Towards Digital Mathematics Testing in the Matriculation Examination

(ISSN 2984-3413 / 24.9.2026)

Author: Thomas Vikberg.

Since 2019, the Matriculation Examination has been conducted entirely in digital form. The mathematics tests were the last tests of the examination to transition from paper-based to digital delivery. The aim of this review is to outline the historical and administrative factors underlying the digitalisation of the mathematics tests, examine the key stages of the process, and describe the decisions and solutions that made the transition possible. The review is based on a selection of contemporary sources, including administrative documents, memoranda, minutes, reports, newspaper articles, and other archival materials. These sources make it possible to trace the interaction between the various actors involved and to examine how the reform evolved over time.

This article is based on the chapter High-Stakes Mathematics Assessment in Finland (Vikberg, 2026), published in Digital Technology and Artificial Intelligence in Mathematics Education Assessment (Geraniou, Crisan & Mavrikis, 2026). The author has served as an official at the Secretariat of the Matriculation Examination Board since autumn 2016.

Background to the Digital Transformation

At the beginning of the millennium, the Council of State (2002) established strong information society skills as an objective of general upper secondary education through legislation. These competences were subsequently incorporated into the national core curriculum for general upper secondary education issued by the Finnish National Agency for Education (2003), which set the goal of developing versatile information and communication technology (ICT) skills. However, the integration of ICT into the operating culture of general upper secondary schools advanced slowly (Ministry of Education and Culture & Pirhonen, 2010).

Students in particular were dissatisfied with the slow pace of change. In its policy programme for 2008, the Union of Upper Secondary School Students in Finland (2007) called for candidates to be given the opportunity to complete the Matriculation Examination using a computer. According to the Union, a digital test would enable more efficient use of time and allow candidates to focus on the essential content of the test. The Union reiterated this demand in its policy programmes for 2009 and 2010 (Union of Upper Secondary School Students in Finland, 2008, 2009).

The Ministry of Education (renamed the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2010) recognised the need for reform and noted in its Development Plan for Education and Research that the Matriculation Examination was making insufficient use of technological solutions (Ministry of Education, 2008). The plan recommended investigating the possibilities offered by a digital test system, assessing the associated costs, and conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the development needs of the Matriculation Examination.

In 2009, the Ministry of Education appointed a working group to propose measures for the development of general upper secondary education. One of the group's tasks was to make recommendations on how the Matriculation Examination should be developed. In its final report, the working group proposed, among other things, that technology should be introduced gradually into the Matriculation Examination tests from 2014 onwards (Ministry of Education and Culture & Pirhonen, 2010). During the consultation round on the report, the proposal to introduce information and communication technology into the Matriculation Examination received predominantly positive feedback. The proposal was strongly supported by the Union of Upper Secondary School Students in Finland (2011), as the issue had already become one of the organisation’s key advocacy objectives in the forthcoming government programme negotiations (Union of Upper Secondary School Students in Finland, 2010). The proposal also received support from the Finnish Association of Teachers of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Informatics MAOL (2011) and the Trade Union of Education in Finland OAJ (2011), which supported the proposal on the condition that teachers would be provided with adequate in-service training and the necessary tools and resources.

The main reservations concerned the timetable of the reform. In its statement, the Matriculation Examination Board (2011a) supported the proposal but noted that students should know, at the beginning of their studies, how their high-stakes final examination would be organised. This would mean that, if the 2014 target were to be achieved, students beginning their three-year programme of study in autumn 2011 would need to know, at least to some extent, how computers would be used in the tests. Consequently, this information would have to be available within six months, and the planning of the reform would therefore need to begin immediately.

Following the parliamentary elections of April 2011, a six-party coalition government, commonly known as the “six-pack government”, was formed under Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen of the National Coalition Party. The government programme included a commitment to promote the gradual introduction of information and communication technology in the matriculation examination (Prime Minister’s Office, 2011). The following year, state funding was allocated to the Matriculation Examination Board to implement the reform. The Board appointed a working group to prepare the reform, and on the basis of its proposals (Matriculation Examination Board & Lokki, 2013), the Board decided on the implementation timetable (Matriculation Examination Board, 2013a). Instead of the previously planned introduction in 2014, it was decided that digital tests would be introduced gradually, one subject at a time, beginning in autumn 2016. The mathematics test was scheduled last, in spring 2019, as it was considered the most technically and operationally challenging subject to digitalise. The decision was subsequently endorsed at the political level by the Government (Government of Finland, 2013).

