Regulations on the mother tongue and literature test
Approved 12.12.2025, published 15.1.2026
The regulations on the mother tongue and literature test include, among other things, provisions based on legislation governing the Matriculation Examination. References to sections in the text refer to the Act on General Upper Secondary Education (714/2018), the Act on the Matriculation Examination (502/2019) and the Decree on the Matriculation Examination (612/2019), unless otherwise stated.
The regulations on the mother tongue and literature test apply for the first time in the autumn 2026 examination.
1 Mother tongue and literature test
Anyone taking part in the Matriculation Examination must complete a test in mother tongue and literature (Act 502/2019, section 10). The mother tongue and literature tests are held in Finnish, Swedish and the Sámi languages (Act 502/2019, section 3).
The test assesses the achievement of the objectives set out in the core curriculum for mother tongue and literature in general upper secondary school, as well as the candidate’s maturity and readiness for further studies.
A candidate may take the mother tongue and literature test based on the Finnish or Swedish as a second language and literature syllabus if the candidate’s mother tongue is not Finnish, Swedish or Sámi and the candidate has completed the studies in Finnish or Swedish as a second language and literature that are required for participation in the test as part of the general upper secondary school syllabus. The same applies if the candidate uses sign language as their mother tongue or first language, or if the candidate’s application for the right to participate has been approved on compelling grounds (Act 502/2019, section 11). The Board has issued separate regulations on the Finnish or Swedish as a second language and literature tests.
Instead of the test in the second national language, a candidate may take the mother tongue and literature test intended for Finnish‑speaking or Swedish‑speaking candidates in that language (Act 502/2019, section 11). Instead of a foreign language test, a candidate may take the mother tongue and literature test in a Sámi language (Act 502/2019, section 11).
1.1 Test tasks and materials
The Board prepares the tasks for the matriculation examination tests on the basis of the syllabi of the compulsory and national optional studies in the relevant subject included in the general upper secondary school curriculum intended for young people (Decrees 810/2018 and 612/2019, section 5).
The tests include interdisciplinary tasks (Decree 612/2019, section 5). Such interdisciplinary tasks may be based on the transversal competences described in the core curricula for general upper secondary education (2019). Candidates are not required to demonstrate detailed knowledge or skills from another subject in their answers.
The test materials consist of diverse and authentic materials. In addition to written, visual and graphic text materials, the broad concept of text also encompasses audiovisual texts, such as advertisements, videos, animations, or excerpts from television programmes, films or plays. The materials may also include an audio file, for example an excerpt from a radio interview, a news broadcast or a radio play. The materials may also consist of online texts.
1.2 Mother tongue and literature test: Finnish
The mother tongue and literature test consists of two parts: a reading literacy test and a writing skills test. In the reading literacy test, the assessment focuses on reading comprehension and skills in analysing and interpreting texts. In the writing skills test, the assessment focuses on written expression, text construction and the use of source materials.
The tests are held on different examination days. The grade in mother tongue is determined on the basis of the total number of points obtained in these tests. The Matriculation Examination Board decides the grade boundaries for each examination round.
To receive a pass grade in the mother tongue and literature test, the candidate must have a completed performance in both parts of the test, which are taken on different days. If a candidate does not attend one of the test sessions or does not submit a performance for assessment in both sessions, the overall performance is considered incomplete and compensation is not possible. Mere attendance or logging into the system is not sufficient; the candidate must produce and submit an answer in the test system. When retaking the test, the candidate must complete both parts of the test again.
1.3 Mother tongue and literature test: Swedish
The mother tongue and literature test in Swedish corresponds in structure and tasks to the Finnish‑language mother tongue and literature test. The materials have also been selected to correspond to those used in the Finnish‑language test. The Board has issued separate regulations for the Swedish‑language mother tongue and literature test.
