@article {1238,
	title = {TEACHER EDUCATORS{\textquoteright} SELF-REPORTED PREPAREDNESS TO TEACH STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION},
	journal = {Problems of Education in the 21st Century},
	volume = {77},
	year = {2019},
	month = {October/2019},
	pages = {Continuous},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {584-597},
	abstract = {This research explores teacher educators{\textquoteright} self-reported preparedness to teach students with special educational needs. Teacher educators are concerned with preparing the next generation of teachers who will, in turn, be addressing the needs of students with special educational needs within schools. Being able to address this important task also in their own teaching at the teacher education program is important for their own credibility. In total, 104 teacher educators at two university faculties completed an online questionnaire with questions about teaching students with special education needs. The results showed a significant difference between the educators{\textquoteright} self-reported professional development needs. At University B, educators rated their own competence as well as the organizational ability to meet students with special educational needs higher than educators at University A, regardless of disability. One explanation for the differences in self-rated competence might be due to the mandatory courses about how to teach students with special educational needs, shaping a community of practice with a shared knowledge among the teacher educators at University B. However, the experienced challenge lies in difficulties to transform the knowledge of what is required and expected into practical solutions for teaching students with special educational needs.  },
	keywords = {disability research, inclusive teaching, professional development, special educational needs, teacher education},
	issn = {1822-7864},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/19.77.584},
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2019/457-1571384344.pdf},
	author = {Mona Holmqvist and Lotta Anderson and Lisa Hellstr{\"o}m}
}
@article {374,
	title = {DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEARNING FACTS AND COMPLEX PHENOMENA: A LEARNING STUDY IN HISTORY BASED ON VARIATION THEORY},
	journal = {Problems of Education in the 21st Century },
	volume = {20},
	year = {2010},
	month = {April/2010},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {80-92},
	abstract = {This study has been carried out as part of a project entitled {\textquotedblleft}The Pedagogy of Learning{\textquotedblright} (Holmqvist, 2002) whose objective is to use theory and practice to extend our knowledge of learning and teaching. The study was implemented at the upper secondary school level and involved students in the first year of the social science programme. Two classes were evenly divided into three groups. The {\textquotedblleft}learning study{\textquotedblright} model (Holmqvist, 2006) was employed and three research lessons in history were the focus of the study. The aim was to describe what students could potentially learn, and then compare this with what they actually learned with regard to critical aspects of historical knowledge of the learning object. The learning object was exemplified by the period when Sk{\r a}ne, the southern part of the present country of Sweden, became Swedish after a period of Danish rule. By examining different aspects of the learning object, the aspects necessary to bring about learning were clarified. The lessons themselves were analysed in accordance with Variation Theory (Holmqvist, Gustavsson \& Wernberg, 2008; Holmqvist \& Mattisson, 2008), according to the constituent concepts of discernment, simultaneity, and variation. What varies and what is invariant in a learning situation are important in determining what can be learned (Marton \& Booth, 1997). Changes were implemented in how certain critical aspects of the subject were presented to students with the goal of improving the student learning outcomes. The results confirmed that the nature of what was taught resulted in different learning possibilities. One such element was the ability to identify with those who lived during the period studied. Creating a kind of compassion for one or more fictitious persons enabled students to discern more easily the critical aspects. One conclusion of this study was that an effective learning strategy for students is hard to develop because they try to focus both on understanding the learning object itself, and on gathering hints from the teacher about what will be on the upcoming examination (which constitutes a second implicit learning object). This is amounts to a {\textquoteleft}Guess what he is thinking{\textquoteright} game with the teacher, rather than developing a real understanding of the learning object itself. Another conclusion underscored the important role played by the developed understanding of the learning object in producing long-term or so-called {\textquoteleft}generative learning{\textquoteright}. Our study demonstrated that there is a difference in the long term between decreased learning of isolated facts and increased comprehension of overall historical phenomena. },
	keywords = {historical awareness, learning study, variation theory},
	issn = {1822-7864},
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2014/457-1400134342.pdf},
	author = {Mona Holmqvist and Karmen  Bj{\"o}rkman and Malin  Ohlin}
}
@article {394,
	title = {THE SAME LESSON IN TWO DIFFERENT CULTURES {\textendash} WHAT DIFFERS AND WHAT IS THE SAME? A LEARNING STUDY ON READING COMPREHENSION IN SWEDEN AND HONG KONG},
	journal = {Problems of Education in the 21st Century },
	volume = {21},
	year = {2010},
	month = {June/2010},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {71-82},
	abstract = {This project is about the relationship between what happens in the classroom and what the students learn from reading. We have found that what the students learn may differ in different classes radically even if the school resources are the same, learning is organized in the same way, even if the students are equally capable and motivated and even if the teachers are equally well educated and experienced. We have found that radical differences in what the students learn frequently originate from differences in how the content of learning is handled, structured in the interaction between teachers and students. Such differences have to do with what is made possible for the students to discern, to notice, to become aware of, through what is said, what is exemplified, what commonalities and what differences are brought out by means of discernment, simultaneity and the systematic use of variation. The study is a comparison between how reading comprehension is taught in two different cultures, Sweden and Hong Kong. The same lesson, developed and designed in Hong Kong, and content is given to three school year four-classes in Sweden and one school year-four class in Hong Kong, in the learning study model. The results show the similarities and differences between the learning outcomes, but also the similarities and differences in how the teachers offer the students to experience the object of learning and what implications this have on the student{\textquoteleft}s results. The results show how powerful the design of the lessons is independent of the different cultural settings. 
