Athena-lecture, 22.9.2016, Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D,L.Phil)

How the pupils and students are assessed and
evaluated in Finnish schooling system?
University of Helsinki
22.9.2016
Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D,L.Phil)

THE CONTENT OF THIS PRESENTATION
1) THE FINNISH SCHOOLING SYSTEM IN A NUTSHELL
2) ASSESSING THE BASIC AND GENERAL UPPER
SECONDARY EDUCATION IN FINLAND
3) FINNISH PARTICULARITIES
4) MATRICULATION EXAMINATION -THE ONLY NATIONAL
EXAM (HIGH-STAKE) IN THE END OF GENERAL UPPER-
SECONDARY SCHOOLING
5) ASSESSING AND EVALUATING PUPILS AND STUDENTS
6) FINNISH CRITERIA-BASED EDVALUATION IS A HYBRID!
7) CONCLUTIONS AND REFLECTIONS
9/16/2016
Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D/ L.Phil)
najat@arviointi.fi www.arviointi.fi
2

9/16/2016
3

CENTRAL FEATURES OF THE
FINNISH EDUCATION POLICY
Teachers are highly qualified experts
- all teachers have Master’s Degree from university
- the teaching profession is popular and has a high status
- there is a lot of trust in the teachers
Active school leaders
– wide participation in professional development
– quite a lot of independence in the decision-making in school development
9/16/2016
4

CENTRAL FEATURES OF THE
FINNISH EDUCATION POLICY
• Equal opportunities for education.
• Education is free of charge.
• Public authorities must secure equal
opportunities for every resident in
Finland to get education also after
compulsory schooling and to develop
themselves, irrespective of their financial
standing.
• Every student has a right to be supported
in learning and in personal development
and welfare.
• Individual support for learning and
welfare of pupils – effort to minimise low
achievement through early intervention.
• Co-operation between the school and the
parents important.
9/16/2016
5

THE CONTENT OF EDUCATION IS STEERED
BY MEANS OF A CORE CURRICULUM
1) The Government determines and decides :
- the allocation of lesson hours, which forms the basis for the national core
curriculum
- the new general national aims for basic education and on the time
allocated to the teaching of different subjects and subject groups and to
guidance counselling (allocation of lesson hours) in the summer of 2012.
2) The reform will
- strengthen the teaching of skill and art subjects, physical education, civics
and value education, the status of environmental education and
cooperation between subjects and diversify language programs.
3) The National Board of Education conducts
- The renewal of National Core Curricula (Basic education and General Upper
secondary education)
- The Core Curriculum will be revised by 31 December 2014 for adoption in all
the year classes from 1 to 6 August 2016 onwards.
See more about the renewed (Curriculum of Basic education 2014):
http://www.oph.fi/english/curricula_and_qualifications/basic_education/curricula_2014
9/16/2016
6

The year plan for the schools are a document that particularize how the curriculum are implemented in
each school during the school year.
The local curriculum generates a common basis and gives a direction for daily schoolwork. It is seen as a
strategical and pedagogical tool. The schooling provider (most commonly municipalitiy) bears how the local
curriculum is elaborated and developed.
National Core Curriculum (2004; 2014). A binding, normative document .
The general guidelines for formative assessment during the learning proses and for summative
evaluation in the end of basic education. The local curriculum (for region or for school) are based on the
NCC.
The general principles of assessment and evaluation are determined in legislation:
Basic education act(682/1998)
Basic education decree (852/1998)
Government decrees (422/2012) and (378/2014)
9/16/2016
7

Assessment and
evaluation in Finnish
schooling system
89/16/2016

ASSESSING THE BASIC AND
GENERAL UPPER SECONDARY
EDUCATION IN FINLAND
Parliament/ Government
Ministry of Education/
The Evaluation plan (2016-2019)
(See the index)
Local Authorities and Joint Municipal Authorities
(Schools and other Educational Institutions)
Autoevaluation
Private Education Providers
(Schools and other Educational Institutions)
State-maintained Educational
Institutions
Matriculation
Examination
Board/
National examination
in the end of general
upper secondary school
Regional State
Administrative Agencies
Other Ministries
The Finnish Education
Evaluation
Center (FINEEC)
-> From May 2014
9/16/2016
9

