Lavonen (IJSE 2009)

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 46, NO. 8, PP.
922–944 (2009)
Context of Teaching and Learning School Science in Finland:

Reflections on PISA 2006 Results
Jari Lavonen,1 Seppo Laaksonen2
1
Department of Applied Sciences of Education, P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 20 R)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
2
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, PL 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b),
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Received 26 May 2009; Accepted 27 July 2009
Abstract: Finnish students’ opinions about the frequency of learning activities and communication in the Finnish
science classroom, their interest in science and science studies and careers, their sense of self-efficacy, and their beliefs
about their own competence as well as their performance in science are analyzed based on PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy
Assessment data. Students’ success on PISA is explained by these context variables and by the national education policy
in Finland. The regression analysis revealed that positive student level predictors for PISA science performance were
science-related self-efficacy and self-concept, interest in physics and chemistry, and a view of the usefulness of science
studies in preparing students for future jobs in science. From the point of view of science teaching, one of the most robust
predictors of the high results in Finland were frequent use of teacher demonstrations, practical work in the classroom, and
the possibility for students to draw conclusions. Knowledge based society, educational equality, and devolution of
decision power at the local level, and teacher education are named as most important educational policy issues behind
students’ high performance in PISA 2006 science. ß 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 922–944, 2009
Keywords: PISA Scientific Literacy Assessment; education policy; motivation; communication; science activities
The purpose of this article is to analyze science teaching and learning in the Finnish science classroom
and to discover what is interesting for Finnish students regarding science, science studies, and careers and,
moreover, the sense of students’ self-efficacy, and beliefs about their own competence based on the PISA
2006 student and school questionnaires data (OECD, 2007a,b). Secondly, Finnish students’ performance in
PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment is explained with classroom and student level PISA 2006 variables
as well as with Finnish education policy trends.
Before stating the research questions, we first introduce the context of science education in Finland
with the general education policy trends as guidance for science teaching and learning at school. Then
we will analyze the National Core Curriculum for Science Education and pre- and in-service training of
science teachers. Our descriptions are based on the literature concerning the Finnish education policy. We will
make comments about policy issues based on PISA 2006 School Questionnaire (OECD, 2005a) data,
considering headmasters’/teachers’ opinions about the organization of schooling. Next we introduce
concepts that we use to describe learning activities and communication in science classroom, and student’s
interest and sense of self-efficacy, and beliefs about own competence. Furthermore, we review previous
research on learning activities and communication in the Finnish science classroom and Finnish students’
interest. Finally, we review previous research on reasons for Finnish students’ success in PISA Scientific
Literacy Assessment.
Correspondence to: J. Lavonen; E-mail: jari.lavonen@helsinki.fi

DOI 10.1002/tea.20339
Published online 31 August 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
ß 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

TEACHING SCHOOL SCIENCE IN FINLAND 923
Science Education Context in Finland

Finnish Education Policy
This review is based on several official Finnish education policy documents, such as the Education and
Research 2003–2008 Development Plan (2004) and Teacher Education Development Programme (2002)
and, moreover, on articles written by the people working at the Finnish Ministry of Education (FME) or
Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE), such as Halinen (2008), Jakku-Sihvonen and Niemi (2006),
and Laukkanen (2008). Education policy is controlled by FME and FNBE and they are responsible for
development of school education, preparation of the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNBE,
2004), and the organization of national evaluations based on samples.
The most important feature of the policy is commitment to a vision of a knowledge-based-society.
This vision can already be found in national documents published in the 1970s, where the idea concerning
the common comprehensive school (Committee Report, 1970) and university level teacher education
(KATU-Project, 1978) were presented. A central aspect of the vision has been a broad conception of
knowledge. In the Finnish school curriculum, equal value has been given to all subjects, with there being a
dynamic balance between humanities and science subjects.
Another long-term objective of Finnish education policy has been to raise the general standard of
education and to promote educational equality. Basic decisions in this direction were made also during the
1970s along with other Nordic countries, when it was decided to change to a comprehensive obligatory school
system (Committee Report, 1970). According to this policy all students should go to common comprehensive
schools and learn together as long as possible. Comprehensive school education is provided free of charge,
including schoolbooks, meals, transport, and health care. According to PISA 2006 School Questionnaire data
97.1% of the Finnish schools participating in the PISA 2006 were public schools. This high percentage can be
compared to the average for countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
which was 82.7%. Although, the policymakers’ vision is that Finnish students complete the same nine year
comprehensive school education, some minor grouping of students are made, for example, in mathematics
and foreign language at the local level, based on students’ abilities. Altogether 64.3% of the schools
participating in PISA 2006 in Finland reported that students were not grouped by ability into different classes
in any subject. Again, the percent for Finland is compared to the average for OECD countries—43.7%.
Although there is a national office, the FNBE, for the implementation of education policy, the local
education providers, the municipalities, have strong autonomy. In 65.3% of the schools a principal teacher
together with regional or local education authorities (68.1%) formulate the school budget. These percentages
are higher than the OECD averages which were 53.2% and 35.1%, respectively. The local education
providers are responsible for planning local curriculum and organizing general assessment and using these
data for evaluating how well the goals have been achieved. The local curriculum is seen more of a process than
a product and it has a central role in school improvement. Consequently, there has existed good and flexible
interaction between national, municipal, and school levels. The role of a principal or a head teacher is
important in school development and, moreover, in implementation of educational policy at the local level.
The participating schools in Finland reported that a principal teacher and teachers were responsible for
disciplinary policy (96.0%) and for assessment policy (97.0%). These percentages are higher than the OECD
averages—80.5% and 76.9% respectively.
Schools and teachers have been responsible for choosing learning materials and teaching methods since
the beginning of the 1990s when the national level inspection of learning materials was terminated. The PISA
schools reported that a principal teacher and teachers were responsible for selecting the textbooks (100%), for
determining the course content (70.1%), and for courses offered (90.1%). Comparative percentages for
OECD were 83.5%, 65.9%, and 69.9%, respectively. Moreover, there have been no national or local school
inspectors since the late 1980s. Teachers are valued as experts in curriculum development, teaching, and
assessment at all levels (FNBE, 2004).
The culture of trust refers to education authorities and national level education policymakers believing
in teachers, together with principals, headmasters, and parents to know how to provide the best possible
education for children and youth at a certain level. Also, the parents trust teachers. According to School
Questionnaire data only 1.4% of the schools reported constant pressure from many parents, who expect
Journal of Research in Science Teaching

924 LAVONEN AND LAAKSONEN
schools to help the students more to achieve high academic standards (in OECD the corresponding percentage
was 26.1%).
Science in the Finnish National Core Curriculum

In the National Core Curriculum (FNBE, 2004), general goals and subject specific goals, basic concepts
in each subject (syllabus), integration and cross-curricular themes, and final-assessment criteria (standards)
are described. In the core curriculum, all school subjects are seen as having equal value regarding an
individual’s growth of personality, moral, creativity, knowledge and skills. The goals described in the
National Core Curriculum are, from the point of view of legislation, standards (compared to law) and the
municipalities and teachers have to follow these guidelines. Therefore, the role of the assessment or
evaluation in Finland is to take the measure of how well the goals have been reached. Thus the National Core
Curriculum states that ‘‘The assessment is to address the pupil’s learning and progress in the different areas of
learning’’ (FNBE, 2004).
There is an integrated natural science at grades 1–4 and separate physics & chemistry and biology &
geography at grades 5–6 in Finnish primary school. Science subjects are taught by primary school teachers
and there are on average 2.5 lesson hours per week. In lower secondary school (grades 7–9) science is divided
into the separate subjects of physics, chemistry, biology, and health education, all taught by highly specialized
subject teachers. Altogether on average there are 6 lesson hours of science subjects per week in lower
secondary school. This number of lessons is relatively high compared to many other countries (Waddington,
Nentwig, & Schaze, 2007).
Guidelines, national goals and contents for physics, chemistry, and biology education are presented in
the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNBE, 1994, 2004). According to content analysis of the
goals, described in the National Core Curriculum, they are relatively similar with the competencies described
in the PISA 2006 framework (Lavonen, 2007; OECD, 2006). The Finnish science curriculum emphasizes
activities where the students can identify, recognize or observe scientific issues within their activities and
explain or interpret data or scientific phenomena, and draw conclusions based on the evidence. In Finland,
practical work and demonstrations have long been accepted as an integral part of teaching and learning
science subjects.
Teachers in Finland
Over 30 years ago it was decided that class teachers (at grades 1–6 in primary school) and subject
teachers in lower and upper secondary schools (grades 7–12) should be educated on master’s level programs
at university. Class teachers teach almost all subjects in primary school, whereas subject teachers typically
teach two subjects in lower and upper secondary school.
Physics, chemistry, and biology teacher education is organized in co-operation with the Faculty of
Science and the Faculty of Education. Studies are divided into two parts: the subject is studied at the
department of the particular subject (e.g., physics) and the pedagogical studies at the department of teacher
education. In the subject teacher education program students take a major and a minor in the subjects they
intend to teach in school (Lavonen et al., 2007).
During the subject studies the students participate in university level undergraduate courses at the
subject department. These courses help students to develop a deep understanding of subject matter
knowledge and concepts as a part of a conceptual framework of the subject. The advanced study courses
introduce the students, for example, to the central notions of science, its epistemology and methodology and
the interaction between science and technology, conceptual and process structures of the main areas of school
physics and chemistry, methods for planning and carrying out experiments and demonstrations in the physics
and chemistry classroom, the history and philosophy of science and its relations to society and technology
(Lavonen, Jauhiainen, Koponen & Kurki-Suonio, 2004).
During the pedagogical studies, the students’ subject knowledge, knowledge about teaching and
learning, mathematics and science education and school practices are integrated into students’ own personal
pedagogical theory. According to the curriculum the students should, for example, be aware of the different
dimensions of the teaching profession (social, philosophical, psychological, sociological, and historical basis
of education), be able to reflect broadly on their own personal pedagogical ‘‘theory’’ or assumptions on their
own work, and have the potential for lifelong professional development. During the studies the students’
become especially familiar with science teaching methods and issues considering learning, attitudes,
motivation and interest. As the classroom size is small and heterogeneous according to ability of students,
much emphasis is given to different types of science learners and teachers’ roles through informal assessment
and feedback and encouragement to students (Lavonen et al., 2007). According to PISA 2006 School
Questionnaire data, there were in 49.9% of the classes less than 20 students and in 47.4% of the classes there
were 21–25 students at grade 9.
According to PISA 2006 School Questionnaire data, 97.2% of the schools reported that there was no
serious lack of physics, chemistry, or biology teachers (OECD 81.9%). On average 10% of full-time teachers
in the participating schools did not have an appropriate qualification. Consequently, in most of the schools
there were highly educated and qualified teachers with an in-deep subject matter and pedagogical knowledge.
Due to there being no inspectors, national evaluation of learning materials or national assessment, teachers
hold a lot of responsibility for pupils’ learning.
The non-coherent in-service teacher training was changed to a more systematic one together with the
reform of teacher education over 30 years ago. In the beginning, the weak implementation of the in-service
training increased resistance towards the training among teachers. Therefore, at the end of the 1970s, in-
service days organized by the pedagogical organizations of teachers were accepted as a substitute for training.
For example, the Finnish Association of Teachers of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry have annually
organized in-service days for science teachers. Until the 1980s the obligatory training days were allowed to be
substituted with long-term university in-service courses. Examples of the structure of implemented in-service
courses can be found in the report by Ahtee and Pehkonen (1997). The FNBE is responsible for national level
implementation of educational programs and strategies. For example, The LUMA program was launched in
1996 in order to develop the teaching and learning of mathematics and the natural sciences (LUMA comes
from Finnish language terms: Luonnontieteet [Natural Sciences] and Matematiikka [Mathematics])
(Lavonen, Meisalo, & Juuti, 2004). Financing for new school laboratory equipment, pedagogical study
materials for teachers, and long-term in-service training programs were also made available to teachers.
According to surveys conducted by teachers associations (Purhonen & Parviainen, 1996), Finnish science
teachers have in general a positive attitude to in-service training and also participate in the training voluntarily.
The teaching profession in Finland has always enjoyed great public respect and appreciation (Simola,
2005). Teachers have independence in selecting the most appropriate pedagogical methods. The teacher
profession, especially at primary level, is also very popular and teacher-education departments can
select from among the nation’s best students and highest scorers on university entrance examinations
(Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006).
Review of Literature
Activities and Communication in the Science Classroom

