School of Education Assignment Cover Sheet

Module
0592341133
Number
Understanding Learning: Global Perspectives
Module Title
(EFPM004Z_AU24_AUTAB_202425)
Assignment Select a theory related to learning and critically evaluate its
Title application to educational practice
Word Count 4000

 Before submitting coursework, you should have completed the HASS Academic Honesty and
Plagiarism module.

 Read and adhere to the guidance on acknowledging and referencing the use of Generative AI.
Check your assignment brief to ensure you understand the permitted uses of Generative AI
for this assignment.

 Follow the university style guide for formatting.

If your assignment is AI-supported or AI-Integrated

When submitting your assessment, you must include the following declaration, ticking all that
apply:
eAI-supported/AI-integrated use is permitted in this assessment. I acknowledge the following
uses of GenAI tools in this assessment:

I have used GenAI tools to brainstorm ideas.

I have used GenAI tools to assist with research or gathering information.
I have used GenAI tools to help me understand critical theories and concepts.
I have used GenAI tools to identify trends and themes in my data analysis.
I have used GenAI tools to suggest a plan or structure for my assessment.
I have used GenAI tools to give me feedback on a draft.
I have used the GenAI tool to generate images, figures, or diagrams.
I have used GenAI tools to proofread and correct grammar or spelling errors.
I have used GenAI tools to generate citations or references.
Other [please specify]
I have not used any GenAI tools to prepare this assessment in this field.
I have referenced using GenAI outputs within my assessment per the University referencing
guidelines.

If I have used GenAI tools, I have kept a record of the tools, prompts, and outputs used and can
produce these, if necessary, at a viva and demo. If necessary, Iate how I have built to ensure my
work is original.
Please note: Submitting your work without an accompanying declaration, or one with no ticked
boxes, will be considered a declaration that you have not used generative AI in preparing your
work.
Introduction

Learning, akin to the art of embroidery, is a meticulous process where each piece of
information, like a carefully placed stitch, contributes to a complex and intricate tapestry of
knowledge and understanding. Just as an embroiderer requires patience, precision, and a
steady hand to create a beautiful and meaningful design, learners must cultivate dedication,
focus, and a deep engagement with the subject matter to weave a rich tapestry of knowledge.
However, numerous obstacles often hinder this intricate process, with the pressure of
assessments emerging as a significant barrier to effective learning. This essay will examine how
focusing on assessments can inadvertently obstruct learning, particularly by influencing how
information is conveyed and evaluated.

What is learning?

Learning is a dynamic and transformative process. According to Kolb (1984, p. 21), the definition of
learning is “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.” Kolb
highlights it emphasizes that actual knowledge is constructed through active engagement with the world
and the subsequent reflection and interpretation of our experiences. Moreover, learning is not an empty
vessel with facts but rather about actively building and shaping our understanding. Hence, learning is an
ongoing process deeply intertwined with our lived experiences.

What is assessment?

As Wiggins and McTighe (2018,p.6) argue, Assessment encompasses the systematic process of gathering
evidence to determine the extent to which desired learning outcomes are achieved. This broad
definition includes a range of methods and tools, including standardized tests, classroom observations,
student work samples, and more. Whether these desired outcomes are state-level standards or locally
defined curricular objectives, assessment is critical in monitoring student progress, informing
instruction, and ensuring all students can reach their full potential.

Types of assessments:

As Wiggins and McTighe (2018,p.15) articulate, learning is frequently evaluated through written
assessments, which often include tests, quizzes, homework assignments, term papers, and reports.
These assessments primarily rely on students' ability to demonstrate their understanding and
knowledge through written responses. This can include a variety of formats, such as short-answer
questions, essays, research papers, and creative writing assignments. While written assessments provide
valuable insights into students' comprehension, critical thinking, and communication skills, it's essential
to acknowledge that they may not fully capture the breadth and depth of student learning, as they may
not adequately assess other crucial skills like problem-solving, creativity, and collaboration.
The Role of Assessment in the Educational Experience.