USEFUL LINKS:
Video clip:
http://www.minedu.fi/opencms/export/video/fi
nEDUsmall.mp4
National Education Evaluation plan 2016-2019
http://karvi.fi/app/uploads/2016/05/2-National-
Education-Evaluation-Plan-2016-2019.pdf
9/16/2016
10

GOVERMENT ACTION PROGRAMME
ON EQUITY
The Government will initiate an action programme to further
promote equal opportunity in education. That is the reason
why the following issues are followed while assessing the
learning outcomes :
– differences between schools and regions and the influence of
gender and sosio-economic background on learning outcomes
will be reduced.
– e.g. the operating environment will be taken into account in the
financing and steering of schools.
The equal opportunity programme will also include a review to
determine to what extent legislation can be used to influence
differentiation.
119/16/2016

GENERAL WESTERN MODEL VS.
FINNISH SYSTEM
9/16/2016
12

GENERAL UPPER SECONDARY
EDUCATION IN FINLAND
Matriculation examination:
• The upper secondary school ends in a matriculation
examination, which does not qualify for any
occupation. Passing the matriculation examination and
entitles students to continue studies in universities,
polytechnics or vocational institutions.
• Matriculation examination is drawn up nationally, and
there is a centralized body to check its individual tests
against uniform criteria.
9/16/2016
13

DIGITALIZATION OF MATRICULATION
EXAMINATION (FROM 2016 TO 2019)
From paper format to electronic exam first tests autumn 2016, all tests
2019
A 2016 (German , Geography ,Philosophy )
S 2017 (French, Social studies ,Psychology )
A 2017 ( Second national language (Swedish, Finnish), Religion ,Ethics,
Health education, History)
S 2018 (English, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese , Latin Biology )
A 2018 (Mother tongue (Finnish, Swedish, Sami) Finnish/ Swedish as a
second language Russian Physics Chemistry Sami languages)
S 2019 (Mathematics)
Over 200 000 tests twice a year.
9/16/2016
14

FINNISH PARTICULARITIES
• No Inspectorate at all.
• Only one national examination in the end of upper-secondary
schooling, Matriculation examination (high-stake test).
• Pupils’ evaluation in Finnish educational system is an example of a
hybrid: since 2004 the National Core Curricula has defined the final
assessment criteria in each subject, but only for one grade
(8=good).
• No criteria at all during the upper secondary education, but the
final examinations (i.e. Matriculation examinations) are criteria-
based.
• Data is not collected yet nationally of the quality of compulsory or
general upper-secondary schools
-> Schools and schooling providers collect the data
mainly using autoevaluation.
-> The objectives and the use of the autoevaluation are
defined by schools or the providers themselves.
9/16/2016
15

Evaluating pupils
and students
knowledge, skills
and competences
9/16/2016
16

ASSESSMENT VS. EVALUATION
Assessment = Feedback for
pupils from the learning
process.
= Assessment for learning
and Assessment as learning
=> Formative assessment
Evaluation= Assessment of
learning outcomes
= Occurs at the end of the
learning unit
=>Summative assessment
9/16/2016
17

TEACHERS’ ASSESSMENT
LITERACY
According to Guskey and Bailey (2001, 16-17) they found four factors that
have an impact to teachers’ ways of assessing/evaluating:
o Teachers’ personal experiences i.e. how they were assessed/evaluated
themselves
o What and how teachers have learned during their pre-service training
o Teachers’ personal ideology or philosophy of teaching and learning
o Instructions or rules that educational administration has given to the
teachers.
Assessment and evaluation are always subjective, but the aim has to be an
objective assessment and/or evaluation.
Teachers’ role as an evaluator is dual: he/she evaluates his/her own
teaching and its’ results (Cross & Frary 1999, 53).
9/16/2016
18