},
	keywords = {learning study, reading comprehension, variation theory},
	issn = {1822-7864},
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2014/457-1400135760.pdf},
	author = {Mona Holmqvist and Per-Ola  Holmquist and Wai Ming  Cheung}
}
@article {188,
	title = {CONTRASTING CASES AND THEIR IMPACT ON LEARNING: A REP-LICATION OF A LEARNING STUDY CONFIRMING THE IMPACT OF CONTRASTS},
	journal = {Problems of Education in the 21st Century },
	volume = {10},
	year = {2009},
	month = {January/2009},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {38-46},
	abstract = {The present article describes how Swedish pupils in class 4 (nine to eleven years old) learn English as a second language. The study replicates a learning study carried out within the framework of a more ex-tensive project known as {\textquotedblleft}The Pedagogy of Learning{\textquotedblright}. The present study is aiming to find out if the re-sults from one original learning study can be generalised to other teachers and pupils. The pupils partici-pating in the presented study learn how to use {\textquotedblleft}to have{\textquotedblright}. The original Learning Study Cycle (LSC) con-sisted of three lessons per cycle, each lesson carried out in different groups of pupils. The teachers fo-cused on the critical aspects, i.e. the features which must be distinguished in order to understand a phe-nomenon. This process entailed investigating the contrasts between the specified learning outcome(s), i.e. the ability or knowledge targeted. The lessons were planned from a variation theory perspective. The LSC demonstrated that the use of contrast {\textendash} applied in only one of the three lessons {\textendash} between {\textquotedblleft}to be{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}to have{\textquotedblright} had a positive effect on pupils{\textquoteright} generative learning, i.e. continued learning outside the classroom. In order to establish if the results of the present study are coincidental or repeatable the LSC was repli-cated. The first replicated study was conducted by a group of teachers with a good knowledge of variation theory. These teachers had previously applied the theory in mathematics lessons. A second replication was initiated by a group of teachers with no knowledge of variation theory. The results demonstrated that contrast is important for generative learning provided that teachers are able to focus on critical aspects and thereby elucidate contrast. In the group familiar with variation theory the results were similar to those of the original study, i.e. generative learning was promoted, while contrast had little effect on the pupils generative learning in the group of teachers who had no knowledge of variation theory. The study demonstrates that generative learning is dependent on teachers{\textquoteright} knowledge of how the critical aspects of the target knowledge should be presented to pupils. Such knowledge enables teachers to apply contrast as a means of developing pupils{\textquoteright} ability to distinguish qualitative differences. In this way, pupils continue to develop their knowledge beyond the classroom.},
	keywords = {generative learning, phenomenography, variation theory},
	issn = {1822-7864},
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2014/457-1392315254.pdf},
	author = {Mona Holmqvist and Jane  Mattisson}
}
@article {341,
	title = {STUDENTS LEARNING ENGLISH AS SECOND LANGUAGE: AN AP-PLIED LINGUISTICS LEARNING STUDY},
	journal = {Problems of Education in the 21st Century },
	volume = {18},
	year = {2009},
	month = {December/2009},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {86-96},
	abstract = {This study involved students from a teacher training programme and classroom teachers during in-service training. These students and teachers were introduced to variation theory and carried out a learn-ing study on English as a Second Language (ESL) that incorporated five research lessons taught in paral-lel, rather than in a cycle. The participants in the study were five classes from grade level five to upper secondary school, five university students, and two researchers. The aim was to put learning study to test in describing in what ways students (from fifth graders to upper secondary school students) discerned the letter s at the end of a word, and secondly what kind of knowledge about this learning object they were able to develop during instruction. When an s appears as a terminal letter in English, it can be inter-preted in at least five different ways: contraction, plural, third person singular, genitive or possessive pronoun. It can also be the final letter of a monomorphemic word (bass) or suffix (-ness). Our study dem-onstrated how learning study was used to describe how students of different ages interpret the suffix s. A pattern emerged indicating the way knowledge of a phenomenon develops as a consequence of teaching. This pattern was analysed in terms of the structure of the students{\textquoteright} native language. The outcome showed how students tried to comprehend a second language by means of the structure of the first. A good exam-ple is the pronoun your (dependent possessive form) and yours (independent possessive form). As there is no variation in Swedish between dependent and independent possessives, students associate the two forms with the differences between d- and t- gender. This distinction is made in Swedish (din/ditt) but not in modern English. },
