Variation theory as a teaching theory in the theatre classroom

Pernilla Ahlstrand (Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Professional Studies, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden)
Ninnie Andersson (Department of Dance Pedagogy, Stockholm University of the Arts, Stockholm, Sweden)

International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies

ISSN: 2046-8253

Article publication date: 13 November 2024

Issue publication date: 16 December 2024

244

Abstract

Purpose

The paper presents and discusses an example of findings from a research project. Filmed material from teaching situations in theatre has been the starting point for analysing and planning similar teaching situations in research lessons, where variation theory was used. The aim of using variation theory is to develop teaching practices in the school subject of theatre at upper secondary school level in Sweden.

Design/methodology/approach

In the article, one example from the last part of a three-step research project design is discussed. In the third part of the design five research lessons, based on variation theory, were conducted. The starting point for planning the research lessons was teaching situations called didactic interventions, when the teacher interrupts the theatre rehearsals of a stage production and gives response on the student´s acting. The specific situations are used when planning five research lessons based on variation theory. In this paper, one example from one of the research lessons is presented, exemplifying how variation theory has been applied.

Findings

The example shows how variation theory was used in analysing and facilitating teaching in the classroom. The findings suggest that teachers can use variation theory as a way to strengthen the student’s experience of specified objects of learning, in this case, interplay in acting. Another conclusion is that variation theory is helpful when planning whole class teaching situations in the school subject of theatre.

Originality/value

This paper fulfils an identified need to study how to develop teaching practices in the school subject of theatre.

Keywords

Citation

Ahlstrand, P. and Andersson, N. (2024), "Variation theory as a teaching theory in the theatre classroom", International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 92-104. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-10-2023-0142

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Pernilla Ahlstrand and Ninnie Andersson

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


Introduction

In this article, one example from a theatre classroom is presented. It exemplifies how variation theory was used in planning and conducting research lessons, which were part of a larger design in a research project [1].

Theatre is a school subject in Sweden, taught at upper secondary school level as part of the three-year National Aesthetic Programme [2]. One of the school assignments when working with theatre in school is to rehearse a stage production, usually performed for an invited audience. Rehearsals of a stage production can last from six months up to one school year. The challenges in such an extensive task are to identify what different ways of knowing are being developed and how the teacher can respond to the students’ varied pre-knowledge and needs. The core knowledge in theatre, as a school subject, is characterized by being expressed through the student’s body, for example when rehearsing and performing a stage production (Ahlstrand, 2014, 2018, 2020, 2021; Göthberg, 2019; Neelands, 2009; Törnquist, 2006).

Didactic interventions

A more advanced way of learning is described in the study as the evolved discernment of aspects of knowing a specific phenomenon. Different ways of knowing can be studied as bodily expressions when students act (cf. Carlgren et al., 2015). During rehearsals of a stage production, situations arise when the teacher intervenes in the ongoing rehearsal process. These situations are called didactic interventions (Ahlstrand, 2020). This can be described as the teacher stopping rehearsals because difficulties or merits concerning the students’ acting performance have been identified. The teacher usually intervenes on an individual student level when rehearsing a stage production. Even if it appears that the response is given spontaneously and intuitively it is a core situation that carries potential to be the starting point for structured teaching, as we will show in the upcoming example. However, in the teaching situation, there may be parts of the subject content that are not articulated (Ahlstrand, 2015, 2020; Andersson, 2016; Andersson and Ahlstrand, 2022). There is a risk of teachers having prejudice regarding concepts and taking the knowledge that is closely linked to a specific teaching practice for granted (Ahlstrand, 2021; Andersson, 2016; Zandén, 2010). A starting point for the project is that this specific teaching situation, when the teacher intervenes includes assumptions (although “embedded”) about subject-specific know-how and can be used as a starting point for identifying an object of learning (Ahlstrand and Andersson, n.d.). The teaching situations, when the teacher intervenes and responds to the students acting in the rehearsing process, can be further used for systematically planned teaching based on variation theory which we will show in the article. The situations are described as didactic since the teacher sees potential for development in the students acting. Besides, a judgement of the expressions in the students acting is embedded in the response from the teacher, although the articulation of both the potential and the judgment is hidden in the response (Ahlstrand, 2020). In the project it is studied how this embedded response can be opened up and used to develop the teaching practice of theatre as school subject.

