The documents. Methodological recommendations on social science exam "Federal Institute of Pedagogical Measurements"
Everyone knows that the tasks of Part 2 of the USE in history are checked by specially trained people - experts. In the process of work, they rely not only on the criteria and explanations given in the demo. This would not be enough to ensure a uniform and adequate understanding by all experts of the criteria for assessing tasks of increased complexity.
That is why every year methodological recommendations for experts in all subjects are published on the FIPI website. The author and compiler of these materials on history is traditionally I.A. Artasov, Deputy Head of the Federal Commission for the Development of KIM Unified State Examination in History.
If you're looking to get a high score on the Part 2 questions, check out the Expert Guidelines. Both curious and helpful. This is an 84 page document that includes the following blocks:
1) Task performance assessment system(p.8-27). Here are given general recommendations for checking tasks, formulated the main approaches to assessment. Nos. 20-23 are discussed briefly, but a lot of attention is paid to the arguments and the historical essay. In particular, in 2018, for these tasks, the “Question-Answer” column appeared. It has a lot of important and interesting things, so below I will duplicate its content.
2) Examples of tasks with comments for experts. A scan of the student's work, the score and the rationale for the assessment are given. Us. 59-77 you can see seven real historical writings for the following periods:
- 945 - 972
- September 1689 - December 1725
- November 1796 - March 1801
- October 1894 - July 1914 (2 compositions)
- October 1964 - March 1985 (2 compositions)
3) Memo for experts(New in 2018!). This is a document provided to the examiner along with the evaluation criteria during the audit. In terms of content, these instructions largely repeat block 1, only there are fewer examples and details.
If you do not plan to read all 84 pages of guidelines, but still want to capture the key points, I recommend that you pay attention to this memo for experts, as well as to the “Question and Answer” section for tasks 24 and 25.
I will give the main part of the text for these sections below - read here or withdownload pdf files.
This document is officially published on the FIPI website: main page - section "USE and GVE-11" - subsection "For subject commissions of subjects of the Russian Federation" - file "History" (or just follow the link). There you can also download the 2018 methodological recommendations for other school subjects, as well as all materials for 2005-2017.
FAQ on the assignment for arguments (No. 24)
Question. If the graduate did not write, which of the arguments he named are given in support, and which ones are in refutation, how to evaluate the answer?
Answer. If the graduate has not written which of the arguments are given in rebuttal and which ones are in support, the expert still checks the assignment, trying to understand the content of the arguments. If the answer contains full arguments that contain both facts and explanations that make it possible to understand why the given facts confirm (refute) this point of view, then the expert will easily determine the purpose of the arguments and accept them. If the expert has doubts about the purpose of the arguments, then such arguments are not accepted.
Question. If in task 24 the child writes like this: “ Supporting Arguments:…» ... but, according to the expert, an attempt is made to bring arguments in refutation. " Arguments in rebuttal:…"... and here is an attempt to give arguments in support (apparently, the graduate got it mixed up), is it possible to consider this as a typo and evaluate the task on the merits of the arguments given?
Answer: No, in this case, the expert does not consider this a typo, since the expert cannot know for sure whether this is a typo or a graduate's conscious choice. In this case, the graduate wrote his opinion and we are guided by this when checking.
Question. Can facts be counted as arguments without explaining how they are related to the argued point of view?
Answer. In some, few, cases, they can. These are the cases when the cited fact clearly confirms (refutes) the given point of view (there is enough information in it to confirm or refute) and it cannot be used “on the contrary” (that is, if it is cited in support, then it cannot be used to refute ). For example:
1) An argument for the point of view " The Soviet-Finnish war had negative consequences for the USSR", will be a fact: " in three and a half months of the war, the USSR lost more than 126 thousand soldiers and officers killed". A connection of this fact with the argued point of view is not needed, since the fact itself clearly testifies in favor of this point of view.
2) An argument for the point of view " Measures taken Russian government in late XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, improved the socio-economic and legal status of the working class", will be a fact: " the previously unrestricted working day for industrial workers was limited to 11.5 hours during this period". This fact is sufficient to justify this point, since it contains enough to confirm this point of view and cannot be used in refutation.
