students in the other. The base amount varied in all lessons, meaning the children
were offered different sums, such as 4, 8, or 10, during discussion of half and double, to allow
them to generalize by separating the concept of double from any one amount. However, because
the representations were essentially indivisible, the amounts used were always even. Finally, three
different modes were used (half, base, and double), and whether and how the modes varied simul-
taneously was noted. In Lesson A, there was no simultaneous variation between all three modes,
because the variation concerned only half or double. In Lesson B, simultaneous variation was
used between half and double, and the teacher focused strongly on summarizing the meaning of
the concepts between every exercise in the classroom. In Lesson C, the intended object of learn-
ing included simultaneous variation in all three modes, but the enacted object of learning in the

TABLE 3
Patterns of Variation (v) and Invariation (i) Used by the Teacher
(in parentheses = used by the children in group activities)

Modes
Original Amount (iv = half or double one by one;
Representation (doubling/halving v = half and double at
(different manipulatives used) different numbers) the same time)

Cycle A v v iv
Cycle B v (i) v v
Cycle C i (v) v v (i)
 LEARNING STUDY MODEL 249

classroom did not offer this kind of variation when the children started to work with their tasks.
The intention was to test the difference between keeping the representation invariant or varying
the representation while keeping the rest of the variables constant to explore this difference in
pattern, but the plan was not conducted in that way during the classroom teaching.
The lessons are described on three levels: intended, enacted, and lived object of learning
(Marton & Tsui, 2004). The intended object of learning is the teacher’s plan based on consul-
tation with the researchers. The enacted object of learning is what is offered in the classroom,
shaped by the teacher and the students together. The researcher observes the enacted object of
learning and discusses the analysis together with the teachers in the meeting after each lesson
(post-lesson conference). Finally, the lived object of learning is what the students actually learn
of the intended object of learning, and the posttest is used to assess any change in awareness.

The Intended Object of Learning Lesson A

At the first meeting, it was decided that the meaning of the concepts of double and half should
not be introduced by a one-way explanation from the teacher at the beginning of the lesson.
Instead, the lesson would begin with examples of items being halved and doubled, including
larger numbers than in the test. The teacher would present six objects identical to those avail-
able to the students, and the students, working in small groups, would be asked to show half as
many as 6 and twice as many as 6. This design would allow simultaneous variation. The students
would not see the base amount in front of them when they halved or doubled it, to prevent them
from imagining double to be the same as the base amount; they would have to separate the base
amount from the new. The teacher would then ask each group how many they decided on for
half and how many for double, and why. With particular attention would be paid to the reasoning
of groups that obtained a wrong answer. The exercise would be repeated using different objects
(representations), again all identical, and the base number would be 8. Finally, objects such as
interlocking toy bricks in joined units of two could be used to demonstrate that odd amounts also
can be halved, by allowing the separation of one unit into two bricks, each representing a half
unit. The lesson would end with the children working in pairs or groups of three, playing a game
in which one child shows a certain number of objects and asks the others to show either double or
half that number. Finally, the teacher would summarize the lesson by talking about the concepts
of half and double.

The Enacted Object of Learning Lesson A

The lesson started with the first teacher of the learning study group showing the students how to
double 6. At the beginning of the lesson, some children think that to double means to add 2.
Excerpt 1 (T = teacher, S = student):

T: How did you find the answer 8?

S: Because double is two.

T: Is it two more?

S: Yes.
250 HOLMQVIST OLANDER AND NYBERG

The teacher then tries to contrast this point of view (double means +2) with another, but unfor-
tunately this leads to a second misconception by the children. In this notion (Excerpt 2), double
could be misunderstood as “the same as the base amount,” which was shown by the results in the
posttests. This makes the question, “If I have 6 flowers and my friend has twice as many as I do,
how many does she have?” difficult to solve. If the base amount is not separated from the doubled
amount, the result will be 6 instead of 12.
Excerpt 2:

T: I told you to make twice as many as six. Well, I put my six pieces here [puts 6 blocks on the OH].
So I’ve made six once. To make twice as many as six, I should add 6 more, 6 pieces [puts the blocks
on the OH into a pattern of two blocks by three, then covers them with her hand], and now I will add
six more [moves her hand covering the blocks to the right of them to make them visible again and
then puts 6 blocks next to the original 6 resulting in two groups of blocks].