Problem description

This study’s goal is to contribute to and address how a theatre teaching practice can be developed when using a scientifically grounded learning theory, in this case, the variation theory. The study addresses the problem that the teacher’s response is randomly given to a few students depending on how a rehearsal process is structured. A few students at a time are rehearsing scenes from the theatre play. The other students are either rehearsing other scenes among themselves or studying text with the purpose of learning it by heart in a spare room or observing the rehearsals going on in the theatre classroom. In the project, we use variation theory when planning teaching (described as research lessons) that all the students in the class can be part of so the randomly given response will be used when planning a learning opportunity for all students in the same classroom.

Purpose and question

This article will give an example of how variation theory is used when analysing, planning and conducting teaching in theatre at upper secondary school level. The purpose is to develop teaching practices in the school subject of theatre. The research question is: How can variation theory be used to develop theatre teaching practice?

Theoretical points of departure, variation theory

In this study, variation theory was used both for analysing the material and as a guiding principle for planning research lessons with the teacher. Based on the variation theory, it is possible for the teachers and researchers to investigate what is feasible for students to learn in a particular teaching situation, and how to improve the conditions for learning (Runesson, 2006). A more qualified way of knowing something is described in variation theory as a more advanced discernment, and by experiencing variation one can discern different aspects of a phenomenon (Lo and Marton, 2012; Marton and Pang, 2006; Runesson and Marton, 2002). Earlier examples of studies that use variation theory as an analytic tool have inspired us (cf.; Björkholm, 2015; Ingerman et al., 2007; Runesson, 2006). Additionally, studies using variation theory as a starting point for planning and conducting teaching have been another point of departure (cf. Kullberg et al., 2016, 2017; Marton, 2018; Lo and Marton, 2012; Sanders et al., 2022). For example:

In lesson designs premised on variation theory, contrast (which could be a counter example) is used with a specific aim: to help learners acquire novel meanings by opening up appropriate dimensions of variation (see Marton and Pang, 2006; Marton, 2015). Contrast has to be followed by generalization (Kullberg et al., 2017, p. 560).

The patterns of variation used in this project as analytic tools are contrast and generalisation. The patterns of variation used as guiding principles of planning and conducting teaching are mainly contrast and generalisation. We have considered fusion in the state of planning research lessons but have no such example in this article. In the findings section, examples will be given of how we have interpreted and used the different patterns of variation.

Object of learning

The object of learning, in this study, is defined as interplay in acting between students. The teacher’s response when intervening in the rehearsals “points to” or “unpacks” aspects of the embedded object of learning. We argue that this is possible since the teacher identifies the students’ physical conceptions about the object of learning and the teacher gives an immediate, professional response in the teaching situation. This is a response to the student’ conceptions which are expressed in their bodies. As mentioned before, response is usually given to a few of the students when rehearsing a scene in a theatre play. In planning the research lessons, we arranged for whole class teaching situations with the purpose of letting all students experience dimensions of variation in their bodies, as stated in the citation above by Kullberg et al. (2017). We intended to help learners acquire novel meanings by opening appropriate dimensions of variation.

In our previous research, we have worked with learning study as research approach (Ahlstrand and Andersson, 2021a, b, 2022, 2024; Andersson and Ahlstrand, 2022). In a learning study, the object of learning is decided in collaboration with a teacher team starting a learning study cycle (Carlgren, 2019; Marton, 2015). In this study, the aim was to try a different approach by capturing the object of learning when teachers and students were rehearsing a stage production.

We used phenomenographic analysis in our previous studies when analysing filmed material of students’ physical expressions of the object of learning. It was a passable but laborious way of presenting different conceptions of the object of learning. Laborious since it required transcribing all the physical expressions (talk, gestures, eye sights) and then categorizing the expressions as categories of descriptions in an outcome space. In this study, a starting point was to try to capture the students’ different conceptions of the object of learning, analysing the situations when the teacher intervenes in the teaching practice of rehearsing a stage production.