Leach and Scott (2000, p. 54) argue based on the research concerning teaching, learning and students
thinking, that the process of teaching and learning in science is complex and, therefore, it cannot easily be
reduced to a string of sequences of specific activities or communication. Moreover, students in different
classes learn in a similar way although teachers use different teaching methods. However, Bransford
and Donovan (2005) have outlined teaching and learning which help students to create meaningful
and understandable knowledge: this kind of teaching and learning is active, reflective, collaborative and
interactive, constructive, cumulative and contextual. These characteristics of learning may be realized, for
example, through inquiry activities where students are encouraged to record and analyze data together but
also by teachers questioning and guiding. Therefore, teachers should focus not only on the activities, but also
on the nature of the interactions which surround those activities. In general, a good science lesson has a clear
goal and structure and instruction guides students in engagement in learning and allows students to draw
conclusions and make interpretations. In the PISA 2006 Student Questionnaire students were asked about
their opinions concerning the frequency of different kinds of communication styles and science activities, and
these data were used in this study (OECD, 2005b) (see Appendix 1).
There has been little research on learning activities and communication in Finnish science classrooms.
Experts from the UK (Norris, Asplund, MacDonald, Schostak, & Zamorski, 1996), who evaluated and
developed the Finnish science education program, observed science lessons and interviewed headmasters,
teachers, and students in 50 lower and upper secondary schools. They concluded that Finnish teachers were
pedagogically conservative, and teaching and learning were ‘‘traditional,’’ mainly involving lecturing in front
of the whole group of students. Nonetheless, during science lessons there was a lot of practical work. Simola
(2005) explains ‘‘traditional’’ teacher behavior is supported in Finland through social trust and teachers’ high
professional academic status. Teachers can obviously support students to create meaningful and
understandable knowledge through asking questions, and supporting students in explaining and reasoning
and organizing practical work.
Lavonen, Juuti, Byman, Uitto, and Meisalo (2004) surveyed 3,626 ninth-year pupils about their opinions
concerning how physics and chemistry are taught at comprehensive school and how they would like it to be
taught. The most popular teaching methods in physics and chemistry was teacher-delivered or directed
instruction or presentation–recitation teaching where the teacher presents new material or solves problems
on the blackboard. Demonstrations and practical work were the second most popular group of teaching
methods. The students were satisfied with the teaching methods currently used. However, students stated that
they would prefer teachers to more frequently hold classroom discussions concerning difficult concepts and
problems. The students would also like to do more project work, discuss in small groups or participate in a
teacher lead discussion. But students seemed to be satisfied with the amount of practical work and teacher
demonstrations.
Students Interest in Science Learning and Their Beliefs as Learners