Teachers
preliminary
Idea of pupil is
based:
• Professional
framework
• Teacher’s own
experiences
Continous
interaction
Where
prilminary idea
might change
Teacher’s working
hypothesis
= Expectations of
pupils performance
Instructions
to pupil.
Suppositions
to
assess/evalua
te pupil
Pupils’ actual
performance
in the
classroom/
other learning
environment
Feedback to the
teacher, how well
his/hers supposition
was in reality.
9/16/2016
19

WHY WE ASSESS AND/OR
EVALUATE?
The
information
assessment
or evaluation
gives
Pupil or
student
Other actors
at school
Teacher(s)
Parents
Other schools
and
institutions
Stakeholders
Headmaster
9/16/2016
20

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN GADES AND PUPILS’
SELFEFFICIENCY/CAPABILITY (Ouakrim-Soivio & Kuusela 2012)
0,18
0,96
0,38
0,51
0,17
1,20
0,25
0,54
0,18
1,08
0,31
0,52
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40
Yhteiskuntaoppi
Kaikki Tytöt Pojat
PitäminenHyödyllisyysOsaaminenAsennekeskiarvo
0,10 0,30 0,50 0,70 0,90 1,10 1,30
9/16/2016
21

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN
TEACHING, LEARNING AND
ASSESSING/EVALUATING
Teaching
Assessing and
evaluating
Learning
o Assessment or evaluation is
not a separate task or
action.
o Learning, teaching,
assessing and evaluating are
tightly connected to each
other.
o Guiding the learning
process and developing the
teaching is made by using
assessment and evaluation.
9/16/2016
22

THE THREE ”RULES” FOR
TEACHERS ASSESSMENT
LITERACY (1/3)
Assessment and evaluation are
not separable from the consept
of learning (Jakku-Sihvonen 2001; Atjonen 2007).
• Assessment and evaluation are always contextual.
• They should also reflect the consept of learning
(see autoevaluation + learner centered autentic
concept of learning)
9/16/2016
23

PUPILS’ / STUDENTS’
AUTOEVALUATION SKILLS
Reflection:
Pupil/ studen observe his/her
own senses, thoughts, methods
ajd leraning (proscess).
Autoevaluation:
Structured assessment of his/her
own actions and behaviour.
Metacognitive level:
Pupil/studen is capable of
unerstand his/her cognivite
actions/ behaviour. (Patrikainen 1999, 154;
Kasanen 2003, 26).
REFLECTION
.
AUTOEVALUATION
METAKOGNITIVE
LEVEL
9/16/2016
24

Assessment and evaluation are not separable from
the consept of learning…
9/16/2016
25

THE THREE ”RULES” FOR TEACHERS
ASSESSMENT LITERACY (2/3)
Assessment and evaluation are comparision between the
objectives and the achieved results (Guba & Lincoln 1989, 22-26;
Raivola 1995, 22-30).
• Only the objectives (aims) can be assessed or evaluated.
• When assessment or evaluation is attached to the.
objectives it makes the assessment more transparant.
• Criteria are used for assessment or evaluation.
Criterium, criteria= ”Dipstick” that are used
for assassment or evaluation.
9/16/2016
26

ONLY THE OBJECTIVES CAN BE
ASSESSED OR EVALUATED
9/16/2016
27
• What are the
objectives for
learning/ teaching?
Aims/
Objectives
• How the objectives
can be achieved (i.e.
methods, contents,
learning
environments etc.)?
Realization
• Why, what , when and
how to evaluate/to
assess?
• How the feedback is
given for that it helps
both learners and
teachers?
Assessment/
Evaluation

9/16/2016
28
Diagnostic
assessment =
assessing the
starting level
Formative assessment
= Continous feedback=
assessing the learning
prosess
Summative
assessment=
assessing for
instance the
learning outcomes
or performance
Prognostive
assessment =
proactive
assessment

THE THREE ”RULES” FOR TEACHERS
ASSESSMENT LITERACY (3/3)
Assessment and evaluation have many different tasks.
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT= DURING THE LEARNING PROCESS
Assess how the pupil is learing.
Versatile, feedback that encourage and quide the pupil to achieve the objectives
that are set.
NOTE! Encouraging feedback is not the same than encouraing grade or mark!
SUMMATIVE EVALUATION = IN THE END OF CERTAIN PERIOD
Tells pupils’performance. Selects!
NOTE! Evaluation has to be equal and treat pupils fairly = Comparable
criterion-based evaluation vs. norm-based evaluation
9/16/2016
29