Indeed, various learning difficulties can impact the educational experience, yet the most complex and
apparent challenge lies in assessment methods. Different assessment approaches are utilized to
evaluate students’ knowledge. As Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam elucidate in “Inside the Black Box: Raising
Standards Through Classroom Assessment” (1998), the general term “assessment” is used to account for
the fact that Schools primarily adopt "summative” and “formative" assessments. According to Wiggins
and McTighe (2018, p. 15), a crucial distinction exists between formative and summative evaluation.
Formative assessment, an ongoing process, provides valuable feedback to students and teachers to
inform instruction and guide learning. In contrast, summative assessments, such as final exams,
primarily evaluate student learning after a unit or course. This highlights that assessment encompasses
how teachers and students gather information to understand and improve learning. Students and
teachers face significant pressure as they strive to measure students' understanding through rigorous
methods.

The Significance of High Learning and Assessment Standards.

Raising learning and assessment standards is integral to the “national priority” (Wiliam & Black, 1998)
because it involves more than test scores. It focuses on nurturing the potential of every young mind,
fostering their curiosity, and equipping them with the tools to navigate life’s complexities. It creates
opportunities for all students to reach their full potential, regardless of background or circumstances. It
instills a love of learning and wonders about the world. When we set high standards and provide
support to help students achieve them, we're not just preparing them for careers but also for becoming
engaged citizens, critical thinkers, and compassionate individuals who can positively impact the world.

The Spectrum of Assessment Approaches

Black (1998) is convinced that “formative assessment” is a gateway to improved learning. Frequent
assessment feedback helps students to perform well and show improvement. Another theorist agrees
that it is not, “Indeed they pay lip service to [formative assessment] but consider that its practice is
“unrealistic” in the present educational context,” reported a study of Canadian secondary teachers
(Dassa, Vazquez-Abad and Ajar,1993, p.83). There are multiple issues related to assessing students’
understanding. First, detaching the spirit of “competition” from students is impossible. Students take
everything competition-driven. They want to score well rather than “personal improvement.” Moreover,
When the classroom culture excessively emphasizes external rewards like "gold stars," grades,” or “class
rankings,” it can inadvertently shift the focus away from the intrinsic value of learning. Students may
become more preoccupied with obtaining the best marks rather than genuinely striving to deepen their
understanding. This extrinsic motivation can stifle curiosity, creativity, and a love for learning. Instead, a
classroom culture that values effort, perseverance, and a growth mindset fosters a deeper engagement
with understanding and a greater sense of accomplishment.

Second, Paul Black and Dylan Williams (1998) argue that administrative tasks overshadow analyzing and
understanding students’ learning. Teachers “to fill in records is given higher priority than the analysis of
pupils…”. In educational settings, administrative tasks often overshadow the crucial process of
analyzing and understanding student learning. They argue that teachers are frequently
overburdened with administrative duties, such as filling out records and completing paperwork,
which is prioritized over the in-depth analysis of student progress and performance.
Third, Black and Wiliam (1998,p.84) contend that teachers' feedback to pupils often prioritizes “social”
and “managerial functions” over its intended purpose of supporting learning. This suggests that
feedback is frequently used to maintain classroom order and manage student behavior rather than to
provide constructive guidance for improving student understanding and performance.

Research conducted in the United Kingdom has highlighted a critical gap in current educational practice.
Russell, Qualter, and McGuigan (1995,p.84 ) assert that formative assessment is "seriously in need of
development." This finding underscores the discrepancy between formative assessment’s widely
acknowledged theoretical benefits—providing timely feedback, guiding instruction, and enhancing
student learning—and its classroom implementation. This gap suggests a need for concerted efforts to
address the challenges of effectively integrating formative assessment practices into everyday teaching
and learning.

As Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam (1998) confirm, the students feel disconnected from the educational
process; they may exhibit disruptive “behaviors in the classroom” or “resort to truancy”, avoiding school
altogether. Such disengagement can lead to alienation from society, creating a sense of isolation and
detachment from the broader community. Furthermore, individuals alienated from society may become
both the perpetrators and victims of serious social problems, contributing to a cycle of disadvantage and
marginalization. Addressing student disengagement is therefore crucial for academic success and young
people's well-being and social integration.