Students’ interest in, motivation to or attitudes toward science and school science, their beliefs as
learners and, moreover, their experiences in science and technology related activities are important for their
science learning and future involvements in the science subjects (Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003). In the
same light, PISA 2006 aims to assess students’ attitudes, interest, individual’s values and sense of self-
efficacy, and beliefs about own competence (OECD, 2007a, p. 39).
There are many concepts that can be used to describe motivational aspects of science teaching and
learning. For example, the concepts ‘‘motivation,’’ ‘‘interest,’’ and ‘‘attitude’’ are used to describe the factors
within which an individual could arouse, maintain and channel behavior towards aims. The PISA 2006
framework uses the concept ‘‘attitude’’ as a main concept for describing certain affective aspects of
science learning. Attitude is chosen as it plays a significant role in students’ interest, attention, and response
to science and technology. We use in our analysis the PISA attitude items focusing on enjoyment, values
and topic interest and skip, for example, attitude items concerning responsibility towards resources and
environments. Therefore, motivation and interest theories offer a more focused framework for our analysis
than more general attitude theories.
In the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2002) motivated behavior may be self-
determined or controlled and they involve different reasons for behaving. Self-determined or autonomous
behavior is behavior which arises freely from one’s self. In PISA 2006 students were asked to evaluate
frequency of their out-of-school activities. These data could be used for evaluating what kind of science-
related activities (e.g., read broad science magazines or science articles in newspaper; ST19Q05) students
are engaged in (self-determined behavior). On the other hand, the corresponding data could be used for
evaluating students’ personal interest (see Appendix 2). Krapp (2007) has introduced interest as a content-
specific motivational variable and approaches it from two major points of view. One is interest as a
characteristic of a person (personal interest) and the other is interest as a psychological state aroused by
specific characteristics of the learning environment (situational interest). Personal interest is topic specific
(topic interest), persists over time, develops slowly and tends to have long-lasting effects on a person’s
knowledge and values (Hidi, 1990). Thus, out-of-school science-related activities could also be an indication
of students’ personal interest. As described in the methodology section, several other PISA 2006 Student
Questionnaire items (OECD 2005b) could also be analyzed in the framework of personal interest, as
according to Schiefele (1991, 1999) this type of interest consists of two kinds of valences: feeling-related and
value-related valences. Value-related valences refer to the attribution of personal significance, importance or
usefulness to an object or activity, such as science learning or working in a science or technology career.
Feeling-related valences are feelings that are associated with a topic, for instance, feelings of enjoyment and
involvement. Students could also have this kind of feeling-related valences to science learning or working in a
science or technology career. Consequently, students can associate science and technology with high
personal significance, for example, because success in related studies can help them in getting a prestigious
career.
Much is known about interest and its influence on learning. For example carefully selected, well-
organized, coherent, relevant, seductive texts or other contents could increase interest and student
engagement in learning (Schraw, Flowerday, & Lehman, 2001). Task-based interest could be created by
choosing an appropriate teaching method, grouping of students, an interesting activity or through offering
students meaningful choices (Deci & Ryan, 2004). The role of context is especially emphasized in context-
based approaches, like Science—Technology—Society—Environment (STSE or STES), where contexts are
used as the starting point for the development of scientific ideas and interest (Bennett, Lubben, Hogarth, &
Campbell, 2004). Knowledge-based interest refers to interest that is generated due to relevant prior
knowledge learned through different out-of- and in-school activities. Culture has an affect on male and female
interest in science, in science education as well as in their careers (Hasse, 2002).
In Finland, students’ interest in science and motivation to learn science have been researched in the
framework of the international Relevance Of Science Education (ROSE) survey (Schreiner & Sjøberg, 2004).
Finnish ROSE researchers found that more girls than boys found human biology and health education
interesting and several interesting topics were connected with the human being. Technology topics and
science topics in technology contexts were more interesting for boys than girls. Astronomical topics were
interesting for both male and female students. Students’ out-of-school experiences are different though.
Boys’ experiences are more relevant to physics and technical topics, whereas those of girls are more closely
related to everyday life and health (Lavonen, Byman, Juuti, Meisalo, & Uitto, 2005; Uitto, Juuti, Lavonen, &
Meisalo, 2006).
In addition to interest variables, we use in our analysis as sum variables Self-efficacy and Self-concept
related to science. Successful learners are confident of their abilities and believe that investment in learning
can make a difference and help them overcome difficulties—that is, they have a strong sense of their own
efficacy. Self-efficacy or perceived ability refers to the confidence students have in their abilities that they can
successfully perform a particular task (Bandura, 1997). If a student believes he or she is unable to succeed in a
task, this perception may lead to lower grades or an avoidance of science courses (Bandura, 1986). Female
students have lower levels of self-efficacy in science courses compared to males (DeBacker & Nelson, 2000).
Several studies (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996) link self-efficacy to both general academic achievement and
science achievement. Student’s science-related self-concept refers to the perception or belief in his or her
ability to do well in science (Shavelson & Bolus, 1982). Belief in one’s own abilities is highly relevant to
successful learning (Marsh, 1986). Science-related self-concept and self-efficacy are important outcomes of
education.
Previous Research on Reasons for Finnish Students’ Success in PISA Scientific Literacy Assessment
In Finland after the first PISA 2000 Scientific Literacy Assessment the PISA researchers explained the
Finnish students’ success through comprehensive school pedagogy, students’ own interests and leisure
activities, the structure of the education system, the high quality of Finnish schools, teacher education, school
practices, and Finnish culture, or in short—pedagogical philosophy, national curriculum and practice
(Välijärvi, Linnakylä, Kupari, Reinikainen, & Arffman, 2002). Similar arguments arose after the second
PISA 2003 assessment results (Kupari, Reinikainen, & Törnroos, 2007). Välijärvi et al. (2007) found on the
basis of the multilevel modeling procedure that affective factors, particularly students’ self-concepts related
to mathematics, were the strongest predictors of performance variation in mathematical literacy in Finland.
Pehkonen, Ahtee, and Lavonen (2007) edited a book ‘‘How Finns Learn Mathematics and Science?’’
The authors of the book were 40 Finnish mathematics, physics and chemistry teachers, educators, and
researchers. The editors suggest several reasons for the Finnish students’ PISA success. The major reason for
the success was the general education policy and its implementation strategies. The most important
implementation strategies were the high quality teacher education, the national core curriculum and its
implementation through science teaching in the classroom. An important issue in the implementation of the
core curriculum is local level decision-making.
Aho, Pitkänen, and Sahlberg (2006) suggest four broad reasons for Finnish students’ success in PISA: a
stable political environment for education reforms which have been based on a long-term vision, hard work,
good will and consensus; political, cultural and economical success of the educational system and its
interaction with other sectors; education reform has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary; and
comprehensive school that offers all children the same top quality, publicly financed education. Laukkanen
(2008) discusses in his paper similar issues to those of Aho, Pitkänen, and Sahlberg and presents the following
reasons: high standards in education, support for special education, qualified teachers, and balancing
decentralism and centralism.
Simola (2005) explains the Finnish students’ success through analyzing teaching and teacher education
in a historical and sociological framework and gives several general historical and political reasons for the
success, such as a homogeneous society (lack of minorities), hardship during the First and Second World
Wars, and rapid development from poor agrarian state to a modern welfare democracy. He concludes that
Finnish students’ success in PISA may be seen as the curious contingency of traditional and post-traditional
tendencies in the context of the modern welfare state and its comprehensive schooling. There is obviously a
link between high-performing education and economy: Finland was ranked the most competitive economy in
the world three times between 2000 and 2004 by the World Economic Forum (Porter, Schwab, & Lopez-
Claros, 2005).
Björkqvist (2006) has paid attention to special education. Special education in Finland is strongly
intertwined with the ordinary education, and thus it offers better learning opportunities for low-achievers.
Only 2% of Finnish pupils are in special teaching institutes (cf. Välijärvi et al., 2007). Those who are
undergoing ordinary education in comprehensive school have carefully tailored support that corresponds to
pupils’ needs (cf. also Vauras, 2006).
Research Questions
PISA has a strong policy orientation and, therefore, the PISA data have been used, for example, for
indicating how successively education policy in a country has been implemented and for promoting the
improvement of the national education (e.g., Ertl, 2006; Gorard & Smith, 2004; Schleicher, 2006). In
addition, several researchers have used PISA data for building models, which explain the students’
performance by school, classroom, and student level variables (e.g., Olsen, 2005; Reinikainen, 2007).
Consequently, the data collected during each PISA cycle offer a valuable source of information for both
policy makers and researchers. However, there are also critical comments among science education
researchers considering the use of PISA data for indicating how successful education policy in a country is or
what a country should do based on the assessment data (Hopmann, 2008; Sjøberg, 2007).
We will use here PISA 2006 data for secondary analyses in two levels: in a macroscopic level with an aim
to compare Finnish students’ means in certain Student Questionnaire items to correspondence average OECD
means, and, secondly, in a student level with an aim to explain Finnish students’ performance in PISA 2006
Scientific Literacy Assessment by certain explanatory variables. This kind of relationships between student
interest in science and achievement have been researched for more than 40 years although there is still debate
about the causal link (see, e.g., Osborne et al., 2003).
Research questions considering the Finnish students’ PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment
data are:
(1) How did Finnish students succeed in the PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment?
(2) What kind of communication and science activities are there in the Finnish science classrooms
(experienced by the students) compared to the OECD averages?
(3) (a) What is interesting for Finnish students (compared to other OECD countries) with regards
science and science studies and careers? (b) What is the students’ experience of their self-efficacy,
and self-beliefs about own competence (compared to other OECD countries)?

(4) Which school, classroom, and student level variables explain Finnish student performance in the
PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment?
Methods
Our data are selected from the PISA 2006 survey (OECD, 2007a,b). The data concerning students’
experiences of communication and learning activities in the Finnish science classroom and data concerning
students’ interest in science, science learning, studies and careers, and moreover sense of self-efficacy,
and beliefs about their competence have been acquired by the PISA 2006 Student Questionnaire (OECD,
2005b).
Sample and Sampling

The target population in Finland covers students who are aged between 15 years 3 months to 16 years
2 months at the time of the assessment. It thus excludes non-school persons of the same age. However, there
are few who fall in to this category in Finland, but this cannot be said for all participating countries
(Hautamäki et al., 2008). The sampling design is basically equal in each country, that is, it follows stratified
two-stage cluster sampling (OECD, 2007a). In Finland, the 12 strata were applied, constructed from 6 regions
and the rural versus urban nature of the municipalities of these regions.
The first stage of sampling is a school cluster that is selected by PPS sampling (probability proportional
to size) in which size is the PISA eligible population of each school. The second stage, respectively, consists
of students of selected schools. These are chosen at random if there are more than 35 PISA eligible students in
the sampled school. All sampling procedures were strictly controlled by the PISA central team.
In Finland there were 155 sampled schools, with the minimum requirement for each participating
country being 150 schools. Respectively, the net sample size was 4,714 students. The student sampling frame
covered 93% of the national desired population; the OECD average was 89%. There is no non-response in
school data and acceptably low non-response in student data. Slight item non-response occurred when
students filled in a questionnaire but its effect on our results was minor. Schools also filled in their
questionnaire and answered well, but in our regression analysis with school variables, 62 students were
missing and due to other item non-response altogether about 200 (Karjalainen & Laaksonen, 2008).
Since complex sampling was applied, the estimations were based on consequent methods. That is, we
use student sampling weights in our analysis, as well as such procedures so that stratification and clustering
due to sampling by schools are taken correctly into account. Hence, also the standard errors are valid.
However, there are limitations in analysis of activities and communication: the survey at a school level has
been done with relatively few items and an object area of lessons which can refer to several science subjects
and several teachers can only provide rough indications of the differences between general lesson approaches
at the country level. These limitations must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.
When estimating OECD level results we follow the same strategy as used by the OECD central team
(OECD, 2007a) so that the OECD average (mean, standard deviation) is the average of the 30 OECD
countries. This thus means that each country has the same weight.
Scientific Literacy Measurement

PISA 2006 science framework (OECD, 2006) emphasizes competencies, contexts, knowledge of and
knowledge about science, and attitudes for science test and item design. The main science competencies are
defined in terms of an individual’s scientific knowledge and use of that knowledge to identify scientific issues;
explain scientific phenomena and; draw evidence-based conclusions. The PISA 2006 reports (OECD,
2007a,b) describe the complex PISA 2006 methodology including information on the test, methodologies
used to analyze the data, quality control mechanisms and other technical features of the project.
One student answered typically 1/3 of the PISA scientific literacy questions, and therefore their total
score of the test is estimated based on their answers. Since there are five plausible imputed values for science
assessment variables, our variable being estimated is obtained as the average of these five values. This
variable has been quite close to the normal distribution, since the OECD central team has transformed it in
such a way. This is a good thing since we can without essential bias use multivariate regression analysis when
explaining science performance.
Items Considering Student Activities and Communication in the Science Classroom

The students participating in the PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment were asked in the Student
Questionnaire: ‘‘When learning school science topics at school, how often do the following activities occur?’’
The description of activities and communication in the questionnaire were written according to what is known
to support learning processes in general and what type of descriptions are easy for students to understand the
activity or communication in their science classroom. Students answered by ticking the appropriate box on a
four-point Likert scale, the extreme categories being In all lessons and Never or hardly never.
In the questionnaire, there were altogether eight items measuring frequency of different types of
communication, such as student discussion or the teacher explaining how different science ideas are applied
to different phenomena; and nine items measuring frequency of different types of science activities, such as
students do experiments or the teacher gives a demonstration. For reducing the number of items we
constructed sum-variables (bold) as described in Appendix 1. The sum-variables were constructed based on
our review of literature on motivation, interest, self-efficacy and self-belief and, moreover, science teaching
traditions in Finland (Look chapter Review of Literature). However, in Table 1, some of the variables consists
of one variable, like ‘‘Student discussion’’ and ‘‘Demonstration.’’ For example, the sum-variable Student
ideas and opinions are listened is calculated based on items ‘‘ST34Q01 Students are given opportunities to
explain their ideas’’ and ‘‘ST34Q05 The lessons involve students’ opinions about the topics.’’ Both items
measure student opinions about their possibilities to express their ideas and these ideas are listened. The sum-
variable practical work is calculated based on items ‘‘ST34Q02 Students spend time in the laboratory doing
practical experiments’’ and ‘‘ST34Q14 Students do experiments by following the instructions of the teacher.’’
In Finland the most typical student activity is a practical experiment where they follow the instructions of
the teacher or a laboratory guide prepared or selected by a teacher. Consequently the sum-variables are based
on the operationalization of concepts motivation and interest and they reflect also greatly on the science
education context in Finland. To evaluate the internal consistence of the sum-variables, we calculated
Cronbach’s alpha () for each variable. Alphas were between 0.81 and 0.82, thus confirming that the
Table 1
Sum-variables measuring students’ opinion about type of communication and science activities in the Finnish science
classrooms
Finland OECD
Mean SD Mean SD d
Communication (scale: 0 ¼ Never or hardly never, 100 ¼ In all lessons)

