31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Emotional Competence and School Outcomes among Flemish Multilingual and Monolingual Pupils
Graziela Dekeyser1, Orhan Agirdag1,2, Jozefien De Leersnyder1
1KU Leuven, Belgium; 2University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Presenting Author: Dekeyser, Graziela
Topics: In Flanders, significant gaps in the sense of school belonging and student performance exist between majority monolingual Dutch-speaking and minority multilingual pupils speaking Dutch as well as a non-Dutch heritage language (HL)[1, 2]. In this study, we investigate whether these differences in school outcomes may be a result of differences in children’s emotional competence. Children’s school outcomes critically depend on their emotional competence, i.e., the capacity to experience, express, regulate emotions, and understand their own emotions as well as those of others[3]. Children need emotional competencies to enable learning in an inherently social context such as school. For example, children who are better at identifying emotions and, hence, regulating these emotions are more likely to establish positive and supportive relationships with teachers and peers[3] which in turn may affect their sense of school belonging. Moreover, emotionally competent children generally feel more at ease at school, even in situations of stress. Consequently, they have more cognitive capacity to focus on learning than peers who are emotionally insecure, which in turn positively impacts their performance [4].
Prior empirical research has repeatedly shown how among monolingual children, language competence is associated with emotional competence[5-7]. For example, the more emotion words children know, the better they recognize others’ facial emotions [8]. Similarly, children’s verbal skills are positively associated with emotional awareness of self and others [9]. However, to date, it remains unclear whether being able to speak and comprehend multiple languages goes hand in hand with increased emotional competence and subsequent school outcomes. Moreover, if the latter is the case, it remains unclear why multilingual minority pupils often have less positive school outcomes.
Although multilingual children are likely to have more emotion concepts due to their exposure to emotions in at least two languages (and corresponding emotion cultures), whether or not this multilingual advantage materializes may critically depend on children’s language proficiency profile and the language policy of the school. Multilinguals rarely have equivalent proficiencies in their languages due to differences in language use across social contexts (cfr. complementarity principle[10]). If emotions are rarely discussed in Dutch (e.g. because they are less discussed in school as compared to the family), children’s language skills in Dutch may not be substantive enough to induce a multilingual advantage in emotional competence. In other words, children’s language proficiency profile may be a critical factor to take into account when trying to explain differences in school outcomes between monolinguals and multilingual children. Moreover, if schools adopt a language assimilation policy, multilingual children may not be provided with the opportunity to connect their HL skills with their Dutch language skills which may hamper multilingual children’s emotional development. Hence, the relationship between language proficiency profile and emotional competence may be moderated by school’s language policy.
Research questions: How are school outcomes related to children’s language proficiency profiles (RQ1)? Does emotional competence mediate the relationship between different types of language proficiency profiles and school outcomes (RQ2?) And is the relationship between children’s language proficiency profiles and emotional competence conditional upon the role of the school’s language policy (RQ3)?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe use survey data from primary school children (aged 10 to 12) from the Ethnic-Cultural Diversity in Schools (ECDIS) project. 3073 pupils were surveyed via a paper-and-pencil questionnaire during school hours across 59 Flemish schools. 