According to Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam (1998) formative assessment can be a “powerful weapon” for
student learning when communicated effectively. The key lies in how the assessment feedback is
conveyed. When feedback is constructive, specific, and focuses on growth areas rather than simply
highlighting mistakes, it empowers students to take ownership of their learning. By providing clear and
actionable insights, formative assessment can motivate students to improve, build confidence, and
develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

Additionally, The main problem with self-assessment for pupils is their ability to gauge their progress
accurately. This effectiveness hinges on a clear understanding of the learning goals. Carmen Tomas
(2014,p.611) illustrates if pupils lack a sufficiently “clear picture of the targets” they strive for, their self-
assessment becomes subjective and unreliable. Without well-defined learning objectives, pupils may
struggle to identify areas of strength and weakness, leading to inaccurate self-evaluation. Therefore,
establishing clear and shared learning targets is crucial to empowering pupils to engage in meaningful
and insightful self-assessment.

Conversely, Sadler (1989, p.612) emphasizes the key components of effective feedback for learning.
Feedback should acknowledge the “desired outcome” (the goal) and provide clear evidence of the
learner's current progress (their present position). Most importantly, it should offer actionable insights
on bridging the gap between the desired goal and the current position. This understanding of "a way to
close the gap" empowers the learner to take ownership of their learning and make informed
adjustments to their approach. Without this actionable element, feedback may be perceived as merely
evaluative, hindering rather than promoting learning.

Carmen Tomas (2014, p.615) convincingly elucidates how the marking process in assessments can often
be viewed as "monolithic," suggesting a singular, rigid approach. This perspective aligns with the findings
of Cumming, Kantor, and Powers (2002, p.615), who also highlights the potential for bias within the
marking process. Their research suggests that subjectivity and personal biases can inadvertently
influence the evaluation of student work, leading to inconsistencies and potentially unfair outcomes.

Lee Cronbach's (1971,p.447) seminal work in educational measurement emphasizes the interpretive
nature of assessment. He posits that assessment is not simply data collection but rather the
"interpretation of data arising from a specified procedure." This highlights the crucial role of human
judgment and decision-making in the assessment process. Educators and researchers must carefully
consider the data’s context, purpose, and limitations to draw meaningful and valid inferences about
student learning. This perspective underscores the importance of clear and transparent assessment
practices that minimize bias and ensure fairness in evaluating student performance.

Carmen Tomas (2014,p.612) highlights a critical concern in educational assessment: the potential for
self-fulfilling prophecies. The "worst scenario" she describes involves students who have consistently
received low marks in the past, leading them to internalize these experiences and develop a low sense
of self-efficacy. This can create a vicious cycle where students come to expect low marks, which, in turn,
can negatively impact their motivation, effort, and, ultimately, their academic performance. This
phenomenon underscores the importance of providing all students with equitable access to quality
education and fostering a growth mindset that emphasizes effort, perseverance, and a belief in one's
ability to learn and improve.

Various studies underscore the complex nature of assessment in educational settings, emphasizing its
social and personal dimensions. Contrary to perceiving assessment as purely technical, Johnston et al.
(1995) argue that it is deeply intertwined with social and individual factors. Wineburg (1997) provides a
compelling example of this complexity by highlighting the discrepancy between the importance of
collaborative work in real-world contexts and its exclusion from formal testing norms. This disconnect
between academic assessment and real-world skills highlights the need for a more holistic approach to
the evaluation that values and measures a broader range of competencies, including collaboration,
communication, and critical thinking.

Summative Assessment:

Carroll's model of Mastery Learning emphasizes a personalized approach to education where

students demonstrate a deep understanding of a concept or skill before moving
forward(p.107). This is achieved by setting clear learning objectives and establishing a high
standard for mastery, often aligned with the performance of top-achieving students in
traditional settings. To facilitate this, the curriculum is divided into smaller, manageable
learning units, each connected to specific objectives. Students receive individualized support
and access to various instructional methods until they successfully demonstrate mastery of
each unit. This approach prioritizes in-depth learning and ensures that all students can achieve
a high level of understanding.

