<p>In this thesis the theoretical framework student ownership of learning (SOL) is developed both theoretically and with qualitative research, based on studies of small-group work in physics with miniprojects and context rich problems. Ownership is finally defined as actions of choice and control, i.e. the realised opportunities to own organisation of the work. The dimension group ownership of learning refers to the groups’ actions of choice and control of the management of the task: how the task is determined, performed and finally reported. The other dimension, the individual student ownership of learning, refers to the individual student's own question/idea that comes from own experiences, interests, or anomalies of understanding; an idea/question that recurs several times and leads to new insights. From literature and from own data, categories are constructed for group and individual student ownership of learning, which have been iteratively sharpened in order to identify ownership in these two dimensions. As a consequence, the use of the framework student ownership of learning is a way to identify an optimal level of ownership for better learning and higher motivation in physics teaching.</p><p>The first part of the thesis gives an overview of the theoretical background to the studies made, and summarises the findings. The second part consists of six articles that report case studies with analyses of audio/video-recorded student cooperative work, and student group discussions, from three collections of data: 1) students working with miniprojects in teacher education, 2) upper secondary school students taking a physics course that includes both context rich problems with group discussions and miniprojects, and 3), aeronautical engineering students working with context rich problems in an introductory physics course at university.</p><p>The thesis describes in a fine-grained analysis the conversation in the groups based on Barnes discourse moves, and finds that ownership and communication are related. Group discussions are found to be an indicator for group ownership of learning and exploratory talks often promotes individual student ownership of learning.</p>

In this thesis the theoretical framework student ownership of learning (SOL) is developed both theoretically and with qualitative research, based on studies of small-group work in physics with miniprojects and context rich problems. Ownership is finally defined as actions of choice and control, i.e. the realised opportunities to own organisation of the work. The dimension group ownership of learning refers to the groups’ actions of choice and control of the management of the task: how the task is determined, performed and finally reported. The other dimension, the individual student ownership of learning, refers to the individual student's own question/idea that comes from own experiences, interests, or anomalies of understanding; an idea/question that recurs several times and leads to new insights. From literature and from own data, categories are constructed for group and individual student ownership of learning, which have been iteratively sharpened in order to identify ownership in these two dimensions. As a consequence, the use of the framework student ownership of learning is a way to identify an optimal level of ownership for better learning and higher motivation in physics teaching. The first part of the thesis gives an overview of the theoretical background to the studies made, and summarises the findings. The second part consists of six articles that report case studies with analyses of audio/video-recorded student cooperative work, and student group discussions, from three collections of data: 1) students working with miniprojects in teacher education, 2) upper secondary school students taking a physics course that includes both context rich problems with group discussions and miniprojects, and 3), aeronautical engineering students working with context rich problems in an introductory physics course at university. The thesis describes in a fine-grained analysis the conversation in the groups based on Barnes discourse moves, and finds that ownership and communication are related. Group discussions are found to be an indicator for group ownership of learning and exploratory talks often promotes individual student ownership of learning.

This thesis reports case studies of students working with context rich problems (CRP) and mini projects (MP) in physics in an upper secondary school class and in a physics teacher education class at university. The students report a big shift from physics in secondary school as fun and easy, to physics in upper secondary school as boring, difficult and with lack of time for reflections and physics talking, but they also found physics as interesting in itself. In order to study how group discussions in physics influence the students learning and to study the phenomena of students’ ownership of learning (SOL) we introduced CRP and MP. We video recorded five groups with 14 teacher students at university in the end of 2002, and five group with 15 students at upper secondary school during the beginning of their second physics course in the spring term in 2003. MP and CRP in physics were used as instructional settings in order to give students possibility to strengthen their holistic understanding and their possibilities to ownership. When students get the opportunity to manage their own learning and studying by open-ended tasks in physics, without the teacher determining all details of the performance, this gives more ownership of learning. The advantage of MPs and CRPs from the student’s point of view is more freedom to act, think and discuss and from the teacher’s view, to get insights of the students’ ability and how they really think in physics. The ownership is found to be crucial for motivation and development of competence. Students’ ownership of learning (SOL) is the students’ influence/impact to affect tasks and the learning environment in such a way that the students have a real opportunity to achieve learning of physics. Students’ ownership of learning (SOL) is found at two levels: Group level: At the start of a task the SOL is determined by the design of the task. The choice of task, the performance (when, how, where), the level of result and presentatio n and report have to be determined by the students themselves. Individual level: A person’s experiences and anomalies of understanding have created unique questions that can create certain aspects of the task that drive this person to be very active and highly motivated. This gives the person a high individual ownership. We developed hypotheses concerning the relation between ownership, motivation and competence and we see some evidence in the cases reported in this thesis. The importance of exploratory talks to enhance learning, and to see aspects of communication as part of the motivation are discussed in the model of ownership, motivation and competence that is proposed.