Assessment should
make a completeness where the different tasks
of assessment are taken into the consideration
9/16/2016
30
Summative assessment
Prognostic assessment
Diagnostic assessment

THE PRINCIPLE OF
BALANCED SYSTEM
FORMATIVE
SUMMATIVE
FORMATIVE
SUMMATIVE
9/16/2016
31

ASSESSING KNOWLEDGE AND
SKILLS ( Adapted from the source: Terenzini 1989, 644-664)
The level
of assessment
(WHO?) individual The object of assessment
(WHAT?)
Knowledge, skills, attitudes
working and behavior
group
Formative Summative
The purpose of assessment (WHY?)
Self assessment,
Assessment
discussions etc.
Oral and written
exams, grading etc..
Group assessment,
Classroom
assessment etc.
Assessment of
learning outcomes
(i.e. how the
curriculum works?)
9/16/2016
32

ASSESSMENT/ EVALUATION IN DIVERS
OCCATIONS AND DIFFERENT WAYS.
TO ASSESS/ TO EVALUATE THE
PROGRESS IS QULIATATIVE AND
DESCRIPITIVE, VERBALLY OR ON PAPER.

SIX BASIC QUESTIONS THAT HELP TEACHERS
ASSESSMENT/ EVALUATION
9/16/2016 34
WHAT
Theory/ practice/
process/
Prdoduct/
performance…
WHY?
To motivate, To
grade
To give feedback
To correct the
mistakes, to
guide…
HOW?
Auto Evaluation,
peer evaluation,
group evaluation,
verbally, in written
form, portfolio,
exam, test,
presentation,
performance…
WHO?
An other pupil or
student, pupil herself or
himself, teacher(s),
Workingroup…
WHEN?
All the time, in the
middle/ in the
begining, in the
middle/ in the end
of learning
process…
IN WHAR FORMAT?
Digitally, in a paper, in
a diploma, verbally as
a part of portfolio…

THE CRITERIA-BASED
EVALUATION IN FINLAND IS A
HYBRID!
9/23/2016
Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (KT, FL)
35
NCC (2003, 2015) MATRICULATION
EXAMINATION
NCC (2004,
2014)
GRADING IN
SCHOOLS

THE TASK OF PUPILS’ AND STUDENTS’ GRADING AND
FINAL ASSESSMENT IS:
• to confirm that the pupil or student has achieved the
objectives of the National Core Curriculum (NCC 2004;
2014) in different subjects.
• to indicate to the pupils or students themselves, to
parents and other persons how the pupil has succeeded
(Calfee & Masuda 1997; Loyd & Loyd 1997).
• to confirm that the pupils and students are ready to
move to the next grade or next level of schooling
(Broadfoot 1996; Klapp Lekholm 2008).
9/16/2016
36

THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION IN THE END OF
COMPULSORY SCHOOLING
• The final assessment criteria in each subject define the level
of knowledge and skills supposed to be achieved in the end
of basic education.
• The criteria define the level “good” (grade 8). Pupil receives
the grade, on average, when demonstrating the performance
level required by the criteria for the subject. Failing to meet
some criteria can be compensated for by surpassing the
standard of other criteria. (NCC 2004; 2014)
• The pupil has acquired the knowledge and skills required in
basic education adequately (grade 5) when being able to
demonstrate to some degree the performance level required
by the criteria (NCC 2004; 2014).
9/16/2016
37

THE CHALLENGES IN PRACTICE
• The final assessment must be nationally comparable and treat
the pupils / students equally (NCC 2004; 2014 ). The selection
and/or the entry of pupils to secondary education are mainly
based on the grades at the end of the basic education.
• Previous studies have shown frequent discrepancies between
competencies shown in the national assessments in history,
social studies, mathematics mother tongue, A and B-languages
and health education for example, both within and between
schools. The recent assessments also show that the
competencies of pupils with the same grade vary significantly.
(Ouakrim-Soivio 2013; Hildén, Ouakrim-Soivio, Rautopuro 2016.)
9/16/2016
38