While summative assessments are crucial in evaluating student learning, their integration into
the pedagogical process can sometimes hinder a holistic view of assessment. As Paul Black
and Dylan Williams(2018) discusses this in “Classroom Assessment and Pedagogy.” This is because
summative assessments, often high-stakes and focused on outcomes, can overshadow the
ongoing, formative assessment practices that provide valuable insights into student progress
and inform instructional adjustments (Black & Wiliam, 2006,p.554). When the emphasis shifts
heavily towards summative assessments, it can inadvertently narrow the focus of assessment,
potentially leading to a less nuanced understanding of student learning and a diminished
emphasis on the formative assessment practices essential for supporting student growth and
development.

A significant concern regarding using teacher assessments, particularly in high-stakes

accountability systems, is the potential for bias (Black & Wiliam, 2006, p. 566). Critics argue that
teachers may feel incentivized to inflate student performance to enhance their evaluations or
improve the school's overall ranking. Even without intentional bias, ensuring consistency in
teacher judgments across large educational systems can pose a significant challenge.

Rowntree (1987, p. 4) asserts that assessment is integral to human existence, permeating every facet of
our lives. He posits that assessment is not merely a formal or structured process confined to educational
settings but a natural and automatic activity inherent in our daily interactions and decision-making. This
perspective emphasizes the ubiquitous nature of assessment, suggesting that we constantly evaluate
information, situations, and our performance, even if these evaluations are often implicit and
unconscious. Children continually assess their surroundings, social interactions, and personal abilities,
which impacts their learning and growth. While frequently implicit and unconscious, this assessment
process influences their understanding of the world and their role within it.

In the educational context (Taras, 2010, p. 469), "assessment" has often evoked negative connotations,
distorting its inherent value and neutral stance. This negative perception is evident in the historical
preference for "evaluation," which has been used for many years to circumvent the negativity
associated with "assessment." This shift in terminology indicates that the term "assessment" has
become linked to anxiety, pressure, and a focus on judgment rather than fostering learning and growth.
This anxiety is often felt by students, who may perceive assessments as stressful and
threatening experiences that hinder their learning and development.

A study was conducted on the perceptions and experiences of novice second/foreign language teachers
in Sweden and Finland regarding summative assessment (Yildirim, Stjernkvist, Hilden, Fröjdendahl,
Oscarson, 2024,p.22). The findings provide valuable insights into their understanding of key assessment
components, the sources of their knowledge, and the processes through which they develop this
literacy. By identifying the theoretical and practical aspects of summative assessment that novice
teachers need to master, this study aims to inform and guide teacher education programs in aligning
their curricula to better prepare future teachers for the realities of classroom assessment. Specifically,
the findings suggest that novice teachers may possess theoretical knowledge but require more hands-on
experience with practical skills such as test construction, grading, and analyzing exams. Moreover,
teacher education programs should consider incorporating content-specific materials and tasks and
addressing students' diverse needs and sociocultural contexts in their assessment training.

Moreover, research has demonstrated that emotional intelligence (EI) can significantly alleviate
the negative impact of perceived stress on medical students. In a longitudinal study by Gupta,
Singh, and Kumar (2017, p.1), the findings align with previous research showing that perceived
stress negatively correlates with both cognitive and behavioral aspects of academic
performance. Furthermore, studies indicate that perceived stress can adversely affect student
well-being, including sleep quality, mental health, and overall life satisfaction. Therefore,
promoting EI in medical students may enhance their academic performance while improving
their overall well-being and resilience. However, I believe that the stress experienced by
medical students is not exclusive to them; this phenomenon applies to all students. I have
observed students taking summative tests displaying high levels of stress and anxiety, which
can significantly impact their performance.

Enhancing Feedback

Theorists give multiple solutions. One of them is constructive feedback. As Dylan rationalizes, effective
feedback should inform and empower individuals to take action. Providing actionable feedback is
crucial; utilizing “multiple-choice questions” can significantly enhance this aspect. By presenting a series
of choices, feedback becomes more than just an observation. According to Ramaprasad (1983, p. 4),
feedback can be defined as information regarding the discrepancy between a system's actual and
desired state. This information is then utilized to adjust the system's behavior and reduce this gap.
Feedback provides valuable insights into the system's performance, enabling necessary adjustments to
achieve the desired outcome. This concept of feedback is fundamental across various domains, from
engineering and technology to education and social systems.
It transforms into a direct prompt for immediate action. This encourages individuals to actively engage
with the feedback, analyze their performance, and identify specific areas for improvement. The ease of
answering multiple-choice questions minimizes the time and cognitive effort required to respond,
making it a practical and efficient method for individuals to translate feedback into concrete steps
toward improvement quickly.