Methodology

In the section methodology, the context for the study and participants will be described, as well as the third part of the design of the whole research project. There will also be an explanation to how variation theory was used in the analysing process to identify critical dimensions of the object of learning. Finally, a clarification to how variation theory was used in planning research lesson 5 is given.

Context and participants

In this study, a rehearsing process of a theatre play at upper secondary school level was filmed. The play was the Caucasian Chalk Circle by Bertolt Brecht in an abbreviated version created by the teacher in charge of the stage production assignment. The rehearsals/assignment started in August 2022 with a public performance as the goal, and the play was performed in March 2023. One team of teachers of theatre (four teachers) was involved in the study, along with 12 students in an upper secondary school in Sweden. The students were in their third year of studying theatre, between the age of 17 and 18. Although the whole teacher team was involved in analysing parts of the filmed material, only one teacher worked with the students when creating the performance. The same teacher planned and conducted the five research lessons, along with one of the researchers. Whole class teaching, described as research lessons, was carried out in January–February 2023. The research lessons were integrated and part of the performance rehearsals but with a focus on using variation theory as the teaching theory (Marton, 2018). The project has taken ethical principles into consideration (The Swedish Research Council, 2017).

Design of the study

In this study, due to space limitations, we will report on one part of the design of the whole research project. Results from the other parts will be reported elsewhere. Here, we use a typical example of how variation theory was used in parts of the project. As mentioned above the rehearsals of a theatre play was filmed. In the filmed material 15 occasions of didactic interventions were identified. Stimulated recall (Haglund, 2003; O’Brien, 1993) was used to return to the filmed sequences of the interventions made by the teacher. In the stimulated recall, the researcher and teachers studied a selection of the video recordings of the interventions. Teachers and researchers planned similar situations based on the teacher’s intervening and response to the students acting.

Analysing critical dimensions of the object of learning

The principle of the analysis is based on variation theory and the starting point is that learning presupposes differentiated experiences of discerning aspects and nuances (Carlgren, 2015). As mentioned before, a more differentiated experience can be described in terms of more qualified ways of knowing (Ahlstrand, 2021; Carlgren et al., 2015), and this is in the project used to capture different conceptions of the object of learning. The unit of analysis is the students’ different ways of knowing the object of learning, expressed through the body in acting. Five qualities of ways of knowing the object of learning emerged in the analysing process focusing on different (or desirable) ways of knowing. In variation theory terms, critical dimensions of variation of the object of learning appeared. From a variation theory perspective, the qualities can be described as necessary and critical for learning to take place and for knowing to develop. In variation theory terms, what is critical for learning is formulated as critical dimensions of variations. Starting from the critical dimensions of variation listed below (in italics), the five research lessons were planned.

Research lesson 1: Space (distance and volume).

Research lesson 2: Physical expressions (with and between bodies).

Research lesson 3: Breaking borders (the actors’ bodily borders).

Research lesson 4: Intensity (to have/not have intensity).

Research lesson 5: Timing (extend and attack).

The dimensions of variation appeared in the analysis process, in relation to the didactic interventions; one example will now be given to explain how variation theory was used when analysing the material. In the filmed material from research lesson 4, a situation was identified when the teacher intervened in the rehearsals by saying to one of the students: “Try to extend” [3]. The teacher and researcher discussed this response which was given spontaneously in the situation. In the planning of research lesson 5 and in relation to the intervention in research lesson 4, the researcher asked the teacher:

Excerpt 1:

Teacher: It will be a bit different … Either if you keep these pauses, let them stay in-between … by stretching them out between the lines, or if you extend within the lines (authors remark, the lines in the theatre play)

Researcher: When you said extend (referring to the filmed material of research lesson 4 when the teacher said “try to extend” to one of the students), it was … within the line that she should extend …

Teacher: Yes, with (name of the student) it was like that.

Researcher: But it can be different, of course.

Teacher: Maybe we should have it within the lines …

Researchers Yes, what is it that you want them to continue with … ?