1894 (63%) of the pupils in the study are multilingual. Emotional competence was measured by the “Differentiating Emotions” subscale of the Emotion Awareness Questionnaire, consisting of items such as ‘I am often confused or puzzled about what I am feeling’ and ‘I never know exactly what kind of feeling I am having’[11]. SSB was assessed by the Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale[12]. A standardized math test[13] was used as an indicator of student performance. We focused on math achievement because math tests are less linguistically biased than tests for other subjects. We constructed a variable “Language Proficiency Profile” with four categories. Monolingual children formed a first language proficiency profile. Then, we performed a Two-Step cluster analysis procedure in SPSS to classify multilingual children into language proficiency groups based on four language proficiency measures (rating on 1 to 5 on speaking and understanding Dutch and the HL). This analysis resulted into three multilingual profiles: (1) fluent multilingual in both languages, (2) fluent in Dutch but low proficiency in the heritage language, and (3) low Dutch proficiency but moderate proficient in the heritage language. School’s Language Policy was measured by a set of items referring to three different diversity models: (1) assimilation, (2) colorblindness and (3) pluralism[14]. SAS was used to conduct multilevel linear regressions as a first step. In a second step, MPlus was used to perform a multilevel structural equation model. Control variables are gender, grade, migration generation and SES.At this moment in time, we ran the analyses for Sense of School of Belonging. In the coming months, we will run the same analyses for Math Performance.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary Findings for Sense of School Belonging: Only multilingual children with low proficiency in Dutch and moderate proficiency in the heritage language score significantly lower on sense of school belonging than monolingual children. Other multilingual groups did not significantly differ from the monolingual reference group. Also, the ability to differentiate emotions is significantly positively related to sense of school belonging but emotion differentiation only partially mediates the relationship between language proficiency profiles and sense of school belonging scores. Multilevel analyses will be conducted in the coming months to investigate the role of language policy in explaining why a multilingual advantage does not materialize. Analyses at the individual level, without controlling for data clustering in schools, do not provide evidence of moderated mediations.
References1.Van Der Wildt, A., P. Van Avermaet, and M. Van Houtte, Multilingual school population: ensuring school belonging by tolerating multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2015. 20(7): p. 868-882.
2.Celeste, L., et al., Can School Diversity Policies Reduce Belonging and Achievement Gaps Between Minority and Majority Youth? Multiculturalism, Colorblindness, and Assimilationism Assessed. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 2019. 45(11): p. 1603-1618.
3.Denham, S.A., Emotional Competence During Childhood and Adolescence, in Handbook of Emotional Development, V. LoBue, K. Pérez-Edgar, and K.A. Buss, Editors. 2019, Springer: Cham. p. 493-541.
4.Oberle, E. and K.A. Schonert-Reichl, Social and Emotional Learning: Recent Research and Practical Strategies for Promoting Children’s Social and Emotional Competence in Schools, in Handbook of Social Behavior and Skills in Children, J.L. Matson, Editor. 2017, Springer: Cham. p. 175-197.
5.Salmon, K., et al., The Role of Language Skill in Child Psychopathology: Implications for Intervention in the Early Years. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev, 2016. 19(4): p. 352-367.
6.Beck, L., et al., Relationship between language competence and emotional competence in middle childhood. Emotion 2012. 12(3): p. 503-514.
7.Cole, P.M., L.M. Armstrong, and C.K. Pemberton, The role of language in the development of emotion regulation, in Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition, S.D. Calkins and M.A. Bell, Editors. 2010, American Psychological Association: Washington. p. 59-77.
8.Streubel, B., et al., Emotion-specific vocabulary and its contribution to emotion understanding in 4- to 9-year-old children. J Exp Child Psychol, 2020. 193: p. 104790.
9.Mancini, G., et al., Predictors of emotional awareness during childhood. Health, 2013. 05(03): p. 375-380.
10.Grosjean, F., Bilingual. Life and Reality. 2010, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
11.Rieffe, C., et al., Psychometric properties of the Emotion Awareness Questionnaire for children. Personality and Individual Differences, 2007. 43(1): p. 95-105.
12.Goodenow, C., The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 1993. 30(1): p. 79-90.
13.Dudal, P. and G. Deloof, Vrij centrum voor leerlingenbegeleiding. Leerlingenvolgsysteem. Wiskunde: Toetsen 5 – Basisboek. 2004, Antwerpen: Garant.
14.Konings, R., O. Agirdag, and J. De Leersnyder, Development and Validation of Domain Scpecific Diversity Model Scales among Pupils and Teachers: A Multilevel Approach. Social Psychology of Education, accepted.