3) An argument for the point of view " The foreign policy of Alexander I was successful", will be a fact: " as a result of the foreign policy of Alexander IFinland was annexed". This fact cannot be used to refute this point of view: the expansion of the territory of the state is always considered a criterion for the success of foreign policy. But in this case, it is necessary to clarify: if the point of view were formulated somewhat differently, for example: “ The results of the foreign policy of Alexander I contributed to the successful socio-economic development of Russia”, then the fact of joining Finland would not be enough, it would be necessary to explain how this accession contributed to the socio-economic development of the country.
However, in most cases, only a fact is not enough for argumentation; it is necessary to connect this fact with the argued point of view.
1) For the point of view " The reign of Nicholas I contributed to the strengthening of the state system and the stabilization of the situation in the country", fact " Nicholas I brutally cracked down on the Decembrists' will not be an argument. This fact does not clearly prove that the reign contributed to the stabilization of the situation in the country. The fact is that, on the one hand, the brutal reprisal contributed to the fact that for some time, due to fear of the authorities, the social movement began to decline, but on the other hand, the reprisal against the Decembrists contributed to the intensification of the process of creating illegal societies and circles that introduced an element of destabilization into public life.
2) For the point of view " The foreign policy of the USSR, during the leadership of the country M.S. Gorbachev, corresponded to the interests of the USSR»; fact " Soviet troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan” will not be an argument either in confirmation or in refutation. The fact is that, on the one hand, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan improved the image of the USSR in the eyes of the democratic world community, allowed saving the lives of Soviet citizens and significant material resources, but on the other hand, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan contributed to the loss of Soviet influence in this region, which led to the strengthening of the influence of forces hostile to the USSR there; many politicians regarded the withdrawal of troops as a manifestation of the weakness of the USSR, which contributed to increased external pressure on the country. If a graduate writes these explanations, then the fact of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, of course, can be used to argue both in support and in refutation of this point of view, but the statement of the fact of the withdrawal of troops is not accepted as an argument.
Question. Can statements that do not contain explicit facts be accepted as arguments?
Answer. They can, in the case when the provisions are based on facts, that is, without understanding that these facts were, the argument could not be deduced. For example:
1) For the point of view " » position « the problem of the budget deficit was solved by cruel and painful methods for the peasants due to the merciless "extortion" of payments and arrears, a sharp increase in indirect taxes on basic necessities, which caused protests that weakened the country” will be an argument in rebuttal. The above provision does not contain small specifics (it is not said exactly who, where and when ordered to extort taxes (orders, decrees, etc.), who extorted them, the places of protests are not named). In the school curriculum, this material is studied at the level of naming processes, without specifying specific facts, so it is not necessary to require graduates to name the numbers and dates of issuance of tax extortion orders. But, if the argument in support is formulated as follows: under Alexander III people took money from banks, bought land and grew rich”, then it is not true, since it does not talk about the policy of Alexander III, and also contains a general estimated (and controversial) position that “the people grew rich”.
2) For the point of view " ." position " an important element of the industrialization policy was the creation of a system of constant monitoring of the labor discipline of workers, which contributed to an increase in labor productivity' will be taken as an argument. This provision lacks small specifics, but the provision is based on facts that relate to the period of industrialization in the USSR. But the position workers at that time worked well and built many factories” will not be accepted, since the argument is not related to the policy of industrialization, is expressed in an overly general formulation and is therefore controversial from a historical point of view.
3) For the point of view " The transition to political fragmentation in the second quarter of the XII century. can be considered progress in the development of medieval Russia, its heyday» position « different lands developed their own political structure, their own traditions and styles - in literature, architecture, painting. Increasing diversity, the emergence of new forms - phenomena that testified to progress” is an argument in support. There are no specific examples in the above provision (for example, the land with a republican form of government, a monarchy, distinctive features Vladimir, Novgorod architecture, etc.), but the argument is based on an understanding of this specificity. But it is not accepted as a correct argument in support of the position " during the period of political fragmentation, diversity appeared in the life of individual principalities, and this is a sign of progress". In this case, there is no reliance on facts, the expert cannot know what diversity the graduate had in mind (perhaps he meant, for example, the diversity of the animal world).
Question. Are arguments with factual errors accepted?