1.4 Mother tongue and literature test: Sámi
In Sámi languages, the mother tongue and literature test consists only of a writing skills test. The mother tongue and literature test in Sámi languages is prepared in Inari Sámi, Skolt Sámi and Northern Sámi. All mother tongue and literature tests in Sámi languages are held on the same examination day. A candidate may take the mother tongue and literature test in only one Sámi language. In Sámi languages, the writing skills test is held on a different day from the writing skills tests in Finnish and Swedish.
If a candidate takes the mother tongue and literature test in a Sámi language, the candidate may choose Finnish or Swedish as the second national language test. As the second national language test, the candidate may take either a test based on the Finnish or Swedish syllabus or the mother tongue and literature test intended for Finnish‑ or Swedish‑speaking candidates (Act 502/2019, section 11).
1.5 Finnish or Swedish as a second language and literature test
In Finnish and Swedish, tests based on the Finnish or Swedish as a second language and literature syllabus may be organised in addition to the tests intended for candidates whose mother tongue is Finnish or Swedish (Act 502/2019, section 3).
A candidate may take the mother tongue and literature test based on the Finnish or Swedish as a second language and literature syllabus if the candidate’s mother tongue is not Finnish, Swedish or a Sámi language and the candidate has completed the studies required under that syllabus which, under section 7 of the Act on the Matriculation Examination (502/2019), are a prerequisite for participation in the test for candidates completing the general upper secondary school syllabus, or if the candidate uses sign language as their mother tongue or first language. On application and for a compelling reason, the Matriculation Examination Board may grant the right to take the test referred to in this paragraph to a candidate other than those mentioned above (Act 502/2019, section 11).
2 Implementation of the test
The mother tongue and literature test is taken on two examination days. On each examination day, candidates have six hours to complete the test.
The equipment required for using the test system is specified in the Matriculation Examination Board’s general regulations and guidelines. A candidate may use paper to draft their answer. (Matriculation Examination Board’s general regulations and guidelines, subchapter 1.5 Candidate's equipment and conduct during the test.)
In both tests, texts must be written in standard language. Paragraph division in the response text must be indicated by leaving a blank line between paragraphs; a blank line must also be left after any heading.
3 Reading literacy test
The reading literacy test assesses the candidate’s critical and cultural literacy, that is, the ability to analyse, interpret, evaluate and use diverse texts with an awareness of their purposes, modes of expression and contexts. The tasks may relate, for example, to the meanings, structures, expression, themes, reception and contexts of the source texts, as well as to the relationships between them.
The test consists of two parts. Part 1 focuses on the analysis and interpretation of informational and media texts, and part 2 on the analysis and interpretation of literary and other fictional texts. In both parts, two tasks are offered. The candidate chooses one task from each part, meaning that two tasks are answered in the reading literacy test.
In part 1, which focuses on informational and media texts, tasks may include, for example, comparing texts, identifying and explaining differences or contradictions in viewpoints, considering their credibility and reliability, interpreting texts by placing them in context, or analysing and discussing how different modes of expression construct meaning. Part 1 emphasises analytical and critical reading literacy.
In Part 2, which focuses on literary and other fictional texts, task instructions may guide the candidate to analyse and interpret texts and their modes of expression, compare texts, interpret them from a particular perspective, or in relation to their temporal or genre context. Part 2 emphasises the interpretation of texts and cultural literacy.
In the reading literacy test, the response text must not be given a title. The source material must be referred to, but the material and its content do not need to be presented separately.
The task instructions specify the recommended length of the response or the maximum number of characters, for example 4,500 characters. The test system warns the candidate when the response exceeds the specified maximum number of characters. Exceeding the maximum number of characters results in a deduction of points, as set out in Table 1 below. The deduction is applied from the first character that exceeds the limit. If the deduction is greater than the number of points awarded for the response, the response is awarded zero points. For a justified reason, the censors’ meeting may decide that the deduction is applied differently or not applied at all.
Table 1. Point deductions in the reading literacy test.
| Character limit exceeded | Point deduction |
| < 10% | 1 p. |
| 10–20% | 3 p. |
| > 20% | 6 p. |
3.1 Assessment of the reading literacy test
The maximum score for the reading literacy test is 60 points. Responses are assessed using the assessment criteria described in Table 2.