Student ideas and opinions are 55.9 24.7 54.6 26.4 0.05a
listened ( ¼ 0.82)
Teacher explains (teach) 43.2 19.0 46.9 22.5 0.18a
( ¼ 0.81)
Student discussion 41.9 27.3 45.2 29.5 0.12a
Student debate 26.2 24.2 40.8 28.7 0.55b
Science Activities (scale: 0 ¼ Never or hardly never, 100 ¼ In all lessons)
Students draw conclusions 52.2 27.1 50.5 29.6 0.06a
Practical work ( ¼ 0.82) 41.6 20.9 38.7 23.4 0.13a
Demonstration 33.7 24.8 40.1 27.7 0.24c
Students apply and modeling 36.3 23.8 36.1 28.2 0.01a
Science inquiry ( ¼ 0.82) 18.2 16.3 26.1 21.1 0.42c
a
No effect (d < 0.2).
b
Moderate effect (0.5 d < 0.8).
c
Small effect (0.2 d < 0.5).

sum-variables were internally consistent. The resulting alphas coefficients for each sum-variable are
presented in the Tables 1 and 2.
Items Considering Student Interest and Beliefs as Learners

The students were asked 51 questions in the Student Questionnaire considering their interest in science
and science studies and careers and, moreover, sense of self-efficacy, and beliefs about own competence.
The students were, for example, asked ‘‘How much do you agree with the statements below?’’ and the first
item was ‘‘I generally have fun when I am learning science.’’ Students answered by ticking the appropriate
box on a four-point Likert scale, the extreme categories being Strongly agree and Strongly disagree.
The items and scales are introduced in Appendix 2.
The total number of items measuring interest related issues is high. Therefore, we reduced the data and
calculated sum variables based on our review on motivation and interest (e.g., Schiefele, 1999; Schraw &
Lehman, 2001). In Appendix 2 sum-variables (bold), items which belong a certain sum-variable and item
codes describing interest related issues are presented. These sum-variables are used later in the regression
analysis. However, giving the names to the sum-variables is not easy. It is known that feeling-related and
value-related valences of interest are highly correlated and some students’ interests are based primarily on
feelings, whereas other interests are probably based on personal significance (Schiefele, 1999). We classified
items in those two groups. For example, the item ‘‘I am happy doing science problems (ST16Q03)’’ reflects
Table 2
Sum-variables measuring student interest in science and science studies and careers, and sense of self-efficacy, and
beliefs about own competence are presented
Finland OECD
Mean SD Mean SD d
Personal interest, feeling related valences

Science enjoyment (scale: 0 ¼ Strongly disagree, 56.6 21.4 53.8 23.6 0.12a
100 ¼ Strongly agree, ¼ 0.81)
Personal interest, value related valences
Learning science is useful for me from the point of 50.2 24.0 52.0 28.1 0.07a
view of my future (scale: 0 ¼ Strongly disagree,
Interest in science careers (scale: 0 ¼ Strongly 31.3 23.0 36.3 26.6 0.20b
disagree, 100 ¼ Strongly agree, ¼ 0.82)
Out-of-school science-related activities (scale: 16.2 13.6 20.2 16.4 0.27b
0 ¼ Never or hardly never, 100 ¼ Very often,
¼ 0.81)
General value of science to human beings and 70.0 13.8 69.7 15.5 0.02a
society (scale: 0 ¼ Strongly disagree,
Personal value of science (scale: 0 ¼ Strongly 58.2 17.8 59.0 19.7 0.04a
Topic interest (scale: 0 ¼ No interest, 100 ¼ High interest)
Interest in physics and chemistry ( ¼ 0.82) 45.0 30.5 48.9 28.3 0.13a
Interest in biology and geology ( ¼ 0.81) 49.4 23.2 54.0 24.7 0.19a
Interest in astronomy 48.6 33.5 51.8 33.4 0.10a
Interest in science process ( ¼ 0.81) 32.6 26.6 43.4 27.9 0.40b
Self-efficacy related to science (0 ¼ I couldn’t do this, 58.6 18.5 58.1 19.4 0.03a
100 ¼ I could do this easily, ¼ 0.82)
Self-concept related to science (scale: 0 ¼ Strongly 53.6 19.0 52.2 21.5 0.07a
a
No effect (d < 0.2).
b
Small effect (0.2 d < 0.5).

feeling related valences of personal interest and the item ‘‘Broad science is valuable to society (ST18Q06)’’
reflects value related valences of personal interest. We introduce several sum variables reflecting value related
valences of interest, such as Learning science is useful for me from the point of view of my future and Interest in
science careers, in Appendix 2. However, it is of course impossible to know the exact reason why a student
has chosen the alternative in the Likert scale. He or she could be personally interested in the topic or his/her
choice could be generated in a test situation.
Some of the PISA 2006 Student Questionnaire items, like ‘‘Interest to learn topics in physics
(ST21Q01),’’ could be identified as measuring topic interest. Although, topic interest is basically the same as
personal interest, it could be aroused as a function of the interestingness of the topic or an event and is also
changeable and partially under the control of teachers (Schraw & Lehman, 2001).
In addition to interest variables, we use in our analysis as sum variables Self-efficacy related to science
and Self-concept related to science. These sum-variables are again formed based on the set of items under
the titles ‘‘Q17 How easy do you think it would be for you to perform the following tasks on your own?’’
and ‘‘Q37 The following question asks about your experiences of learning.’’
Analysis of the Student Questionnaire Data

In the analysis all scales were reversed and 0 was the given value for the most negative alternative, Never
or hardly never or Strongly disagree and 100 to the most positive alternative, such as, In all lessons or Strongly
agree. The scales are introduced in Appendices 1 and 2.
In our macroscopic analysis we compare Finnish and all OECD students’ opinions about the
communication and science activities in the science classroom and, moreover, students’ interest
related sum-variables. For these purposes we calculated the power of the difference using Cohen’s d
p
(d ¼ (MFIN MOECD)/SDpooled), where SDpooled ¼ ½ðSDFIN2 þ SDOECD2 Þ=2 (Cohen, 1988). Cohen’s d
measures the effect size for the difference between two groups: no effect at d < 0.2, small effect at
0.2 d < 0.5, moderate effect at 0.5 d < 0.8, and large effect at d 0.8. OECD mean (MOECD) and OECD
standard deviation are calculated as an average of the 30 OECD countries.
Complex survey based regression analysis (the module PROC SURVEYREG of the SAS software) was
used for the modeling and analysis of data consisting of values of a dependent variable (a student performance
in PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment) and of independent or explanatory variables (firstly, values of
the variables measuring student’s opinion about the frequency of learning activities and communication in the
Finnish science classroom and, secondly, student’s interest, individual’s values, and sense of self-efficacy,
and beliefs about own competence). Moreover, we use student gender and highest parental education in years
as explanatory variables in the analysis. In addition, we have made several other regression analyses where we
have used school questionnaire questions as explanatory variables. We comment briefly on the output of these
analyses.
The variables gender and highest parental education has several roles: They are acting as control
variables and they are also interesting as subject-matter explanatory variables. Some such variables should be
included in this kind of models; these choices being quite some ordinary ones. The PISA 2006 data include
several variables on parents’ background. These are concerned both mothers and fathers, naturally consisting
of some missing values too. Fortunately, the PISA data providers were constructed the respective variables for
parents so that either ‘‘Highest parent White collar/Blue collar classification’’ (the variable ‘‘HSECATEG’’)
or ‘‘Highest parental education in years’’ (the variable ‘‘pared’’) were available. Hence less missing values
were occurred. On the other hand, the variable ‘‘HSECATEG’’ includes only four categories whereas our
variable ‘‘pared’’ has six categories. We have used it as continuous that makes its interpretation a bit more
concrete. Moreover, the variable ‘‘HSECATEG’’ has 127 missing values but the variable ‘‘pared’’ only 54.
So, our choice gives a somewhat more representative model. For the results, this choice does not affect
substantially.
Analysis of regression equation should be made cautiously. This is because the PISA design chooses
students from schools at random and thus the estimations of the students cannot be summarized at classroom
level in order to achieve an aggregated description of the science instruction they receive. Moreover, the PISA

survey asks about features of science lessons in the current school year, while the performance in the literacy
test is a result of many years of cumulative learning processes. Furthermore, the evaluation of a frequency of a
certain activity is a student evaluation and is done based on his or her view. It is not an absolute evaluation of
the frequency.
In addition to PISA 2006 data, we base our conclusions also on the national education policy documents
and other documents, such as the national curriculum, which are important to science education at the
comprehensive school level in Finland.
Results
In the result section, firstly, some macroscopic results (means and standard deviations) from Finland are
presented in the sections ‘‘Short overview of Finnish students’ success in PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy
Assessment,’’ ‘‘Communication and science activities in the Finnish science classrooms,’’ and ‘‘Finnish
student interest in science and science-related beliefs.’’ Secondly, Finnish means are compared to OECD
means. Thirdly, student level models explaining the variance in the students’ Scientific Literacy Assessment
data are presented in the chapter ‘‘Explanation of Finnish student performance in PISA 2006 Scientific
Literacy Assessment by school, classroom and student level variables.’’
Overview of Finnish Students’ Success in PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment

Finnish students got the highest score (563 score points) in the PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy
Assessment and the second lowest standard deviation (SD ¼ 81 score points) between students in all OECD
countries. When the variation of the PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy scores is divided to variation of
performance within schools and between, it turned out that variation between schools is lowest in Finland
among all OECD countries. This means that schools are very similar in Finland. The Science score was 562
for males and 565 for females in Finland. Although girls performed a little better, the difference is not
statistically significant.
PISA student scores are classified into six proficiency levels. In Finland the percentage of students at
Level 1 (or lower) was 4.1% while it was 19.3% on average in OECD countries. At Levels 5 and 6 the
percentage of Finnish students was 20.9% while it was 9% on average in OECD countries.
One important point of view regarding PISA science results is the achievement of high and
low performing students in different countries. By using country percentile scores these students can be
compared with the OECD average percentile scores on the PISA 2006 science scale. Finnish students’
performance profile is different from any other country profile: the high scores of the ‘‘low achievers’’
compared to other countries have an important role in placing Finland at the top of the PISA 2006
science scale.
Communication and Science Activities in the Finnish Science Classrooms

In Table 1 means and standard deviations for sum-variables measuring students’ opinion about types of
communication and science activities in the Finnish science classroom are presented. Finnish means are
compared to the OECD averages through checking the power of the difference using Cohen’s d.
Finnish students as well as all OECD students in general, think that in most lessons they are given
opportunities to explain their ideas and express their opinions about topics. Students also consider that
teachers frequently explain how science ideas can be applied to a number of different phenomena and for
understanding the world at large. Furthermore, students encountered the relevance of ‘‘broad science’’
concepts to their lives through explanations by the teachers. In the science classroom, a class debate or student
discussion occurs on average in OECD countries as frequently as teacher teaching. However, in Finland
student debate happens more rarely than in OECD countries in general. A culture for debate is undeveloped.
Students in Finland as well as in OECD countries perform experiments by following the instructions of
the teacher or a laboratory manual prepared or selected by the teacher. Students are asked or given
opportunities to draw conclusions from experiments and explain their ideas. When frequency of practical
work and demonstrations are compared between Finland and other OECD-countries, it can be seen that in
Finland frequency of teacher demonstrations is lower and student practical work a little higher than in OECD
countries in general. However, in Finland students are less frequently designing and choosing investigations
than in other OECD countries.
A survey (n ¼ 3626, median age 15) by Lavonen, Juuti, et al. (2004) in Finland gives similar results to
PISA, but makes a clearer division between teacher directed instruction and student centered activities:
Teacher-delivered or directed instruction is the most frequently used teaching method in Finland. However,
Finnish students also frequently perform experiments and draw conclusions. Therefore, the combination of
directed instruction and experiments conducted by the students through the guidance of a teacher is the main
pedagogical approach in Finland in science education. In Finland, compared to other OECD countries,
student debate and science inquiry happen much less frequently.
Finnish Student Interest in Science and Science-Related Beliefs

Table 2 is constructed analogously to Table 1, and concerns variables of students interest in science and
science studies and careers, and moreover sense of self-efficacy, and beliefs about their competence
The first sum variable in Table 2 measures the power of feeling related valences of personal interest.
In Finland, as well as in other OECD countries, students’ responses to variables measuring science enjoyment
were in general over the middle of the scale.
The majority of students in Finland and in OECD countries reported that they, in general, valued science
or their attitude is positive towards science (sum variable General value of science to human beings and
society). Moreover, students think that science is almost as relevant for them in general or in the future (sum
variables Personal value of science and Learning science is useful for me from the point of view of my future).
For example, students almost universally reported believing that science is important for understanding the
natural world and that advances in science and technology and that it usually improves people’s living
conditions and, moreover, it is valuable for society. This kind of interest has been found to be an important
predictor for course selection, career choice and performance (Eccles, 1994; Wigfield, Eccles, & Rodrgues,
1998). However, the students, especially in Finland, were not so interested in continuing their scientific
studies or working in a science-related field (sum variable Interest in science careers) when these kinds of
issues were asked about directly.
Students’ interest in science was measured also by clarifying their science-related activities in their free
time (sum variable Out-of-school science-related activities). Across OECD countries, and especially in
Finland, only a minority of students reported that they engaged regularly in science-related activities.
Interest in a subject can influence the intensity and continuity of student engagement in learning
situations. In turn, strong engagement with a subject deepens students’ understanding of that subject. In order
to measure students’ general interest in science subjects PISA 2006 asked students a set of questions on their
level of topic interest in different subjects (sum variables Interest in physics and chemistry; Interest in biology
and geology; Interest in astronomy; Interest in science process). While the majority of students in OECD
countries reported an interest in human biology, students reported less interest in astronomy, chemistry,
physics, the biology of plants, and geology. The ways in which scientists design experiments and what is
required for scientific explanations were also less interesting. In all areas, Finnish students demonstrate lower
interest than on average when compared to OECD countries. In particular, Finnish students had on average,
low interest in the science process. Perhaps this has something to do with the low frequency of science inquiry
activities (Table 1).
To assess self-efficacy (sum variable Self-efficacy related to science) in PISA 2006, students were asked
to rate the ease with which they believe they could perform eight listed scientific tasks. The majority of
students in Finland and in the OECD think they can at least with some effort recognize science questions or
identify explanations in the situations of the tasks. Students’ self-concept was assessed by measuring the
general level of belief that students have in their science-related academic abilities (sum variable Self-concept
related to science). Again, the majority of students in Finland and in the OECD reported that they could
usually give good answers in science tests and understand very well the concepts when they are taught
science.
Explanation of Finnish Student Performance in PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment by School,
Classroom, and Student Level Variables
Regression analysis was used to find the extent to which a set of explanatory variables account for the
variance in student performance in the PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment (dependent variable).
Several analyses were done to clarify how different explanatory variables accounted for the model. In the
analysis, variables describing
– students’ opinion about the frequency of different type of science learning activities,
– student’s opinion about the frequency of different type of communication types in the science
classroom,
– student’s interest in science and science studies and careers,
– sense of science-related self-efficacy, and self-beliefs about own competence were used. Moreover,
variables explaining headmasters and teachers opinions about conditions in science education, such
as about the shortage of learning materials like textbooks and laboratory equipment, used in science
education were used.
Any of relevant School Questionnaire item, considering level of science laboratory equipment or
textbooks, did not had statistically significant estimate in the regression models. This is because there was
only small variance among these items between schools. This means obviously that Finnish schools are
equally equipped and qualified teachers are teaching at schools. These school and teacher related variables
are not presented in Table 3, as they did not account for the models. From the student questionnaire only
parents’ educational background items had a statistically significant estimate in the regression model.
We have three models in the table. In the first model we have only explanatory variables measuring
students’ opinions about the frequency of different types of science learning activities and communication
types. In the second model we have only explanatory variables measuring students’ interest in science and
science studies and careers and sense of science-related self-efficacy, and self-beliefs about their own
competence. In the third model (main model) we have both groups of explanatory variables. The model fit, is
naturally, best in the third model where R2 can be considered to be rather high.
The most positive student level predictors were students’ science-related self-efficacy and self-concept
and students’ interest in physics and chemistry and view of the usefulness of science studies from the point of
view of future jobs in science. The most positive predictors, describing science teaching and learning were
frequency of teacher demonstrations, practical work and students’ opportunities to draw conclusions. Most
negative student level predictors were students’ interest in the science process and the most negative
predictors describing science teaching and learning were frequency of student science inquiry, and debate
activities.
Discussion and Conclusions
Similar suggestions, such as comprehensive school pedagogy, the structure of the education system,
quality of Finnish schools, teacher education, school practices, national curriculum, and Finnish education
policy, as has been suggested by the authors of the Finnish PISA 2000 and 2003 reports (Kupari et al., 2007;
Välijärvi et al., 2002) can be argued to be reasons for Finnish students’ success in the PISA 2006 Scientific
Literacy Assessment based on our description of the Science education context in Finland. However, there are
features of the education policy, such as school autonomy, which are similar to those in most OECD countries
and, consequently, cannot only explain Finnish students’ success.
In the PISA 2006 Assessment some new data were acquired concerning student’s opinion about the
frequency of learning activities and communication in the Finnish science classroom and students’ interest in
science and science studies and careers, and sense of self-efficacy, and beliefs about their own competence.
Based on that data, students’ leisure activities could not explain the success as Välijärvi et al. (2002) have
claimed. Moreover, the present data do not support the claim of Kupari et al. (2007), who believe that
experimentation and modeling activities are essential in the Finnish science classroom, and that modeling can
be considered an important step in understanding the nature of scientific processes and knowledge. Rather,
Table 1 indicates that modeling and inquiry activities do not occur more frequently in Finland than in other
Table 3
Multivariate regression models for science performance in Finland 2006
Model 1 (Table 1 Model 2 (Table 2 Total model (Tables 1
Variables) Variables) and 2 Variables)
Estimate t Estimate t Estimate t
*** ***
Gender (1 ¼ girl, 2 ¼ boy) 8.46 3.5 12.2 4.81 2.38 0.81 ns
Parents education 5.41 11.99*** 3.3 8.23*** 3.18 8.1***
Science inquiry 1.82 17.9*** 1.58 17.8***
Student debate 0.71 13.6*** 0.54 11.9***
Demonstration 0.56 10.7*** 0.37 8.6***
Students draw conclusions 0.43 8.4*** 0.26 6.1***
Practical work 0.31 4.4** 0.26 4.2***
Student discussion 0.00 0.2 ns 0.08 2.2*
Students apply and modeling 0.19 3.3** 0.09 1.7 ns
Teacher explains (teaches) 0.61 6.6*** 0.12 1.6 ns
Student ideas and opinions are listened to 0.03 0.5 ns 0.03 0.8 ns
Self-efficacy related to science 1.33 16.6*** 1.18 15.8***
Self-concept related to science 0.65 8.6*** 0.63 9.2***
Learning science is useful for the future 0.47 7.5*** 0.36 6.0***
science job
Interest in physics and chemistry 0.32 6.8*** 0.30 6.6***
Interest in science process 0.24 5.7*** 0.17 3.8***
General value of science to human beings 0.47 5.3*** 0.31 3.6***
and society
Interest in astronomy 0.21 4.4*** 0.13 2.75**
Learning science is useful for me from the 0.06 1.1 ns 0.14 2.5*
point of view of my future
Interest in biology and geology 0.28 3.5*** 0.17 2.3*
Out-of-school science-related activities 0.44 4.7*** 0.12 1.4 ns
Science enjoyment 0.21 2.8** 0.05 0.8 ns
Personal value of science 0.07 0.7 ns 0.01 0.2 ns
R2 0.25 0.33 0.45