The students came up with other solutions, as well. In the screening, some children explained
double as +1, understanding that taking the amount “once again” to mean adding one (1) more;
but in this lesson, the students also suggested +2 instead (twice becomes 2), as in excerpt 3.
The teacher tries to respond to this interpretation to make the children develop their understand-
ing, which shows how the teacher uses the information from the planning and the results of the
screening when teaching the children:
Excerpt 3:

T: I’ve added six twice, but I cannot add just two [takes 2 from the right pile of 6 blocks and moves
them to the original 6, resulting in a new group of 8 blocks] because then it will not be double [moving
the blocks back again] and we leave that example.

Then the teacher leaves the examples of double and turns to half instead, which means the
children did not discern halving and doubling at the same time, focusing on the same original
amount both when halving and doubling.
Excerpt 4:

T: Now I’ll turn on the projector and show you. I’ll take as many as I put in the first place. Then I
told you that I had six blocks. And you should help each other to put half as many . . . . After I have
listened to you all talk about dividing in half [parts the pile with her hand, putting three blocks on
either side of her hand], now I have divided my six blocks down the middle. There are three in one
pile, and three in the other. To have half as many, you should have just one pile . . . three is half as
many as six.

The teacher turned off the overhead projector showing the base amount when the children
worked in the group task. This decreased simultaneity, as the students could not discern the base
amount while they were trying to define double or half. This error seemed due to a misunder-
standing in the planning meetings, found when analyzing the videotaped and verbatim transcribed
postlesson meeting, when the teacher expressed that she had understood from the discussion that
the students should not have the base amount in front of them at their own desks if the base
amount was to be hidden on the overhead. The next step was to offer simultaneity by changing
the base amount to 8, and first doubling and then halving it, with simultaneous variation. Finally,
the children were introduced to a paired activity, in which two teachers acted as models for the
 LEARNING STUDY MODEL 251

students. In the task, the first partner was to take any number of blocks, and the second was to
choose whether to take half that amount or double. In the example, however, the blocks ran out
when the first teacher chose 10 blocks and the second chose to take double that amount, resulting
in the second taking blocks from the first teacher’s pile of 10. This strategy was then copied by
the children, contributing to their confusion as they forgot the base amount when trying to double
it. The lesson ended with an explanation of what double and half mean, but the explanation might
only have strengthened their previous understandings of double as repeated addition and half as
cut in the middle.
Excerpt 5:

T: Now, as our Maths lesson is coming to an end, and you’ve learned that twice or double is when
you take one number and then take the same number once more. And half, as you have learned, is to
share it so you get half each.

The Lived Object of Learning A

At the postlesson conference (the second meeting), the teacher of research Lesson A reported
the enthusiasm of one student for taking the posttest: “It was twice as much fun taking the test a
second time, because then I understood.” The results showed an increase in the total score from
39% to 47% correct answers (Table 4). The score decreased only on Task 3a, in which students
were asked to paint half of two boxes stacked vertically. The children had used the phrase “cut
into two pieces” during the lesson, which may have made it difficult to them when solving the
task, as the splitting in half was vertical in class and not horizontal as in their test example.
Three students’ scores were lower by 2, 3, or 4, points, whereas the others were either higher
or the same. The concept of half seemed to be more difficult in general than double. The task
of painting the cats proved to be difficult, as the children seemed to prefer to enumerate the cats
rather than to paint twice as many in the new figure.

TABLE 4
Mean and Percentage Correct Answers Group A

Percentage Correct
Research Lesson A Mean SD Answers

Pretest 3.92 3.335 39%

Posttest 4.71 3.593 47%
+1.2 +12

The Intended Object of Learning B

The design was similar to research Lesson A, but with some minor changes. First, simultaneity
was to be introduced in the first example, in which the teacher shows six articles on the overhead
and the students are asked, in groups, to produce half and twice that number of articles. Although
the children would not see the base amount in front of them when they halved their base 6 or
252 HOLMQVIST OLANDER AND NYBERG

doubled it by combining it with another student’s, the base amount would be shown continuously
on the overhead. The teacher would then ask how many each group had for half and for double,
and why they chose those numbers, focusing particularly on how the children arrived at any
wrong answers. This time, the overhead screen was to be divided by a line into two sections.
The base amount (6) would remain in one section and the new amount (12) would be placed in
the other. The items were not to be lined up in regular patterns but to be placed randomly on
the screen. This would allow students to see half (of 12) and double (of 6) simultaneously with
the base amount. The objects used could vary, but beans rather than blocks were chosen for this
lesson to reduce the children’s temptation to play. After the first example is done, the teacher
summarizes the meanings of double and half, and the base amount is again changed to 8 as in
Lesson A. The lesson ends with children working in pairs or groups of three, playing the game
in which one child holds a certain number of beans and the others take either twice or half that
number.

