The main purpose of the present study is to investigate whether learning and ways of understanding subject content and structure differ between successful and less successful students—i.e. in terms of their grade point average—in upper secondary school. A second issue is whether different subjects and disciplines—i.e. science on the one hand and humanities/social sciences on the other—make different demands on students. Data were gathered through interviews with a total of 36 students in two classes at two periods of their schooling. Additional data were gathered from interviews with teachers in the two classes and a sample of the tests given to the classes. Both classes receive instruction in science as well as humanities/social sciences but in one class (N) the emphasis is on science whereas in the other (S) the emphasis is on humanities/social sciences. A common characteristic of successful students is that they adjust to the teacher’s way of structuring the subject by means of a deep approach and a pronounced cue-seeking. They also play a dominant role in classroom communication. Less successful students more frequently use a surface or procedural approach to learning, are less sensitive for cues, do not adjust to the structure of subjects as presented by the teachers and do not participate to the same extent in classroom communication. The characteristics for successful students are very stable over time. As for the less successful students, there is a difference between N- and S-students. A majority of the S-students who use a surface approach in the first year change towards a deep approach later in their schooling, whereas the procedural approach of N-students is stable. It is concluded that the stability shown by the successful students can be explained in that their deep approach reflects their understanding that subject structure may vary and cue-seeking for these students signifies an awareness of and subsequent adjustment to the particular structure presented by the teachers. By understanding the structure according to teachers’ intentions, successful students are able to participate in classroom communication, eventually establishing a joint discourse. The differences between a change of learning for S- and N-students could be interpreted in light of differences in subject structure and instruction between subjects. In humanities/social sciences, classroom communication and the presentation of alternative interpretations of subject matter play a prominent role in instruction, and students who initially use a surface approach might get guidance to alternative ways of understanding the subject matter and subject structure. In the science subjects in the N-programme, the presentation of alternative interpretations is not  as common. These subjects also have a hierarchical structure, and understanding the basic fundamentals is a prerequisite for understanding later topics. For the students who initially use a surface approach in these hierarchically ordered subjects, learning becomes a matter of memorising more and more disconnected facts in what might seem to be disjointed courses.

The aim of this study is to gain understanding of students’ experiences of assessment and the study strategies they adopt in the context of Higher Education in Rwanda. The study is governed by questions on how students conceive their experiences with assessment in their courses, how they determine study strategies, and how they reflect on alternative ways of assessment. The theoretical framework is based on socio-cultural approaches and on earlier research on assessment and theories of learning. The participants were drawn from third year and former geography students in two tertiary institutions. A four panel-wave design guided the data collection: a survey, focus groups, a follow-up questionnaire and individual interviews. The findings show that the majority of the students conceived assessment as course lecturers’ ways of collecting evidence from students to be used as benchmarks for grading, ranking and promotion at course level and for monitoring and controlling both students and teachers. Assessment was usually summative and could be both course-oriented in line with the curriculum and teacher-oriented in line with teachers’ course-notes. Moreover, the findings reveal that students rely heavily on senior students’ information about teachers’ styles of assessing, as a source for adopting study strategies. The participants experienced that learning took place under contextual pressure, which created fear for repetition or even expulsion. However, the students responded to this by adopting a combination of individual work and group work strategies. In contrast to the experienced modes of summative assessment, the participants had visions about formative assessment such as authentic and problem-solving assessment, and self- and peer- assessment, which they suggest could be employed as integral parts of the teaching and learning process. This is discussed in terms of assessment for learning as a cycle of events or as assessment of learning at the end of a course. / Syftet med denna avhandling är att söka förståelse för studenters erfarenheter av bedömning och vilka studiestrategier de använder sig av inom högre utbildning i Rwanda. Studien vägleds av frågor om hur studenter upplever sina erfarenheter av bedömning i sina kurser, hur de bestämmer studie strategier och hur de reflekterar över alternativa bedömningssätt. Det teoretiska ramverket har sin grund i sociokulturell teori och tidigare forskning om bedömning och lärande. I datainsamlingen deltog studenter från två olika institutioner för högre utbildning inom ämnesområdet geografi, dels under deras tredje studieår, dels en tid efter det att de var nyexaminerade. Insamlingen pågick under fyra perioder och började med en enkät. Därpå följde samtal i fokusgrupper och en uppföljningsenkät med öppna frågor. Studien avslutades med intervjuer med en mindre grupp efter deras examen. Resultaten visar att majoriteten av studenterna uppfattade bedömningen som lektorernas sätt att samla bevis att användas som underlag för systematisk mätning av studenternas resultat och för att kunna rangordna dem. De användes även som underlag för uppflyttning till nästa kursnivå och för att kontrollera att kursen genomförts. Bedömningen var oftast summativ och kunde vara både kursorienterad och följa målen i kursplanen och lärarorienterad där målen var de som angavs i lärarens kurskompendier. Resultaten visar att när studenterna ska välja studiestrategi förlitar de sig i hög grad på information från tidigare studenters uppfattningar om lärares sätt att ställa frågor. Deltagarna uppfattade att lärandet skedde under press från omgivningen vilket skapade rädsla för att de skulle behöva repetera kursen eller bli relegerade om de inte blev godkända. Studenterna hanterade sin oro genom att använda sig av en kombination av individuellt arbete och grupparbete. När de redovisade sina visioner om bedömning föreslog de att formativa bedömningssätt skulle användas som integrerade delar av lärandeprocessen och gav exempel som autentisk bedömning, självvärdering och bedömning av en kamrat. Detta diskuteras i termer av bedömning för lärande under en pågående kurs eller bedömning av lärande i slutet av en kurs.

This study is concerned with Swedish as a school subject, with teachers in Swedish and with the relevance of teacher training, all of which I discuss in the perspective of professionalism. When it comes to content, the Swedish subject is characterized by disruption. The informants describe different subjects, but communicative skills seem to be their most important objective. And among the informants the collective view on the Swedish subject is that of Swedish as Skills. Furthermore, the concept of integrated studies in secondary school is interpreted and construed in two different ways, formal subject integration and one that might be called “true” subject integration. The study also points to discrepancies between teacher education and the profession. One such discrepancy concerns the core of Swedish as a subject. Another concerns the teaching and responsibility of children with reading and writing disabilities and other states of difficulties, such as ADHD. The teachers in this study did not get such proficiency during teacher training, and this causes frustration and feelings of inadequacy. At the same time the Swedish educational authorities presuppose that this area is the concern of every teacher, and not solely the concern of teachers of the Swedish subject. The subject concept, the use and ideology of steering documents, subject integration as well as the status of teacher training are factors that seem to have an impact on the autonomy and status of teachers.