The 2015 curriculum reform fundamentally redefined the role of digital skills in general upper secondary education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2015). In mathematics, the use of information and communication technology was no longer treated as a separate area of competence; instead, it became a cross-cutting tool integrated into the objectives and content of the subject. Digital tools and information sources were seen as means of learning, inquiry, and problem-solving, and one of the objectives of study was to evaluate their limitations.

The curriculum included at least one objective related to information and communication technology in every compulsory and nationally specified advanced mathematics course. For example, in the course Mathematical Analysis (MAB7), students were expected to be able to “use technological tools to investigate the behaviour of functions and to determine derivatives and extrema of functions on a closed interval in applied problems” (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2015, p. 139).

The curriculum came into effect for students who started their general upper secondary school studies in autumn 2016. Consequently, the candidates who took the first digital mathematics tests in spring 2019 had already studied under objectives aligned with the digital test format.

Development of Mathematics Tests and Associated Challenges

The first steps towards the use of digital technology in mathematics tests of the Matriculation Examination were taken when the Finnish Matriculation Examination Board (1981) authorised programmable calculators. To prevent cheating, it had to be possible to clear the calculators’ memory before the test. Over the years, the regulations were expanded to cover calculators that produced graphical representations in addition to numerical results. Permitted functions included calculating function values, basic statistical measures, the numerical solution of equations, and numerical differentiation and integration, whereas algebraic, or symbolic, operations were prohibited.

Calculator regulations changed significantly when the Finnish Matriculation Examination Board (2011b) began allowing calculators capable of symbolic computation from spring 2012. The change affected test design. Tasks had to be designed with advanced digital tools in mind, as candidates might have access to them during the test. It soon became apparent, however, that such sophisticated tools hindered the assessment of certain core mathematical skills. As a solution, the tests were divided into Parts A and B from 2016 onwards, with calculator use prohibited in Part A (Finnish Matriculation Examination Board, 2013b).

Planning for the digital Matriculation Examination began in 2013. Following an initial feasibility study, the Finnish Matriculation Examination Board decided to develop its own digital test system (Lattu, 2014). An early version of the system, named Abitti, was released in early 2015, enabling the creation, administration, and marking of simple tests (Lattu, 2015). The release of the test system was a significant milestone, as it allowed teachers and future candidates to gain first-hand experience of the digital test environment.

The first digital tests of the Matriculation Examination were held in autumn 2016 in German, geography, and philosophy (Finnish Matriculation Examination Board, 2016a). Their success paved the way for a broader implementation, which progressed subject by subject as planned until spring 2019.

In autumn 2016, the Association of Teachers of Mathematics and Science in Finland (MAOL) expressed its concern to the Finnish Matriculation Examination Board about teachers’ preparedness to train students for the digital test (MAOL, 2016). In its response, the Board’s mathematics section emphasised the importance of preserving teachers’ pedagogical autonomy and clarified its vision for the implementation of the forthcoming digital mathematics test (Finnish Matriculation Examination Board, 2016b). One of the key questions was why candidates were allowed to use several different calculator applications instead of a single designated one. It would have spared teachers the need to become familiar with several different software packages. The section justified its decision by arguing that selecting a single software package would, in practice, make the Board the body determining which calculator would be used in Finnish general upper secondary schools. This could create an undesirable steering effect and reduce teachers’ freedom to choose the tools used in instruction.

Based on an online survey conducted in early 2017 and feedback collected from three workshops for teachers, a document containing 31 questions and answers was prepared to explain the rationale behind the design of the digital test in mathematics, physics, and chemistry (Finnish Matriculation Examination Board, 2017b). The responses emphasised that digital answers do not need to resemble solutions produced with pen and paper. What mattered was that the candidate's line of reasoning remains clear from the initial problem to the final solution.