The Enacted Object of Learning Lesson B

In the first part of the lesson, the children were given trays with no inner dividers, and the example
of doubling and halving starting with 6 proceeded as planned. The teacher then turned off the
overhead while the children worked in their groups with the new base amount of 8 but turned it
back on as soon as the class discussion of the task began. This might have resulted in a lack of
simultaneity, as the children had only one group of items on their trays. As in research Lesson
A, they included the original eight items in their doubled amount (16) and so were not able to
illustrate the original number in contrast to the doubled number. This also might have led them to
confuse double and half, as one of the children said that 8 doubled was 4, and this confusion was
also apparent in the case of half, as the children understood half of 8 to be either 16 or 8.

Excerpt 6:

T: Can you explain what double means? Now you all have to think!
P1: 11.

[...]

P1: 11 more, and then it is double.

The answer might have been reasoned based on an earlier discussion, in which 6 was the base
amount. In a joint activity, the children learned that twice 6 is 12 and half of 6 is 3. The student
who answered “11” might have been confused and understood “double” as the constant 3 (which
doubled is six), and so answered 11 for the double of 8. It is possible that the children focused
on the specific numbers and arithmetical operations, and not on the concepts of half and double.
The teacher did, however, begin the lesson with a discussion on double, in which the responding
student seems to understand double as repeated addition:

Excerpt 7:
T: How exactly would you say it? Eh, what is double? How could we explain it now? In words?
 LEARNING STUDY MODEL 253

S: We can think of two heaps to put together, there was one heap here, and as many once more will
be double.

T: It was, say it again!

S: Twice, if you have one and one more and put them together.

T: If you add them, it’s twice . . . . Is there anyone else who can explain it in any other way? What is
twice?

S: Two, I have one, so I take one more and then it will be double. [ . . . ]

T: So, I have twice as many . . . . If I had six, what is it then?

S: If you have six and add six then it will be double.

T: If I have six and add six, I have twice said [student name].
The discussion about double was rather confusing; after the group work, the teacher tried again
to define double, but in a more detailed way:
Excerpt 8:

T: How can we explain what twice is?

S: If you have ten, then add two, then there will be twelve.

T: What do you say, ten plus . . . ?

S: Two!
T: It is twelve? But is that twice? It means you have to double, but you did add two instead . . . yes,
another way of thinking. Okay, then we can say that twice is the same thing once again, can we? Is
that correct? The same amount once and once more. And then if you divided it into two piles again,
to get half . . . you would have to count carefully. Some of you said it was easier to put it into two
piles. You put these by themselves here and those by themselves there (showing on the board).
The student who came up with the answer 10 plus 2 is 12, when asked to double 10 might have
misunderstood twice as 2 more (+2). But it seems more probable that the student misinterpreted
the teacher’s initial question, when she asked the students to explain double in different ways.
Because they discussed 6 + 6 = 12, he seems to have understood the task to be to express 12 in
different ways, and 10 + 2 is an alternative expression of 12. The answer is logical, and not
“another way of thinking.” But the teacher was clear in explaining double as “the same as and
one more time,” while pointing to the empty field beside the base amount field to show that double
is a new amount not including the original amount. She also stressed that the base amount could
not be changed. In the second part of the lesson, in which the children experimented and asked the
other children to halve or double various amounts, they used a divided tray with the base amount
in one part and the halved or doubled amount in the other part. During the instruction, the teacher
again emphasized that the children were not to take any item from the original items on the tray
illustrating the base amount. This strategy gave the children the opportunity to discern the base
amount and the new amount simultaneously. If a child made the mistake of taking 4 items from
the original 8 to put on the other side of the tray, the teacher asked, “Where is the half? What it
is a half of?” At the end of the lesson, the teacher concludes and asked the children about half
254 HOLMQVIST OLANDER AND NYBERG

and double again. She emphasized the difference between the base amount and half and double,
explaining that “twice” is not “the same as,” by only adding 6 items to the 6 already given in
the original amount. Twice of six 6 not 6, it is 12. Understanding double as “the same as” was
also a common mistake among the children in research Lesson A and in this group’s previous
knowledge.