To substantiate, the traditional approach of providing extensive written feedback on student work is
exemplified by (Reeve 2017,p.25) "post-mortem" style marking. Instead of focusing on teacher-
generated feedback, a more effective strategy is to expose students to exemplary work produced by
their peers. Students can directly observe the application of sophisticated vocabulary, phrasing, and
analytical techniques by critically analyzing these successful pieces. This approach, aligning with Dylan
Wiliam's principle of feedback as a reciprocal process, shifts the emphasis from teacher-driven
commentary to student-centered engagement, encouraging active learning and self-directed
improvement.

Vygotsky's Sociocultural Perspective

Vygotsky's sociocultural theory of development highlights the vital role of social interaction in shaping
cognitive processes. He contends that knowledge acquisition is not merely an individual endeavor but a
socially mediated process. As Vygotsky (1978, cited in Wertsch, 1985) maintains, children first encounter
and internalize knowledge through interactions. This social engagement lays the groundwork for
learning, where children actively engage with and construct meaning from the knowledge shared by
adults, peers, and the broader cultural context. However, this process is not simply a passive reception.
Children actively assimilate the knowledge they acquire, integrating it with their existing understanding
and personal values, leading to unique and individualized interpretations. This dynamic interplay
between social interaction and individual interpretation underscores human learning and development's
social and cultural nature.

Moreover, Vygotsky acknowledges that the learning process in educational settings involves more than
simply rote memorization or passive reception of teacher information. While children undoubtedly learn
from the knowledge and instruction their educators provide, they actively engage in a “transformative
process”(Newman & Latifi, 2021,p.9). They do not merely copy or replicate the information presented;
instead, they internalize and adapt it, integrating the new knowledge with their existing understanding
and personal experiences. This dynamic interplay between the teacher's input and the child's unique
interpretation and construction of knowledge highlights the interactive nature of learning. Vygotsky
emphasizes that the interaction between teachers and children is not a one-way transmission of
information but a dynamic exchange where both parties actively participate in the learning process.
Through this collaborative interaction, children construct their understanding and develop cognitive
abilities.

Furthermore, Lantolf (2002), Wertch (1985), and Shayer (2002), admit that Vygotsky's introduction of
the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) stemmed from his critique of traditional assessment methods.
He argued that conventional assessments, often focusing on static measures of current knowledge,
failed to capture the dynamic nature of children's intellectual abilities adequately. By emphasizing the
gap between a child's independent performance and their potential with guidance, the ZPD shifted the
focus of assessment towards evaluating a child's capacity for learning and growth within a supportive
environment. Teachers should not confine their evaluation of a child's abilities to their current
independent performance. Instead, they should consider the child's potential for learning and growth
with appropriate support and guidance.

American psychologist Jerome Bruner (1960, 1966, 1996,p.35) challenged traditional views on learning
by positing that students can achieve far more than previously thought, provided they receive
appropriate guidance and resources. He coined the term "instructional scaffolding" to describe this
support, drawing an analogy to the temporary frameworks used in construction. Just as these
scaffolding structures enable building a stronger, more permanent structure, Bruner believed that
scaffolding provides learners with the necessary support to develop a deeper understanding and build a
stronger foundation of knowledge. Educators can empower students to become more independent and
confident learners by carefully providing and gradually withdrawing this support. It refers to the
temporary support offered by a more knowledgeable other, such as a teacher or peer, to help learners
achieve a task or understand a concept beyond their current independent capabilities. Similar to how a
scaffold supports building construction, educational scaffolding provides a structured framework that
assists learners in reaching their full potential. This temporary support can take various forms, such as
giving instructions, modeling desired behaviors, breaking down complex tasks into smaller steps, or
offering feedback and guidance throughout the learning process.

