In this paper, we analyze how variation theory is used in teachers’ collegial discussion concerning physical education. Teaching is supposed to be researched-informed, but teachers experience discrepancy between educational research and their everyday practice (Cain, 2017). Ertsas and Irgens (2021) argue for the importance of viewing theory and practice as interwoven instead of hierarchical. The use of theory and theoretical concepts is challenging for teachers, and Cain (2017) call for more studies of how teachers “receive, understand and use educational research” (s.622).

Even if use of theory is demanding for teachers, theoretical concepts which appear meaningful in planning, enactment and evaluation of teaching, has a potential to become theoretical tools in teachers’ learning communities, TLC. TLC with a focus on teaching and student learning is valuable for the development of teacher competence (Vangrieken, Meredith, Packer & Kyndt, 2017). Ertsas and Irgens (2017) emphasize a need of shifting focus from teachers’ knowledge about theory to the process of professional theorizing, which implies the operationalization of theoretical concepts in interplay with teaching practice. In the theorizing process, they argue, the theory is of different degrees (Ertsas & Irgens, 2017). The first degree of theory, T1, is implicit and viewed in teachers’ actions in the classroom. The second degree of theory, T2, is explicit, viewed in the teachers’ arguments and assumptions for teaching. The third degree of theory, T3, contribute to teachers’ reflections and analysis of accomplished teaching. The professional theorizing process is illustrated as different phases, where the three different degrees of theory interplays (ibid).

The professional theorizing process is an essential part of collegial development in schools (Ertsas & Irgens, 2021), especially when authentic questions and teaching experiences function as the point of departure (Darling-Hammond et.al., 2005). Teachers’ collegial discussions is phrased as inter-thinking by Littleton and Mercer (2013). The professional collegial discussions are characterized by inquiring, questioning, and problematizing suggestions and reflections concerning teaching (Kintz, Lane, Gotwals & Cisterna, 2015; Nelson, Slavit, Perkins & Hathorn, 2008; Popp & Goldman, 2016).

In the present study, variation theory (Marton, 2015) is used in the teachers’ collegial discussions. According to variation theory, the learner (the student) always learns something, which is conceptualized as the object of learning (Marton, 2015). The object of learning is described in terms of critical aspects to be discerned by the learner. To learn, it is necessary to experience variation in relation to what has to be discerned. The teaching design focus on how to offer possibilities for the learner to experience the necessary variation in the aspect. This implies a need of an initial investigation of how the specific group of students experience the object of learning.

Variation theory is used in the school development models learning studies (Lo, 2014) and Subject Didactics Groups, SDG, (Mårtensson & Hansson, 2018; Hansson, 2021). These models, thereby, include professional theorizing in line with Ertsas and Irgens (2021). In SDG’s teachers and a researcher collaboratively plan, teach and evaluate teaching guided by variation theory. Teachers’ learning from participation in learning studies (Kullberg, Mårtensson & Runesson, 2016; Mårtensson, 2015) and Subject Didactic Groups (Hansson, 2021) shows that teachers develop their teaching and become more specific regarding what the students are supposed to learn. Teachers in learning studies use the term critical aspect in the conversation whereas other variation theory concepts are more demanding (Mårtensson, 2015; Hansson, 2021). Most studies of SDG´s focusing on mathematics teaching (Hansson, 2021). There is a lack of studies concerning other school subjects. Our research question is: How is variation theory used in teachers’ conversation in an SDG in physical education?