The assessment criteria for the reading literacy test are:
- content
- analysis
- conclusions and interpretation
- overall level of reading literacy.
In the reading literacy test, particular emphasis is placed on conclusions and interpretation. The content criteria are supplemented by separately prepared descriptions of the features of a good response. Statements in a response that clearly violate the law or accepted standards of conduct are considered to reduce the value of the performance.
In the reading literacy test, each task is assessed separately. The maximum score for one part of the test is 24 points and for the other part 36 points. Which part carries a maximum of 24 points and which carries 36 points varies by examination round. In each examination round, candidates answer one task worth 24 points and one task worth 36 points. The minimum score for each response is 0 points.
Table 2: Assessment criteria for the reading literacy test
| Scores | Content | Analysis | Conclusions and interpretation | Overall level of reading literacy |
| 36-point task: 36 points | The response fulfils the task requirements excellently and covers the key elements of the features of a good response. The observations are consistently varied, precise and relevant. | The candidate demonstrates the ability to analyse and evaluate the content and techniques of the text, and to recognise nuances and different levels of meaning. Concepts and terms relevant to the task have been selected and used accurately and naturally. | The candidate draws insightful conclusions and justifies them convincingly with textual evidence. The response presents a coherent and well‑reasoned overall interpretation of the text. The interpretation reaches an appropriate level of abstraction and is convincingly linked to the text type as well as its situational and cultural context. The candidate’s own conclusions and interpretations are clearly distinguished from observations. | Excellent The response demonstrates excellent mastery of critical and cultural reading literacy. |
| 24-point task: 24 points | ||||
36-point task: 30 points
| The response fulfils the task requirements very well and includes the key elements of the features of a good response. The observations are relevant in relation to the meanings constructed in the material and to the text type. | The candidate pays attention to different levels of meaning in the text and also analyses the text’s tone or style. Relevant subject‑specific concepts and terms have been selected and used appropriately. The analysis is coherent, and the observations are grouped clearly. | The candidate draws credible conclusions and supports them appropriately with textual observations. The response presents a coherent and convincing interpretation of the text. The interpretation reaches an appropriate level of abstraction and takes into account the features of the text type as well as the situational and cultural context of the text. The candidate’s own conclusions and interpretations are clearly distinguished from observations. | Very good The response demonstrates very good analytical reading literacy and good mastery of critical and cultural reading literacy. |
| 24-point task: 20 points | ||||
| 36-point task: 24 points | The response fulfils the task requirements well and includes the key elements of the features of a good response. The candidate makes observations that are relevant to the task, relates them to the text type, and identifies tone and style. The connection between the observations and the meanings of the text is evident. | The response shows an attempt to analyse the text at an appropriate level of abstraction. Terms relevant to the task are used mostly appropriately. The observations are grouped, and main and secondary points are clearly distinguished. | The candidate draws conclusions and links them to textual observations. The response presents a justified interpretation of the text. The interpretation seeks to highlight the relationships between the content, form and aims of the text and to link the interpretation to features of the text type. The candidate’s own conclusions and interpretations are sufficiently evident. | Good The response demonstrates good mastery of analytical reading literacy and includes some features of critical and cultural reading literacy. |
| 24-point task: 16 points | ||||
| 36-point task: 18 points | The response fulfils the task requirements satisfactorily and includes some of the elements of the features of a good response. The candidate demonstrates an understanding of the main content of the text and relates their observations to the purpose of the text and, to some extent, also to the text type. The content may be narrow in scope or partly focus on issues of lesser relevance. | The analysis may include, at times, one‑sided or disconnected observations. There is an attempt to use terms relevant to the task in analysing the text, but there may be shortcomings in their selection or use. There is some attempt to group observations. | The candidate draws conclusions, but their connection to textual observations may be partly insufficient or unclear. The reading is mostly superficial, and interpretations of deeper meanings are limited. The conclusions and interpretations are generally credible but only broadly justified. Some indications can be observed of linking the interpretation to the purpose or target audience of the text. The candidate’s own conclusions and interpretations are present but may remain superficial. | Satisfactory The response demonstrates satisfactory mastery of analytical reading literacy. |