Answer. If the error is related to facts that are directly used for argumentation, then they are not accepted. For example, when arguing the point of view " The industrial and financial policy of Alexander III contributed to the successful development of Russia", argument " the Merchant's Loan Bank, which opened during the reign of Alexander III, issued loans for the purchase of land for personal ownership, which contributed to solving the problem of peasant land shortage”We do not accept, since the bank mentioned in the answer was created back in the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna.
Question. If a graduate wrote two statements that in the criteria refer to different arguments, but combined them into one argument (indicating a number, for example, “1”), should they be taken as two different arguments?
Answer. If the child designated the position as one argument, then the expert considers it, in accordance with the decision of the graduate, as one argument. For example, when arguing the point of view " Industrialization policy contributed to the progressive development of the Soviet economy in the second half of the 1920-1930s." The graduate formulated the following argument: Hundreds of enterprises producing products for the needs of National economy, a large-scale electrification of the national economy was carried out, which increased the economic and resource potential of the development of the national economy". Although the provisions on the construction of enterprises and electrification are indicated in the criteria as different arguments, but since the graduate wrote them in one, then we consider them as one.
However, if the same thought is conveyed in two different arguments (only in different words), then we combine and take it as one. For example, when arguing the point of view " Public policy USSR during the leadership of the country N.S. Khrushchev had a pronounced social orientation” the graduate wrote arguments in support of: “ 1) during this period, the Law on Pensions for Workers and Employees was adopted, according to which the amount of pensions was doubled, and the retirement age was reduced, as a result of which the material well-being of the country's citizens increased; 2) as a result of the policy pursued by N.S. Khrushchev, the retirement age of citizens became the lowest in the world, which contributed to an increase in life expectancy". Both of these arguments are built on the same facts and, in fact, repeat each other. When evaluating, it is counted as one correct argument.
FAQ according to a historical essay (No. 25)
Question . What essay should be evaluated if the graduate wrote essays not for one, but for two or three periods?
Answer. The first essay is evaluated. You can't choose the best.
Question. In what part of the essay should there be events (processes, phenomena) that can be counted according to K1?
Answer. They can be in any part of the essay. The essay does not have to begin with an indication of two events (processes, phenomena).
Question. Is it possible to count events (processes, phenomena) as two events (processes, phenomena) when one is a part of the other (for example, the “Decembrist movement” and the creation of the Southern Society)?
Answer. Yes, you can.
Question. Did we understand correctly that the role of the individual in task 25 can be indicated in any correct events (processes, phenomena) named in the text of the essay, and not only in those that the graduate indicates exactly as events (when children list two events at the beginning of the essay and focus on the fact that these are events, and not something else)?
Answer. Yes, the role can be indicated in any events (processes, phenomena) named in the essay. But it is necessary that these events (processes, phenomena) be present in the composition at all. Once again, we note that it is not at all necessary that an essay should begin with an indication of events. Events (processes, phenomena) from the selected period of history should be counted according to the K1 criterion, in whatever part of the essay they are located.
Question. Is it possible to consider as a specific action the accession to the throne ... (succeeded to the throne ...) or abdication from the throne.
Answer.« Ascension to the throne". Action always means meaningful volitional effort. The accession of the king (emperor) to the throne is a necessary act of state in the conditions of a monarchical form of government (just like the election supreme bodies power in the conditions of the republic) and he (in this wording) does not depend on the volitional efforts (actions) of the one who ascends the throne. We do not consider the wording "ascended to the throne" as a specific action. But, for example, in order to ascend the throne, Nicholas I had to sign a manifesto on accession to the throne, appoint an extraordinary meeting of the State Council, appoint a second oath, etc. All these are concrete actions aimed at assuming the throne. They need to be counted.
« Abdication". This is a completely different situation. Abdication of the throne is not a necessary state act under the conditions of a monarchy, it is always a specific (occurring at the same time) meaningful volitional effort. Therefore, "Nicholas II abdicated the throne" is a specific action, in fact, synonymous with the signing of the abdication manifesto.
Question. led an uprising».
Answer. No, this is not a specific action. Such a wording cannot be considered a one-time volitional act. To lead the uprising E.I. Pugachev had to escape from prison, name himself at a meeting with the Cossacks Peter III, to explain, hiding his illiteracy, that he cannot sign papers until he reaches St. Petersburg, etc. All of these are specific actions that made up the process in which he led the uprising.
