LEARNING OUTCOMES IN FINNISH AS A SECOND · PDF filethe learning outcomes in Finnish as a second ... language proficiency in reading comprehension, ... was small in relation to the

LEARNING OUTCOMES IN FINNISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE AT THE END OF BASIC EDUCATION IN 2015

SUMMARY

FINNISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING OUTCOMES 20152

Content

Objective and purpose of the assessment .............................................................................. 3

Multilingual pupils in the S2 assessment ................................................................................4

The pupils’ overall proficiency ....................................................................................................8

Connection between pupil-specific factors and proficiency ............................................. 13

Connection between proficiency and the resources at home .......................................... 15

Connection between proficiency and teaching arrangements ......................................... 16

Connection between learning outcomes and the teacher, teaching and learning environment ......................................................................................................... 17

Development suggestions ......................................................................................................... 18

FINNISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING OUTCOMES 2015 3

Objective and purpose of the assessment

In April 2015, the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) carried out an assessment of the learning outcomes in Finnish as a second language (S2) syllabus at the end of basic education. The purpose of the assessment was to produce reliable information on the achievement of the objectives of the S2 syllabus set out in the national core curriculum (FNBE 2004), as well as on educational equality and the pupils’ eligibility for further studies. Teachers’ assessment practices were also explored.

The criteria for receiving the grade 8 in the final assessment of the S2 syllabus have been defined for the pupil’s language proficiency, cultural skills and language learning skills. The main priority in this assessment was the pupils’ language proficiency. In the scale for language proficiency levels (hereinafter: proficiency scale), good proficiency means attaining levels B1.1–B1.2. B is the reference level for the language skills of an independent user. B1.1 refers to functional basic proficiency, and B1.2 refers to fluent basic proficiency, based on which the language user copes in various everyday communication situations.

The proficiency scale is divided into four skill components, which were used to assess the pupils’ language proficiency in reading comprehension, listening comprehension, writing and speaking. Information on other assessment objectives was gathered through assignments for measuring language skills and background surveys.

The information gathered from the pupils included their time in school in Finland, their linguistic background and use of linguistic resources, their socioeconomic background, and studying under the S2 syllabus. The survey for teachers was aimed at examining the practical implementation of the S2 syllabus and identifying the factors affecting the assessment, and the final assessment and grade in particular. The background survey for principals focused on examining the school’s ability to act as a learning environment that promotes diversity.

Nationwide census type of data was collected for the assessment because it was known that the number of S2 pupils was small in relation to the total number of 9th grade pupils.


Multilingual pupils in the S2 assessment

The assessment included 1 530 pupils from 242 schools. Of these, 47 per cent were girls and 53 per cent boys. The assessment also included pupils who had been granted intensified or special support. Also participating in the assessment were pupils of the S2 syllabus from schools in which the language of instruction is other than Finnish.

Half of the pupils had completed all grades of basic education in Finland. More than 14 per cent of the participating pupils had studied in a Finnish comprehensive school for 6–8 years, nearly one quarter for 3–5 years, and slightly over nine per cent for 1–2 years only.


Nearly 40 per cent of the pupils were born in Finland; the largest groups of them were Somali, Russian, Albanian, Arabic and Vietnamese-speaking. 14 per cent of the pupils were born in Estonia, 9.5 per cent in Russia, four per cent in Somalia, and four per cent in Thailand. The total number of countries of birth named by the pupils was 91 (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1. The pupils’ countries of birth

Almost one fifth of the pupils participating in the assessment were Russian-speaking. The second largest group was Somali-speaking pupils (15 %). The percentage of Estonian-speaking pupils was 13, and seven per cent were Arabic-speaking. The total number of mother tongues named by the pupils was 76 (Figure 2).

39,4

14,3

9,5

4,2 4,02,2 1,8 1,6 1,5 1,2

20,3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

perc

enta

ge o

f pup

ils (%

)


FIGURE 2. The pupils’ mother tongues

More than half of the pupils felt they understood and spoke their mother tongue well or very well. In addition, more than 40 per cent of the pupils felt they understood and read Finnish very well. The usage of pupils’ own mother tongue and Finnish differed between various situations of interaction. At home with adults, pupils used mostly their own mother tongue, but with friends, for more than 60 per cent of the pupils used Finnish. For 44 per cent of the pupils, the language they used most with their siblings was their own mother tongue, but one in four also used Finnish (Figure 3).