| 24-point task: 12 points | ||||
| 36-point task: 12 points | The response partially fulfils the task requirements and includes a few elements of the features of a good response. The focus of the response is unclear or incorrect. The candidate demonstrates an understanding of the main content of the text, but this understanding is incomplete. The content is narrow in scope or largely repeats the source material. The response may also contain individual errors. | The observations selected for the analysis are random and often irrelevant. The response remains largely at a concrete level. There is an attempt to use terms relevant to the task, but they are used mechanically and at times incorrectly. The grouping of observations is inadequate, and main and secondary points are not clearly distinguished. Parts of the response are difficult to follow and lack coherence. | There are few conclusions, and they are weakly justified or not clearly linked to textual observations. The reading is superficial, and the response remains largely at a concrete level. Some conclusions and interpretations may be based on misunderstandings and are rarely related to the purpose or target audience of the material. The candidate’s own conclusions and interpretations play a minor role in the response or are largely unconvincing. | Adequate |
| 24-point task: 8 points | ||||
| 36-point task: 6 points | The response shows a discernible connection to the task, but the connection to the features of a good response is weak. There are clear shortcomings in the understanding of the text. The reading is superficial and is not related to the text type or the purpose of the material. The response is very brief or largely descriptive of the source material. | The response contains a few observations, but they are irrelevant or incorrect. A single term related to the task may be mentioned, but it is used incorrectly or inappropriately. The observations are not grouped, and the response is confused and poorly structured. | Conclusions are absent, or they are incorrect or unsupported. The reading is superficial, and the response may contain several misunderstandings. The conclusions remain at a concrete level. Few interpretations are presented, or they are unconvincing. The reading is not related to the text type of the material. The candidate’s own conclusions and interpretations do not emerge clearly. | Weak The response demonstrates weak mastery of analytical reading literacy. |
| 24-point task: 4 points | ||||
| 0 points | The response has no connection to the task, or the connection is extremely weak. The content does not correspond to the task requirements or to the features of a good response, or the response is very brief or focuses entirely on irrelevant matters. There are clear shortcomings in the understanding of the text. | The analysis is random and superficial. The level of abstraction is low, and terms necessary for the task are not used, or they are used incorrectly. Observations are not grouped, and the response is confused and difficult to follow. | Conclusions and interpretations are absent or are clearly incorrect or unconvincing. The source material has not been understood, or it has clearly been completely misunderstood. | Insufficient |
Only the point values listed in Table 3 below are used in scoring.
Table 3. Point values used in the reading literacy test.
| 24-point task | 36-point task | |
| excellent | 24 | 36 |
| very good | 20 | 30 |
| good | 16 | 24 |
| satisfactory | 12 | 18 |
| adequate | 8 | 12 |
| weak | 4 | 6 |
| inadequate | 0 | 0 |
3.2 Assessment by the teacher
The teacher assesses the response texts using the criteria presented in Table 2 (subchapter 3.1) and the features of a good response in the Matriculation Examination Board’s assessment service, where the teacher also records the points awarded for the responses. In addition, the teacher indicates shortcomings or errors related to the content of the responses by underlining them and, where necessary, by adding brief comments. In the reading literacy test, the teacher does not need to mark errors related to language use.
The performances must be assessed within the schedule separately issued by the Board.
3.3 Assessment by the Matriculation Examination Board
The test performances are reviewed and finally assessed by the Matriculation Examination Board (Act 502/2019, section 18).
If a candidate answers more tasks than required by the test, the total score for the test is calculated on the basis of the lowest‑scoring responses, in accordance with the number of responses specified for the test. If a candidate answers two tasks in Part 1 or two tasks in Part 2, only the lower of the two scores is taken into account in the total score.