Question. Can it be considered a specific action? Arakcheev, at first spoke out against the introduction of military settlements, however, having received instructions, he began to clearly and unquestioningly execute them».
Answer. Yes, it is accepted. In this case, the action of A.A. Arakcheeva (decision, act of will): “ opposed", but became" strictly execute". It is obvious that the volitional decision of the historical figure, which was directly expressed in his activity, is named.
Question. « V.M. Molotov and Ribbentrop signed the Non-Aggression Pact between the USSR and Germany…”, “M . Egorov and M. Kantaria hoisted the Banner of Victory over the Reichstag...» Is it the actions of one or two persons?
Answer. These are concrete actions of two personalities. Note that these are actions, not roles. In order to characterize the roles, it is necessary not only to name specific actions, but also to indicate in which events (processes, phenomena) the named historical figures played a role, carrying out these actions.
Question. Is it possible to go beyond the period when indicating causal relationships?
Answer. Yes, in accordance with the wording given in the task, it is possible to go beyond the lower boundary of the period. For example, when choosing the period January 1725 - July 1762, one can write that the reason for the beginning of the era of palace coups was the publication by Peter I of the decree on succession to the throne, despite the fact that the decree was issued in 1722. investigative links can not go out.
Question. The situation when, other things being true, contains an incorrect / inaccurate / incorrect statement (separated by commas, in the enumeration), from which the general consequence follows. Can an expert count only the correct part, and display an incorrect one in an error?
Answer. For an accurate answer to this question, you need to see the specific essay from which the described situation is taken. By general rule an effect inferred from faulty causes is not an effect. But, if it is obvious that in addition to the wrong reasons for the named consequence, the correct ones are also indicated, and the incorrectness of one of the indicated reasons does not affect the correctness of the others in any way, then the correct causal relationship is counted, and the incorrect position is taken into account when scoring points for factual errors.
Question. How to evaluate the answer according to the K3 criterion, if the graduate names several reasons for the same event? For example: " Causes of the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774. were Russia's desire to gain access to the Black Sea and Turkey's opposition to the strengthening of Russian influence in Poland". Are we counting two causal relationships or one relationship in such an answer?
Answer. In the above example, the expert counts two causal relationships.
Question. « During the reign of Alexander I military settlements were created that lasted until 1857 .". Is it enough to give one point according to the K4 criterion?
Answer. In this example, there is no assessment of the impact of events (phenomena, processes) of this period on the further history of Russia. The fact of existence does not indicate influence. The expert would give 1 point according to the K4 criterion if the graduate wrote, for example, like this: “ The creation of military settlements led to uprisings of military settlers, which also took place in subsequent reigns (for example, a revolt of military settlers in the Novgorod province in 1831)».
Question. If a graduate writes task 25 in the form of a plan, rather than a coherent text, can a mere mention of the correct term related to the selected period, which is given the correct definition in the answer, be awarded 1 point? That is, the term is not woven into the fabric of the narrative, but the child knows its meaning.
Answer. Yes, in this case we set 1 point for K5.
Question. Is it possible to evaluate the essay on K3 first, and then on K2?
Answer. No, the essay must be evaluated sequentially according to all criteria. Failure to comply with this rule will inevitably lead to a discrepancy between the scores of the first and second experts.
Instructions for evaluating the detailed answers of USE participants
for an expert checking answers
for tasks with a detailed answer 20-25 in the history of 2018
When assessing tasks 20 it is recommended to pay attention to the indications given in some cases about the required degree of detail of the answer, the possibility of different formulations of the answer. For example, if the assignment is about a decree on uniform inheritance, and the assignment is formulated as follows: “Name, within a decade, the time of issuance of this decree,” then the correct answer is "1710s", as well as those answers in which graduates named years that fit into this decade, for example: "1714", "1715", "1719" etc. But the answer "first quarter of the 18thin." will be incorrect.
When assessing tasks 21 it should be taken into account that the criteria for assessing task 21 are, as a rule, “closed” and cannot be “expanded” by new provisions that differ in meaning from those given in the criteria.