A significant share of the concerns focused on producing mathematical notation in the digital test, particularly in Part A, where the built-in equation editors of calculators could not be used. Initially, efforts were made to use an existing equation editor, but the lack of a suitable solution and the tight development schedule led to the creation of a new tool (Vikberg, 2017). Finally, in May 2017, less than two years before the first digital mathematics tests, a version of Abitti was released that included all the key components required for creating and taking mathematics practice tests (Finnish Matriculation Examination Board, 2017a):

• an equation editor for producing mathematical notation
• a screenshot capture function for constructing responses using external software
• the ability to restrict the use of advanced calculator software

By autumn 2017, however, concern among students and teachers intensified as the first digital mathematics tests drew closer. Helsingin Sanomat reported widespread frustration among candidates and teachers regarding the slowness and clumsiness of the software (Valtavaara, 2017; Seppänen, 2018; Väisälä, 2018; Mäntylä, 2018). A mathematics teacher filed a complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman concerning shortcomings in the preparation process. A student initiative calling for a postponement of the reform towards digitalisation gathered 4,186 signatures (Pekkala, 2017), and a separate petition was submitted to principals of general upper secondary schools and to municipal education authorities (Tolvanen, 2017).

Despite these concerns, the timetable remained unchanged. Altering the schedule at this stage was considered unfair to students who had studied under the new curriculum and had prepared for the introduction of digital tests (Lattu & Vikberg, 2018). The educational authorities of Finland’s five largest cities also pointed out that a delay would hinder the broader development of general upper secondary education (Heikkonen, 2017). The Parliamentary Ombudsman (2017) concluded that the preparation process and related communications had been conducted fairly and that the digital test format did not place candidates at a disadvantage in higher education admissions.

The available evidence suggested that general upper secondary schools had prepared extensively for the transition to digital tests. On a typical weekday, the webpage hosting the demo version of the equation editor received approximately 40,000 visits, and the Matriculation Examination Board communicated through multiple channels that test responses could be produced in various ways and that paper and pencil could still be used for drafting and supporting the thinking process (Lattu & Vikberg, 2018). To facilitate preparation, the Board published digital sample tasks as well as videos demonstrating different ways of solving mathematics tasks (Finnish Matriculation Examination Board, 2018). In addition, the mathematics section outlined the principles of assessment in a blog post by examining a range of sample responses to a task from a previous examination round (Vikberg, 2018).

Two distinctly different responses to the same task, both of which the mathematics section considered worthy of the full 12 points in the Matriculation Examination. Responses from Hellsten and Rahikka (2018).

The First Digital Mathematics Tests

In the Matriculation Examination held in 2019, all tests were organised digitally. The examination consisted of 42 tests, including both advanced and basic mathematics. According to log data from the mathematics tests, candidates used 1,123 different computer models and general upper secondary schools operated 342 local area networks. The tests involved the usual number of minor technical issues, all of which were resolved during the course of the day through cooperation between the schools and the Matriculation Examination Board (Matriculation Examination Board, 2019a).

In Part A, candidates could use the basic calculator provided by the test system, KCalc. The software available in Part B included LibreOffice Calc, wxMaxima, GeoGebra 5/6, TI‑Nspire CAS CX Student Software, Casio ClassPad Manager, Logger Pro, and 4f Vihko. These applications became accessible only after Part A had been submitted. Until the end of the transition period in 2020, candidates were also allowed to use their own handheld calculators in Part B.

After the test, the mathematics section published detailed assessment criteria for the tests (Matriculation Examination Board, 2019b). The criteria emphasised clear reasoning, the presentation of all essential calculations, and a correct final answer. Later versions of the assessment criteria included more detailed guidance on evaluating visual representations, particularly graphs produced with calculator software. However, the principles governing the use of calculators have remained largely unchanged: “Mathematical software is regarded as a tool in the test, and its role is assessed on a task-by-task basis. If software has been used in a solution, this must be evident from the response. For tasks requiring analysis, an answer obtained solely from software is not sufficient without further justification. By contrast, a result obtained from software is generally sufficient in routine tasks and in the routine parts of more extensive tasks. Examples include the manipulation of expressions, the solving of equations, and the differentiation and integration of functions.” (Matriculation Examination Board, 2026).

Conclusion

The digital Matriculation Examination was not merely a technological reform; it was a broader educational policy measure. Its aim was to align the assessment of the matriculation examination with the digital knowledge and skills required by both the general upper secondary school curriculum and the information society.

