Athena-lecture, 22.9.2016, Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D,L.Phil)

How the pupils and students are assessed and evaluated in Finnish schooling system?

University of Helsinki22.9.2016

Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D,L.Phil)

THE CONTENT OF THIS PRESENTATION

1) THE FINNISH SCHOOLING SYSTEM IN A NUTSHELL2) ASSESSING THE BASIC AND GENERAL UPPER

SECONDARY EDUCATION IN FINLAND 3) FINNISH PARTICULARITIES4) MATRICULATION EXAMINATION -THE ONLY NATIONAL

EXAM (HIGH-STAKE) IN THE END OF GENERAL UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOLING

5) ASSESSING AND EVALUATING PUPILS AND STUDENTS6) FINNISH CRITERIA-BASED EDVALUATION IS A HYBRID! 7) CONCLUTIONS AND REFLECTIONS

9/16/2016Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D/ L.Phil)

[email protected] www.arviointi.fi2



CENTRAL FEATURES OF THE FINNISH EDUCATION POLICYTeachers are highly qualified experts- all teachers have Master’s Degree from university

- the teaching profession is popular and has a high status

- there is a lot of trust in the teachers

Active school leaders– wide participation in professional development

– quite a lot of independence in the decision-making in school development



CENTRAL FEATURES OF THE FINNISH EDUCATION POLICY

• Equal opportunities for education.

• Education is free of charge.

• Public authorities must secure equalopportunities for every resident in Finland to get education also aftercompulsory schooling and to developthemselves, irrespective of their financialstanding.

• Every student has a right to be supported in learning and in personal development and welfare.

• Individual support for learning and welfare of pupils – effort to minimise low achievement through early intervention.

• Co-operation between the school and the parents important.



THE CONTENT OF EDUCATION IS STEERED BY MEANS OF A CORE CURRICULUM

1) The Government determines and decides :

- the allocation of lesson hours, which forms the basis for the national corecurriculum

- the new general national aims for basic education and on the time allocated to the teaching of different subjects and subject groups and to guidance counselling (allocation of lesson hours) in the summer of 2012.

2) The reform will

- strengthen the teaching of skill and art subjects, physical education, civics and value education, the status of environmental education and cooperation between subjects and diversify language programs.

3) The National Board of Education conducts

- The renewal of National Core Curricula (Basic education and General Upper secondary education)

- The Core Curriculum will be revised by 31 December 2014 for adoption in all the year classes from 1 to 6 August 2016 onwards.

See more about the renewed (Curriculum of Basic education 2014): http://www.oph.fi/english/curricula_and_qualifications/basic_education/curricula_2014



http://www.oph.fi/english/curricula_and_qualifications/basic_education/curricula_2014

The year plan for the schools are a document that particularize how the curriculum are implemented in each school during the school year.

The local curriculum generates a common basis and gives a direction for daily schoolwork. It is seen as a strategical and pedagogical tool. The schooling provider (most commonly municipalitiy) bears how the localcurriculum is elaborated and developed.

National Core Curriculum (2004; 2014). A binding, normative document .

The general guidelines for formative assessment during the learning proses and for summative evaluation in the end of basic education. The local curriculum (for region or for school) are based on the NCC.

The general principles of assessment and evaluation are determined in legislation:

Basic education act(682/1998)

Basic education decree (852/1998)

Government decrees (422/2012) and (378/2014)



Assessment and evaluation in Finnishschooling system


[email protected] www.arviointi.fi

ASSESSING THE BASIC AND

GENERAL UPPER SECONDARY

EDUCATION IN FINLAND

Parliament/ Government

Ministry of Education/

The Evaluation plan (2016-2019)

(See the index)

Local Authorities and Joint Municipal Authorities(Schools and other Educational Institutions)

Autoevaluation

Private Education Providers(Schools and other Educational Institutions)

State-maintained Educational

Institutions

Matriculation

Examination

Board/ National examination

in the end of general

upper secondary school

Regional State

Administrative Agencies

Other Ministries

The Finnish Education

Evaluation

Center (FINEEC)

-> From May 2014



USEFUL LINKS:

Video clip:

http://www.minedu.fi/opencms/export/video/finEDUsmall.mp4

National Education Evaluation plan 2016-2019

http://karvi.fi/app/uploads/2016/05/2-National-Education-Evaluation-Plan-2016-2019.pdf





GOVERMENT ACTION PROGRAMME ON EQUITY

The Government will initiate an action programme to furtherpromote equal opportunity in education. That is the reasonwhy the following issues are followed while assessing the learning outcomes :

– differences between schools and regions and the influence of gender and sosio-economic background on learning outcomeswill be reduced.