20,1

14,6

12,7

7,05,5

3,7 3,3 2,9 2,5 2,4 1,8 1,8 1,7 1,2 1,1 1,0 0,8

15,8

3,8

0

5

10

15

20

25

perce

ntage

of p

upils

(%)


FIGURE 3. Languages used by the pupils in various relationships

In leisure time, the pupils used Finnish most when they were using services, during their hobbies and with friends. In the social media and when using electronic and mobile communications, more than half of the pupils used Finnish most of the time or always. More than 40 per cent of the pupils felt that the language in which their proficiency was the strongest was Finnish, while an equal percentage felt it was their own mother tongue. Finnish was the strongest language especially for pupils who had completed all grades of basic education in Finland.

1,8

25,0

16,5

44,1

6,7

63,1

13,2

15,8

1,6

7,2

8,8

79,3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

other language or language combination

Finnish

own mother tongue and Finnish

own mother tongue


Finnish

own mother tongue


Finnish


own mother tongue

with

siblin

gswi

th frie

nds

at ho

me w

ith ad

ults

percentage of pupils (%)



The pupils’ overall proficiency

Overall, the language proficiency of the participating pupils was fairly good. In the assessment, 87 per cent of the pupils attained levels B1.1–B1.2, meaning a good proficiency level or higher. On average, the pupils attained proficiency level B2.1. Only 13 per cent of the pupils attained level A proficiency, with more than half of such pupils attaining level A2.2 (Figure 4).

FIGURE 4. The pupils’ overall proficiency

The learning outcomes of the pupils were best explained by the number of years they had attended school. The average proficiency level of pupils who had completed all the grades of basic education in Finland was B2.1. The proficiency level of pupils who had attended school in Finland for 6–8 years or 3–5 years was B1.2. The proficiency level of pupils who had started school during the final years of basic education was B1.1.

The learning outcomes of pupils who were only able to attain proficiency level A were best explained by the low number of years they had attended school. From among the pupils who had attended school in Finland for 1–2 years, 46 per cent were only able to attain proficiency level A, as did 25 percent of the pupils who had only studied for 3–5 years. The proficiency level attained by 36 per

0,7

4,8

7,6

13,6

24,6

29,5

15,6

3,5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

A1.3 orlower

A2.1 A2.2 B1.1 B1.2 B2.1 B2.2 higher thanB2.2

perc

enta

ge o

f pup

ils (%

)

proficiency level


cent of pupils born in Finland who had attended school for a shorter period was lower than B1.2, while the corresponding figure among pupils who had completed all the grades of basic education was 12 per cent.

There was no difference between the learning outcomes of pupils born in Finland who had completed all the grades of basic education in Finland and pupils who had arrived in Finland before the start of comprehensive school who had completed all the grades of basic education.

With respect to the proficiency attained in different areas of language, the pupils’ comprehension skills were stronger than their production skills (Figure 5).

FIGURE 5. The pupils’ proficiency in different areas of language

3,7

6,95,6

11,415,5

27,723,8

5,4

0

10

20

30

40

A1.3or

lower

A2.1 A2.2 B1.1 B1.2 B2.1 B2.2 higherthanB2.2

perce

ntage

of pu

pils (

%)

listening comprehension

0,6 2,8 5,68,5

12,8

33,428,7

7,7

0

10

20

30

40

A1.3or

lower


perce

ntage

of pu

pils (

%)

reading comprehension

2,7

6,7

17,4

27,4

22,3

11,16,0 6,4

0

10

20

30

40

A1.3or

lower


perce

ntage

of pu

pils (

%)

writing

5,09,5 11,5

16,5 19,414,9 12,2 11,1

0

10

20

30

40

A1.3or

lower


perce

ntage

of pu

pils (

%)

speaking


More than 90 per cent of the pupils attained a good proficiency level or higher in reading comprehension. In listening comprehension, a good proficiency level or higher was attained by 84 per cent of the pupils. The proportion of pupils who attained a good proficiency level or higher was 73 per cent in writing and 74 per cent in speaking. The average proficiency levels were B2.1 in reading comprehension and listening comprehension, B1.1 in writing, and B1.2 in speaking. The proportion of pupils whose results fell below the good proficiency level in reading comprehension was nine per cent, while the same was true of 16 per cent of the pupils in listening comprehension. One in four pupils attained a proficiency level lower than B1.1 both in speaking and writing. The variation in the number of years that the pupils had attended school was also another explanation for their proficiency levels in the different areas of language (Figure 6).