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Humanizing Pedagogies with Multilingual Learners: A Conceptual Framework
Kara Viesca1, Jenni Alisaari2, Svenja Hammer3, Svenja Lemmrich4, Annela Teemant5
1University of Nebraska, United States of America; 2University of Turku, Finland; 3Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway; 4Leuphana University, Germany; 5Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis
Presenting Author: Viesca, Kara
A collaborative team of European and North American researchers has been examining the development of teachers of multilingual students and meaningful engagement with students in schools for several years. In 2019, we published a literature review examining the research literature on preparing teachers to work with multilingual students in content classrooms, suggesting three large domains that must be attended to: context, orientations, and pedagogy (Viesca et al., 2019). In 2022, we published a four-nation study (Finland, Germany, England, and the US) examining the quality pedagogies of teachers of multilingual students with a strong reputation for excellence (Viesca et al., 2022). In 2022, we also conducted an exploratory study with teachers in five nations (Finland, Germany, Norway, England, and the US) regarding positive orientations for working with multilingual students. We presented the initial findings of that work at ECER 2023 (Viesca et al., 2023). Grounded in these collaborations, this paper draws on research and theory to suggest a conceptual model for the purpose of generating humanizing pedagogies with multilingual learners in practice across myriad contexts, both through teacher development activities and classroom practices with multilingual students.
In our work, we focus on a particular group of multilingual learners: students who live a multilingual life daily because they are learning content and the language of instruction simultaneously in school. With current migration patterns, this population is increasing across many nations (e.g., Arar et al., 2020; Seltzer & García, 2020). Yet, many school systems struggle to provide a quality education for such students (e.g., Anderson et al., 2016; Leider et al., 2021). Further, due to existing social hierarchies based on white supremacy, heteropatriarchy, ableism, and classism, the experiences of multilingual students and their families are often shaped by poverty, discrimination, and marginalization (Howard & Banks, 2020). As such, multilingual students and their families are often dehumanized in schools and society, necessitating explicit efforts on behalf of educators and schooling systems to generate learning opportunities and community belonging grounded in the full embrace of the total humanity of multilingual learners (Salazar, 2013), or in other words through humanizing pedagogies.
Therefore, we conceptualize humanizing pedagogies as attending to the knowledge and skills educators need around context, orientations, and pedagogies (Viesca et al, 2019). We articulate this model through the metaphor of weaving of a tapestry, which includes materials (like the knowledge and skills related to context, orientations, and pedagogies) as well as the process of weaving (which we conceptualize as the processes of critical reflection and complexity thinking). Further, as the efforts to generate humanizing pedagogies with multilingual students are at their core about justice and equity, we assert that the processes of critical reflection and complexity thinking must attend to three lenses: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systemic. Our paper weaves all of these ideas together to generate a model of humanizing pedagogies for multilingual learners grounded in theory, research, and pedagogy while also being meaningfully practical in how it can impact teacher development across myriad contexts.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis conceptual model was developed over years of collaborative research and engaging with research, theory, and practice. The iterative process that led to the development of this model has included a constant revisiting of humanizing pedagogies as researched and conceived by others while also seeking to make sense of the idea through our own research (both empirical and through literature review, discussed above) and practice. Years of collaborative conversations, empirical investigations, reading discussions, and literature reviews have led to the development of this model.
The notion of humanizing pedagogies is often traced to originating with Freire (1994), who, in the 1970s, worked with minoritized groups in Brazil and illustrated how education, when humanizing, can be a liberatory praxis from oppression. In multilingual education, this has been furthered by various scholars, including Bartolomé (1994), who pushed for the field to move beyond a “methods fetish” and towards a humanizing pedagogy grounded in ideological clarity. In 2013, Salazar published an extensive review of the research literature documenting the principles and practices of humanizing pedagogies from myriad contexts around the globe. The tenets she offered as vital focus on the interconnected nature of humanizing practices and the need for holistic attention to all aspects of individual and collective humanity. She also specifically noted the need for critical reflection and action.