Teacher: Actually, as an actor you are sometimes given long lines which you have to row ashore, so you have to … fill them … and vary them, and here timing can be helpful

(Planning research lesson 5, 2023-02-07)

When analysing what the student was doing in the acting situation, the teacher found that timing was critical for developing the acting and that saying “Try to extend” was a way to make the student develop timing in the acting situation. The teacher explained that the students’ expressions in acting needed a more dynamic quality to make the expressions in body and voice more “alive”. This is how the critical dimension of timing was formulated. Timing was discussed as a quality in acting that not only this student needed to develop but all the students in the class, in relation to the object of learning, interplay. It was decided to plan research lesson 5 with timing as the critical dimension of variation. It took some time in the planning to find a contrast to “extend” that could give the students the possibility to develop timing. During research lesson 4 the critical dimension in focus was “intensity” and the response “Try to extend” came from the teacher’s judgment of the acting situation. When analysing research lesson 4 with a variation theory perspective “extend” appeared as a value of timing that could be helpful for the students to open up the critical dimension of timing. As described in excerpt 1, the metaphoric character of “extend” was decided to be helpful for the students “to fill them”, in this case the lines by varying and using extend and attack.

How variation theory was used in research lesson number 5

Below is an example from the fifth research lesson where the critical dimension of variation timing was focused upon when using the contrast between the values extend and attack. The example below is taken from the last five minutes of a two-hour lesson. The teacher has planned and in a structured way worked with the students on how the contrast between extend and attack can help to develop timing. During the lesson, all the students have had the possibility to experience the contrast between extend and attack in preparatory exercises in the whole class with the purpose of experiencing timing. The students were also given the opportunity to generalize timing into the specific scenes from the theatre play, they were rehearsing. The excerpts below are examples of when the students work on one of the scenes in the theatre play being rehearsed. The example shows how the pattern of variation contrast was used during research lesson 5. As mentioned, the patterns of variation generalization were used when changing from working with the exercises to rehearsing the specific scenes from the theatre play in research lesson 5.

The purpose of using the value extend is to give the students possibilities to use expressions in both their bodies and voices that are extended. They are extended in the sense that the students can “make room” for both their body and voice in relation to the expressions when acting out the situations in the play. The teacher wanted to give the students the possibility to experience the contrast between when making big and strong expressions, extend, and small and quick expressions, attack. Using the word “attack” was a way to give the students possibilities to experience in their bodies when a big and/or strong expression was contrasted with a quick and small expression. This was assumed to be a way of developing or at least letting the students experience timing, which is important when learning about interplay. Interplay is a core capability in theatre which of course needs more time to practice and develop than just one lesson.

Findings

The findings show how working with the contrasting extend and attack gives the student the possibilities to experience and develop timing. The teaching situation is an example of generalising timing into one of the scenes in the play that is being rehearsed. The text (the dialogue, lines of the play) is kept invariant, while the physical expressions, such as extend and attack, vary.

Research lesson 5 (230208)

As seen in the excerpt below, initially the teacher gave the student called “Sweater” instructions to use her body to explore physical expressions, trying the contrast between extend and attack. The instructions were formulated by the teacher in the excerpt below as: “We can try this with … is it an attack or an extension?” As mentioned before, the contrast between extend and attack was introduced in earlier exercises during the lesson to let the students experience the quality of timing. In the exercises “extend” was used to let the students “spread out” both in relation to their own bodies and according to time, taking physically more space in the room and slowing down the speed of their voices. “Attack” on the other hand was used to make the students work with quicker movements and variation in voice. Giving the students the possibilities to experience the difference between extend and attack in different exercises was supposed to help them use extend and attack when generalising from the exercises into the rehearsals of the scenes in theatre play. The exercises, trying to extend and to attack, were conducted as whole class teaching situations and then in the second phase of the research lesson the students worked in smaller groups, rehearsing the scenes from the theatre play. In the example below, four rehearsals of the same scene in the theatre play will exemplify how the contrast between extend and attack was used.

SWEATER (student who portrays the role of the governess)

CARDIGAN (who replaces the absent student and reads the lawyer’s lines from the script without acting/acting)

TEACHER

TEACHER: And (name of student), we can try this with … is it an attack or is it extend when you … have contact with the lawyer.

SWEATER: Yes.