FIGURE 6. The pupils’ proficiency in different areas of language by years at school

The learning outcomes of pupils who had completed all the grades of basic education in Finland were best in comprehension skills and speaking (B2.1), but they also attained a good proficiency level (B1.2) in writing. The learning outcomes of pupils who had attended school in Finland for 6–8 years were also stronger in comprehension skills (B2.1) than in production skills (B1.2). The reading comprehension skills of pupils who had attended school in Finland for 3–5 years was at proficiency level B1.2, while their listening comprehension and production skills were at level B1.1.

2,2

2,4

2,7

3,6

2,9

2,9

3,6

4,3

4,1

3,5

4,6

5,0

4,6

4,0

4,9

5,3

speaking

writing

listening comprehension

reading comprehension

proficiency level

9–10 years

6–8 years

3–5 years

1–2 years

A2.2 B1.1 B1.2 B2.1 B2.2 higher than B2.2


Pupils who had started attending school at the end of basic education attained proficiency level A2.2 in production skills, while the proficiency level they attained in listening comprehension (B1.1) was one level lower than that in reading comprehension (B1.2).

As a rule, the pupils’ perceived Finnish language proficiency and overall proficiency were parallel in the assessment. Nearly all of the pupils who attained proficiency level B2.2 or higher estimated that their Finnish language skills were good or very good. Correspondingly, 34 per cent of the pupils who attained proficiency level A estimated that their Finnish language skills were moderate at best. On average, girls and boys attained almost the same proficiency levels (Figure 7).

FIGURE 7. The proficiency of girls and boys

The good proficiency level, B1.1–B1.2 or higher, was attained by 87 per cent of the girls and 86 per cent of the boys. However, from the total number of boys and girls, the percentage of boys who attained proficiency level A was slightly higher than the corresponding figure among the girls. Statistically, there was a significant difference between the proficiency of girls and boys, but the average in each group corresponded to proficiency level B1.2. There was a significant statistical

0,6

4,7

8,5

15,9

25,8

29,6

12,2

2,60,8

5,06,7

11,0

23,4

29,3

19,4

4,4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

A1.3 orlower


perce

ntage

of pu

pils (

%)

proficiency level

boysgirls


difference between the proficiency of girls and boys in each area of language. The biggest difference was in writing, in which the average proficiency level was B1.1 for boys and B1.2 for girls. The differences were not significant.

By AVI area (i.e. the operating areas of Regional State Administrative Agencies), the overall proficiency of the pupils fell between proficiency levels B1.1 and B1.2. In all the AVI areas, the girls outperformed the boys, but the difference between the proficiency of girls and boys was small. In the AVI area of Northern Finland, the average proficiency level of girls and boys was B1.1., while in the rest of Finland it was B1.2. The difference between the proficiency of girls and boys was the greatest in the AVI area of Eastern Finland, where the average proficiency level was B2.1 for girls and B1.2 for boys. In the other AVI areas, the differences were minor.

By type of municipality, the average proficiency level of the pupils was B1.2. The overall proficiency of pupils in rural municipalities was significantly weaker than that of pupils in urban municipalities. From among the pupils studying in the Helsinki capital region, 85 per cent attained or exceeded the good proficiency level. On average, the pupils attained proficiency level B1.2. In other parts of Finland, the good proficiency level was attained or exceeded by 78 percent of the pupils, while their average proficiency level was also B1.2.


Connection between pupil-specific factors and proficiency

The assessment examined the proficiency of the pupils in the language groups that performed the best and the worst in the assessment in relation to the number of years they had attended school. Broken down by language group, differences in proficiency were statistically meaningful but not significant (Figure 8).

FIGURE 8. Proficiency of pupils from different language groups by years at school

11,51,6

2,53,1

3,81,9

2,12,8

3,43,5

4,63,3

3,63,7

4,64,84,9

4,24,34,4

5,25,2

5,5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Somali (n = 6)Thai (n = 7)

Persian (n = 8)…

Arabic (n = 6)Russian (n = 31)

Estonian (n = 35)Thai (n = 21)

French (n = 8)Persian (n = 7)

…Chinese (n = 11)English (n = 13)

Estonian (n = 77)Arabic (n = 8)

Kurdish (n = 5)Somali (n = 29)

…English (n = 7)

Russian (n = 48)Estonian (n = 28)

Arabic (n = 72)Persian (n = 8)

Thai (n = 8)…

Estonian (n = 40)Chinese (n = 12)English (n = 12)

1–2 y

ears

3–5 y

ears

6–8 y

ears

9–10

year

s

proficiency level

year

s at s

choo

l in F

inlan

d


The pupils who performed best in the assessment were the Estonian, Russian, Chinese and English-speaking pupils, regardless of how many years they had attended school in Finland. The previous school history of the pupils in these language groups also supported the study of pupils who started basic education at a later stage.

