6 Discussion and conclusions
6.4 Suggestions for future research
This dissertation has successfully demonstrated the current stage of assessment and feedback practices in Finnish general upper secondary education, and therefore it has extended our knowledge of assessment and feedback in education. The results and their implications have paved the way for the enhancement of these practices.
Nevertheless, further research is needed to explore feedback more closely. Student feedback literacy is a neglected research area in Finland. However, this is not surprising, as the term itself was launched only a decade ago. As feedback is an instrumental aspect of learning, it would be of interest to assess how student feedback literacy develops over the years. More specifically, a longitudinal study could be used to measure student feedback literacy when students start general upper secondary education, and follow-up measurements could be used to assess how students’ understanding of feedback changes. For example, the follow-up measurements could be executed once or twice a year. The measurements could be used alongside surveys and interviews to ascertain pertinent factors affecting the increase or decrease of student feedback literacy. However, in this kind of a study, it is critical to consider that every teacher enhances (or is expected to
69 enhance) student feedback literacy. If the researcher wants to focus only on language teaching, the instruments have to be planned with care.
Based on the promising findings presented in this dissertation, a number of future studies of teacher education are apparent. First, a longitudinal study could focus on how the assessment teacher education courses have helped student teachers understand the functions of assessment and assess students in practice.
A longitudinal study could measure teacher assessment literacy once a year for a certain amount of time. With such a study, scholars would yield crucial information on how teachers in the workforce assess students, how their perceptions of assessment develop, and how successful or unsuccessful teacher education has been in teaching about assessment for pre-service teachers. Some researchers have indeed conducted studies of this kind, however, in the Finnish context they have been sparse. The SALT project is currently studying student teachers’ assessment literacy in summative assessment in Finland and Sweden. Another longitudinal study could focus on formative assessment. Second, subject-specific research is needed to discern how student teachers understand the concept of assessment.
This research could also enlighten how student teachers have internalised the differences and interdependence of summative and formative assessment. Third, to develop and diversify teacher education, further research is needed to elucidate the kinds of assessment skills in-service teachers find crucial at the moment and whether teacher education was able to provide capabilities for them. Consequently, the content of teacher education can be improved.
As this dissertation focused primarily on language teaching, further investigations are needed to examine other subject-specific perceptions of assessment and feedback. Research on assessment in Finland has not focused on specific subjects at school. What is now needed is research that elucidates appropriate and supportive assessment and feedback practices in school subjects.
Pedagogy is different between subjects, as teaching languages or mathematics includes aspects that are not necessarily relevant when teaching home economics or geography. Thus, when research focuses on various subjects, future teachers will be equipped with tangible knowledge and information on how to assess and give feedback accordingly. Ultimately, this might even increase student feedback literacy.
As discussed above, I highly recommend the student-centred approach for teacher feedback. Yet, this seems to have been a neglected area in research. As articulated by Van der Kleij and colleagues (2019), much uncertainty still exists about how this approach enhances learning, and how teachers can guide students to adjust their learning with teacher feedback. Therefore, more intervention studies could be conducted to determine how student-centred feedback affects learning outcomes, learner autonomy, learning to learn skills, or engagement with feedback.
Future studies could also attempt to unravel differences in how various students, such as students with special needs, engage with teacher feedback.
REFERENCES
Airasian, W. (2005). Classroom Assessment. Concepts and Applications (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does Washback Exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115–129.
Allan, S. (2015). Teach Now! Modern Foreign Languages. Routledge.
American Federation of Teachers. (1990). Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students. Retrieved from https://buros.org/standards-teacher-competence-educational-assessment-students (Accessed on May 3, 2021).
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95–127.
Anderson, L. W. (2003). Classroom Assessment. Enhancing the Quality of Teacher decision Making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops – linking feedback and learning.
In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for Learning (pp. 1–17). Routledge.
Atjonen, P. (2014). Teachers’ views of their assessment practice. The Curriculum Journal, 25(2), 238–259.