Rehearsal 1

After the first rehearsal of the scene, the teacher ask the student, here named Sweater, to extend, saying a specific line from the manuscript. In the excerpt, Sweater wonders if this should be done “purely physically”. The teacher confirms but adds that “extend” also includes the voice. The teacher asks the student to try “extend” but only with one sentence (a line from the play).

TEACHER: We will try it (refers to the line in the manuscript), but dear (name of the character), extend there (inaudible).

SWEATER: OK.

TEACHER: … do it …

SWEATER … purely physically or? (Gesture).

TEACHER: Preferably! Preferably that … and in speech. Take it again, but only one sentence, what sentence is it? (to the student who is reading the lawyer’s lines and has the script in hand) (name of the student) say it!

CARDIGAN: But I haven’t said anything, dear (name of the character).

TEACHER: Mm, that one! Take it and extend!

SWEATER: Yes … (pause)

Rehearsal 2

During rehearsal 2, there is a change in expressions since Sweater varies the physical expressions, for example grabbing the hand of Cardigan (Figure 2). In rehearsal 1, they had no physical contact at all (Figure 1). This leads to the teacher saying (excerpt below): “Good! Say the two (lines, author’s remark) and you´ll extend”. Sweater asks “How should I extend” which makes the teacher answer: “But you´re on your way! Uh … extend!” and then asks the student to try “attack” during the third sentence:

TEACHER: Good! Take the two and you’ll extend. The lawyer is on the other side. Uh … take it again!

SWEATER: Yes, because I think ….

TEACHER: And then extend and …

SWEATER: How should I extend?

Teacher: But you’re on your way! Uh … extend!

SWEATER: Yes!

TEACHER: And then the third sentence; try to be … attack there!

SWEATER: (Says the line in the manuscript) It's just the smell that …

TEACHER: Yes, exactly! We have two different things here.

SWEATER: Mmm (turns to CARDIGAN).

The teacher stresses “We have two different things here”, pointing to the contrast between extend and attack.

Rehearsal 3

In rehearsal 3, Sweater uses “extend” and “attack”. The contrast is expressed in the body where Sweater makes more physical contact, leaning towards Cardigan and putting her arm around Cardigan’s shoulder (Figure 3a). She expands and then, saying the third sentence Sweater attacks, pushing Cardigan forward (Figure 3b). The teacher responds:

TEACHER: Now there is a difference between them.

SWEATER: (Makes noise and sticks out tongue).

TEACHER: Try to make the difference even bigger!

SWEATER: What? Shall I kind of hit … (gesture “hitting the other character on the head’)

TEACHER: YES! Mentally! (Laugh).

SWEATER (Grimaces and leans forward laughing).

TEACHER: Eh try … attack!

SWEATER: (Gesture) Yeah fine.

There is also greater variation in the voice. This is confirmed by the teacher who wants Sweater to try to make the difference between “extend” and “attack” bigger.

Rehearsal 4

Finally, in rehearsal 4 it seems that the contrast between extend and attack helped Sweater to find expressions that strengthened the critical dimension of variation timing.

At the end of the research lesson, the teacher turns to the students watching the rehearsals and asks them to comment on what they have seen:

TEACHER: (Gestures to students watching): Uh, uh … the audience is sitting and (makes nodding gesture) … comment! Give (name of student who portrays the governess) some feedback! How did it turn out? (turns to a student in the audience)

STUDENT: It was very … what is it called … you know who’s in power as well … the change of tone was very nice there … it became a bit … you don’t play with her …

(laughter)

TEACHER: And you know what, with those words we end today! Thank you! Ah! (to SWEATER) keep that!

SWEATER: Ah, ah!

The student describes how Sweater has managed to act out the governess power position which is important in order to communicate with the audience. The student mentions how Sweater used the tone of her voice and also bodily expressions when the character made physical contact (Figure 4) but also pushed Cardigan at the end of the scene as a way to express her power position.

In variation theory terms, both what we have described in the filmed material, when the physical expressions develop, and how students as an audience experience what is communicated, can be described as a more qualified way of knowing something, which in variation theory is described as more advanced discernment. And by experiencing variation, one can discern different aspects of a phenomenon (Lo and Marton, 2012; Marton and Pang, 2006; Runesson and Marton, 2002). The phenomenon in this case is aspects of knowing in interplay between students in acting. When given the possibility to experience the contrast “extend” and “attack”, the student called “sweater” uses her body and voice in a way that makes the expressions clearer and the character’s (the governess) status is communicated to the audience due to the reactions by the students watching the rehearsals.

