Mathematics

different from what they were teaching in the Learning study. When the two
lessons, taught before and after the participation in Learning study were
compared, we found common features among all the teachers. Namely, in
lesson 2, all of them dealt with the relevant concepts and principles in relation
to each other (i.e. simultaneously) and not one at a time. In the lesson before
Learning study, concepts or features of concepts, were taught in sequence.
For instance, one of the science teachers in the first lesson, first taught about
‘pressure’ and gave several examples and after that, later in the lesson, talked
about ‘force’. Thus, these concepts were taught after one another and in
sequence. In the lesson, after the participation in Learning studies, these
(pressure and force) were juxtaposed and compared. Similar was found
among another science teacher. In L1 acids and acidic were first discussed on
a macro level and then later in the lesson on a micro level. This was followed
by a brief discussion about basic (and neutral) on a macro level. Lesson 2 was
sequenced differently; acids and bases were handled at the same time, first on
a macro level and then on a micro level.
We find these changes interesting and would suggest firstly, that the teachers
demonstrated that they can handle the content in a different way after the
Learning study and secondly, that these changes reflects what they had
experienced in the Learning study, namely something that it is in line with
variation theory, that says: In order to make the students aware of how things
differ, are similar, or simply how they are related to each other, it is better to
deal with them together, in relation to each other, rather than after one
another. That is exactly the way the teachers did after participating in the
Learning study, but not before that.
Is Learning study research?
Finally, I will take Learning study a bit further by suggesting that Learning
study could be more than just PLC and teacher professional development.
The gap between theory and practice, between university based research and
school practice, has been discussed a lot. The dominating rational is that
research is something researchers do at the university, and results from
research can be transformed as recommendations to practitioners. This way of
thinking is not un-problematic, I think. The researcher at the university may
have other interests and other questions than a teacher at school has. It has
been suggested that the gap can be overcome if teachers are involved in the
research process, not as objects of research, but as subjects and become part
of the research process. It has been argued that Lesson and Learning study
have features that is in line with that which was advocated by the British
educationalist Lawrence Stenhouse, who argued that teachers must be
implicated and take part in producing knowledge that is the scientific ground
for their professional work (Elliott 2012).
In an article in The International Journal of Lesson and Learning studies, the
Swedish educationalist Ingrid Carlgren (Carlgren 2012) describes Learning
298