df 141 141 143
F 77.5*** 106*** 185***
ns
p > 0.05.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.
OECD countries. In addition, inquiry activities and modeling have a negative correlation to PISA
performance (Table 3).
In this section we firstly discuss some student level explanations for Finnish students’ success in PISA
2006 (Tables 1–3). Then we discuss some macroscopic explanations for Finnish students’ success in PISA
2006 based on the PISA 2006 Student and School Questionnaire data and on national education policy
documents.
Student Level Explanations for Finnish Student Performance in PISA 2006 Scientific
Literacy Assessment
The most powerful positive predictors among learning activities and communication predictors for
Finnish students’ performance in PISA 2006 were students’ opinions concerning the number of
demonstrations (0.37) and practical work (0.26) and the possibility for making conclusions (0.26). It was
unexpected that students’ opinions concerning the number of science inquiries (1.58) and debate activities
(0.54) had such a strong negative correlation to students’ performance in PISA 2006 (Table 3). Moreover,
Finnish students were not interested in the ways in which scientists design experiments and what is required
for scientific explanations (interest in science process (MFI ¼ 32.6; MOECD ¼ 43.4) in Table 2). There was also
a low frequency in science inquiry (MFI ¼ 18.2; MOECD ¼ 26.1) and debate (MFI ¼ 26.2; MOECD ¼ 40.8)
activities (Table 1) in Finland. On the other hand, the PISA framework emphasizes just competencies
typically needed in science inquiry and debate activities, such as identifying scientific issues; explaining
scientific phenomena and the drawing of evidence-based conclusions. These competences have been
emphasized in Finland since the beginning of the 1990s in national level curriculum documents (FNBE, 1994,
2004). Lavonen, Juuti, et al. (2004) found in their survey that ‘‘traditional’’ practical work and a teacher
asking questions were among the most popular teaching methods in a Finnish science classroom. Therefore,
Finnish teachers help Finnish students to acquire PISA competencies through ‘‘traditional’’ practical work
activities where students conduct experiments according to instructions given by a teacher or a laboratory
manual. In these activities an opportunity to make conclusions (MFI ¼ 52.2; MOECD ¼ 50.5) is an important
type of activity in Finland. However, more classroom research is needed to understand how students in
Finland learn competencies needed in science inquiry, without having traditional inquiry activities very
frequently.
Based on Table 1 and the regression equation (Table 3), it seems possible to argue that a combination of
traditional teacher-delivered instruction and the conducting of practical work by students results in higher
academic performance than more student-directed learning, such as inquiry activity. This is very similar
what, for example, Chall (2000) describes based on his review on teacher-directed and student-directed
approaches to learning. She summarizes, the effects on academic achievement (i.e., reading, writing,
mathematics) of a teacher-centered educational approach was generally found to be more effective than the
student-centered educational approach. One possible interpretation for this, is that pupils perceive as being
positive the fact that new concepts are introduced by a teacher, an expert, who first presents new information
and then demonstrates how this information is used for solving problems or performing tasks. Moreover,
students’ experiments or practical work before and after the teacher-delivered sequences play an essential
role in learning. However, a teacher’s role in this type of learning is challenging. Science teachers should
listen carefully to students and engage the students in observing, classifying, analyzing, synthesizing, and
interpreting. Students should trust their teacher and also be active in learning, even though a teacher is guiding
the learning activities. According to PISA school questionnaire data, almost all teachers at participating
schools were qualified teachers or teachers who had a master lever university degree including 1 year
pedagogical studies. Referring to Simola (2005), Finnish teachers believe in their traditional role and pupils
accept their traditional position.
We do not suggest that the number of science inquiry activities should be reduced in Finland or in other
OECD countries because they have negative correlation to students PISA performance. They certainly play a
role in the development of students’ research, social, and creative skills and moreover could increase
knowledge about science. One possible reason for the low frequency of inquiry activities is due to
misunderstanding the items containing concept ‘‘inquiry.’’ Inquiry is not used in textbooks. In Finland there is
only one concept for different kinds of activities where students are doing activities with their hands and then
making conclusions based on that activity. Practical work can be also very inquiry oriented, even though
teachers do not emphasize inquiry terminology. However, the role of inquiry activities and terminology used
within those activities should be discussed, as they offer a meaningful environment for developing versatile
competencies.
The sum-variable, Science enjoyment, reflecting feeling related valences of personal interest was a weak
predictor to PISA performance. Strong predictors for PISA performance, which reflect value related valences
of personal interest, were students’ conception about the usefulness of science for their possible future jobs in
science and students’ beliefs about the general value of science for human beings and society. The sum-
variables measuring Finnish students’ interest in physics, chemistry, and astronomy were also powerful
positive predictors for Finnish students’ performance in PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment. These
topic-interest items reflect also value related valences of personal interest (what topics are personally
relevant). The above-mentioned sum-variables refer to the attribution of personal significance, importance or
usefulness of science learning, and have also a positive correlation to students’ PISA performance.
Consequently, these variables are important for science learning and students’ future involvements in science.
However, students only agree with parts of the sum-variable General value of science and do not agree with
the sum-variable Interest in science careers (Table 2). Consequently, a science teacher should work also as a
career counselor and demonstrate the interesting features to be found in science careers, such as possibilities
to improve people’s living conditions or work for the protection of the environment, society, and economy.
Finnish students’ beliefs about Self-efficacy related to science and their self-concept related to science
were the most powerful positive predictors for Finnish students’ performance in PISA 2006. Therefore, the
Finnish science education culture has succeeded in supporting the development of students’ science-related
self-efficacy and self-belief. This result is very similar to what Välijärvi et al. (2007) concluded on the basis of
the multilevel modeling procedure. They found that affective factors, particularly students’ self-concepts
related to mathematics, were the strongest predictors of performance variation in mathematical literacy in
PISA 2003 in Finland. Issues related to self-efficacy and self-belief are analyzed during science teachers’
pedagogical studies, theoretically and during teaching practice. According to Finnish national education
policy, science teachers are the main actors in student assessment in comprehensive schools and, therefore,
they can plan how to support and build students’ confidence in their abilities when they need to perform a
particular science task. Central in the assessment policy in Finland has been during the last 20 years to avoid
ranking of schools or pupils and to avoid the feeling of punishment (cf. Bandura, 1986). This kind of long-
term policy has been important for the development of a supportive atmosphere to the development of self-
efficacy. Finnish science classrooms are heterogeneous and can consequently offer low achieving students
role models in the form of high achieving students (cf. Bandura, 1997). Finnish science classrooms are
relatively small and heterogeneous and, consequently allow common goal-setting and verbal persuasion,
which takes the form of feedback and encouragement given by teachers to students. This kind of teacher
behavior could increase self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
Policy behind Finnish Students’ Success