Discussion and conclusions

In this article, we have addressed the question of how variation theory can be used to develop theatre teaching practice. Variation theory was used in planning research lessons with the aim of letting the students experience the object of learning working on values of the critical dimensions of variation of this object. As shown in the example above, when the teacher gives the student the possibility to work with the contrast between extend and attack, both bodily and vocal expressions are developed. Comparing the expressions in figure one and four, the bodily expressions increased. We propose that working with the contrast extend and attack can give students the possibility to experience timing. Timing was one of five critical dimensions of variations appearing in the analysis process of the object of learning. When the physical expressions expanded working with extend and attack as described above, the object of learning, interplay between the students, was developed.

One can claim that this could have happened anyway, which we agree is possible, but our point is that variation theory gives opportunities to plan teaching situations in a structured way instead of them randomly happening by chance. One conclusion is that variation theory can provide prerequisites for all students to experience variation in their own bodies and when observing other students acting. Working in such a structured way can support the students’ learning in the long run. Timing, as mentioned before, is a quality in acting that takes time to develop.

Marton (2015, 2018) stresses the need for letting the learner experience differences (through variation), and not only, which is most common in teaching, letting the learner experience sameness. In the theatre work and especially when rehearsing a scene in a stage production it is common that the teacher encourages the students to try acting in different ways to reach an expression that “functions” in the sense that the message in the scene “gets through”, both to the fellow students and to the audience. We argue that working with variation theory as teaching theory is not very different from a regular teaching practice in that sense, but variation theory opens the possibility to plan teaching in a structured way.

One can argue against this structured way of working with theatre where creativity and spontaneity is characterized by the subject. A risk is that both the teacher and students, to start with, will be inhibited by a more structured way of working. We have examples of this in our filmed material. Still the findings above, and likewise in the material, show how working on a specific object of learning in a structured way helps the students both to experience in their own bodies and see in the other students’ bodies how the expressions change when working for example with a contrast. We argue that it will take some time before the teacher can incorporate a structured way of planning rehearsals.

In a classroom where variation theory has become a “custom”, using variation as part of everyday practice the teacher, on the one hand, can be observant of the possibilities that students’ physical expressions give. The students on the other hand will get used to their expressions being used for creating whole classroom teaching where things said are also things tried, which hopefully will create possibilities to experience, in their bodies, what is talked about.

As described before, when the teacher intervenes in a rehearsing process of a stage production it is an important occasion, even if the response is randomly given. The occasion is important since it captures subject-specific know-how. A second conclusion is that the situations can be a way to identify an object of learning. Taking a starting point in an object of learning is challenging a traditional teaching practice in the school subject of theatre. When working on such an extensive task as rehearsing a stage performance it is common, as we have shown, that the teacher intervenes and respond on the student’s different ways of knowing when acting. Planning teaching and starting with a defined object of learning can, as we propose in the design, give possibilities for all the students in the classroom to experience the object of learning in a structured and systematically planned way using variation theory.

A third conclusion addresses the risk of teachers having prejudice regarding concepts and taking the knowledge that is closely linked to a specific teaching practice for granted (Ahlstrand, 2021; Andersson, 2016; Zandén, 2010). In the teaching situation, there may be parts of the subject content that are not articulated (Ahlstrand, 2015, 2020). As pointed out in the excerpt 1 when planning research lesson 5, the teacher said to the student: “Try to extend” which was not further elaborated on in the teaching situation. This is a situation where the concept “extend” was taken for granted by the teacher and the subject content was not articulated. When analysing the filmed material, showing what the students did while acting in the situation and using variation theory as analytic tool, we could see that the aspects of knowing was not developing only by the teacher saying “try to extend”. This is an example of that the teaching situation, when the teacher intervenes includes assumptions (although “embedded”) about subject-specific know. The teacher, with the help of variation theory, could open up the dimension of variation timing, by contrasting extend and attack. Knowledge about the meaning of knowing the object of learning can in this way be developed both for teachers and students.