The research results by Ouakrim-
Soivio (2013; 2016)
• The results support earlier
findings regarding differences
between pupils’ teacher-given
grades and the competences
they show in national
assessments, reflecting
teachers’ adjusting of grades
according to pupils’
competence level.
• The results also show
considerable in-between-
subject differences in grading
both at the basic and the
upper general school level.
41
45 48
53
58
65
71
55
58
66
72
78
81
40
50
60
70
80
90
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The
percentage
(%) of
correct
answers in
the
assessment
of learning
outcomes…
Student’s grade in Social Sciences
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
32
36
41
45
52
57
40
45
51
59
65
73
30
40
50
60
70
80
5 6 7 8 9 10
The
percentage
(%) of correct
answers in
the
assessment
of learning
outcomes in
History
Student’s grade in History
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
9/16/2016
39

THE CRITERIA FOR FINAL ASSESSMENT
IN THE END OF GENERAL UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOLING
• No criteria at all in National Core Curriculum (2003; 2015).
• Evaluation in the Matriculation Examination is criteria-based (per
subject), but the National Core Curriculum of general upper-
secondary education (2003, 2015) offers no criteria for any subject.
• The Matriculation Examination has criteria for ”a good answer” for
every question in every examination, to be interpreted by the
students also regarding questions in future examinations.
9/16/2016
40

Research Results by Kupiainen
(2014)
The relation of students’ grades at school to the grade they get in the
same subject in the Matriculation examination varies from the r=.62 of
health education to the r=.84 of A-level English – the exam taken by
almost every student. The relation of the two grades at school level for
Finnish is shown above.
-1,00
-,50
,00
,50
1,00
1,50
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37
YO
Lukio
9/16/2016
41

Research results by
Kupiainen (2014)
• Students’ final grades vary somewhat according to
subject but the differences are mainly due to
differences in girls’ grades (See next slides 43 by
Kupiainen)
• Additionally, the criteria for grade eight in the core
curriculum seem to have inflated earlier grade means
and become – especially for girls – the new mean.
• This might induce students to a false understanding
of their actual competence level.
9/16/2016
42

Female Male
B-level mathematics 7,04 6,85
B-level Swedish 7,33 6,57
A-level mathematics 7,39 7,25
Chemistry 7,45 7,43
A-level English 7,47 7,52
Physics 7,51 7,41
Biology 7,64 7,48
History 7,66 7,70
Social studies 7,82 7,70
Geography 7,85 7,80
Philosophy 7,88 7,47
Finnish 7,96 7,32
Religion 7,98 7,49
Psychology 8,10 7,54
Health education 8,23 7,54
GENDERDIFFERENCES
Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D/ L.Phil) najat@arviointi.fi www.arviointi.fi

CONCLUTIONS AND
REFLECTIONS
• The results can be seen to indicate that the NCC/BE with the
criteria given in it for the grade eight (8) in the different
subjects, indicating ‘good competence’ in the Finnish grading
scale from 4 (failed) to 10 (excellent), do not serve as an
adequate tool for equal evaluation.
• It is easy to see – and to a degree also to understand – that
teachers adjust their grades according to the general
competence level of their class.
• The same is true regarding students’ grades in upper
secondary schools.
• Apparently, what has happened is that the criteria for grade
eight have rather inflated the hitherto grade means at least
during the lower grade-levels, possibly inducing to students a
false understanding of their actual competence level and,
consequently, of need for improvement.
9/16/2016
44

CONCLUTIONS AND REFLECTIONS
• To ensure consistent final assessment, the NCC should
give teachers more support for evaluation.
• This could be done by defining grading criteria more
clearly, by defining criteria also for other grades.
• An additional means would be to develop specific
material for criteria-based evaluation in the different
subjects or to provide for the school’s use
standardised ‘model exams’ to help the calibration of
students’ grades – at least as long as the system is not
ripe for an outright exit exam for basic education (see
e.g., Jürges et al. 2003).
9/16/2016
45