At completing task 21, the graduate is not required to accurately rewrite the relevant fragments of the text, so the answers of the graduate who stated the answer in his own words may not coincide with the positions given in the criteria. In such cases, each wording given by the graduate needs to be carefully reviewed to determine whether it is appropriate for the assignment.
AT task 22 the criteria are "open": the semantic discrepancy between the answers of graduates and the approximate answers given in the criteria is allowed. In this case, the expert must critically analyze the answer of the examinee and determine whether the answer is a possible "extension" of the criteria, whether it corresponds to the conditions of the task.
When assessing tasks 23 it should be borne in mind that the criteria cannot contain all possible correct formulations of the graduates' answers and may not take into account some areas of graduates' thoughts that are potentially possible during the assignment and formally meet the requirements for a correct answer to this question. Therefore, the criteria for checking and evaluating the performance of task 23 contain an explanation that directs the expert to analyze all the answers of graduates, including those that absolutely do not match the answers given in the evaluation criteria. For example: “other reasons may be indicated, other explanations may be given”, “other names may be indicated, other differences”, etc. We recommend paying special attention to the historical accuracy of the provisions cited in the answer. Provisions based on facts that do not correspond to historical reality cannot be accepted.
Alumni response to task 24 should consist of two parts: arguments in support of this point of view and arguments in its refutation. When evaluating, the quality of the argumentation and the number of arguments presented are taken into account. The number of correctly given arguments does not mean automatic assignment of the same number of points for task 24. If a graduate gave only one correct argument to confirm or refute this point of view, then he will receive 0 points for the task. If the graduate gave only two arguments to support this point of view or only two arguments to refute it, then he will receive 1 point. If he managed to give one argument in support and one in refutation of this point of view, then for these two arguments he will receive 2 points, since in the second case he was able to look at the problem from different angles, demonstrating the appropriate skill, and his answer should be rated higher than in the first case. The graduate will receive 3 points for the task if he correctly gives two arguments in support and one in refutation, or one argument in confirmation and two in refutation. For two correctly specified arguments in support and two in refutation, the graduate will receive
4 points.
It is impossible to present all possible arguments for each of the two points of view in the assessment criteria, so the expert must understand whether the content of the argumentation proposed by the graduate corresponds to the point of view given in the assignment.
To complete the task, it is not enough for the graduate to give only the facts - it is necessary to formulate full arguments. This means that the examinee must explain how, with the help of the given fact, this theoretical position can be argued, unless, of course, the connection between the fact and the position is not obvious. If the answer contains only facts (it does not say why these facts confirm / refute the argued point of view), then it is necessary to analyze these facts and conclude whether they really clearly confirm / refute the proposed point of view, or with the help of the given facts it is possible to make arguments both in support and in refutation of this point of view. In the second case, the given facts should not be counted as the correct answer. If the answer does not contain specific facts, but generalizing provisions, then the expert must analyze these provisions in terms of the connection of these provisions with specific content (facts) and their sufficiency in order to accept them as arguments.
It must be remembered that arguments based on erroneous historical facts do not count.
Graduates are given an algorithm for completing assignments. However, if the graduate did not fill out the answer in accordance with this algorithm and did not write which of arguments are given in support, and which -
in rebuttal, the expert doesn't care checks the execution of the task, trying to understand the ownership of the arguments by their content.
When assessing assignments 20-24 admitted historical inaccuracies do not lead to a special reduction of the score. However, in case of a significant distortion of the meaning of the answer, the erroneous position is not counted. For example, an error in the initials of a historical figure, provided that the surname is correctly indicated, as a general rule, does not affect the score, but if the error in the initials does not allow you to accurately determine the historical figure that the graduate wanted to name (for example, when indicating D.A. Milyutin instead of N .A. Milyutina), then it will affect the score.
When setting a point for completing tasks 20-24, the expert counts the correct elements of the answer. At the same time, the presence of erroneously specified elements in the answer does not lead to a decrease in the score. For example, when completing task 24, the graduate correctly indicated two arguments in support and two arguments in refutation of the point of view given in the task, and incorrectly indicated one more argument in support and refutation. In this situation, the expert will set the maximum score for the task 24.
When evaluating performance tasks 25 it is necessary to consistently assess the fulfillment of the requirements of each of the criteria K1-K7.