Atjonen, P. (2017). Arviointiosaamisen kehittäminen yleissivistävän koulun opettajien koulutuksessa – opetussuunnitelmatarkastelun virittämiä näkemyksiä [Development of assessment literacy in the training of teachers in general education – views generated by reviewing the national core curriculum]. In V. Britschgi, & J. Rautopuro (Eds.), Kriteerit puntarissa (pp. 131–169). Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura.
Atjonen, P., Laivamaa, H., Levonen, A., Orell, S., Saari, M., Sulonen, K., Tamm, M., Kamppi, P., Rumpu, N., Hietala, R., & Immonen, J. (2019). ”ETTÄ TIETÄÄ MISSÄ ON MENOSSA” Oppimisen ja osaamisen arviointi perusopetuksessa ja lukiokoulu-tuksessa [“So that we know where we stand” Assessment of learning and competence in basic education and general upper secondary education]. Publications of the Finn-ish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC), Finland, 2019:7.
Atjonen, P., Oinas, S., & Ahtiainen, R. (2021). Palaute osana formatiivista arviointiprosessia:
Vuorovaikutusta vai monologia? [Feedback as a part of formative assessment:
Dialogue or monologue?]. Kasvatus, 52(1), 37–50.
Bachman, L., & Damböck, B. (2018). Language assessment for classroom teachers. Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Purpura, J. E. (2008). Language Assessments: Gate-Keepers or Door-Openers. In B. Spolsky, & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp. 456–468). Blackwell Publishing.
71 Baran-Lucarz, M. (2019). Formative assessment in the English as a foreign language
classroom in secondary schools in Poland. Report on a mixed-method study. Journal of Education, Culture and Society, 10(2), 309–327.
Barry, C. L., & Finney, S. J. (2016). Modeling Change in Effort Across a Low-Stakes Testing Session: A Latent Growth Curve Modeling Approach. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(1), 46–64.
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25.
Beziat, T. L. R., & Coleman, B. K. (2015). Classroom Assessment Literacy: Evaluating Pre-Service Teachers. The Researcher, 27(1), 25–30.
Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The Effectiveness of Feedback for L1-English and L2-Writing Development: A Meta-Analysis. ETS TOEFL.
Black, P. (1998). Testing: Friend or Foe? Theory and Practice of Assessment and Testing.
Falmer Press.
Black, P., Harrison. C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2012). Developing a Theory of Formative Assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and Learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 206–229). Sage.
Black, P., & Wiliam. D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 25(6), 551–575.
Black, P., Wilson, M., & Yao, S-Y. (2011). Road Maps for Learning: A Guide to the Navigation of Learning Progressions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 9(2–3), 71–123.
Blair, A., Curtis, S., Goodwin, M., & Shields, S. (2013). What Feedback do Students Want?
Politics, 33(1), 66–79.
Bloom, B. J., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. McGraw-Hill.
Bono, R., Blanca, M. J., Arnau, J., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2017). Non-normal Distributions Commonly Used in Health, Education, and Social Sciences: A Systematic Review.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–6.
Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43(4), 391–
429.
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society.
Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.
Boyles, P. (2006). Assessment Literacy. In M. H. Rosenbusch (Ed.), New Visions in Action:
National Assessment Summit Papers (pp. 18–23). Iowa State University.
Brink, M., & Bartz, D. E. (2017). Effective Use of Formative Assessment by High School Teachers. Practical Assessment, Research Evaluation, 22, 1–10.
Brookhart, S. (2012a). Teacher feedback in formative classroom assessment. In C. F. Webber,
& J. L. Lupart (Eds.), Leading student assessment (pp. 225–239). Springer.
Brookhart, S. (2012b). Preventing feedback fizzle. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 24–29.
Brookhart, S. M. (2017). Formative Assessment in Teacher Education. In D. J. Clandinin,
& J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp.
927–943). Sage.
Brookhart, S. (2018). Summative and formative feedback. In A. A. Lipnevich, & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 52–78). University Press.
Brooks, V. (2002). Assessment in Secondary Schools: The new teacher’s guide to monitoring, assessment, recording, reporting and accountability. Open University Press.
Brooks, C., Burton, R., van der Kleij, F., Carroll, A., Olave, K., & Hattie, J. (2021). From fixing the work to improving the learner: An initial evaluation of a professional learning intervention using a new student-centered feedback model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, 1–12.