Figures

Rehearsal 1. Sweater keeps a stiff position

Figure 1

Rehearsal 1. Sweater keeps a stiff position

Rehearsal 2. Sweater’s expressions vary and there is more contact between the students, also physically

Figure 2

Rehearsal 2. Sweater’s expressions vary and there is more contact between the students, also physically

(a, b) Rehearsal 3. Sweater’s expressions vary even more, both physically and vocally

Figure 3

(a, b) Rehearsal 3. Sweater’s expressions vary even more, both physically and vocally

Rehearsal 4. Sweater in near physical contact with Cardigan, then pushes Cardigan forward and raises her voice

Figure 4

Rehearsal 4. Sweater in near physical contact with Cardigan, then pushes Cardigan forward and raises her voice

Notes

1.

In the research project, we are studying teaching that is aimed at rehearsing a stage production in the school subjects of dance and theatre. See description of the research project (https://www.skolfi.se/forskningsfinansiering/finansierade-forskningsprojekt-2021/pa-studs-praktiknara-aterkoppling-studie-av-teater-undervisning-och-dans-situationer).

3.

With the embedded meaning “use the body and voice more in the acting situation.”

Funding: This work was funded by the Swedish Institute for Educational Research (No: 2021-00028).

References

Ahlstrand, P. (2014), “Att kunna lyssna med kroppen: en studie av gestaltande förmåga inom gymnasieskolans estetiska program, inriktning teater”, Dissertation, Stockholm University, 2014, Stockholm.

Ahlstrand, P. (2015), “‘Inte ett öga torrt’ - en studie rörande ämnesdidaktiska val i teaterundervisning”, Forskning om undervisning och lärande, Vol. 3 No. 15, pp. 38-60, doi: 10.61998/forskul.v3i15.27523, available at: https://forskul.se/tidskrift/nummer-15-juni-2015/inte-ett-oga-torrt-en-studie-rorande-amnesdidaktiska-val-i-teaterundervisning/

Ahlstrand, P. (2018), “Varning för björntjänster! eller Hur värderas praktisk kunskap?”, in Utmaningar, Processer Och Protester, Antologi- estetavdelningen vid HSD, Institution för de samhällsvetenskapliga och humanistiska ämnenas didaktik, Stockholms universitet.

Ahlstrand, P. (2020), “A method called action(re)call. How and why we use it”, Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 505-525, doi: 10.1080/13569783.2020.1779584.

Ahlstrand, P. (2021), “Förmågan att kunna samspela en studie gällande teaterkunnande på gymnasiet”, Forskning om undervisning och lärande, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 50-69, doi: 10.61998/forskul.v9i1.26908.

Ahlstrand, P. and Andersson, N. (2021a), “Learning study- a model for practice-based research in a Swedish theater classroom”, Youth Theater Journal, Vol. 35 Nos 1-2, pp. 115-128, doi: 10.1080/08929092.2021.1910602.

Ahlstrand, P. and Andersson, N. (2021b), “Från att ’lyssna’ till att ’skapa gemensam kontakt’”, DRAMA – Nordisk dramapedagogisk tidskrift, Vol: 58 No. 1, pp. 78-83, doi: 10.18261/issn.2535-4310-2021-01-19.

Ahlstrand, P. and Andersson, N. (2022), “Kroppsligt erfarande av att kunna driva sin vilja i teaterundervisning på gymnasiet”, in Burman, A. and Lundberg Bouquelon, P. (Eds), I Rörelse: Estetiska erfarenheter I Pedagogiska Sammanhang, Södertörns högskola (skriftserien Södertörn Studies in Higher Education), Södertörn.

Ahlstrand, P. and Andersson, N. (2024), “Articulating dance knowledge – a study investigating aspects of knowing when performing a parallel pirouette”, Acta Didactica Norden, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 1, doi: 10.5617/adno.9880.

Ahlstrand, P. and Andersson, N. (n.d.), “Embedded know-how in feedback: studying performative knowing in theatre”, forthcoming, in process.