PISA 2006 Student Questionnaire data do not fully explain Finnish students’ success in the PISA 2006
Scientific Literacy Assessment, and especially the small standard deviation in results. High results and small
standard deviation is also a consequence of national education policy, as described in the section ‘‘Science
education context in Finland.’’ There are three leading principles in the educational policy of Finland. Vision
of a knowledge-based-society can be met in the national level curriculum and teacher education program.
Teachers who are teaching science subjects, physics, chemistry, and biology are highly specialized in the
subject and, therefore, they know also epistemological, ontological and methodological issues concerning the
subject. Emphasis on knowledge is met also in the number of teaching hours allocated for science subjects:
altogether there are, on average, 6 lesson hours of science subjects per week in lower secondary school. Vision
of educational equality has especially increased the achievements of low achieving students and developed
their self-efficacy. High achieving students act as role models for low achieving students. According to the
third policy principle, ‘‘devolution of decision power and responsibility at the local level,’’ professionals at all
levels from primary education to universities are not implementers of decisions but partners in decision-
making. Teachers really use their freedom and are responsible for developing the curriculum for their courses,
choosing the teaching and evaluation methods based on the national guidelines and also for selecting the
learning material.
These education policy components can be named at the general level as being reasons for Finnish
students’ success in PISA, and are quite the opposite to common features of education policies and reforms
globally (Hargreaves, Earl, Shawn, & Manning, 2001; Sahlberg, 2004). Finland is not following a standards-
based education policy, including centrally prescribed performance standards for schools, teachers, and
students. Another strong trend Finland has not followed is consequential accountability systems for schools,
according to which success or failure of schools and their teachers is determined by standardized tests and
external evaluations that only devote attention to limited aspects of schooling, such as student achievement in
mathematical and reading literacy.
Some features of Finnish education policy are easier to understand if the implementation of the policy is
compared to a neighboring country, which has a similar policy but different implementation. Although
Sweden has a similar society and has a similar education policy to Finland, there are relatively strong
differences in science teaching. In Sweden the vision of a knowledge-based-society, educational equality and
evolution of decision power and responsibility at the school level are also important. Both countries have
similarities in their comprehensive school systems. However, Swedish comprehensive school is more
political than the Finnish school and concentrates more on the socialization of children (Strömdahl, 2006).
The Finnish comprehensive school concentrates more on teaching subjects were the teacher is highly
specialized in the subject. There also are differences in devolution of decision power and responsibility at the
local level in teacher education in Finland and Sweden. In Sweden, the competence of class teachers is lower:
they typically have only 3–4 years education. Lower secondary school teachers in Finland study more subject
knowledge than in Sweden. During these subject courses the student teachers in Finland become familiar with
the epistemological and ontological basis of the subject. This kind of knowledge is important at school, when
teachers are guiding students in different kinds of activities where epistemological and ontological issues are
discussed. This is similar to the suggestion of Kupari et al. (2007). They argue that in science teaching, the
pedagogical orientation is subject-orientation. Therefore, teachers transmit the nature of science in their
teaching.
Conclusions and Future Challenges for Science Education in Finland
Finnish students succeeded very well in the cognitive items of the PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy
Assessment and, therefore, the challenge is to continue with a similar science education policy and its
implementation (Schleicher, 2006). In particular, there were no gender differences in the PISA score and
standard deviation was smaller than in other OECD countries. Consequently, Finnish education policymakers
should be very proud of the very low variation in PISA scores. The most important reasons for success are
successful implementation of education policy cornerstones, knowledge based society, educational equality
and devolution of decision power at the local level, through curriculum policy, teacher education, local level
decision-making and science teaching approaches in the science classroom.
The PISA affective domain evaluation revealed the already known basic fact: the majority of 15-year-
olds agree with the important role that science plays in the world and that science in general is important,
relevant and also interesting for them and, moreover, the majority thought that on the whole they are able to
master the science problems they are given at school. However, school science does not stimulate most
students’ interest (Osborne et al., 2003). In some areas of the affective domain measurement Finnish students’
scores were lower than the average in OECD countries. In particular, students’ interests in science topics and
especially in processes were low. One solution is to develop new contexts in science education. For example,
it is possible to increase the role of the human-being context, health education and examples of life sciences in
physics and chemistry teaching.
The most dramatic indicators for lack of interest towards science were the items measuring students’
interest in continuing their scientific studies or working in a science-related field. However, in general,
Finnish students perceived science to be useful for them and they perceived that science would be helpful for
their career prospects and future work. As such, there are challenges for science teachers to discuss
concerning career opportunities and characteristics of careers in science.
References
Aho, E., Pitkänen, K., & Sahlberg, P. (2006). Policy Development and Reform Principles of Basic and
Secondary Education in Finland since 1968. Education, Working Paper Series, Number 2. New York: The
World Bank.
Ahtee M., & Pehkonen E. (Eds.). (1997). Matemaattisten aineiden opettajien täydennyskoulutuksesta.
[In-service training of mathematics, physics and chemistry teachers.] Tutkimuksia 173. University of
Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Bennett, J., Lubben, F., Hogarth, S., & Campbell, B. (2004). A systematic review of the use of small-
group discussions in science teaching with students aged 11–18, and their effects on students’ understanding
in science or attitude to science. In Research evidence in education library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social
Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
Björkqvist, O. (2006). Mathematics education in Finland: What makes it work? In A. Rogerson (Ed.),
Proceedings of the International Conference of the Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project on
‘‘Reform, Revolution and Paradigm Shifts in Mathematics Education’’ (pp. 45–48). Johor Bahru, Malaysia:
Universiti Teknologi, Malaysia.
Bransford, J.D., & Donovan, S.M. (2005). How students learn science in the classroom. Washington,
D.C.: National Academies Press.
Chall, J.S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classroom? New
York: Guilford Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Committee Report. (1970: A4) Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelmakomitean mietintö I [Report of the
Committee of Comprehensive School Curriculum I]. Helsinki: Valtion Painatuskeskus.
DeBacker, T.K., & Nelson, R.M. (2000). Motivation to learn science: Differences related to gender,
class type, and ability. Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 245–255.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2004). Handbook of Self-determination Research. Rochester, NY: The
University of Rochester Press.
Eccles, J.S. (1994). Understanding Women’s Educational and Occupational Choice: Applying the
Eccles et al. Model of Achievement related Choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609.
Ertl, H. (2006). Educational standards and the changing discourse on education: The reception and
consequences of the PISA study in Germany. Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 619–634.
FNBE. (1994). Framework curriculum for the comprehensive school (in Finland). Helsinki: State
Printing Press and National Board of Education.
FNBE. (2004). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004. Helsinki: National Board of
Education.
Gorard, S.S., & Smith, E. (2004). An international comparison of equity in education systems.
Comparative Education, 40(1), 15–28.
Halinen, I. (2008). Keys to Success in Finland. Talk given at the World Education Congress: The Best
Among the Best. Valencia 19.4.2008.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Shawn, M., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change. Teaching beyond
subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hasse, C. (2002). Gender diversity in play with Physics. The problem of premises for participation in
activities. Mind, Culture and Activity, 9(4), 250–270.
Hautamäki, J., Harjunen, E., Hautamäki, A., Karjalainen, T., Kupiainen, S., Lavonen, J., Pehkonen, E.,
Rantanen, P., & Scheinin, P. (2008). PISA 2006: Analysis, reflections, explanations (44). Helsinki: Ministry
of Education.
Hopmann, S.T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational
Research, 60, 549–571.
Jakku-Sihvonen R. & Niemi H. (Eds.). (2006). Research-based Teacher Education in Finland–
Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Research in Educational Sciences 25. Turku: Finnish Educational
Research Association.
Karjalainen, T., & Laaksonen, S. (2008). PISA 2006 Sampling and Estimation. In J. Hautamäki, E.
Harjunen, A. Hautamäki, T. Karjalainen, S. Kupiainen, S. Laaksonen, J. Lavonen, E. Pehkonen, P. Rantanen,
& P. Scheinin (Eds.), PISA06 Finland. Analyses, Reflections, Explanations (pp. 231–239). Helsinki:
Ministry of Education.
KATU-Project. (1978). Luokanopettajan koulutusohjelman yleinen rakenne. Kasvatusalan tutkinno-
nuudistuksen ohjaus-ja seurantaryhmän raportti. [General Structure of the Class Teacher’s Education. Report
of the steering and follow-up group of the curriculum reform.] Opetusministeriö. Korkeakoulu-ja
tiedeosaston julkaisusarja no 27.
Krapp, A. (2007). An educational–psychological conceptualisation of interest. International Journal for
Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7(1), 5–21.
Kupari, P., Reinikainen, P., & Törnroos, J. (2007). Finnish Students’ Mathematics and
Science Results in Recent International Assessment Studies: PISA and TIMSS. In E. Pehkonen,
M. Ahtee, & J. Lavonen (Eds.), How Finns Learn Mathematics and Science? (pp. 11–34). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Laukkanen, R. (2008). Finnish strategy for high-level education for all. In N. Soguel & P. Jaccard (Eds.),
Governance and Performance of Education Systems (pp. 305–324). The Netherlands: Springer.
Lavonen, J. (2007). National science education standards and assessment in Finland. In D. Waddington,
P. Nentwig, & S. Schaze (Eds.), Making it comparable (pp. 101–126). Berlin: Waxmann.
Lavonen, J., Byman, R., Juuti, K., Meisalo, V., & Uitto, A. (2005). Pupil Interest in Physics: A Survey in
Finland. Nordina 2(1), 72–85.
Lavonen, J., Jauhiainen, J., Koponen, I., & Kurki-Suonio, K. (2004). Effect of a long term in-service
training program on teachers’ beliefs about the role of experiments in physics education. International
Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 309–328.
Lavonen, J., Juuti, K., Byman, R., Uitto, A., & Meisalo, V. (2004). Teaching methods in ninth
grade Finnish comprehensive school: A survey of student expectations. In R.M. Janiuk, & E. Samonek-
Miciuk (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Organization for Science and Technology Education
(IOSTE) XIth Symposium (Science and Technology Education for a Diverse World—Dilemmas, needs and
partnership), 25–30 July, Lublin, Poland C (pp. 157–158). Lublin: Maria Curie-Sklodowska University
Press.
Lavonen, J., Krzywacki-Vainio, H., Aksela, M., Krokfors, L., Oikkonen, J., & Saarikko, H. (2007). Pre-
service teacher education in chemistry, mathematics and physics. In E. Pehkonen, M. Ahtee, & J. Lavonen
(Eds.), How Finns learn mathematics and science. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.
Lavonen, J., Meisalo, V., & Juuti, K. (2004). The role of researchers in the implementation of
educational policies: The Finnish LUMA Programme (1996–2002) as a Case Study. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 3(4), 34–42.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2000). Children’s thinking, learning, teaching and constructivism. In M. Monk &
J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 41–54). Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Marsh, H.W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model.
American Educational Research Journal, 23(1), 129–149.
Norris, N., Asplund, R., MacDonald, B., Schostak, J., & Zamorski, B. (1996). An independent
evaluation of comprehensive curriculum reform in Finland. Helsinki: National Board of Education.
OECD. (2005a). School Questionnaire for PISA 2006: Main Study. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2005b). Student Questionnaire for PISA 2006: Main Study. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006.
Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2007a). PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Volume 1: Analysis. Paris:
OECD.
OECD. (2007b). PISA 2006: Volume 2: Data. Paris: OECD.
Olsen, R.V. (2005). Achievement tests from an item perspective: An exploration of single item data from
the PISA and TIMSS studies, and how such data can inform us about students’ knowledge and thinking in
science, PhD thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo: Unipub.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitude towards science: A review of the literature and its
implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4),
543–578.
Pehkonen, E., Ahtee, M., & Lavonen, J. (2007). How Finns learn mathematics and science? Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Porter, M.E., Schwab, K., & Lopez-Claros, A. (2005). Global competitiveness report 2005–2006. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Publications of the Ministry of Education. (2004). Education and Research 2003–2008; Development
Plan (p. 8). Finland: Publications of the Ministry of Education.
Purhonen K. & Parviainen P. (Eds.), (1996). Matemaattiset aineet yläasteissa ja lukioissa—