Brooks, C., Carroll, A., Gillies, R. M., & Hattie, J. (2019). A Matrix of Feedback for Learning.
The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 14–32.
Brooks, C., Huang, Y., Hattie, J., Carroll, A., & Burton, R. (2019). What Is My Next Step?
School Students’ Perceptions of Feedback. Frontiers in Education, 96(4), 1–14.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom:
A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.
Brunfaut, T., & Harding, L. (2020). International language proficiency standards in the local context: Interpreting the CEFR in standard setting for exam reform in Luxembourg.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(2), 215–231.
Burke, D., & Pieterick, J. (2010). Giving Effective Written Feedback. McGraw-Hill.
Burner, T. (2016). Formative assessment of writing in English as a foreign language.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(6), 626–648.
Buskirk, T. D., Willoughby, L. M., & Tomazic, T. J. (2013). Nonparametric Statistical Techniques. In T. D. Little (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods, Vol 2: Statistical analysis (pp. 106–141). Oxford Library of Psychology.
Carless, D. (2020). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy:
Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1–11.
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325.
Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–14.
73 Carroll, J. B. (1973). Implications of Aptitude Test Research and Psycholinguistic Theory
for Foreign Language Teaching. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2, 5–14.
Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative Assessment Techniques to Support Student Motivation and Achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(1), 1–6.
Charteris, J., & Thomas, E. (2017). Uncovering ‘unwelcome truths’ through student voice:
teacher inquiry into agency and student assessment literacy. Teaching Education, 28(2), 162–177.
Chen, J., & Teo, T. (2020). Chinese school teachers’ conceptions of high-stakes and low-stakes assessments: an invariance analysis. Educational Studies, 46(4), 458–475.
Cheng, L., Sun, Y., & Ma, J. (2015). Review of washback research literature within Kane’s argument-based validation framework. Language Teaching, 48(4), 436–470.
Christenson, S. L., Decker, D. M., Triezenberg, H. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Reschly, A. (2007).
Consequences of High-Stakes Assessment for Students With and Without Disabilities.
Educational Policy, 21(4), 662–690.
Chung, B. (2015). Written Corrective Feedback: The Perceptions of Korean EFL Learners.
Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 75–88.
Clark, I. (2012). Formative Assessment: Assessment Is for Self-Regulated Learning.
Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 205–249.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.).
Routledge.
Coste, D. (2007). Contextualising uses of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/contextualising-uses-of-the-common-european-framework-of-reference-for/16805ab765 (Accessed on May 3, 2021).
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
Crisp, B. R. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 571–581.
Crooks, T. J. (1988). The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices on Students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–481.
Dann, R. (2002). Promoting Assessment as Learning: Improving the Learning Process.
Routledge/Falmer.
Dann, R. (2019). Feedback as a relational concept in the classroom. The Curriculum Journal, 30(4), 352–374.
Davies, A. (2008). Textbook trends in teaching language testing. Language Testing, 25(3), 327–347.
Davies, D. (2016). The ´iron gate´: high-stakes assessment at age 16 in Nepal and England.
Compare, 46(4), 582–602.
Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E.
(2019). What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25–36.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Publishers.
DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: identifying gaps in teacher candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(4), 419–438.
DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy:
a review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 28(3), 251–272.
Deygers, B., Zeidler, B., Vilcu, D., & Carlsen, C. H. (2018). One Framework to Unite Them All?
Use of the CEFR in European University Entrance Policies. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 3–15.
Diez-Bedman, M. B., & Byram, M. (2019). The current influence of the CEFR in secondary education: teachers’ perceptions. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 32(1), 1–15.
Dorfman, L. R., & Dougherty, D. (2017). A Closer Look: Learning More About Our Writers with Formative Assessment. Stenhouse Publishers.
Drisko, J., & Maschi, T. (2015). Content analysis. Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2000). Motivation in action: Towards a process-oriented conceptualization of student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 519–538.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Innovations and Challenges in Language Learning Motivation.
Routledge.
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-Analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the Role of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.