– e.g. the operating environment will be taken into account in the financing and steering of schools.

The equal opportunity programme will also include a review to determine to what extent legislation can be used to influencedifferentiation.



GENERAL WESTERN MODEL VS. FINNISH SYSTEM



GENERAL UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION IN FINLANDMatriculation examination:

• The upper secondary school ends in a matriculation examination, which does not qualify for any occupation. Passing the matriculation examination and entitles students to continue studies in universities, polytechnics or vocational institutions.

• Matriculation examination is drawn up nationally, and there is a centralized body to check its individual tests against uniform criteria.



DIGITALIZATION OF MATRICULATION EXAMINATION (FROM 2016 TO 2019)

From paper format to electronic exam first tests autumn 2016, all tests 2019

A 2016 (German , Geography ,Philosophy )S 2017 (French, Social studies ,Psychology )A 2017 ( Second national language (Swedish, Finnish), Religion ,Ethics, Health education, History) S 2018 (English, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese , Latin Biology )A 2018 (Mother tongue (Finnish, Swedish, Sami) Finnish/ Swedish as a second language Russian Physics Chemistry Sami languages) S 2019 (Mathematics)

Over 200 000 tests twice a year.



FINNISH PARTICULARITIES• No Inspectorate at all.• Only one national examination in the end of upper-secondary

schooling, Matriculation examination (high-stake test).• Pupils’ evaluation in Finnish educational system is an example of a

hybrid: since 2004 the National Core Curricula has defined the final assessment criteria in each subject, but only for one grade (8=good).

• No criteria at all during the upper secondary education, but the final examinations (i.e. Matriculation examinations) are criteria-based.

• Data is not collected yet nationally of the quality of compulsory or general upper-secondary schools

-> Schools and schooling providers collect the data mainly using autoevaluation.-> The objectives and the use of the autoevaluation are

defined by schools or the providers themselves.



Evaluating pupils and students knowledge, skills and competences



ASSESSMENT VS. EVALUATIONAssessment = Feedback for pupils from the learningprocess.= Assessment for learning and Assessment as learning=> Formative assessment

Evaluation= Assessment of learning outcomes= Occurs at the end of the learning unit=>Summative assessment



TEACHERS’ ASSESSMENT LITERACY

According to Guskey and Bailey (2001, 16-17) they found four factors thathave an impact to teachers’ ways of assessing/evaluating:o Teachers’ personal experiences i.e. how they were assessed/evaluated

themselveso What and how teachers have learned during their pre-service trainingo Teachers’ personal ideology or philosophy of teaching and learningo Instructions or rules that educational administration has given to the

teachers.

Assessment and evaluation are always subjective, but the aim has to be an objective assessment and/or evaluation.

Teachers’ role as an evaluator is dual: he/she evaluates his/her ownteaching and its’ results (Cross & Frary 1999, 53).



Teachers preliminaryIdea of pupil is based: • Professional

framework• Teacher’s own

experiences

Continousinteraction

Where prilminary idea might change

Teacher’s working hypothesis= Expectations of pupils performance

Instructions to pupil.

Suppositions to

assess/evaluate pupil

Pupils’ actual performance in the classroom/ other learning environment

Feedback to theteacher, how well

his/hers suppositionwas in reality.



WHY WE ASSESS AND/OR EVALUATE?

The information assessment

or evaluation gives

Pupil or student

Other actors

at schoolTeacher(s)

Parents

Other schools and

institutions

Stakeholders

Headmaster



THE CORRELATION BETWEEN GADES AND PUPILS’ SELFEFFICIENCY/CAPABILITY (Ouakrim-Soivio & Kuusela 2012)

0,18

0,96

0,38

0,51

0,17

1,20

0,25

0,54

0,18

1,08

0,31

0,52

0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40

Yht

eisk

unt

aopp

i

Kaikki Tytöt Pojat

Pitä

min

en

Hyö

dylli

syys

O

saam

inen

A

senn

eke

skia

rvo

0,10 0,30 0,50 0,70 0,90 1,10 1,30



THE CONNECTION BETWEEN TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSING/EVALUATING

Teaching

Assessing and evaluating

Learning

o Assessment or evaluation is not a separate task oraction.

o Learning, teaching, assessing and evaluating aretightly connected to eachother.

o Guiding the learningprocess and developing theteaching is made by usingassessment and evaluation.



THE THREE ”RULES” FOR TEACHERS ASSESSMENT LITERACY (1/3)

Assessment and evaluation arenot separable from the conseptof learning (Jakku-Sihvonen 2001; Atjonen 2007).