Andersson, N. (2016), “Communication and shared understanding of assessment: a phenomenological study of assessment in Swedish upper secondary dance education”, Dissertation, Luleå tekniska universite.

Andersson, N. and Ahlstrand, P. (2022), “Variationsmönster i dansundervisning- lektionsdesign med learning study som forskningsansats”, Nordic Journal of Dance, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 4-19, doi: 10.2478/njd-2022-0006.

Björkholm, E. (2015), “Unpacking the object of learning”, International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 194-208, doi: 10.1108/ijlls-06-2014-0014.

Carlgren, I. (2015), Kunskapskulturer Och Undervisningspraktiker, Daidalos, Göteborg.

Carlgren, I. (2019), “The knowledge machinery and claims in learning study as paedeutical research”, International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 18-30, doi: 10.1108/IJLLS-02-2019-0010.

Carlgren, I., Ahlstrand, P., Björkholm, E. and Nyberg, G. (2015), “The meaning of knowing what is to be known”, Éducation & Didactique, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 143-159, doi: 10.4000/educationdidactique.2204.

Göthberg, M. (2019), “Interacting: coordinating text understanding in a student theatre production”, (Gothenburg studies in educational sciences, 428).

Haglund, B. (2003), “Stimulated Recall Några anteckningar om en metod att ge- nerera data”, Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 145-157.

Ingerman, Å., Linder, C., Marshall, D. and Booth, S. (2007), “Learning and the variation in focus among physics students when using a computer simulation”, Nordina: Nordic Studies in Science Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-14, doi: 10.5617/nordina.388.

Kullberg, A., Mårtensson, P. and Runesson, U. (2016), “What is to be learned? Teachers' collective inquiry into the object of learning”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 309-322, doi: 10.1080/00313831.2015.1119725.

Kullberg, A., Runesson, U. and Marton, F. (2017), “What is made possible to learn when using the variation theory of learning in teaching mathematics?”, ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 559-569, doi: 10.1007/s11858-017-0858-4.

Lo, M.L. and Marton, F. (2012), “Towards a science of the art of teaching”, IJLLS, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-22, doi: 10.1108/20468251211179678.

Marton, F. (2015), Necessary Conditions of Learning, Routledg, London.

Marton, F. (2018), “Towards a pedagogical theory of learning”, in Matsushita, K. (Ed.), Deep Active Learning, Springer, Singapore.

Marton, F. and Pang, M.F. (2006), “On some necessary conditions of learning”, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 193-220, doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_2.

Neelands, J. (2009), “Acting together: ensemble as a democratic process in art and life”, Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 173-189, doi: 10.1080/13569780902868713.

O ́Brien, J. (1993), “Action research through stimulated recall”, Research in Science Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 214-221, doi: 10.1007/bf02357063.

Runesson, U. (2006), “What is possible to learn? On variation as a necessary condition for learning”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 397-410, (14 s), doi: 10.1080/00313830600823753.

Runesson, U. and Marton, F. (2002), “The object of learning and the space of variation”, in Marton, F. and Morris, P. (Eds), What Matters? Discovering Critical Conditions of Classroom Learning, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg.

Sanders, D., Eriksen, B., Gunnarsson, C. and Emanuelsson, J. (2022), “Seeing the green cucumber: reflections on variation theory and teaching plant identification”, Plants, People, Planet, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 258-268, doi: 10.1002/ppp3.10248.

The Swedish Research Counsil (2017), Good Research Practice [Elektronisk Resurs], (Reviderad utgåva), Vetenskapsrådet, Stockholm

Törnqvist, E.-M. (2006), “Att iscensätta lärande: lärares reflektioner över det pedagogiska arbetet i en konstnärlig kontext”, Doktorsavhandling, Malmö Academy of Music, Lunds universitet.

Zandén, O. (2010), “Samtal Om Samspel. Kvalitetsuppfattningar I Musiklärares Dialoger Om Ensemblespel På Gymnasiet”, (Doktorsavhandling), Art Monito, Göteborg.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the teachers and students in the research project as well as to Anchor English for proof reading services.

Corresponding author

Pernilla Ahlstrand can be contacted at: pernilla.ahlstrand@gu.se

Related articles