CONCLUTIONS AND
REFLECTIONS
• The Finnish assessment and evaluation system is
favorable for “pedagogical approaches” i.e. self-
assessments in municipal- and school level and
formative evaluation in pupils level.
• Data and information for decision making are also
needed to know how good the quality of teaching is in
national level.
• At this moment there are a lots of discussions if the
Matriculation examination could serve as an entrance
exam for Finnish universities and polytechnics or
should the Exam be finished completely?
9/16/2016
46

If you would like to ask of you have
comments, please, don’t hesitate to
contac me!
Najat Ouakrim-Soivio
(Ph.D. in Education and L.Phil in history)
najat @arviointi.fi
www.arviointi.fi
twitter: @najatouakrim
9/16/2016
47

Literature:
Atjonen, P. (2007). Hyvä, paha arviointi. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi.
Cross, L. H. & Frary, R. B. (1999). Hodgebodge Grading: Endorsed by Students and Teachers alike. Applied measurement in Education, 12(1), 53–
72.
Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guskey, T. R. & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Developing Grading and Reporting Systems for Student Learning. California: Corwin Press.
Heinonen, S. (2001). Arvioinnin teoreettisia lähtökohtia. Teoksessa Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Heinonen S.2001. Johdatus koulutuksen uudistuvaan
arviointikulttuuriin. Arviointi 2/2001. Helsinki: Opetushallitus, 21–46.
Hildén, R. Ouakrim-Soivio,N. & Rautopuro, J. (2016 , in press). Kukin ansionsa mukaan? Kasvatus 4/5.
Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2001). Arviointitiedon luotettavuuden osoittaminen. Teoksessa Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Heinonen, S. Johdatus koulutuksen
uudistuvaan arviointikulttuuriin. Arviointi 2/2001. Helsinki: Opetushallitus, 111–135.
Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2013). Oppimistulosten arviointijärjestelmiä ja niiden kehittämishaasteista. Teoksessa Räisänen, A. (toim.). Oppimisen
arvioinnin kontekstit ja käytännöt. Raportit ja selvitykset 2013:3. Helsinki: Opetushallitus, 13–36.
Kasanen, K. (2003.) Lasten kykykäsitykset koulussa. Joensuun yliopisto. Yhteiskuntatieteellisiä julkaisuja nro 58.
Koulutuksen tuloksellisuuden arviointimalli (1998.) Arviointi 7/98. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Kupiainen, S. (2014.) YTL:n Digabiseminaari kesäkuu 2014: https://vimeo.com/100693496.
Mattila, L. (2010.) Perusopetuksen äidinkielen ja matematiikan päättöarvosanat. Lisensiaatintutkimus. Helsingin yliopisto.
Käyttäytymistieteellinen tiedekunta.
Ouakrim-Soivio, N. (2013). Toimivatko päättöarvioinnin kriteerit? Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Ouakrim-Soivio, N. (2016). Oppimisen ja osaamisen arviointi. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Otava.
Patrikainen, R. 1999. Opettajuuden laatu. Ihmiskäsitys, tiedonkäsitys ja oppimiskäsitys opettajan pedagogisessa ajattelussa ja toiminnassa.
Opetus 2000. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus.
Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet. (2014).Määräykset ja ohjeet 2014:96. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Raivola, R. (1995). Mitä evaluaatio on ja mihin sitä tarvitaan? Teoksessa Aikuiskoulutuksenarviointi. Panoraamoja ja lähikuvia. Aikuiskasvatuksen
36. Vuosikirja. Kansanvalistusseura ja Aikuiskasvatuksen Tutkimusseura. Helsinki: BTJ Kirjastopalvelu,21–60.
Terenzini, P.T. (1989). Assessment with open eyes: Pitfalls in studying student outcomes. Journal of teacher education of Higher Education,1989,
644-664.
9/23/2016 48
Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (KT, FL)

Thank you!
499/16/2016

Athena-lecture, 22.9.2016, Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D,L.Phil)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Athena-lecture, 22.9.2016, Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D,L.Phil)

Similar to Athena-lecture, 22.9.2016, Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D,L.Phil) (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Athena-lecture, 22.9.2016, Najat Ouakrim-Soivio (Ph.D,L.Phil)