This study is conducted within the scope of an implementation of SDGs in a municipality in Sweden. In total, seven physical education teachers from three different compulsory schools teaching year 1-9 constituted the SDG in the study. The teachers participated in continuing meetings for one year, facilitated by a teacher in the group. The facilitating teacher followed a local education program in parallel with the meetings. All teachers in the group had participated in a lecture on variation theory. The learning goals in focus for the discussion concerned, first, the ability to develop and accomplish complex movements in ball sports passing or PE appliance, and second, to develop knowledge about planning a warm-up in PE. Due to the ongoing pandemic, some of the meetings were cancelled or not documented. The data in the study consists of six meetings, each approximately 60 minutes and audio recorded. The analysis of the empirical data was carried out in following way. The audio recorded meetings were transcribed verbatim and repeatedly red. Sequences in the transcripts including variation theory concepts, such as object of learning and critical aspects were selected for deepen analysis. Thereby, the analytical approach has similarities with directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The followed analysis focused on: how variation theory concepts were expressed and used; how aspects of variation theory appeared in the discussion regarding teaching and learning in physical education; what the teachers assume as critical aspects (of the learning object); changes in teachers’ conceptualization of the concept critical aspects; what teachers’ attend to as salient student knowledge; how the teachers express the meaning of desired student knowledge. The questions were inspired of earlier studies of SDG’s (i.e., Mårtensson, 2015; Hansson, 2021).

In the SDG, the variation theory concepts are displayed in different ways in the conversations concerning teaching physical education. The findings show four phases, number 0-3, in changed function in how the variation theory concept critical aspects is used in the conversation of teaching and student learning. In phase 0, the signification of the variation theory concept critical aspect is taken for granted. The concept is used with an everyday meaning, as “critical” in a general sense regarding the teaching situation, instead of in compliance with variation theory. In phase 1, the signification of critical aspect is negotiated through the teachers’ reflections upon accomplished teaching. For example, the negotiation about how to understand the concept, ended in teachers’ awareness of how critical aspects (of an object of learning) differ between different groups of students. In phase 2, the negotiation of the signification of critical aspects continues in parallel with discussions of planning in physical education. This implies teachers’ discussion both with focus on the PE content in terms of critical aspects and about the meaning of the concept critical aspect(s). In phase 3, the significance of the concept is taken for granted, and critical aspects is used as a tool in their collegial discussion of planning, analyzing and developing teaching physical education. Phase 3 indicates using the variation theory concept as a part of a professional language for teaching, and in line with the intentions of variation theory. The preliminary findings are discussed in terms of professional theorizing process in Ertsas and Irgens (2017).

Cain, T. (2017). Denial, opposition, rejection or dissent: why do teachers contest research evidence?. Research Papers in Education, 32(5), 611-625. Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do, 1, 390-441. Ertsas, T. I., & Irgens, E. J. (2017). Professional theorizing. Teachers and teaching, 23(3), 332-351. Ertsas, T. I., & Irgens, E. J. (2021). Developing organizational knowledge in schools: The role of theory and theorizing in collective capacity building. Journal of educational change, 1-24. Hansson, H. (2021). Variationsteorin i praktiken: Vad en lärandeteori kan bidra med till lärares undervisning (Licentiate thesis). Jönköping: School of Education and Communication, Jönköping University. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277–1288. Kintz, T., Lane, J., Gotwals, A., & Cisterna, D. (2015). Professional development at the local level: Necessary and sufficient conditions for critical colleagueship. Teaching and teacher education, 51, 121-136. Kullberg, A., Mårtensson, P., & Runesson, U. (2016) What is to be Learned? Teachers’ Collective Inquiry into the Object of Learning, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(3), 309-322. Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Routledge. Lo, M. L. (2012). Variation theory and the improvement of teaching. Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences 323. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Mårtensson, P. (2015). Att få syn på avgörande skillnader: Lärares kunskap om lärandeobjektet (Learning to see distinctions: Teachers' gaining knowledge of the object of learning). Doctoral dissertation. Jönköping: School of Education and Communication, Jönköping University. Mårtensson, P., & Hansson, H. (2018). Challenging teachers’ ideas about what students need to learn: Teachers’ collaborative work in subject didactic groups. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 7(2), 98-110. Marton, F. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. New York: Routledge. Nelson, T. H., Slavit, D., Perkins, M., & Hathorn, T. (2008). A culture of collaborative inquiry: Learning to develop and support professional learning communities. Teachers college record, 110(6), 1269-1303. Popp, J. S., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). Knowledge building in teacher professional learning communities: Focus of meeting matters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 347-359. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and teacher education, 61, 47–59.