4 Writing skills test
The writing skills test assesses the candidate’s ability to express themselves in writing and their ability to articulate ideas and manage broader subject matter. The task is to produce a reflective or argumentative text using source materials.
The test is based on a broad theme related either to the subject of mother tongue and literature or to the areas of transversal competence in general upper secondary education. The theme is accompanied by 5–7 related topics. The candidate selects one topic, specifies or narrows their perspective, and writes a text using materials related to the theme. The text must be given a title that reflects the chosen perspective.
The test provides 6–8 source materials related to the theme, such as informational texts, media texts and fictional texts in various forms. The candidate selects materials that suit the chosen topic and perspective. At least two source materials must be used in the candidate’s text.
The task instructions for the writing skills test specify the recommended length of the response or the maximum number of characters, for example 6,000 characters. A character counter is displayed below the response field and shows the number of characters used. Exceeding the maximum number of characters results in a deduction of points, as set out in Table 4 below. The deduction is applied from the first character that exceeds the limit. If the deduction is greater than the number of points awarded for the response, the response is awarded zero points. For a justified reason, the censors’ meeting may decide that the deduction is applied differently or not applied at all.
Table 4. Point deductions in the writing skills test.
| Character limit exceeded | Point deduction |
| < 10% | 2 p. |
| 10-20% | 5 p. |
| > 20% | 10 p. |
4.1 Assessment of the writing skills test
The maximum score for the writing skills test is 60 points and the minimum score is 0 points. The following point values are used in assessment: 0 – 5 – 10 – 15 – 20 – 25 – 30 – 35 – 40 – 45 – 50 – 55 – 60.
The assessment criteria for the writing skills test are:
- perspective and the originality of the text
- use of source materials
- structure of the text
- language and expression
- overall level of writing skills.
The assessment criteria for Finnish and Swedish are described in Table 5 a. The assessment criteria in Northern Sámi (Table 5 b) will be published later. In the writing skills test, particular emphasis is placed on the structure of the text as well as language and expression. Statements in a performance that clearly violate the law or accepted standards of conduct are considered to reduce the value of the performance.
Table 5 a: Assessment criteria for the writing skills test
| Perspective and originality of the text | Use of source materials | Structure of the text (weighted criterion) | Language and expression (weighted criterion) | Overall level of language proficiency | |
| 60 points | The text fulfils the task requirements excellently and meets the expectations of a reflective or argumentative text. The scope is well defined. The perspective is clear, well justified and insightful or original. The content choices demonstrate independent thinking, expertise and creativity, as well as the ability to abstract. The reflection is knowledgeable and offers insightful perspectives. The candidate’s own view or stance is clearly expressed and convincingly justified. | The selection of materials is relevant and supports the perspective and purpose of the text excellently. The content and purpose of the selected materials are understood, and the materials are used effectively, for example in an insightful or critical manner. The candidate’s own voice and the voices of the source materials are clearly distinguished. References to the materials are natural and clear. | The structure of the text is well organised and coherent. The text is easy to follow, and transitions between ideas are clear and natural. The paragraphing is effective, and the paragraphs are naturally connected to one another. The introduction and conclusion are appropriate. The title corresponds to the chosen perspective and is well chosen. | The message is conveyed excellently. Sentence and clause structures are skilful. Mastery of the norms of written standard language is flawless, although minor surface‑level slips may occur. The vocabulary is varied and nuanced. The style is expressive and well suited to the purpose and text type of the text. | Excellent The text demonstrates excellent ability to construct an extensive and coherent text, strong command of written standard language, and the ability to articulate ideas effectively. |
