The Finnish Approach to Exam Retakes and Passing Grades

Title: Fostering a Growth Mindset: Rethinking Assessment Through Retakes and Mastery Learning

The traditional model of high-stakes, one-time testing with stringent grade cutoffs has come under increasing scrutiny for its ability to accurately measure learning and foster an environment conducive to developing critical skills like persistence and a growth mindset. This article examines the alternative assessment paradigm embraced in Finnish and Scandinavian education systems that allows students multiple retake opportunities and defines "passing" at a lower threshold like 50% correctness. It explores the rationale behind this approach, its potential benefits for instilling a growth mindset focused on effort and continual improvement, and its drawbacks in terms of lowering academic standards. Special consideration is given to the elementary level and the merits of a "not yet" philosophy that delays grades temporarily. Ultimately, a nuanced perspective is presented that achievement metrics should balance developing persistence and resilience with maintaining rigorous academics.

Introduction:

In an educational landscape still heavily driven by standardized test scores and ranking metrics, the Finnish and Scandinavian approaches to assessment stand in stark contrast. A notable feature is the provision that students can retake exams as many times as they wish, with the new score simply replacing the old one (Abrams, 2011). More substantially, these countries define a relatively low bar for "passing" assessments, commonly around 50% correctness, while scores of 75% or higher constitute "high passing" (Partanen, 2011). On the surface, such policies seem antithetical to maintaining high academic standards and rigor. However, this mastery learning model is purposefully designed to cultivate critical mindsets like perseverance, resilience in the face of setbacks, and the belief that ability can grow through continued effort - collectively termed a "growth mindset" (Dweck, 2006).

The Fundamentals of a Growth Mindset

Originally articulated by Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck, the growth mindset framework proposes that students' beliefs about the malleability of intelligence act as a key driver of their motivation and achievement (Dweck, 2006). Those with a "fixed mindset" view intelligence as an inborn, unalterable trait. Struggles are interpreted as revealing personal deficiencies, so students with fixed mindsets are more prone to becoming discouraged and giving up. In contrast, a "growth mindset" conceptualizes intelligence as "malleable" - able to expand through hard work, embracing challenges, and persisting through obstacles (Dweck, 2015). From this perspective, struggles are simply signposts for areas requiring more effort, not indictments of one's inherent capacity.

Extensive research links a growth mindset to improved academic outcomes, greater motivation and persistence, and higher rates of seeking feedback (Claro et al., 2016). However, actively fostering a growth mindset in students requires carefully structuring the learning environment to reinforce its fundamental principles. Finnish and Scandinavian educational policies reflect a conscious paradigm shift in this direction.

The Rationale Behind Retakes

At first glance, allowing unlimited retakes on assessments seems to undermine their seriousness and incentivize a lackadaisical approach. If a student knows they can simply retake an exam without penalty, what is the impetus for diligent preparation? Crucially, however, the retake allowance is not a vacuum policy but part of a broader instructional context emphasizing mastery learning over performance evaluation.

In these Scandinavian models, the purpose of testing is to provide formative feedback that illuminates gaps in understanding which then guide subsequent reviewing, reassessment, and refinement of knowledge (Abrams, 2011). Tests act as a feedback loop within an overall cycle of continual improvement, not a Here is the continuation of the scholarly article:

Tests act as a feedback loop within an overall cycle of continual improvement, not a singular high-stakes event. The low passing threshold of 50% reflects an acknowledgment that partially grasping concepts is the first step towards fuller mastery. As educational researcher Dylan Wiliam explains, "If you want pupils to risk having a go, then they need to know that getting things wrong provides feedback to help them improve, rather than being brandished as tiny humans who have failed" (Toshalis, 2015). Unlimited retakes give students the psychological safety to take that risk without fearing failure.

This approach aligns with findings that students display higher motivation when emphasizing learning goals of increasing competence versus performance goals of proving ability (Elliot & Dweck, 1988). By removing the specter of scores as self-evaluative judgments and framing assessments as part of the learning process itself, retakes nurture a mastery-oriented mindset focused on continual growth. Grades or scores become individualized datapoints highlighting areas for review, not definitive verdicts on self-worth.

Critically, retakes must be coupled with substantive re-learning, not simply re-attempting the same assessment. Teachers provide targeted remediation between retakes to solidify shaky concepts. This process of trying, struggling, receiving focused guidance, and trying again lies at the heart of developing perseverance and resilience. As education researchers Rachel Lofgren and Marten Vingo articulate, "Experiencing failure, analyzing what went wrong, taking steps to improve, and trying again (and succeeding) is exactly the type of learning sequence that makes students believe in and adopt a growth mindset" (2017).

Potential Drawbacks

Of course, no educational policy is without potential downsides that merit careful consideration. A common critique of the retake system is that it artificially inflates achievement levels and undermines meaningful academic standards. If everyone can eventually "pass" by achieving the minimum correctness bar, what is the value of that credential?

There are a few key rejoinders to this criticism. First, mastery learning approaches still incorporate tiers of performance like "high passing" at 75% to distinguish exceptional achievement. So while struggling students may reach a basic minimum, those who demonstrate deeper understanding are recognized accordingly. Secondly, in authentic mastery systems, each retake and re-learning iteration raises the passing standard geometrically (Guskey, 2010). The initial 50% passing reflects fractions of knowledge, but subsequent retakes require additive increments like 67%, 75%, 83%, and so on until full mastery around 94-98%. So while students have multiple chances, they cannot perpetually stagnate.

A more nuanced drawback pertains to incentive structures. If the onus is on teachers to continually remediate until mastery, and students can theoretically put off studying until the last retake opportunity, the locus of motivation and accountability becomes lopsided. Some argue a system with immutable deadlines and consequences instills crucial life lessons about planning, preparation, and prioritization (Olson, 2015). There are also concerns about removed extrinsic motivators if not enough differentiation exists for exemplary performance.

Applying the Principles at the Elementary Level

While the growth mindset principles and practices of the Scandinavian model apply broadly, their usage and appropriateness evolve across different age and development levels. For the early elementary grades, an emerging consensus recommends delaying not just standardized test scores, but grades themselves.

The push for "no grades" at the elementary level stems from concerns that young students perceive letter or number scores as identities and self-judgments rather than differentiated feedback (Kohn, 2011). At ages where confidence and resilience are still inchoate, poor marks can create long-lasting固密化 mindset fears of being "bad at" a subject. This undermines the very growth mindset principles of comfortability with risking errors to learn.

Instead, researchers advocate using age-appropriate language like "not here yet" or "still practicing" to underscore the focus on continual growth over static achievement levels (Munro, 2012). Parents voicing similar language, like "You can't do that YET" rather than judgmental criticism builds intrinsic motivation and preserves self-belief in potential improvement. In lieu of scores or grades, portfolio-based assessments showing progress over time become the documented credentializing.

The Finnish educational model exemplifies this philosophy, delaying numerical grades until 5th grade while leveraging extensive narrative feedback (Abrams, 2011). Even then, grades are introduced progressively, starting with a 7-point scale emphasizing the learning process over finite scores. This gentler rollout reinforces the foundational attitudes that mistakes are inherent to learning, not character indictments.