The assessment culture of mathematics in Finland: a student perspective

Figures & data

Table 1. Loadings on components after the varimax rotation.

Item	Exam	Access to materials	Individual product	Dialogue
Closed-book exam	.94
Exam with materials		.89
Portfolio		.63
Essay			.77
Product			.79
Performance			.71
Self-assessment				.81
Peer-assessment				.71
Feedback from the teacher to the whole group				.75
Assessment discussions*				.70
% of variance explained	7.3	8.5	12.5	43.2
α	–	.55	.78	.81

*discussions between the teacher, the parents and the students

Table 2. The frequency of the assessment practices in the mathematics classroom (1 = never; 5 = always), according to the students, and their statistically significant (p < .001) differences between sixth and ninth graders.

							6th grade		9th grade		Independent samples test
Assessment practice	Mean	SD	Mode	Median	% of “never”	% of “always”	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t	Cohen’s d
Closed-book exam	4.07	1.16	5	5.00	5.7	50.1	4.22	1.10	3.87	1.21	t (667) = 3.49	.30
Self-assessment	2.72	1.18	3	3.00	20.6	6.9	2.76	1.10	2.67	1.29	–	–
Feedback from the teacher to the whole group	2.59	1.23	3	3.00	26.8	6.6	2.59	1.12	2.58	1.26	–	–
Assessment discussions	2.23	1.27	1	2.00	40.0	7.9	2.44	1.26	1.93	1.22	t(660) = 5.23	.43
Peer-assessment	1.83	1.00	1	1.00	51.2	1.1
Portfolio	1.63	1.15	1	1.00	72.1	4.9	1.74	1.24	1.46	.99	t(665) = 3.08	.25
Product	1.57	.96	1	1.00	67.7	1.5
Performance	1.46	.94	1	1.00	76.5	1.5	1.60	1.03	1.26	.75	t(662) = 4.68	.38
Essay	1.43	.93	1	1.00	77.9	2.1
Exam with materials	1.39	.86	1	1.00	76.9	2.1	1.30	.73	1.53	1.00	t(659) = 3.34	.26

Table 3. The frequencies of different feedback practises, according to the students (1 = never; 5 = always).

Feedback practice	Mean	SD	Mode	Median	% of “never”	% of “always”
Points or grades	3.93	1.08	5	4.00	4.0	37.6
Instructions for learning	3.46	1.11	4	4.00	6.8	17.3
Teacher marks the errors and says what the error was	3.39	1.20	3	3.00	8.6	20.2
Information about the goal of the task	3.14	1.15	3	3.00	9.6	12.8
Oral feedback	2.94	1.01	3	3.00	9.8	5.6
Model answers	2.85	1.16	3	3.00	16.3	7.3
Verbal, descriptive comments	2.55	1.08	3	3.00	20.1	3.8
Teacher provides a grade but does not point out the errors	2.31	1.21	1	2.00	32.5	5.7
Errors have not been marked	1.80	1.09	1	1.00	54.8	3.5

Table 4. Comparisons of the three student clusters, based on the four components of students’ assessment preferences.

	Cluster 1^a		Cluster 2^b		Cluster 3^c		Total		ANOVA		Post-hoc testing
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F(2, 672)	η^2	Tukey HSD
Closed-book exam	3.75	.73	3.69	.83	1.49	.50	3.27	1.16	500.1*	.60	1, 2 > 3*
Access to materials	1.99	.78	3.36	.79	2.18	.94	2.58	1.04	208.4*	.38	2, 3 > 1*2 > 3*
Individual project	1.67	.64	3.24	.76	1.73	.76	2.32	1.04	381.4*	.53	2 > 1, 3*
Dialogue	2.20	.82	3.27	.77	1.85	.77	2.56	.99	192.6*	.37	2 > 1 > 3*

a = Exam-oriented pupils, b = Pupils who benefit from multiple forms of assessment in their learning, c = Pupils who do not feel they benefit from assessment in their learning. * p < .001

Table 5. Comparing the three student clusters in terms of the ordinal background variables.

Background variable	Cluster 1		Cluster 2		Cluster 3		Total		ANOVA		Post-hoc testing
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F(2, 672)	η^2	Tukey HSD
Study success^a	3.89	.90	3.90	.95	3.17	1.04	3.75	.99	31.64*	.09	1, 2 > 3*
Importance of assessment	3.61	1.13	3.87	1.01	3.11	1.26	3.61	1.14	20.82*	.06	1 > 2**2 > 3*
Excitement about learning	3.52	.89	3.67	.91	2.64	1.12	3.41	1.02	56.76*	.15	1, 2 > 3*
Interest in mathematics	3.59	.95	3.67	1.00	2.73	1.28	3.45	1.10	40.21*	.11	1, 2 > 3*
Importance of mathematics	4.38	.74	4.35	.74	3.73	1.14	4.24	.88	30.63*	.06	1, 2 > 3*

a = self-reported on a scale of 1–5. *p < .001; **p < .05

Table 6. Comparing the perceived formative assessment actions of the teacher between the student clusters.

The teacher has …	Cluster 1		Cluster 2		Cluster 3		Total		ANOVA		Post-hoc testing
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F(2, 672)	η^2	Tukey HSD
helped me to revise my mistakes and learn from them	3.57	1.10	3.85	.93	2.95	1.27	3.56	1.12	31.83*	.09	2 > 1 > 3*
encouraged me to try harder	3.37	1.18	3.63	1.10	2.64	1.29	3.33	1.22	32.03*	.09	1, 2 > 3* 2 > 1**
told me how to progress in my studies	3.36	1.14	3.58	1.05	2.90	1.14	3.35	1.13	17.30*	.05	1, 2 > 3*
helped me to set my own goals	3.31	1.08	3.58	.96	2.71	1.16	3.30	1.10	30.76*	.09	2 > 1 > 3*
helped me to develop my ways of learning	3.26	1.11	3.62	.95	2.78	1.19	3.31	1.11	28.47*	.08	2 > 1 > 3*
informed me about my strengths	3.14	1.25	3.42	1.14	2.42	1.26	3.11	1.26	31.17*	.09	1, 2 > 3* 2 > 1**
guided me to assess if I have reached my goals	3.01	1.11	3.34	1.00	2.61	1.15	3.06	1.11	21.56*	.06	2 > 1 > 3*
told me how to prepare for assessment	2.87	1.10	3.25	1.13	2.46	1.20	2.94	1.17	23.03*	.07	2 > 1 > 3*

* p < .001; ** p < .05

Table 7. The perceived critical pressures of mathematics assessment in each of the student clusters.

	Cluster 1		Cluster 2		Cluster 3		Total		ANOVA		Post-hoc testing
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F(2, 672)	η^2	Tukey HSD
My teacher is too demanding or strict in assessment	2.35	1.07	2.37	1.15	2.79	1.28	2.45	1.16	7.04*	.02	1, 2 > 3*
Assessment situations frighten and distress me beforehand	2.10	1.20	2.30	1.22	2.75	1.41	2.31	1.27	12.10*	.04	1, 2 > 3*
There are too many exams and assessed tasks	2.56	1.20	2.59	1.17	3.17	1.28	2.70	1.23	13.07*	.04	1, 2 > 3*
The teacher gives me too much negative feedback	1.79	1.04	1.93	1.06	2.56	1.34	2.00	1.15	22.47*	.06	1, 2 > 3*

* p < .001; ** p < .05