Changes to high-stakes tests are invariably slow and multifaceted, as they are closely tied to students’ futures, societal perceptions of fairness, and the reliability of assessment. Significantly, students played a prominent role in criticising the reform, just as they had been among its principal advocates at its inception. Concerns about producing mathematical notation in a digital environment were particularly prominent. The opportunity to practise using a digital test system similar to that used in the Matriculation Examination proved to be a key factor in reducing uncertainty.

The digitalisation of the mathematics test brought significant challenges, but by 2019 the Matriculation Examination had become fully digital. The digitalisation of national tests is both demanding and risky. In Sweden, for example, the process was halted after eight years of preparation because of concerns about the reliability of the system (Regeringskansliet, 2017; 2025), highlighting the technical and organisational challenges involved in such projects. Nevertheless, the 256,041 digital mathematics tests administered in Finland’s Matriculation Examination by spring 2026 provide compelling evidence that high-stakes national tests can be delivered successfully in a digital format.

Sources

Eduskunnan oikeusasiamies. (2017, 13. joulukuuta). Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan ja Opetushallituksen menettely matematiikan sähköisen ylioppilaskokeen valmistelussa ja valmistelun etenemisestä tiedottamisessa (Diaarinumero EOAK/5991/2017). Eduskunnan oikeusasiamiehen arkisto.

Heikkonen, E. (2017, 30. marraskuuta). Diaarinumero OPH-3112-2017 [Sähköposti]. Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan arkisto.

Hellsten, L., & Rahikka, M. (2018). Digitaaliset vastaukset aiempaan matematiikan kokeeseen [Kuvitus]. Blogikirjoituksessa T. Vikberg (2018, 19. helmikuuta), Digitaalisia esimerkkivastauksia matematiikan koekysymykseen. Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan arkisto.

Lattu, M. (2014, 26. marraskuuta). Sähköisen ylioppilaskokeen kehittäminen jatkuu normaalisti. Digabi.fi.

Lattu, M. (2015, 30. tammikuuta). Abitti on auki – sinut on kutsuttu pilottiryhmään! Digabi.fi.

Lattu, M., & Vikberg, T. (2018). Monta reittiä maaliin. Dimensio: Matemaattis-luonnontieteellinen aikakauslehti, 82(2), 42–44.

Matemaattisten Aineiden Opettajien Liitto MAOL r.y. (2011). MAOL ry:n lausunto lukiokoulutuksen kehittämisen toimenpide-ehdotuksia valmistelevan työryhmän ehdotuksista (Diaarinumero OKM/45/040/2008). Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön arkisto.

Matemaattisten Aineiden Opettajien Liitto MAOL r.y. (2016). MAOL Liittokokouksen julkilausuma 19.11.2016 - Vetoomus sähköisen ylioppilaskirjoituksen työkaluista.

Mäntylä, J. (2018, 3. syyskuuta). Sähköinen ylioppilaskoe tuo lukiolaisille lisää paineita – Miksi päättäjät eivät välitä meidän mielipiteestämme? Helsingin Sanomat.

OAJ – Opetusalan Ammattijärjestö. (2011). OAJ:n lausunto lukiokoulutuksen kehittämisen toimenpide-ehdotuksista (Diaarinumero OKM/45/040/2008). Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön arkisto.

Opetushallitus. (2003). Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2003 (Diaarinumero OPH/33/011/2003).

Opetushallitus. (2015). Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2015 (Diaarinumero OPH/60/011/2015).

Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö, & Pirhonen, E.-R. (pj.). (2010). Lukiokoulutuksen kehittämisen toimenpide-ehdotuksia valmistelevan työryhmän muistio. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä 2010:14.

Opetusministeriö. (2008). Koulutus ja tutkimus 2007–2012: Kehittämissuunnitelma. Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2008:9.

Pekkala, E. (2017, 5. lokakuuta). Matemaattisten aineiden ylioppilaskirjoitusten on pysyttävä paperisina. Adressit.com.

Regeringskansliet. (2017). Uppdrag att digitalisera de nationella proven m.m. (Diaarinumero U2017/03739/GV).

Regeringskansliet. (2025, 28. marraskuuta). Regeringen planerar skjuta fram införandet av digitala nationella prov. Regeringen.se.

Seppänen, R. (2018, 18. syyskuuta). Matematiikan ensi kevään kirjoittajien pitäisi saada suorittaa koe paperilla. Helsingin Sanomat.