The Lived Object of Learning B

The results showed an increased score, from 65% to 82% correct answers. The scores did not
decrease for any task, but were the same for three tasks (2b, 4b, and 5b) all concerning half. The
greatest increase was found in tasks 1a and 1b (+5 in each). Five of the students had the same
test result at pre- and posttest because they had already reached the maximum score at the pretest,
seven students had increased scores, and one had a score decreased by one point (Table 5).

TABLE 5
Mean and Percentage Correct Answers Group B

Percentage Correct
Research Lesson B Mean SD Answers

Pretest 6.54 3.479 65%

Posttest 8.15 2.410 82%
+1.6 +17

The Intended Object of Learning C

During the planning meeting for the last lesson, three main changes were decided. Because the
test scores from research Lesson B did not increase for tasks focused on half, the simultaneous
variation between the base amount and the new amount used in Lesson B was increased to also
include simultaneous variation of base, double, and half. This would be done using a tray divided
in three parts. The base amount would be placed in the middle, and was not to be moved or
altered.

The Enacted Object of Learning Lesson C

Different patterns were discernible during the lesson, from the teacher’s point of view and from
the children’s point of view. The teacher used only one example, which the children followed
together. This example used 6 as the base amount. Using an overhead projector, she showed a
surface with three separate fields for half, base amount, and double. Unfortunately, the teacher
mixed up the fields of double and half by putting the double amount under the heading “half”
and vice versa. She corrected herself but did not explain why. After that, the children were given
paper sheets divided in three, as shown on the overhead, where they were supposed to do the
same as the teacher but using 8 as the base amount. In one of the groups, two children insisted
that twice 8 was 14.
 LEARNING STUDY MODEL 255

Excerpt 9:

P1: We do not agree. They say it is 14 but I say it is 16.

T: Why do you think it is 16?

P1: I think 8 plus 8.

T: You think 8 plus 8. You who thought it should be 14, how do you reason?

P2: We think the same.

T: But still you came up with different numbers.

P2: Mmmm.
T: Adam, how did you come to the conclusion that it would be [14].

P3: You have to take away 8 . . . .

T: Yes . . . and then it will be?

P3: 6.

In this case, the number 6 refers to the first example the teacher showed the whole group, illus-
trating half and double of 6. In this section, the children discerned that twice 6 is 12, and the
teacher explained that they had to “add 6 to get double.” A child who has not yet separated the
base amount from the concept of double can understand doubling (or halving) to mean adding
(or subtracting) in all cases the constant that was the first base amount used, in this case 6. This
error makes it impossible to understand half and double as relative to different amounts and leads
to logical fallacies; the relationship between a base amount and double or half will be thought
invariant (± 6), while two “halves” of any amount will vary (6 and 8 in this example). The stu-
dent was apparently still thinking “add 6 to get double” when he explained his answer by saying
(correctly) that 14 – 6 = 8 but failing to recognize that halves must be equal. This error was also
found in the previous lessons. Unlike in Lesson B, there were no further conclusions or discus-
sions of this exercise. The teacher was more or less satisfied when the right answer was given,
but she did not use the opportunity to point out differences and similarities to make the students
understand doubling and halving in a qualitatively different way.
The patterns created by the teacher were also different from what was intended. First of all,
a new and unexpected pattern of variation was created during this lesson, related to the color of
the representations used to illustrate the base amount, half, and double. The teacher had an idea
about defining the base amount in one color (red), and half or double in another color (yellow).
However, this was not clear to the children and they were probably confused about what the dif-
ferent colors meant. Secondly, the planned patterns were used incompletely. It was important to
keep the items illustrating the base amount in one undivided group, intended to support the criti-
cal aspect of the distinction between “equal share” and half, and to illustrate half and double with
the base amount simultaneously. This was not created during the section of the lesson where the
children were supposed to experiment with half and double in pairs or small groups. The instruc-
tion from the teacher was to choose a base amount and ask the other children to submit either
half or twice. The intention to allow the children to discern half and twice simultaneously was
not enacted. Instead, the focus changed to the colors of the items used to illustrate the amounts.
256 HOLMQVIST OLANDER AND NYBERG

The teacher did not finish the lesson with a final summary, which makes it more difficult for the
children to draw conclusions, especially those children who had not yet separated half and twice
from the base amount.