opetusmenetelmät, -tilat ja-välineet. [Mathematical subjects at lower and upper secondary schools—
teaching methods, spaces and equipments.] Helsinki: MAOL.
Reinikainen, P. (2007). Sequential Explanatory Study of Factors Connected with Science Achievement
in Six Countries: Finland, England, Hungary, Japan, Latvia and Russia. Study based on TIMSS 1999.
Research Reports 22. Jyväskylä: Institute for educational Research.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical
perspective. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33).
Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
Sahlberg, P. (2004). Teaching and globalization. Managing Global Transitions, 2(1), 65–83.
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299–323.
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257–279.
Schleicher, A. (2006). The economics of knowledge: Why education is key for Europe’s success.
Brussels: Lisbon Council Policy Brief.
Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211–224.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future
research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 23–52.
Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S., (2004) Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, Rationale, Questionnaire
Development and Data Collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education)—a comparative study of
students’ views of science and science education. Acta Didactica.—4/2004 (Dept. of Teacher Education and
School Development, University of Oslo, Norway).
Shavelson, R.J., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 3–17.
Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and
teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455–470.
Sjøberg, S. (2007). PISA and ‘real life challenges’: Mission impossible? In S.T. Hopman, G. Brinek, &
M. Retzl (Eds.), PISA zufolge PISA—PISA according to PISA (pp. 1–18) Vienna: LIT Verlag.
Strömdahl, H. (2006). On standards in science education in the contemporary Swedish school system.
Paper presented in the 3rd International Science education symposium Standards in science education.
February 23–26, Kiel, Germany. Available online: http:/ /www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/standards_symposium/
sites/, visited 15.2.2006.
Teacher Education Development Programme. (2002). Helsinki: Ministry of Education, Department for
Education and Research Policy.
Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (2006). Is pupils’ interest in biology related to their out-
of-school experiences? Journal of Biology Education, 40(3), 124–129.
Vauras, M. (2006). Difficulties as content in the teacher education. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen & H. Niemi
(Eds.), Research-based Teacher Education in Finland—Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators, (pp. 173–
187). Research in Educational Sciences 25. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association.
Välijärvi, J., Linnakylä, P., Kupari, P., Reinikainen, P., & Arffman, I. (2002). The Finnish success in
PISA—and some reasons behind it. Jyväskylä: Kirjapaino Oma Oy.
Välijärvi, J., Kupari, P., Linnakylä, P., Reinikainen, P., Sulkunen, S., Törnroos, J., & Arffman, I. (2007).
The Finnish success in PISA—and some reasons behind it 2. Jyväskylä: Institute for Educational Research.
Waddington D., Nentwig P., & Schaze S. (Eds.). (2007). Making it comparable. Berlin: Waxmann.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children’s motivation in school
context. Review of Research in Education, 23, 73–118.

Appendix 1
Sum-variables (bold), items of the sum-variables and item codes describing students’ opinion about type
of communication and science activities in the Finnish science classrooms.
Communication (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ in all lessons, 4 ¼ never or hardly never)
Student discussion
ST34Q13 Students have discussions about the topics
Student debate
ST34Q09 There is a class debate or discussion
Student ideas and opinions are listened
ST34Q01 Students are given opportunities to explain their ideas
ST34Q05 The lessons involve students’ opinions about the topics
Teacher explains (teach)
ST34Q07 The teacher explains how a school science idea can be applied to a number of different phenomena (e.g.,
the movement of objects, substances with similar properties)
ST34Q12 The teacher uses school science to help students understand the world outside school
ST34Q15 The teacher clearly explains the relevance of broad science concepts to our lives
ST34Q17 The teacher uses examples of technological application to show how school sciences relevant to society
(society relevance)
Science Activities (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ in all lessons, 4 ¼ never or hardly never)
Practical work
ST34Q02 Students spend time in the laboratory doing practical experiments
ST34Q14 Students do experiments by following the instructions of the teacher
Demonstration
ST34Q10 Experiments are done by the teacher as demonstrations
Students draw conclusions
ST34Q06 Students are asked to draw conclusions from an experiment they have conducted
Science inquiry
ST34Q03 Students are required to design how a school science question could be investigated in the laboratory
ST34Q08 Students are allowed to design their own experiments
ST34Q11 Students are given the chance to choose their own investigations
ST34Q16 Students are asked to do an investigation to test out their own ideas
Apply, modeling
ST34Q04 The students are asked to apply a school science concept to everyday problems
Appendix 2
Sum-variables (bold), items of the sum-variables and item codes describing students interest in science
and science studies and careers, and moreover sense of self-efficacy, and beliefs about own competence.
Personal interest, feeling related valences
Science enjoyment (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ strongly agree, 4 ¼ strongly disagree)
ST16Q01 I generally have fun when I am learning science
ST16Q02 I like reading about science
ST16Q03 I am happy doing science problems
ST16Q04 I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in science
ST16Q05 I am interested in learning about science
Personal interest, value related valences
Learning science is useful for me from the point of view of my future (scale in the Students questionnaire:
1 ¼ strongly agree, 4 ¼ strongly disagree)
ST35Q01 Making an effort in my school science subject(s) is worth it because this will help me in the work I want to
do later on
ST35Q02 What I learn in my school science subject(s) is important for me because I need this for what I want to
study later on
ST35Q03 I Study school science because I know it is useful for me
ST35Q04 Studying my school science subject(s) is worthwhile for me because what I learn will improve my career
prospects
ST35Q05 I will learn many things in my school science subject(s) that will help me get a job
Interest in science careers (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ strongly agree, 4 ¼ strongly disagree)

ST29Q01 I would like to work in a career involving broad science

ST29Q02 I would like to study broad science after secondary school
ST29Q03 I would like to spend my life doing advanced broad science
ST29Q04 I would like to work on broad science projects as an adult
Out-of-school science-related activities (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ very often, 4 ¼ never or hardly
never)
ST19Q01 Watch TV programs about broad science
ST19Q02 Borrow or buy books on broad science topics
ST19Q03Visit web sites about broad science topics
ST19Q04 Listen to radio programs about advances in broad science
ST19Q05 Read broad science magazines or science articles in newspaper
ST19Q06 Attend a science club
General value of science to human beings and society(scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ strongly agree,
4 ¼ strongly disagree)
ST18Q01 Advances in broad science and technology usually improve people’s living conditions
ST18Q02 Broad science is important for helping us to understand the natural world
ST18Q04 Advances in broad science and technology usually bring social benefits
ST18Q06 Broad science is valuable to society
ST18Q09 Advances in broad science and technology usually help to improve the economy
Personal value of science (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ strongly agree, 4 ¼ strongly disagree)
ST18Q03 Some concepts in broad science help me see how I relate to other people
ST18Q05 I will use broad science as an adult
ST18Q07 Broad science is very relevant to me
ST18Q08 I find that broad science helps me to understand things around me
ST18Q10 When I leave school there will be many opportunities for me to use broad science
Topic interest
Interest in physics and chemistry (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ high interest, 4 ¼ no interest)
ST21Q01 Interest to learn topics in physics
ST21Q02 Interest to learn topics in Chemistry
Interest in biology and geology (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ high interest, 4 ¼ no interest)
ST21Q03 Interest to learn topics in biology of plants
ST21Q04 Interest to learn topics in Human biology
ST21Q06 Interest to learn topics in Geology
interest in astronomy (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ high interest, 4 ¼ no interest)
ST21Q05 Interest to learn topics in Astronomy
interest in science process (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ high interest, 4 ¼ no interest)
ST21Q07 Interest to learn ways scientists design experiments
ST21Q08 Interest to learn what is required for scientific explanations
Self-efficacy related to science (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ easily, 4 ¼ couldn’t do it)
It is easy for me to . . .
ST17Q01 recognize the science question that underlies a newspaper report on a health issue
ST17Q02 explain why earthquakes occur more frequently in some areas than in others
ST17Q03 describe the role of antibiotics in the treatment of disease
ST17Q04 identify the science question associated with the disposal of garbage
ST17Q05 predict how changes to an environment will affect the survival of certain species
ST17Q06 interpret the scientific information provided on the labelling of food items
ST17Q07 discuss how new evidence can lead to change understanding about the possibility of life on Mars
ST17Q08 identify the better of two explanations for the formation of acid rain
Self-concept related to science (scale in the Students questionnaire: 1 ¼ strongly agree, 4 ¼ strongly disagree)
ST37Q01 I can usually give good answers to test questions on school science topics
ST37Q02 When I am being taught school science, I can understand the concepts very well
ST37Q03 I learn school science topics quickly
ST37Q04 I can easily understand new ideas in school science
ST37Q05 Learning advanced school science topics would be easy for me
ST37Q06 School science topics are easy for me

Lavonen (IJSE 2009)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lavonen (IJSE 2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 46, NO. 8, PP.

Context of Teaching and Learning School Science in Finland:

Received 26 May 2009; Accepted 27 July 2009

Correspondence to: J. Lavonen; E-mail: jari.lavonen@helsinki.fi

ß 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Science Education Context in Finland

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Science in the Finnish National Core Curriculum

Activities and Communication in the Science Classroom

Students Interest in Science Learning and Their Beliefs as Learners

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Sample and Sampling

Scientific Literacy Measurement

Items Considering Student Activities and Communication in the Science Classroom

Communication (scale: 0 ¼ Never or hardly never, 100 ¼ In all lessons)

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Items Considering Student Interest and Beliefs as Learners

Personal interest, feeling related valences

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Analysis of the Student Questionnaire Data

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Overview of Finnish Students’ Success in PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment

Communication and Science Activities in the Finnish Science Classrooms

Finnish Student Interest in Science and Science-Related Beliefs

R2 0.25 0.33 0.45

Policy behind Finnish Students’ Success

Purhonen K. & Parviainen P. (Eds.), (1996). Matemaattiset aineet yläasteissa ja lukioissa—

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

ST29Q01 I would like to work in a career involving broad science

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

You might also like