Faez, F., Majhanovich, S., Taylor, S. K., Smith, M., & Crowley, K. (2011). The Power of “Can Do” statements: Teachers’ perceptions of CEFR-informed Instruction in French as a Second Language Classrooms in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 1–19.
Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477–485.
75 Finnish National Board on Research Integrity. (2019). The ethical principles of research
with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland.
Retrieved from https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2021-01/Ethical_review_in_
human_sciences_2020.pdf (Accessed on Feb 26, 2021).
Flanagan, K. (2012). Manova. In H. X. Chen (Ed.), Approaches to Quantitative Research:
A Guide for Dissertation Students (pp. 43–54). Oak Tree Press.
FNBE 2016 = National core curriculum for general upper secondary schools 2015. (2016).
Finnish National Board of Education, Publications 2016:8.
FNBE 2019 = National core curriculum for general upper secondary education 2019.
(2019). Finnish National Agency for Education, Regulations and guidelines 2019:2c.
Fong, C. J., Patall, E. A., Vasquez, A. C., & Stautberg, S. (2019). A Meta-Analysis of Negative Feedback on Intrinsic Motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 121–162.
Frary, R. B., Cross, L. H., & Weber, L. J. (1993). Testing and Grading Practices and Opinions of Secondary Teachers of Academic Subjects: Implications for Instruction in Measurement. Educational Measurement, Issues and Practice, 12(3), 23–30.
Fulcher, G. (2012). Assessment Literacy for the Language Classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(2), 113–132.
Galaczi, E. D. (2013). Interactional Competence across Proficiency Levels: How do Learners Manage Interaction in Paired Speaking Tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553–574.
Gamlem, S. M., & Smith, K. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom feedback. Assessment in Higher Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 20(2), 150–169.
Good, R. (2011). Formative Use of Assessment Information: It’s a Process, So Let’s Say What We Mean. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 16(3), 1–6.
Goullier, F. (2007). Impact of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and the Council of Europe’s work on the new European educational area.
Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/impact-of-the-common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-and/16805c28c7 (Accessed on May 3, 2021).
Green, A. (2013). Washback in language assessment. International Journal of English Studies, 13(2), 39–51.
Gronlund, N. E. (2003). Assessment of student achievement (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2016). Purposes of assessment. In D. Tsagari, & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Assessment (pp. 13–27). De Gruyter.
Harding, L., & Kremmel, B. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy and professional development. In D. Tsagari, & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Assessment (pp. 413–427). De Gruyter.
Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning – tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207–223.
Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of learning. Sage.
Harlen, W., & Gardner, J. (2010). Assessment to support learning. In J. Gardner, W. Harlen, L., Hayward, G. Stobart, & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Developing Teacher Assessment (pp. 15–28). Open University Press.
Hasselgreen, A. (2012). Assessing young learners. In G. Fulcher, & F. Davidson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Testing (pp. 93–105). Routledge.
Hasselgreen, A. (2013). Adapting the CEFR for the Classroom Assessment of Young Learner’s Writing. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(4), 415–435.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses. Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2019). Visible Learning: Feedback. Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38, 21–27.
Hepplestone, H., & Chikwa, G. (2014). Understanding how students process and use feedback to support their learning. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 8(1), 41–53.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative Assessment: What do Teachers Need to Know and Do?
Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140–145.
Higgins, S. (2014). Formative Assessment and Feedback to Learners. In R. E. Slavin (Ed.), Proven Programs in Education: Classroom Management and Assessment (pp.
11–15). Sage.
Hildén, R., & Härmälä, M. (2015). Hyvästä paremmaksi – kehittämisideoita kielten oppimistulosten arviointien osoittamiin haasteisiin [From good to better – improvement ideas to the challenges indicated by the assessments of learning outcomes in foreign languages]. Kansallisen koulutuksen arviointikeskus.
Hildén, R., Ouakrim-Soivio, N., & Rautopuro, J. (2016). Kaikille ansionsa mukaan?
Perusopetuksen päättöarvioinnin yhdenvertaisuus Suomessa [Fair marks for all?
Equal and equitable grading at the end of basic education in Finland]. Kasvatus, 47(4), 342–357.