	keywords = {learning study, teacher training programme, variation theory},
	issn = {1822-7864},
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2014/457-1399916048.pdf},
	author = {Mona Holmqvist and Gunilla Lindgren}
}
@article {114,
	title = {INSTRUCTION BUILT ON LEARNERS{\textquoteright} PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE BY USING THE VARIATION THEORY},
	journal = {Problems of Education in the 21st Century },
	volume = {6},
	year = {2008},
	month = {May/2008},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {86-95},
	abstract = {This chapter discusses teaching based upon pupils{\textquoteright} previous knowledge. As the world becomes more and more globalised, it is harder and harder for a teacher to form a picture of the pupils{\textquoteright} knowledge when planning instruction. However, without this information about pupils, it is impossible to know if the created learning situations are conducive to learning or if the pupils had already acquired knowledge about the learning object before the learning situation. In this study pupils{\textquoteright} previous knowledge is investigated in relation to how English as a Second Language is learnt when pupils have different mother tongues. In a phenomenographic study we found that pupils with three different mother tongues, when placed in the same learning situation, made errors which could be traced back to the structure of their mother tongue. This observation led to a learning study, in which variation theory was the theoretical point of departure, and in which three different research lessons with three different groups of pupils were carried out. The learning object was dependent possessives, and the pupils{\textquoteright} mother tongue was Swedish. As there is no differentiation between independent and dependent possessives in Swedish, the pupils could not discern the difference between these two forms. As Swedish has a differentiation between t- and n-gender, the puils wrongly assumed that the difference between my and mine was not connected to dependent and independent possessives but to gender. The results of our study show how teachers who are familiar with the pupils{\textquoteright} previous knowledge (mother tongue) can become aware of what mistakes they might make as ESL learners; this knowledge has a profound effect on instruction. In this way, teachers can also predict and plan what information is needed to develop learning situations which provide maximum opportunity to learn. They also understand what kinds of critical aspects are necessary to enable pupils to discern. As a result, teachers are more effective, which is reflected in better pupil results in the classroom. },
	keywords = {contrastive linguistic, phenomenography, variation theory},
	issn = {1822-7864},
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2014/457-1392233451.pdf},
	author = {Mona Holmqvist and Gunilla Lindgren and Jane  Mattisson and Teresa Svarvell}
}
@article {131,
	title = {VARIATION THEORY: A TOOL TO ANALYSE AND DEVELOP LEARNING AT SCHOOL},
	journal = {Problems of Education in the 21st Century },
	volume = {7},
	year = {2008},
	month = {June/2008},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {31-38},
	abstract = {This chapter argues that the decisive factor in the learning process is the object focused upon in the learning situation and not, as is commonly believed, the teaching method. We demonstrate how teaching and learning can be facilitated with the aid of a theory. The theory chosen is variation theory, which allows one to explain what it takes to learn a certain learning object. Both pupils{\textquoteright} and teachers{\textquoteright} learning are focused upon, as learning takes place in the interaction between the two. It is in the meeting of pupils{\textquoteright} and teachers{\textquoteright} knowledge that understanding of a specific learning object takes place. The three integral components of variation theory {\textendash} discernment, simultaneity and variation {\textendash} are described. By studying a specific learning object in three different classroom situations we demonstrate how it is possible to illuminate the different ways in which a learning object can be presented. These ways are described and analysed in terms of their implications for pupils{\textquoteright} learning. Our paper elucidates how variation theory can be employed to describe, plan and analyse the learning process. In a research project, it is the selection of what is to be focused upon which is the most critical factor, as it determines both the choice of theoretical perspective and method. Both theory and method are important tools for providing answers to research questions. It is only when the lesson content is specified and the pupils{\textquoteright} knowledge before and after a lesson is both ascertained and related to how the specific learning object has been presented in the classroom that one can determine what pupils have learned, and why they have learned it. Variation theory is an ideal theoretical perspective for such a study.},
	keywords = {instruction, phenomenography, variation theory},
	issn = {1822-7864},
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2014/457-1392234817.pdf},
	author = {Mona Holmqvist and Jane  Mattisson}
}