<p>This thesis reports case studies of students working with context rich problems (CRP) and mini projects (MP) in physics in an upper secondary school class and in a physics teacher education class at university. The students report a big shift from physics in secondary school as fun and easy, to physics in upper secondary school as boring, difficult and with lack of time for reflections and physics talking, but they also found physics as interesting in itself. In order to study how group discussions in physics influence the students learning and to study the phenomena of students’ ownership of learning (SOL) we introduced CRP and MP. We video recorded five groups with 14 teacher students at university in the end of 2002, and five group with 15 students at upper secondary school during the beginning of their second physics course in the spring term in 2003. MP and CRP in physics were used as instructional settings in order to give students possibility to strengthen their holistic understanding and their possibilities to ownership. When students get the opportunity to manage their own learning and studying by open-ended tasks in physics, without the teacher determining all details of the performance, this gives more ownership of learning. The advantage of MPs and CRPs from the student’s point of view is more freedom to act, think and discuss and from the teacher’s view, to get insights of the students’ ability and how they really think in physics. The ownership is found to be crucial for motivation and development of competence.</p><p><em>Students’ ownership of learning (SOL) is the students’ influence/impact to affect tasks and the learning environment in such a way that the students have a real opportunity to achieve learning of physics.</em></p><p>Students’ ownership of learning (SOL) is found at two levels:</p><p><strong>Group level:</strong> At the start of a task the SOL is determined by the design of the task. The choice of task, the performance (when, how, where), the level of result and presentatio n and report have to be determined by the students themselves.</p><p><strong>Individual level:</strong> A person’s experiences and anomalies of understanding have created unique questions that can create certain aspects of the task that drive this person to be very active and highly motivated. This gives the person a high individual ownership. We developed hypotheses concerning the relation between ownership, motivation and competence and we see some evidence in the cases reported in this thesis. The importance of exploratory talks to enhance learning, and to see aspects of communication as part of the motivation are discussed in the model of ownership, motivation and competence that is proposed.</p>

Syftet med studien var att ta reda på vilka strategier elever väljer när de ska lösa ett matematiskt problem. Vi genomförde en observation och nio individuella intervjuer med elever i årskurs 3. De fick lösa ett matematiskt problem som observerades. Utifrån elevernas lösningar genomförde vi sedan intervjuer för att ta reda på vilka strategier de valt att använda för att lösa problemet. Resultatet av elevernas lösningar visade på flera olika lösningsstrategier. Dessa delades in i yttre och inre representationer. Strategier som bilder, grafiska framställningar och matematiska symboler (siffror) hör till de yttre representationerna, då de består av konkreta bilder som eleverna måste se framför sig på papper när de löser matematiska problem. Huvudräkning, automatiserad kunskap och ”tänkande” är samtliga strategier som tillhör de inre representationsformerna. Med inre representationer menar vi det som sker i huvudet, det eleverna inte behöver se framför sig för att kunna lösa problemet. Vi fann att elevlösningarna innehöll kombinationer av flera olika strategier. Vilken eller vilka strategier eleven än väljer till sin problemlösning är det oundvikligt att använda sig av någon form av inre representationsform, för att tänka måste alla göra oberoende av vilken lösningsstrategi som väljs och hur duktiga problemlösare eleverna än är. När eleverna är unga kan det vara svårt och ovant för dem att skriftligt redovisa hur lösningsprocessen gått till. Därför måste vi lärare ha tid att sätta oss in i hur eleven tänker för att kunna bygga vidare undervisningen utifrån den enskilde individens behov. / The purpose of the study was to discern which strategies pupils employ when they solve a mathematical problem. We carried through one observation and nine individual interviews with pupils in school year 3. They were asked to solve a mathematical problem, which was observed. On the basis of the pupils’ solutions, we carried out interviews in order to determine which strategies they chose to employ. The outcome of the pupils’ solutions showed several problem solving strategies. These were divided into external and internal representations. Strategies such as pictures, graphs and mathematical symbols (numerals) are external representations, as they consist of concrete pictures that the pupils must see in front of them on a paper when solving mathematical problems. Mental arithmetic, automated knowledge and “thinking” are all strategies that belong to internal modes of representation. With internal representations, we mean what happens inside our heads – what pupils need not see in front of them in order to solve a problem. We found that the pupils’ solutions contained combinations of several different strategies. Irrespective of which strategy or strategies the pupil choose in his or her problem solving, it is inevitable to use some variety of internal representations; everyone has to think, regardless of the strategy chosen and the problem solving skills of the pupil. When pupils are young, it may be difficult for them to present the flow of their problem solving processes in writing. Consequently, as teachers we must have time to familiarize ourselves with how the pupil thinks in order to develop our teaching on the basis of the needs of the individual pupil.