| 50 points | The text fulfils the task requirements very well and meets the expectations of a reflective or argumentative text. The scope is clearly defined. The perspective is clear and well justified. Overall, the content is versatile and well balanced. The reflection is varied and offers multiple perspectives. The candidate’s own view or stance is clearly expressed and credibly justified. | The selection of materials is relevant and supports the perspective and purpose of the text very well. The content and purpose of the selected materials are understood, and the materials are used appropriately. The candidate’s own voice and the voices of the source materials are clearly distinguished. References to the materials are natural and clear. | Overall, the structure of the text is effective and the text is clear. The text is easy to follow, and transitions between ideas are mostly clear and natural. The paragraphing is effective, and the paragraphs are logically connected to one another. The introduction and conclusion are appropriate. The title corresponds to the chosen perspective and is appropriate. | The message is conveyed very well. Sentence and clause structures are fluent and natural. Mastery of the norms of written standard language is strong, although minor surface-level slips may occur. The vocabulary is varied and appropriate. The style is consistent and well suited to the purpose and text type of the text. | Very good The text demonstrates very good ability to construct an extensive and coherent text, a strong command of written standard language, and the ability to articulate ideas clearly and effectively. |
| 40 points | The text meets the task requirements well and fulfils the expectations of a reflective or argumentative text. The perspective is clear. The content elements are in line with the chosen perspective, and the text includes a sufficient amount of original contribution. The reflection is fairly versatile. The candidate’s own view or stance is evident, and the claims are justified. | The selection of materials is well founded and supports the perspective and purpose of the text. The content and purpose of the selected materials are understood. The materials are used fluently and appropriately. The candidate’s own voice and the voices of the source materials are distinguishable, and references to the materials function effectively. | Overall, the text is well structured and clear. Paragraphing and the internal structure of paragraphs are mostly effective. Transitions between paragraphs generally work well. The introduction and conclusion support the purpose of the text. The title is appropriate. | The message is conveyed effortlessly. Sentence and clause structures are effective. Command of the norms of written standard language is mostly sound, although occasional deviations may occur. Word choices and style are appropriate for the purpose of the text. | Good The text demonstrates good ability to produce an extensive and coherent text, command of written standard language, and the ability to express ideas in language. |
| 30 points | The text meets the task requirements satisfactorily and broadly fulfils the expectations of a reflective or argumentative text. The perspective is discernible. There is a reasonable amount of the candidate’s own content, and the text mostly stays on topic. Reflection is limited or somewhat one-sided. The candidate’s own view or stance may remain vague, but there is an attempt to justify the claims. The text may contain some factual inaccuracies. | The selection of materials supports the perspective and purpose of the text to some extent. The selected materials are mostly understood. The use of materials may be superficial, summarising or mechanical. The candidate’s own voice and the voices of the source materials are at times weakly distinguished, but references to the materials are mostly technically correct. | Overall, the text is coherent, but there are minor shortcomings in the structure. Paragraphing is mostly appropriate, although it may be mechanical. Connections between paragraphs may be tenuous. There are no major problems in the internal structure of paragraphs. The introduction or conclusion may present some difficulties. The title is conventional but functional. | The message is conveyed without major difficulty. Sentence and clause structures are mostly appropriate. The norms of written standard language are reasonably well mastered. Word choices are mostly appropriate. The style may lack consistency. | Satisfactory The text demonstrates a satisfactory ability to construct an extensive and coherent text, as well as a reasonable command of written standard language and the ability to articulate ideas. |
| 20 points | The text meets the task requirements adequately and only partly fulfils the expectations of a reflective or argumentative text. The perspective is unclear, narrow or fragmented. The treatment may be superficial or digressive. There is little original contribution and limited reflection. The candidate’s own stance does not emerge clearly, or the claims are at times not justified. The text may contain factual inaccuracies. | The selection of materials is rather random and does not support the perspective and purpose of the text particularly well, or it may dominate the text excessively. There are difficulties in understanding the selected materials. The use of materials may be limited or excessive, mechanical or descriptive. References may be inadequate. The candidate’s own voice and the voices of the source materials tend to merge, and references to the materials are unclear. | Overall, the text shows some coherence, but the structure is at times unclear or poorly organised. Main