• Assessment and evaluation are always contextual.

• They should also reflect the consept of learning(see autoevaluation + learner centered autenticconcept of learning)



PUPILS’ / STUDENTS’ AUTOEVALUATION SKILLS

Reflection:

Pupil/ studen observe his/herown senses, thoughts, methodsajd leraning (proscess).

Autoevaluation:

Structured assessment of his/herown actions and behaviour.

Metacognitive level:

Pupil/studen is capable of unerstand his/her cogniviteactions/ behaviour. (Patrikainen 1999, 154;

Kasanen 2003, 26).

REFLECTION

.

AUTOEVALUATION

METAKOGNITIVE LEVEL



Assessment and evaluation are not separable fromthe consept of learning…




Assessment and evaluation are comparision between the objectives and the achieved results (Guba & Lincoln 1989, 22-26; Raivola 1995, 22-30).

• Only the objectives (aims) can be assessed or evaluated.

• When assessment or evaluation is attached to the. objectives it makes the assessment more transparant.

• Criteria are used for assessment or evaluation.

Criterium, criteria= ”Dipstick” that are usedfor assassment or evaluation.



ONLY THE OBJECTIVES CAN BE ASSESSED OR EVALUATED



• What are the objectives for learning/ teaching?

Aims/ Objectives

• How the objectives can be achieved (i.e. methods, contents, learning environments etc.)?

Realization

• Why, what , when and how to evaluate/to assess?

• How the feedback is given for that it helps both learners and teachers?

Assessment/

Evaluation



Diagnosticassessment = assessing the starting level

Formative assessment= Continous feedback= assessing the learningprosess

Summativeassessment= assessing for instance the learning outcomesor performance

Prognostiveassessment = proactiveassessment


Assessment and evaluation have many different tasks.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT= DURING THE LEARNING PROCESS

Assess how the pupil is learing.

Versatile, feedback that encourage and quide the pupil to achieve the objectivesthat are set.

NOTE! Encouraging feedback is not the same than encouraing grade or mark!

SUMMATIVE EVALUATION = IN THE END OF CERTAIN PERIOD

Tells pupils’performance. Selects!

NOTE! Evaluation has to be equal and treat pupils fairly = Comparable

criterion-based evaluation vs. norm-based evaluation



Assessment shouldmake a completeness where the different tasksof assessment are taken into the consideration



Formative assessment

Summative assessment

Prognostic assessment

Formative assessment

Diagnostic assessment

THE PRINCIPLE OF BALANCED SYSTEM

FORMATIVE

SUMMATIVE

FORMATIVE

SUMMATIVE



ASSESSING KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS ( Adapted from the source: Terenzini 1989, 644-664)

The level

of assessment

(WHO?) individual The object of assessment

(WHAT?)

Knowledge, skills, attitudes

working and behavior

group

Formative Summative

The purpose of assessment (WHY?)

Self assessment,Assessment discussions etc.

Oral and written

exams, grading etc..

Group assessment, Classroom assessment etc.

Assessment of learning outcomes (i.e. how the curriculum works?)



ASSESSMENT/ EVALUATION IN DIVERS OCCATIONS AND DIFFERENT WAYS.

TO ASSESS/ TO EVALUATE THE PROGRESS IS QULIATATIVE AND DESCRIPITIVE, VERBALLY OR ON PAPER.

SIX BASIC QUESTIONS THAT HELP TEACHERS ASSESSMENT/ EVALUATION

9/16/2016 34

WHATTheory/ practice/

process/Prdoduct/

performance…

WHY?To motivate, To

gradeTo give feedback

To correct themistakes, to

guide…

HOW?Auto Evaluation, peer evaluation,

group evaluation, verbally, in written

form, portfolio, exam, test,

presentation, performance…

WHO? An other pupil or

student, pupil herself orhimself, teacher(s),

Workingroup…

WHEN?All the time, in the

middle/ in thebegining, in the

middle/ in the endof learningprocess…

IN WHAR FORMAT?

Digitally, in a paper, in a diploma, verbally as

a part of portfolio…

Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D/ L.Phil)


THE CRITERIA-BASED EVALUATION IN FINLAND IS A HYBRID!

9/23/2016Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (KT, FL)


NCC (2003, 2015) MATRICULATION EXAMINATION

NCC (2004, 2014)

GRADING IN SCHOOLS

THE TASK OF PUPILS’ AND STUDENTS’ GRADING AND FINAL ASSESSMENT IS:

• to confirm that the pupil or student has achieved the objectives of the National Core Curriculum (NCC 2004; 2014) in different subjects.