<p>Syftet med studien var att ta reda på vilka strategier elever väljer när de ska lösa</p><p>ett matematiskt problem. Vi genomförde en observation och nio individuella</p><p>intervjuer med elever i årskurs 3. De fick lösa ett matematiskt problem som</p><p>observerades. Utifrån elevernas lösningar genomförde vi sedan intervjuer för att</p><p>ta reda på vilka strategier de valt att använda för att lösa problemet. Resultatet av</p><p>elevernas lösningar visade på flera olika lösningsstrategier. Dessa delades in i</p><p>yttre och inre representationer. Strategier som bilder, grafiska framställningar och</p><p>matematiska symboler (siffror) hör till de yttre representationerna, då de består av</p><p>konkreta bilder som eleverna måste se framför sig på papper när de löser</p><p>matematiska problem. Huvudräkning, automatiserad kunskap och ”tänkande” är</p><p>samtliga strategier som tillhör de inre representationsformerna. Med inre</p><p>representationer menar vi det som sker i huvudet, det eleverna inte behöver se</p><p>framför sig för att kunna lösa problemet. Vi fann att elevlösningarna innehöll</p><p>kombinationer av flera olika strategier. Vilken eller vilka strategier eleven än</p><p>väljer till sin problemlösning är det oundvikligt att använda sig av någon form av</p><p>inre representationsform, för att tänka måste alla göra oberoende av vilken</p><p>lösningsstrategi som väljs och hur duktiga problemlösare eleverna än är. När</p><p>eleverna är unga kan det vara svårt och ovant för dem att skriftligt redovisa hur</p><p>lösningsprocessen gått till. Därför måste vi lärare ha tid att sätta oss in i hur</p><p>eleven tänker för att kunna bygga vidare undervisningen utifrån den enskilde</p><p>individens behov.</p> / <p>The purpose of the study was to discern which strategies pupils employ when they solve</p><p>a mathematical problem. We carried through one observation and nine individual</p><p>interviews with pupils in school year 3. They were asked to solve a mathematical</p><p>problem, which was observed. On the basis of the pupils’ solutions, we carried out</p><p>interviews in order to determine which strategies they chose to employ. The outcome of</p><p>the pupils’ solutions showed several problem solving strategies. These were divided</p><p>into external and internal representations. Strategies such as pictures, graphs and</p><p>mathematical symbols (numerals) are external representations, as they consist of</p><p>concrete pictures that the pupils must see in front of them on a paper when solving</p><p>mathematical problems. Mental arithmetic, automated knowledge and “thinking” are all</p><p>strategies that belong to internal modes of representation. With internal representations,</p><p>we mean what happens inside our heads – what pupils need not see in front of them in</p><p>order to solve a problem. We found that the pupils’ solutions contained combinations of</p><p>several different strategies. Irrespective of which strategy or strategies the pupil choose</p><p>in his or her problem solving, it is inevitable to use some variety of internal</p><p>representations; everyone has to think, regardless of the strategy chosen and the</p><p>problem solving skills of the pupil. When pupils are young, it may be difficult for them</p><p>to present the flow of their problem solving processes in writing. Consequently, as</p><p>teachers we must have time to familiarize ourselves with how the pupil thinks in order</p><p>to develop our teaching on the basis of the needs of the individual pupil.</p>