We draw from these researchers and others in multilingual education to connect students’ core identities with the learning processes they experience in school. For example, Alim, Paris, and Wong’s (2020) exploration of culturally sustaining pedagogies promotes pluralist practices, requiring whiteness to be decentered to create space for other ideas and practices to exist. In this way, culture can be revered as complex; the purpose of teaching and learning can be for sustaining lives and reviving souls as well as for the creation of socially just, pluralistic societies where there is space for loving critique and critical reflexivity.
Our conceptual work brings these lines of research together, along with theories guiding abolitionist social movements (e.g., Kabe, 2021) and the work of Indigenous scholars (e.g., Kimmerer, 2013; Simpson, 2017) to articulate all of the aspects of our model and their practical impact in classrooms: specifically to humanize every member of the learning community in order for equity and justice to be achieved.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe value of this conceptual model is its ability to translate complex, abstract ideas from theory and research regarding justice and equity for multilingual learners into tangible tools and directions for moving forward. Both teacher educators and educators in practice will be able to see the next steps, opportunities for growth as well as impactful shifts that can move them towards humanizing pedagogies with multilingual learners in their practice. This conceptual model has been operationalized into a practitioner-oriented text, to be published in the summer of 2024 (Viesca & Commins, forthcoming). The value of this model is specifically in how it has been developed through years of collaborative international research across multiple varied contexts, thus generating concepts capacious enough to be relevant in varying social, political, and economic environments. Further, this conceptual model is impactful in research and practice. Ongoing research regarding the components of this model, as well as their relationship among components, is being planned and will continue for years to come as we continue to collect data and draw from research and theory to further understand the model’s value in practice. Thus, this paper is a foundational tool for future work across European and North American educational research and practice, with the potential to grow beyond into collaborations and understandings in other parts of the world.
ReferencesAnderson, C., Foley, Y., Sangster, P., Edwards, V., & Rassool, N. (2016). Policy, Pedagogy and Pupil Perceptions: EAL in Scotland and England (T. B. Foundation, Ed.). University of Edinburgh and The Bell Foundation.
Arar, K., Ӧrücü, D., & Waite, D. (2020). Understanding leadership for refugee education: Introduction to special issue. International Journal of Leadership Education, 23(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13603124.2019.1690958
Bartolomé, L. I. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2), 173-194.
Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
Howard, T. C., & Banks, J. A. (2020). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Kaba, M. (2021). We do this til we free us: Abolitionist organizing and transforming justice. Haymarket Books.
Kimmerer, R. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions.
Leider, C. M., Colombo, M. W., & Nerlino, E. (2021). Decentralization, Teacher Quality, and the Education of English Learners: Do State Education Agencies Effectively Prepare Teachers of ELs? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(100): 1-44.
Salazar, M. d. C., (2013). A humanizing pedagogy: Reinventing the principles and practice of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in Education, 37, 121-148. Doi: 10.3102/0091732X12464032
Seltzer, K., & García, O. (2020). Broadening the view: Taking up a translanguaging pedagogy with all language-minoritized students. In Z. Tian, L. Aghai, P. Sayer, J. L. Schissel (Eds.), Envisioning TESOL through a translanguaging lens: Global perspectives (pp. 23-42). Springer.
Simpson, L. B. (2017). As we have always done: Indigenous freedom through radical resistance. University of Minnesota Press.
Viesca, K. M., Hammer, S. Alisaari, J., & Lemmrich, S. (2023). Orientations to embrace,
Elevate, and sustain diversity/difference. Paper presented European Conference for Educational Research (ECER), the Annual Meeting of the European Educational Research Association (EERA).