The Lived Object of Learning C

The results showed an increased score from 61% to 74% correct answers (Table 6). The scores
did not decrease on any task, but remained the same on two tasks (1b and 3b). Four students’
scores decreased, all by one point, five increased, and five had the same result, including three
who had attained the maximum score on the pretest.

TABLE 6
Mean and Percentage Correct Answers Group C

Percentage Correct
Research Lesson C Mean SD Answers

Pretest 6.07 3.772 61%

Posttest 7.36 3.895 74%
+1.3 +13

DISCUSSION

Children’s ways of discerning the targeted concept are analyzed as they appeared on the pre-,
post-, and delayed posttests. The mean scores and ranges are summarized at the group level in
Table 7. Other studies (Holmqvist et al., 2007) using a design with mixed students from differ-
ent classes, exposed to different activities following the research lessons, found delayed posttest
effects important in demonstrating whether long-term learning occurred. In this study, however,
the students belonged to the same school classes and the results of the posttests might mirror
their shared school activities, rather than the effect of the research lesson. For this reason, posttest
results are excluded from the analysis.

TABLE 7
Mean Points and Range of the Tests (maximum 7.0)

Cycle A Cycle B Cycle C

Mean points Range Mean points Range Mean points Range

Pretest 3.9 0–10 6.5 1–10 6.1 1–10

Posttest 4.7 1–10 8.2 3–10 7.4 0–10
Delayed posttest 5.3 1–10 7.8 0–10 8.2 1–10

We also tested for significance differences between tests in the same group. The pattern used
in research Lesson B was already shown to be the most effective in terms of increased test scores
 LEARNING STUDY MODEL 257

TABLE 8
t Test (SPSS 20.0) Significance for Paired Differences (1) Pretest, (2) Posttest, and (3) Delayed Posttest

t Significance (two-tailed)

Pair 1 A2/A1 1.879 0.073

Pair 2 A3/A1 2.754 0.011
Pair 3 A3/A2 2.024 0.055
Pair 4 B2/B1 2.823 0.015
Pair 5 B3/B1 1.535 0.151
Pair 6 B3/B2 −0.891 0.391
Pair 7 C2/C1 1.483 0.162
Pair 8 C3/C1 3.019 0.010
Pair 9 C3/C2 2.121 0.054

in the posttest, and the only significant∗ difference between pre- and posttest was in Group B
(p = .015) (Table 8). In the two other research groups, there were significant differences between
pre- and delayed posttests, but these differences may be explained by the effects of activities
subsequent to the lesson. The very small difference between post- and delayed posttest in research
group B is interesting and points to a sustained knowledge. This result is quite the opposite in
research groups A and C, in which the difference between post- and delayed posttest instead is
almost significant (A: p = .055, and C: p = .054). The impact of the activities after the research
lesson seems to be greater in these two groups than the impact of the research lesson itself.
The aim of this study was to describe how the learning study model can be used to improve les-
son design and children’s learning outcomes by enabling them to perceive and define the critical
aspects of the object of learning, guided by variation theory. The results show that the children’s
learning increases in all lessons, mainly in the second lesson where the intended and enacted
object of learning were similar and the pattern of variation used more precisely to point out the
aspects critical for the children’s developed learning. By the use of variation in a way where the
aspects not important to focus on are kept invariant, whereas the aspects the children should focus
on vary, the teachers deliberately point out the critical aspects in the learning situation. One such
example is in Lesson B, where the teacher kept the original amount the same (6) and asked the
children to halve and double this amount at the same time as they see the original amount. This
means the children cannot include the original amount in any of the others, and they see the rela-
tionship between the original amount and its half and double at the same time. The analysis of
the recorded meetings and lessons show how the teachers’ gained knowledge about how the chil-
dren develop knowledge makes them more capable of responding to the children’s questions and
statements in the classroom, challenging them to understand better. Hattie (2012) claimed that
expert teachers do organize and reorganize the content in a way that better suits the children’s
needs and by the iterative work in a learning study, the teachers did find new ways of designing
the lesson that made the children’s learning more powerful regarding to the scores at the tests.
The research question focuses on the children’s expressions of their understanding and the
result has pointed out different ways of understanding halving and doubling, but the main critical
aspect seem to be the ability to separate the concept from both its representation and original
amount. This means the child has to understand that double is not plus a certain number, such
as +1 (one more time), +2 (take what you already have and twice as much), +original amount
258 HOLMQVIST OLANDER AND NYBERG