Hildén, R., & Rautopuro, J. (2014). Ruotsin kielen A-oppimäärän oppimistulokset perusopetuksen päättövaiheessa 2013 [Outcomes of language learning in A level Swedish at the end of basic education in 2013]. Finnish National Board of Education.
Holzknecht, F., Huhta, A., & Lamprianou, I. (2018). Comparing the outcomes of two different approaches to CEFR-based rating of students’ writing performances across two European countries. Assessing Writing, 37, 57–67.
Huang, X., & Jia, X. (2016). Corrective Feedback on Pronunciation: Students’ and Teachers’
Perceptions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(6), 245–254.
Hughes, A. (1991). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Huhta, A., Alanen, R., Tarnanen, M., Martin, M., & Hirvelä, T. (2014). Assessing learners’
writing skills in a SLA study: Validating the rating process across tasks, scales and languages. Language Testing, 31(3), 307–328.
77 Huhta, A., Luoma, S., Oscarson, M., Sajavaara, K., Takala, S., & Teasdale, A. (2002). Dialang
– a diagnostic language assessment system for adult learners. In Council of Europe (Ed.), A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Case studies (pp. 130–145). Council of Europe Publishing.
Härmälä, M., Huhtanen, M., & Puukko, M. (2014). Englannin kielen A-oppimäärän oppimistulokset perusopetuksen päättövaiheessa 2013 [Outcomes of language learning in A level English at the end of basic education in 2013]. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre.
Härmälä, M., Huhtanen, M., Puukko, M., & Marjanen, J. (2019). A-englannin oppimistulokset 7. vuosiluokan alussa 2018 [Outcomes of language learning in A level English at the beginning of the 7th grade in 2018]. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre.
Ilola, M. (2018). Oppilaiden käsityksiä englannin suullisesta kielitaidosta, sen oppimisesta ja arvioinnista [Pupils’ beliefs about English oral proficiency, its learning and assessment]. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Inbar-Lourie, O. (2008). Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on language assessment courses. Language Testing, 25(3), 385–402.
Juurakko-Paavola, T. (2012). Ruotsin kielen osaamisesta ja oppimismotivaatiosta eri kouluasteilla [Mastering Swedish and study motivation at different levels of education]. Kieli, koulutus, ja yhteiskunta, 3(1). Retrieved from https://www.
kieliverkosto.fi/fi/journals/kieli-koulutus-ja-yhteiskunta-maaliskuu-2012/ruotsin-kielen-osaamisesta-ja-oppimismotivaatiosta-eri-kouluasteilla (Accessed on Mar 8, 2021).
Juurakko-Paavola, T., & Takala, S. (2013). Ylioppilastutkinnon kielikokeiden tulosten sijoit-taminen lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteiden taitotasoille [Placing the results of the language tests of the matriculation examination into the CEFR levels indicated by the national curriculum for upper secondary education]. Ylioppilastutkintolau-takunta.
Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A. M. F., Aro, M., & Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2015). Beliefs, Agency and Identity in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta-Analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.
Kantelinen, R., & Hildén, R. (2016). Language education – foreign languages. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of Education. The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools (2nd ed.) (pp. 157–178). Sense Publishers.
Van der Kleij, F. M. (2019). Comparison of teacher and student perceptions of formative assessment feedback practices and association with individual student characteristics.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 175–189.
Van der Kleij, F., & Adie, L. (2020). Towards effective feedback: an investigation of teachers’
and students’ perceptions of oral practice in classroom practice. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice 27(3), 252–270.
Van der Kleij, F. M., Adie, L. E., & Cumming, J. (2019). A meta-review of the student role in feedback. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 303–323.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance:
A Historical Review, a Meta-Analysis, and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (3rd ed.) Sage.
Kukull, W. A., & Ganguli, M. (2012). Generalizability: The trees, the forest, and the low-hanging fruit. Neurology, 78(23), 1886–1891.
Kupiainen, S., Marjanen, J., & Ouakrim-Soivio, N. (2018). Ylioppilas valintojen pyörteissä.
Lukio-opinnot, ylioppilastutkinto ja korkeakoulujen opiskelijavalinta [Student
Lukio-opinnot, ylioppilastutkinto ja korkeakoulujen opiskelijavalinta [Student