Viesca, K. M., Teemant, A., Alisaari, J., Ennser-Kananen, J., Flynn, N., Hammer, S., Perumal, R., & Routarinne, S. (2022). Quality content teaching for multilingual students: An international examination of instructional practices in four nations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 113, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103649
Viesca, K.M., Strom, K., Hammer, S., Masterson, J., Linzell C.H., Mitchell-McCollough, J., & Flynn, N. (2019). Developing a complex portrait of content teaching for multilingual learners via nonlinear theoretical understandings. Review of Research in Education, 43, 304-335. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18820910
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Applying Formative Assessment to Disciplinary Literacy among Multilingual Students – Developing the LUFO Model
Elli Saari
University of Helsinki, Finland
Presenting Author: Saari, Elli
Multilingual students often face multiple challenges in school. There is often a gap in learning outcomes between students with a migrant background and those without it (OECD, 2019). Previous research has shown that the literacy skills are significantly lower among students who study Finnish as a second language (F2) compared to their Finnish as a first language (F1) peers (Ukkola & Metsämuuronen, 2023). Deficits in literacy skills are associated with both poor academic performance and with low sense of belonging and equality both in school and in society.
In the Finnish elementary school, special support is aimed at strengthening the literacy skills of F2 curriculum students. Still, this support often fails to provide the student the tools needed for adequate academic progress (Ståhlberg et al., 2023). One of the key challenges for teachers is to distinguish problems related to poor language skills and problems related to specific subject. Failing to address this question adequately has multiple negative consequences: it obscures the teacher’s ability to make objective assessment of learning, which can lead to both under- and overestimating the student’s skills. In addition, it might prevent the teacher from offering needs-based support for the F2-student.
Language awareness is a key concept in developing new pedagogic tools, which support multilingual students and their literacy skills. An important part of language awareness, multiliteracy, states that the teacher is aware of the students' language skills, the literacy of the subject being taught, the activities used to build meanings, and also a systematic approach to teaching the discipline literacy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012). In practice, integrating language and content is challenging for a teacher who is not really specialized in teaching language.
Previous research has shown that it is difficult for subject teachers to perceive themselves as instructors of reading and writing, especially beyond vocabulary (Aalto & Tarnanen, 2015). Assessment is an important tool for teaching. Especially, studies have shown that well-targeted formative assessment (FA) promotes learning efficiently (Andrade et al., 2019; Black et al., 2004; Kingston & Nash, 2011; Kingston & Nash, 2015). The key principles in feedback as a part of FA are to identify what the learning goals are, where the student is in relation to these goals, and how the student can reach the goal (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
To date, research on FA in teaching disciplinary literacy has been rare (Alderson et al., 2014; Gillis & Van Wig, 2015). On the other hand, literacy research has shown that feedback aimed at understanding text during reading is an effective tool for teaching (Swart et al., 2022). This paper aims to combine both theoretical and empirical research in developing a new model of feedback for teachers of environmental subjects. The new model aims to make it easier for the teacher to focus on students’ literacy skills as an integral part of content teaching. The model will be first applied to the teaching of F2 students in primary school, but the broader aim is that it is also suitable for guiding the literacy skills of F1 students. The model combines knowledge on both multiliteracy and FA. This study is based on the developmental research paradigm, which seeks theoretical insights and develops practical solutions (McKenney & Reeves, 2019).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe participants of this study are Finnish primary school teachers (N=8), who have volunteered to take part in the project. The participants teach F2 students on 4.-6. grades, who have lived in Finland less than six years. This study is divided in two phases.
In the first phase, we use a scoping literature review for defining the most important factors on the literacy processes used in studying environmental disciplinary in elementary school. Next, these processes are integrated within the feedback provided as an integral part of formative assessment. As a result, we construct a draft of a structured model for teaching disciplinary literacy. This model is called LUFO (name derived from Finnish words “LUkutaidon FOrmatiivinen arviointi”). Together with the recruited teachers, LUFO will be developed further by means of group interviews. The interviews are recorded and transcribed. In my presentation, I will discuss the results from the scoping review, teachers’ feedback and the resulting LUFO model.