(double is the same as what you already got), or +a certain number (such as the number in
only one given example). These different ways of understanding were found during the learning
study. This makes the teachers better skilled at challenging the children in the proximal zone of
development (Vygotsky, 1978) and what Kinard and Kozulin (2008) mean by guided learning.
The findings of a learning study are supposed to be shared by other researchers and teach-
ers to contribute to the knowledge of how the object of learning is understood and to develop
teaching in this area further. In this study, the use of variation theory to guide teachers in using
different patterns of variation in their design of lessons are described and the results show there
are differences in what the children can learn due to such patterns. If the children do not have
the opportunity to separate the concept of doubling from the example given by the representa-
tion of the number 6, it can end up leading the children to believe doubling means +6. This was
found in the last lesson, where some of the children thought the double amount of 8 was 14, as
the teacher previously had told them that they should add 6 to get the double amount. The fact
that this was only for doubling the original amount 6 was overlooked by the children. In this
study, we found that the results of the statistical calculations support the theoretical assumption
that certain patterns of variation seem to be more powerful than others in developing students’
knowledge. In this case, simultaneous discernment of the base amount and the targeted amounts
(half and double) was used in research Lesson B, where the significant differences between pre-
and posttests were found.
As the tests were given immediately before and after the research lesson, no aspects other than
the teacher, the child, and the instruction could have had an effect on learning. In this study, the
focus was entirely on the content and its presentation to the children. Other variables that are pos-
sibly equally important to learning, such as the general conditions of the children or their social
backgrounds, were not examined here. Although knowledge of these factors is very valuable and
important in every school situation, the content has to be planned, presented, and managed, and
classroom work has to be implemented regardless of other variables. The climate in the classroom
seemed friendly and no child seemed to be in a bad mood during the instruction. As learning out-
comes were measured by differences between pre- and posttests scores, the effect of the children’s
previous knowledge was taken into consideration and in some way compensated for.
The teachers’ design of the instruction affects students’ learning outcomes; the designs in this
study, especially in research Lesson B, were based on the theoretical framework. These results
may contribute to mathematical education by adding to the knowledge about how children draw
unexpected conclusions and make mistaken correlations, illustrating different ways double and
half can be (mis)understood by children. The different ways children understood double in the
pretest grew in the classroom, and some students at first learned to add a constant, usually the base
number in the first example shown by the teacher. In Lesson B, this error was corrected by the
teacher, who gave feedback to the students, explaining that double does not mean “the same as,”
but “the same twice.” She also emphasized in the exercises that the original items representing
the base amount should not be used to make up the new amount, because twice does not mean
the same as.
Because the teacher has an explicit impact on the lesson and an implicit impact on the posttest
scores, it may be claimed that the teacher is the important variable and not the theoretically guided
patterns made discernible. But we claim that the content of what the teacher says and does, as well
as the kind of feedback the teacher gives the students, is crucial. The ability to see and analyze
learning in the classroom develop differently in different teachers, and the language they use and
 LEARNING STUDY MODEL 259

the feedback they give are expressions of their way of understanding and facilitating learning.
However, understanding what to say and what kind of feedback the students need is an ability
that should be grounded in an idea about what makes learning possible. Using variation theory as
a guiding principle can be one way to develop this ability, implying that instruction can be further
developed if framed by a theoretical tool. Even if the results of this study has its limitations, such
as it is a rather small-scale study and without controls, the results show the benefits of exploring
children’s understanding during the lessons in an open way, not taking for granted what they
understand or do not understand or what they potentially can understand or not understand.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their very valuable comments on the
manuscript, which indeed made the text much better than it initially was. The authors also thank
the participating teachers who generously shared their time and teaching and the research team,
Learning Design (LeaD), at Kristianstad University and Department of Pedagogical, Curricular
and Professional Studies at University of Gothenburg, for encouragement and support.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the Swedish Research Council and University of Gothenburg.