Suomen Lukiolaisten Liitto. (2007). Tavoiteohjelma 2008. Hyväksytty XXIII sääntömääräisessä liittokokouksessa Varkaudessa 24.11.2007. Lukio.fi.

Suomen Lukiolaisten Liitto. (2008). Tavoiteohjelma 2009. Hyväksytty XXIV sääntömääräisessä liittokokouksessa Seinäjoella 21.-23.11.2008. Lukio.fi.

Suomen Lukiolaisten Liitto. (2009). Tavoiteohjelma 2010. Hyväksytty XXV sääntömääräisessä liittokokouksessa Lappeenrannassa 21.-23.11.2009. Lukio.fi.

Suomen Lukiolaisten Liitto. (2010). Hallitsohjelmatavoitteet 2011–2015. Lukio.fi.

Suomen Lukiolaisten Liitto. (2011). Lausunto lukiokoulutuksen kehittämisen toimenpide-ehdotuksista (Diaarinumero OKM/45/040/2008). Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön arkisto.

Tolvanen, S. (2017, 27. marraskuuta). Lukion Suuri Adressi (Diaarinumero OPH-3112-2017). Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan arkisto.

Valtioneuvoston kanslia. (2011). Pääministeri Jyrki Kataisen hallituksen ohjelma. Valtioneuvoston julkaisuja 2011:3.

Valtioneuvosto. (2002). Valtioneuvoston asetus lukiolaissa tarkoitetun koulutuksen yleisistä valtakunnallisista tavoitteista ja tuntijaosta 955/2002.

Valtavaara, M. (2017, 5. lokakuuta). Matematiikan yo-kokeiden sähköistäminen hämmentää kouluissa. Helsingin Sanomat.

Väisälä, O. (2018, 20. syyskuuta). Miksi ihmeessä matematiikan ylioppilaskoe sähköistetään? Helsingin Sanomat.

Vikberg, T. (2017). Valmistautuminen digitaaliseen matematiikan ylioppilaskokeeseen. Dimensio: Matemaattis-luonnontieteellinen aikakauslehti, 3, 7–9.

Vikberg, T. (2018, 19. helmikuuta). Digitaalisia esimerkkivastauksia matematiikan koekysymykseen.  Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan arkisto.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (1981). Yleiskokouksen pöytäkirja 2.11.1981, § 21 (133 §). Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan arkisto.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2011a). Lausunto lukiokoulutuksen kehittämisen toimenpide-ehdotuksista (Diaarinumero OKM/45/040/2008). Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön arkisto.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2011b). Matematiikan kokeen määräykset. Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan arkisto.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2013a). Yleiskokouksen pöytäkirja 3.5.2013, § 7. Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan arkisto.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2013b). Yleiskokouksen pöytäkirja 20.9.2013, § 6. Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan arkisto.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2016a, 6. lokakuuta). Syksyn sähköiset ylioppilaskokeet turvallisesti päätökseen – kaikki neljä koetta onnistuivat. Ylioppilastutkinto.fi.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2016b). Matematiikan jaoksen vastaus MAOL ry:n vetoomukseen. Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan arkisto.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2017a, 5. toukokuuta). Uudessa Abitti-versiossa uudistunut vastauseditori ja lisää laitetukea. Abitti.fi.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2017b, 30. maaliskuuta). Vastauksia digitaalisia MAFYKE-kokeita koskevaan kyselyyn. Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan arkisto.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2018, 26. maaliskuuta). Kolme tapaa onnistua digitaalisessa matematiikan kokeessa. Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan YouTube-kanava.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2019a). Matematiikan kokeet ensimmäisen kerran digitaalisia. Ylioppilastutkinto.fi.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2019b). Hyvän vastauksen piirteitä: Matematiikan koe, pitkä oppimäärä 26.3.2019.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2022). Lausuntopyyntö matematiikan kokeiden rakenteiden muuttamisesta. Lausuntopalvelu.fi.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta. (2026). Hyvän vastauksen piirteet: FI – Matematiikka, pitkä oppimäärä 18.3.2026.

Ylioppilastutkintolautakunta & Lokki, J. (pj.). (2013). Tieto- ja viestintätekniikan käyttö ylioppilastutkinnon suorittamisessa: Esiselvitys. Ylioppilastutkintolautakunnan arkisto.