The proficiency of pupils from different language groups with a weaker performance were explained by the range of years they had attended school, their different socioeconomic backgrounds, and their performance at school in general. Based on language groups, it may also be assumed that the previous school history of pupils who started basic education at a later stage has in particular been varied and fragmented.

66 per cent of the pupils had received some degree of support during the 9th grade. Of such pupils, 61 per cent received general support for their studies, 23 per cent received intensified support, and 15 per cent were given special support. Among these groups, the average proficiency levels were B2.1 for pupils receiving general support, B1.2 for pupils receiving intensified support, and B1.1 for pupils receiving special support. 2.5 per cent of the pupils had an individualised S2 syllabus. On average, the pupils attained proficiency level A2.2. 47 per cent of the pupils attained level B1.1 or higher.

There was no statistically significant difference between the proficiency of pupils who attended lessons in their own mother tongue and pupils who did not. Preparatory training had the strongest effect on the proficiency of pupils who had started school at the end of basic education. Of such pupils, the proficiency level of those who attended preparatory training was B1.1, while the proficiency level of those who did not was A2.2.

37 per cent of the pupils had applied for general upper secondary school and 37 per cent for vocational education and training through the joint application system. Four per cent of the pupils had applied for voluntary additional basic education and three per cent either for preparatory training for general upper secondary school or preparatory training for vocational upper secondary education and training. The average proficiency level of pupils who applied for general upper secondary school was B2.1, while the average proficiency level of those who applied for vocational education and training was B1.2. The average proficiency level of pupils who applied for preparatory training for general upper secondary school was B1.1, while the level of those who applied for preparatory training for vocational upper secondary education and training was A2.2. On average, the pupils who applied for voluntary additional basic education attained proficiency level B1.2.


Connection between proficiency and the resources at home

More than 60 per cent of the pupils lived with both their parents. One in five lived with their mother and eight per cent lived with one of their biological parents in a reconstituted family. Three per cent of the pupils alternated between their parents, and less than two percent lived only with their father. Learning outcomes are better with those pupils, who lived with both of their parents or with their mother. Pupils who felt they received support for their studies at home attained proficiency level B2.1. Pupils who received less support also attained a level of good proficiency, B1.1.

The pupils’ proficiency was explained by the variable describing the socioeconomic background of a pupil formed on the basis of the education of the pupils’ parents and the pupils’ situation in life. On average, pupils with high socioeconomic background attained proficiency level B2.1, while pupils with a lower socioeconomic background attained proficiency level B1.1. The connection between the pupils’ socioeconomic background and the proficiency level attained was significant, regardless of the number of years they had attended school. An exception to this was pupils who had attended school in Finland for 9–10 years. In this group of pupils, the difference between those with the highest and the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds was one level only.


Connection between proficiency and teaching arrangements

The teaching arrangements for pupils studying the S2 syllabus mainly corresponded with the level of proficiency they showed in the assessment (Figure 9).

FIGURE 9. Pupils’ proficiency by teaching arrangements

From among the pupils who studied the S2 syllabus only in Finnish as a mother tongue lessons without differentiation, no less than 98 per cent attained a good proficiency level or higher. The average proficiency level attained by such pupils was significantly better (B2.1) in comparison to both the proficiency of pupils who studied in separate groups and pupils who studied in Finnish as a mother tongue lessons with differentiation (the proficiency level was B1.2 in both). More than one in three pupils studied only in a separate S2 group, while the same proportion studied in both the S2 group and in Finnish as a mother tongue lessons.

The responses of teachers deviated from the responses of pupils with respect to the differentiation of teaching; the deviations are explained by the different formats of the background surveys for teachers and pupils and the low response rate to the survey for teachers. Another explanation was that three out of four of the pupils who studied in Finnish as a mother tongue lessons without differentiation had completed all the grades of basic education in Finland.

1,2

8,310,6

15,2

27,325,3

10,7

1,50,6

4,1

7,4

14,5

25,6

30,8

14,3

2,7

6,3

11,6

16,8

28,4

23,2

11,6

2,10,3

2,0

6,4

17,4

38,0

27,5

8,4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A1.3 orlower


perce

ntage

of pu

pils (

%)

proficiency level

in a separate group

only in Finnish as a mother tongue lessons, differentiated in both S2 group and Finnish as a mother tongue lessons

only in Finnish as a mother tongue lessons, not differentiated


Connection between learning outcomes and the teacher, teaching and learning environment

62 per cent of the teachers who participated in the assessment (N = 330) responded to the background survey for teachers. Of the respondents, 91 per cent were women and 24 per cent men. Three out of four of them had formal qualifications to teach the S2 syllabus. To a certain extent, pupils taught by teachers with formal qualifications completed more questions correctly in the examination compared to pupils taught by other teachers. The teachers’ teaching experience or continuous professional development in turn were not an explanation for the proficiency level attained by the pupils.