REFERENCES

Brizuela, B. (2005). Young children’s notations for fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 281–305.
Davydov, V. V. (1990). Soviet studies in mathematics education: Vol. 2. Types of generalization in instruction: Logical
and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula (J. Kilpatrick, ed. and J. Teller, trans.). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (Original work published 1972)
Elliott, J. (2009). Building educational theory through action research. In S. E. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of educational action research (pp. 28–38). London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/9780857021021
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges.
Educational Research Review, 5, 1–24.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing impact on learning. London, UK; New York, NY:
Routledge.
Holmqvist, M. (2011). Teachers’ learning in a learning study. Instructional Science, 39(4), 497–511. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr3n5111t0678467/fulltext.pdf
Holmqvist, M., Gustavsson, L., & Wernberg, A. (2007). Generative learning. Learning beyond the learning situation.
Educational Action Research, 15(2), 181–208.
Holmqvist, M., Tullgren, C., & Brante, G. (2012). Variation theory—a tool to achieve preschool curricula learning goals
in mathematics. Curriculum Perspectives, 32(1), 1–9.
Johansson, E. (2008). Förskolebarnens lärande om begreppet dubbelt så många [Preschool children learning about the
concept of twice as many]. Gävle, Sweden: University of Gävle.
Kelly, A. E. (Ed.). (2003). Special issue on the role of design in educational research [special issue]. Educational
Researcher, 32(1).
Kelly, A., & Lesh, R. (2000). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
260 HOLMQVIST OLANDER AND NYBERG

Kinard, J. T., & Kozulin, A. (2008). Rigorous mathematical thinking: Conceptual formation in the mathematics
classroom. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kullberg, A. (2010). What is taught and what is learned. Professional insights gained and shared by teachers of
mathematics. Gothenburg studies in educational sciences 293. Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Lee, J. F. K. (2008). A Hong Kong case of lesson study: Benefits and concerns. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5),
1115–1124.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Friedkin, S. E. (2009). Lesson study as action research. In S. E. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of educational action research (pp. 142–155). London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/9780857021021
Ljung-Djärf, A., & Holmqvist Olander, M. (2013). Using learning study to understand preschoolers’ learning: Challenges
and possibilities. International Journal of Early Childhood, 1(45), 77–100.
Lo, M. L., & Marton, F. (2012). Towards a science of the art of teaching: Using variation theory as a guiding principle of
pedagogical design. International Journal of Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(1), 7–22.
Lobato, J. (2002). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher,
3(1), 17–20.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marton, F., Dahlgren, L.-O., Svensson, L., & Säljö, R. (1977). Inlärning och omvärldsuppfattning [Learning and
environmental experience]. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Marton, F., & Tsui, A. B. M. (Eds.). (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Mix, K., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (1999). Early fraction calculation ability. Developmental Psychology, 35(5),
164–174.
National Agency for Education. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the leisure-time
center. Stockholm, Sweden: Skolverket.
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska, A. (1981). The child’s conception of geometry. New York, NY: Norton. (Original
work published 1948)
Runesson, U. (1999). Variationens pedagogik: Skilda sätt att behandla ett matematiskt innehåll [The pedagogy of varia-
tion: Different ways of handling mathematical topics] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Gothenburg,
Sweden.
Spinillo, A. G., & Cruz, M. S. S. (2004). Adding fractions using “half” as an anchor for reasoning. Proceedings of the
28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 217–224.
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York, NY: Free Press.
Swedish National Agency for Education. (2010). Diagnostisk uppgifter i matematik för användning i de
tidiga skolåren. [Diagnostic information in mathematics for use in the early school years]. Stockholm,
Sweden: Skolverket. Retrieved from www.skolverket.se/2.3894/publicerat/2.5006?_xurl_=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.
skolverket.se%3A8080%2Fwtpub%2Fws%2Fskolbok%2Fwpubext%2Ftrycksak%2FRecord%3Fk%3D2322
Swedish Research Council. (2010). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk och samhällsvetenskaplig forskning
[Arch ethics principles in humanistic and social scientific research]. Retrieved from http://www.vr.se
Usui, Y. (2011). What is lesson study? Historical background. In National Association for the Study of Educational
Methods (Eds.), Lesson study in Japan (pp. 3–14). Hiroshima, Japan: Keisuisha Company.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yoshida, M. (1999). Lesson study: A case study of a Japanese approach to improving instruction through school-based
teacher development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Chicago.