Later, in phase two, the effects of LUFO model will be evaluated with both quantitative and qualitative means. In the quantitative part of the study, summative learning results for children who have received teaching according to LUFO model will be compared to those from a comparison group matched by age, gender, ethnic background and living environment. In the qualitative part of study, the students who have received LUFO-based assessment will be interviewed to get their insights and impressions on the model. The phase two data acquisition will take place in 2025.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsLUFO model aims to provide class teachers a low threshold, easy to adopt work tool for increasing the awareness of language during the teaching of a subject content. As the actual study phase takes place later in the spring 2024, all results presented now are preliminary. My presentation will focus on the chosen background theories, the different steps taken during the developmental research process, and finally the applicability of the final LUFO model from the participating teachers’ perspectives. From my current perspective, it is highly probable that LUFO model will combine the literacy processes of experience of text, conceptualization, analysis, and application of information, as well as knowledge and utilization of text genres and learners’ metacognitive skills concerning the literacy processes useful in tasks. Developmental research process will concentrate on pedagogical means to both assess the students’ competence and guide students to their aims. Based on my pilot work, it is possible to combine feedback and literacy in a meaningful way.
In our previous research we showed that the core concepts of FA are quite well known among Finnish F2 teachers, but these concepts are seldom considered advantageous (Saari & Hildén, 2023). Thus, in practice, FA is not applied following the established guidelines. More research is needed especially on the role and possibilities of FA in F2 context. This study aims to address this gap of knowledge by developing a new structured tool LUFO. Further studies, which assess both the model’s effectiveness and applicability will be conducted later.
ReferencesAalto, E., & Tarnanen, M. (2015). Kielitietoinen aineenopetus opettajankoulutuksessa. In J. M.-M. Kalliokoski, K.; Nikula, T. (Ed.), Kieli koulutuksen resurssina: vieraalla ja toisella kielellä oppimisen näkökulmia (Vol. 8, pp. 72-90).
Alderson, J. C., Haapakangas, E.-L., Huhta, A., Nieminen, L., & Ullakonoja, R. (2014). The Diagnosis of Reading in a Second or Foreign Language.
Andrade, H., Bennett, R., & Cizek, G. (2019). Handbook of Formative Assessment in the Disciplines.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195.
Gillis, V., & Van Wig, A. (2015). Disciplinary Literacy Assessment. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(6), 455-460.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative Assessment: A Meta-Analysis and a Call for Research. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 30(4), 28-37.
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2015). Erratum. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 34(2), 55-55.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting Educational Design Research (2nd edition).
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives.
Saari, E., & Hildén, R. (2023). S2-opettajien käsityksiä formatiivisesta arvioinnista oppimisen tukena. In T. Mäkipää, R. Hildén, & A. Huhta (Eds.), Kielenoppimista tukeva arviointi. AFinLA-teema. Nro 15 (pp. 142–161).
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What Is Disciplinary Literacy and Why Does It Matter? Top Lang Disorders Vol. 32, No. 1, 7–18.
Ståhlberg, L., Lotta, U., & Hotulainen, R. (2023). Lukutaidon yhteys suomi toisena kielenä ja kirjallisuus (S2) -oppimäärän valitsemiseen toisella ja seitsemännellä luokalla. NMI-bulletin, 2023(1), 54–72.
Swart, E. K., Nielen, T. M. J., & Sikkema‐De Jong, M. T. (2022). Does feedback targeting text comprehension trigger the use of reading strategies or changes in readers' attitudes? A meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 45(2), 171-188.
Ukkola, A., & Metsämuuronen, J. (2023). Matematiikan ja äidinkielen taidot alkuopetuksen aikana – perusopetuksen oppimistulosten pitkittäisarviointi 2018–2020. Kansallinen koulutuksen arviointikeskus. Julkaisut 1:2023.
|