The differentiation of teaching was a key element in the implementation of the S2 syllabus. In addition, the teachers provided the pupils feedback and motivation to study on a regular basis. From the viewpoint of statistical meaning and significance, there was no connection between the pupils’ learning outcomes and the differentiation of teaching and provision of feedback.

The teachers engaged in cooperation the most with the Finnish as a mother tongue teacher, the special needs teacher and teachers of general subjects. The cooperation included planning the content of teaching, conducting assessments during studies and dealing with problems related to the pupils’ language skills. As such, cooperating with various players did not explain the proficiency level attained by pupils; on the other hand, cooperation related to planning the content of teaching and teaching side-by-side had a positive effect on the pupils’ learning outcomes.

According to the principals who responded to the survey for principals (n = 179), the schools participating in the assessment appeared to have the ability to act as learning environments that support ethnic and cultural diversity; the majority of them had clear anti-racism and anti-discrimination policies in place, as well as an atmosphere favourable to cultural and linguistic diversity. The challenges and benefits related to multiculturalism at school as such did not have an effect on the pupils’ learning outcomes. On the other hand, in schools in which the principals felt that pupils with an immigrant background were facing many or very many challenges in learning, on average, the learning outcomes of pupils were statistically significantly poorer compared to schools in which there was fewer such challenges in learning.


Development suggestions

The results of the assessment show that the language proficiency of the pupils was good when assessed against the levels B1.1-B1.2 in the proficiency scale, set as criteria for the final assessment of the S2 national core curriculum. However, already in the upper grades of comprehensive school, the concepts and text skills of various subjects require more from the pupils than is required by the criteria of the proficiency scale. Proficiency in the languages used in various disciplines is emphasised in upper secondary education. The final assessment criteria included in the new S2 national core curriculum have been derived directly from the objectives of instruction and, in light of the results of the S2 assessment, it appears that an assessment based on the criteria will make possible the future formation of a more realistic view of the pupils’ proficiency in relation to studying after basic education.

The school, education providers and the education system make possible effective learning for the pupils studying the S2 syllabus by developing the way the syllabus is taught and assessed. To support this, the report includes the following development suggestions:

Schools ▪ focus on selecting the most suitable syllabus of the mother tongue and literature subject for the pupils

and direct the resources for the Finnish as a second language and literature subject specifically for those pupils who do not have sufficient capacities to study the syllabus for Finnish language and literature, and

▪ establish permanent cooperation arrangements for use by the teachers of the syllabus for Finnish as a second language and literature, teachers of the syllabus for Finnish language and literature and subject teachers. Particular areas of cooperation include teaching the languages used in various disciplines, supporting the pupils’ study skills and carrying out assessments.

Education providers ▪ make sure that language awareness and the teaching of the languages used in various disciplines under different

subjects, as defined in the national core curriculum for basic education, are realised in local curricula, and

▪ guarantee sufficient support for ensuring the continuation of studies for pupils who start basic education at a later stage, from preparatory training through to the end of basic education and on to upper secondary education. Good practices for transition points will be put to use and expanded where needed.


Nationally ▪ training related to the teaching of languages used in various disciplines both in teachers’ basic training and

continuous professional development should be offered, and

▪ the assessment activities of teachers through continuous in-service training should be developed in such a way that the assessment of the S2 syllabus and other subjects is realised in a uniform and criteria-based manner.

The summary is based on the publication by Katri Kuukka & Jari Metsämuuronen

LEARNING OUTCOMES IN FINNISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE AT THE END OF BASIC EDUCATION IN 2015

Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC)

P.O. Box 28 (Mannerheiminaukio 1 A) FI-00101 HELSINKI, FINLAND E-mail: [email protected] Switch: +358 29 533 5500

karvi.fi Info

rmat

ion

mat

eria

ls 2

016

| Fig

ures

: Kar

i Kuu

kka

| Lay

out:

FIN

EEC

Sirp

a Ro

ppon

en |

Prin

ted

by: J

uven

es P

rint

Documents

LEARNING OUTCOMES IN FINNISH AS A SECOND · PDF filethe learning outcomes in Finnish as a second ... language proficiency in reading comprehension, ... was small in relation to the