Furthermore, Kuusisaari (2014) grounds this study in Vygotskian theory, emphasizing the pivotal role of
collaboration in the learning process. The author draws upon Vygotsky's (1978) concept of the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) as a central framework for investigating teacher development. By
conceptualizing the ZPD as a dynamic space where individuals can achieve more with guidance and
support, Kuusisaari highlights the significance of collaborative learning environments in fostering
teacher growth. This research framework underscores the notion that through collaborative knowledge
creation within the ZPD, teachers can expand their understanding, refine their pedagogical practices,
and ultimately enhance student learning outcomes.
Maidansky (2023,p.6 ) states Vygotsky's theory of "intellectualization" posits a developmental trajectory
where "natural" cognitive functions (e.g., perception, memory, speech) become increasingly integrated
into higher-order thinking. This integration involves subjugating these functions to the demands and
structures of conceptual thought. Consequently, the emergence and dominance of concepts are
essential to human cognitive development. From an assessment perspective, this theoretical framework
emphasizes the importance of evaluating the presence of specific cognitive skills and their integration
within a broader conceptual framework. This requires assessing the flexibility and adaptability of mental
processes, the ability to apply knowledge in new contexts, and the clarity and precision with which
individuals can express their understanding and reasoning.

Assessments can be conducted in various ways, including quizzes, tests, projects, and observations.
However, Ted Dintersmith (2015) argues in his TED Talk that the current education system, with its
heavy emphasis on standardized tests, is "terribly off track." He contends that these tests fail to
adequately prepare students for the complexities of the real world and hinder the development of
critical thinking, creativity, and other essential life skills. Instead, Dintersmith advocates for authentic
assessments that challenge students to apply their knowledge and skills in meaningful, real-world
contexts. He emphasizes that the primary purpose of evaluation should be to support student learning
and growth, not simply to measure achievement.

Adeli (2014) in her tedtalk ,”What standardized tests don't measure”, emphasizes the crucial role of
investing in students by providing them with the necessary support and resources to reach their full
potential. This investment benefits individual students and is essential for creating a brighter future for
society as a whole. Adeli's perspective challenges the traditional approach to education, which often
prioritizes standardized testing over fostering well-rounded individuals. Instead, she advocates for an
educational system that empowers students with the critical thinking, creativity, and real-world skills
they need to navigate the complexities of the 21st century.

Conclusion:

The distinction between summative and formative assessment is not always clear-cut. Factors such as
who designs the assessment, where it is administered, and how student work is evaluated can blur the
lines between these two assessment types. This highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of
assessment practices and recognizing that different assessment methods can serve multiple purposes
depending on the context and implementation and, thus, how the learning can be assessed.

References:

 Adeli, N. (2014, November 13). What standardized tests don't measure [Video]. TEDx Talks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woVtj8GH678

 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551–575
 Dintersmith, T. (2015, August 25). Prepare Our Kids for Life, Not Standardized Tests [Video].
TEDx Talks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvhb9aoyeZs

 Educational Testing Service. (2004). Study guide for Principles of Learning and Teaching (2nd
ed.). Princeton, NJ: Author.

 Gupta, R., Singh, N., & Kumar, R. (2017). Longitudinal predictive validity of emotional
intelligence on first-year medical students perceived stress. BMC Medical Education, 17(1),
Article 139.

 Maidansky, A. D. (2023). Thinking and Labour (Reading Vygotsky). Belgorod National

Research University & Moscow State University of Psychology and Education (MSUPE).

 Newman, S., & Latifi, A. (2021). Vygotsky, education, and teacher education. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 47(1)

 Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Pearson

 Taras, M. (2005). Assessment - summative and formative - some theoretical reflections.

British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466-478.

 Tomas, C. (2014). Marking and feedback provision on essay-based coursework: A process

perspective. In D. Wiliam & D. Christodoulou (Eds.), Carl introduces assessment, marking &
feedback (pp. 22-44). John Catt Educational Limited.

 Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.).

 Yildirim, A., Stjernkvist, M. P., Hilden, R., Fröjdendahl, B., & Oscarson, A. D. (2024).
Developing summative assessment literacy: Novice language teachers’ perceptions in
Sweden and Finland.