• to indicate to the pupils or students themselves, to parents and other persons how the pupil has succeeded (Calfee & Masuda 1997; Loyd & Loyd 1997).

• to confirm that the pupils and students are ready to move to the next grade or next level of schooling (Broadfoot 1996; Klapp Lekholm 2008).



THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION IN THE END OF COMPULSORY SCHOOLING

• The final assessment criteria in each subject define the level of knowledge and skills supposed to be achieved in the end of basic education.

• The criteria define the level “good” (grade 8). Pupil receives the grade, on average, when demonstrating the performance level required by the criteria for the subject. Failing to meet some criteria can be compensated for by surpassing the standard of other criteria. (NCC 2004; 2014)

• The pupil has acquired the knowledge and skills required in basic education adequately (grade 5) when being able to demonstrate to some degree the performance level required by the criteria (NCC 2004; 2014).



THE CHALLENGES IN PRACTICE

• The final assessment must be nationally comparable and treat the pupils / students equally (NCC 2004; 2014 ). The selection and/or the entry of pupils to secondary education are mainly based on the grades at the end of the basic education.

• Previous studies have shown frequent discrepancies between competencies shown in the national assessments in history, social studies, mathematics mother tongue, A and B-languages and health education for example, both within and between schools. The recent assessments also show that the competencies of pupils with the same grade vary significantly. (Ouakrim-Soivio 2013; Hildén, Ouakrim-Soivio, Rautopuro 2016.)



The research results by Ouakrim-Soivio (2013; 2016)• The results support earlier

findings regarding differences between pupils’ teacher-given grades and the competences they show in national assessments, reflecting teachers’ adjusting of grades according to pupils’ competence level.

• The results also show considerable in-between-subject differences in grading both at the basic and the upper general school level.

4145 48

5358

6571

5558

6672

7881

40

50

60

70

80

90

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The percentage (%) of correct answers in the assessment of learning outcomes …

Student’s grade in Social Sciences

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

3236

4145

5257

4045

51

59

65

73

30

40

50

60

70

80

5 6 7 8 9 10

The percentage (%) of correct answers in theassessment of learning outcomes in History

Student’s grade in History

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4



THE CRITERIA FOR FINAL ASSESSMENT IN THE END OF GENERAL UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOLING

• No criteria at all in National Core Curriculum (2003; 2015).

• Evaluation in the Matriculation Examination is criteria-based (per subject), but the National Core Curriculum of general upper-secondary education (2003, 2015) offers no criteria for any subject.

• The Matriculation Examination has criteria for ”a good answer” for every question in every examination, to be interpreted by the students also regarding questions in future examinations.



Research Results by Kupiainen(2014)

The relation of students’ grades at school to the grade they get in the same subject in the Matriculation examination varies from the r=.62 of health education to the r=.84 of A-level English – the exam taken by almost every student. The relation of the two grades at school level for Finnish is shown above.

-1,00

-,50

,00

,50

1,00

1,50

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

YO

Lukio



Research results by Kupiainen (2014)

• Students’ final grades vary somewhat according to subject but the differences are mainly due to differences in girls’ grades (See next slides 43 by Kupiainen)

• Additionally, the criteria for grade eight in the core curriculum seem to have inflated earlier grade means and become – especially for girls – the new mean.

• This might induce students to a false understanding of their actual competence level.



Female MaleB-level mathematics 7,04 6,85

B-level Swedish 7,33 6,57

A-level mathematics 7,39 7,25

Chemistry 7,45 7,43

A-level English 7,47 7,52

Physics 7,51 7,41

Biology 7,64 7,48

History 7,66 7,70

Social studies 7,82 7,70

Geography 7,85 7,80

Philosophy 7,88 7,47

Finnish 7,96 7,32

Religion 7,98 7,49

Psychology 8,10 7,54

Health education 8,23 7,54

GENDER DIFFERENCES

Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D/ L.Phil) [email protected] www.arviointi.fi

CONCLUTIONS AND REFLECTIONS• The results can be seen to indicate that the NCC/BE with the

criteria given in it for the grade eight (8) in the different subjects, indicating ‘good competence’ in the Finnish grading scale from 4 (failed) to 10 (excellent), do not serve as an adequate tool for equal evaluation.

• It is easy to see – and to a degree also to understand – that teachers adjust their grades according to the general competence level of their class.

• The same is true regarding students’ grades in upper secondary schools.