points and supporting details are not clearly distinguished. There may be problems with paragraphing, and links between paragraphs are unclear. Paragraph structure does not always function effectively. The introduction and conclusion are not particularly successful. The relationship between the title and the text is loose or unclear. | There may be occasional difficulties in conveying the message, but the text is mostly readable. Sentence and clause structures are repetitive, or they contain clear shortcomings. Command of the norms of written standard language is unstable, and there are various types of errors. Word choices are not always appropriate, and the style is hesitant. | Adequate The text demonstrates an adequate ability to construct an extensive and coherent text, as well as insufficient command of written standard language and a limited ability to articulate ideas. |
| 10 points | The text meets the task requirements poorly and does not meet the expectations of a reflective or argumentative text to any significant extent. The perspective is unclear. The content is very limited, random or contradictory. There is very little original contribution, and reflection is minimal or largely absent. The candidate’s own view or stance does not emerge, or it remains unjustified. The text contains clear factual errors. | The selection of materials is random and does not support the purpose of the text. The selected materials are largely misinterpreted. The connection between the text and the materials is minimal, artificial or excessive. Some references are missing, or there are clear shortcomings in referencing practices. The text may contain plagiarised passages. | The overall structure of the text is loose or illogical and difficult to grasp. There are problems with the order in which ideas are presented. Paragraphing is inconsistent. Paragraph structure breaks down. The title may be missing, or its connection to the text is difficult to understand. | The message is difficult to understand. Sentence and clause structures are awkward and contain clear errors. Command of the norms of written standard language is weak. The vocabulary is limited or repetitive, and stylistic choices are unsuccessful. The text repeatedly borrows structures and vocabulary directly from the source materials. | Weak The text demonstrates weak ability to construct an extensive and coherent text, very limited command of written standard language, and a weak ability to articulate ideas. |
| 0 points | The text disregards the task and does not meet the expectations of a reflective or argumentative text. The perspective is unclear or absent. There is no reflection. The candidate’s own view or stance does not emerge, or it is unrelated to the topic. The text contains no content relevant to the topic, or the content is clearly incorrect. | The source materials are misunderstood, or no materials are used at all. The text may consist largely of direct copies of the source materials or parts of them. The candidate’s own voice and the voices of the source materials are not distinguishable. References to the materials are missing. | The text lacks organisation, and the treatment of the topic is difficult to follow. There are clear problems with paragraphing, links between paragraphs and internal paragraph structure. The title is misleading, or no title has been provided. | The message is not conveyed. Sentence and clause structures show serious deficiencies. The structures and norms of written standard language are not mastered. The vocabulary is limited, expression is imprecise, and stylistic choices are unsuccessful. The text directly copies structures and vocabulary from the source materials. | Insufficient The text demonstrates insufficient ability to construct an extensive and coherent text, insufficient command of written standard language, and insufficient ability to articulate the candidate’s own ideas and those of others. |
Table 5b: Eatnigiella ja girjjálašvuohta. Čállinmáhtu iskosa árvvoštallankriterat.
(To be published later.)
4.2 Assessment by the teacher
The teacher assesses the test performance in the Matriculation Examination Board’s assessment service using the criteria presented in Table 5a (subchapter 4.1) and records the points awarded. In addition, the teacher indicates shortcomings in the text and errors related to language by underlining them and, where necessary, by adding brief comments.
The performances must be assessed within the schedule separately issued by the Board.
4.3 Assessment by the Matriculation Examination Board
The test performances are reviewed and finally assessed by the Matriculation Examination Board (Act 502/2019, section 18).
5 Formation of the test grade
Each candidate’s performance in the mother tongue test is awarded a specific number of points. The number of points obtained in the reading literacy test is added to the number of points obtained in the writing skills test. The maximum score for the reading literacy test is 60 points and for the writing skills test 60 points. The maximum total score for the mother tongue test is therefore 120 points.
The Board decides the grade boundaries separately for each examination round.