• Apparently, what has happened is that the criteria for grade eight have rather inflated the hitherto grade means at least during the lower grade-levels, possibly inducing to students a false understanding of their actual competence level and, consequently, of need for improvement.



CONCLUTIONS AND REFLECTIONS

• To ensure consistent final assessment, the NCC should give teachers more support for evaluation.

• This could be done by defining grading criteria more clearly, by defining criteria also for other grades.

• An additional means would be to develop specific material for criteria-based evaluation in the different subjects or to provide for the school’s use standardised ‘model exams’ to help the calibration of students’ grades – at least as long as the system is not ripe for an outright exit exam for basic education (see e.g., Jürges et al. 2003).



CONCLUTIONS AND REFLECTIONS• The Finnish assessment and evaluation system is

favorable for “pedagogical approaches” i.e. self-assessments in municipal- and school level and formative evaluation in pupils level.

• Data and information for decision making are also needed to know how good the quality of teaching is in national level.

• At this moment there are a lots of discussions if the Matriculation examination could serve as an entrance exam for Finnish universities and polytechnics or should the Exam be finished completely?



If you would like to ask of you havecomments, please, don’t hesitate to contac me!

Najat Ouakrim-Soivio

(Ph.D. in Education and L.Phil in history)

najat @arviointi.fi

www.arviointi.fi

twitter: @najatouakrim



mailto:[email protected]

http://www.arviointi.fi/

https://twitter.com/najatouakrim

Literature:Atjonen, P. (2007). Hyvä, paha arviointi. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi.

Cross, L. H. & Frary, R. B. (1999). Hodgebodge Grading: Endorsed by Students and Teachers alike. Applied measurement in Education, 12(1), 53–72.

Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Guskey, T. R. & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Developing Grading and Reporting Systems for Student Learning. California: Corwin Press.

Heinonen, S. (2001). Arvioinnin teoreettisia lähtökohtia. Teoksessa Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Heinonen S.2001. Johdatus koulutuksen uudistuvaan arviointikulttuuriin. Arviointi 2/2001. Helsinki: Opetushallitus, 21–46.

Hildén, R. Ouakrim-Soivio,N. & Rautopuro, J. (2016 , in press). Kukin ansionsa mukaan? Kasvatus 4/5.

Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2001). Arviointitiedon luotettavuuden osoittaminen. Teoksessa Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Heinonen, S. Johdatus koulutuksen uudistuvaan arviointikulttuuriin. Arviointi 2/2001. Helsinki: Opetushallitus, 111–135.

Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2013). Oppimistulosten arviointijärjestelmiä ja niiden kehittämishaasteista. Teoksessa Räisänen, A. (toim.). Oppimisen arvioinnin kontekstit ja käytännöt. Raportit ja selvitykset 2013:3. Helsinki: Opetushallitus, 13–36.

Kasanen, K. (2003.) Lasten kykykäsitykset koulussa. Joensuun yliopisto. Yhteiskuntatieteellisiä julkaisuja nro 58.

Koulutuksen tuloksellisuuden arviointimalli (1998.) Arviointi 7/98. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.

Kupiainen, S. (2014.) YTL:n Digabiseminaari kesäkuu 2014: https://vimeo.com/100693496.

Mattila, L. (2010.) Perusopetuksen äidinkielen ja matematiikan päättöarvosanat. Lisensiaatintutkimus. Helsingin yliopisto. Käyttäytymistieteellinen tiedekunta.

Ouakrim-Soivio, N. (2013). Toimivatko päättöarvioinnin kriteerit? Helsinki: Opetushallitus.

Ouakrim-Soivio, N. (2016). Oppimisen ja osaamisen arviointi. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Otava.

Patrikainen, R. 1999. Opettajuuden laatu. Ihmiskäsitys, tiedonkäsitys ja oppimiskäsitys opettajan pedagogisessa ajattelussa ja toiminnassa. Opetus 2000. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus.

Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet. (2014).Määräykset ja ohjeet 2014:96. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.

Raivola, R. (1995). Mitä evaluaatio on ja mihin sitä tarvitaan? Teoksessa Aikuiskoulutuksenarviointi. Panoraamoja ja lähikuvia. Aikuiskasvatuksen 36. Vuosikirja. Kansanvalistusseura ja Aikuiskasvatuksen Tutkimusseura. Helsinki: BTJ Kirjastopalvelu,21–60.

Terenzini, P.T. (1989). Assessment with open eyes: Pitfalls in studying student outcomes. Journal of teacher education of Higher Education,1989, 644-664.

9/23/2016 48Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (KT, FL)


https://vimeo.com/100693496

Thank you!