According to the first criterion (K1) points are given for the correct indication of events (processes, phenomena) related to the period of Russian history chosen by the graduate. For the correct indication of two events (processes, phenomena), the expert must give 2 points, for the correct indication of one event (process, phenomenon) - 1 point. When evaluating according to the K1 criterion, only the indication of events (processes, phenomena) is evaluated, but their connection with each other, the sequence of presentation, etc. are not taken into account.
According to K2 criterion an indication of historical personalities whose activities are associated with the named events (phenomena, processes), and a characteristic of the role of these personalities in the named events (phenomena, processes) is evaluated. The role of a historical personality should be understood as its specific actions, which largely influenced the course and (or) the result of the events (processes, phenomena) indicated in the essay. Concrete actions are meaningful volitional efforts that are always of a single nature and are expressed in the direct manifestation of personal activity by a historical figure. Moreover, by actions in history we mean social actions, and not biological processes.
Events (processes, phenomena) in which the person played the role described in the essay must be named.
To set the maximum score according to the K2 criterion, the answer must name two historical figures and the roles (specific actions) of both in the events (phenomena, processes) named in the essay.
An indication of the role of a person in an event should not be replaced by an indication of other characteristics (for example, position held, title, etc.).
Correctly named figures of history foreign countries and the characteristics of their role in the events (phenomena, processes) named in the essay are accepted as the correct answer.
According to K3 criterion the indication in the essay of causal relationships is evaluated. A causal relationship should be understood as a relationship between historical events (processes, phenomena), in which one event (process, phenomenon), called a cause, in the presence of certain historical conditions, gives rise to another event (process, phenomenon), called a consequence. When indicating cause-and-effect relationships, not only causes, but also prerequisites for events (phenomena, processes) can be used. These cause-and-effect relationships should characterize the causes of events (phenomena, processes) occurring in the given period. It means that they can go beyond the lower boundary of the period. Cause-and-effect relationships indicated by a graduate within a given period should not be confused with an assessment of the significance of a given period, which, although it has certain characteristics of causal relationships, always goes beyond the upper limit of a given period of history. According to the K3 criterion, indications of the role of the individual in the events (processes, phenomena) of a given period (already taken into account by the K2 criterion) are not taken into account, even if these role indications contain elements of cause-and-effect relationships.
According to K4 criterion a graduate can get one point for the correct indication of the assessment of the impact of events (phenomena, processes) of a given period on the further history of Russia. The assessment is a conclusion about the influence of events (phenomena, processes) of a given period on subsequent eras. This means that the graduate must necessarily go beyond the upper limit of the period. According to the criteria, an assessment can be given based on historical facts and (or) the opinions of historians. This means that it is not necessary to indicate the opinions of historians in the work; a graduate can only use knowledge of the facts to assess the period. A general wording devoid of specific content cannot be counted.
According to K5 criterion the use of historical terminology is evaluated. Under the historical term follows understand a word or phrase denoting a historical concept associated with a specific historical event, characteristic of a specific historical period (epoch) or the historical process as a whole. To get 1 point according to the K5 criterion, it is enough for a graduate to correctly use one historical term in a historical essay. The term must be inscribed in the context of the essay, naming the term outside the context of the essay cannot be recognized as its correct use.
According to K6 criterion the presence/absence of factual errors in the essay is assessed. According to this criterion, the work is evaluated only if, according to the criteria K1-K4, the graduate scored at least 4 points. Criterion K6 is "reverse", i.e. the graduate, as it were, initially receives 2 points, but on the condition that he does not make factual errors in the essay. When evaluating the work according to this criterion, factual errors of any nature made in any part of the essay are taken into account: incorrect indication of events (phenomena, processes); incorrect indication of historical figures; errors in the facts of their biographies; incorrectly indicated cause-and-effect relationships, estimates of the significance of the period; errors in indicating the opinions of historians (for example, the assessment of the significance of the Horde dominion given by L.N. Gumilyov is attributed to B.A. Rybakov), etc. It should be noted that we are talking about factual errors; stylistic, grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors made by the graduate are not taken into account.
According to K7 criterion the form of presentation is evaluated. According to this criterion, as well as according to the K6 criterion, the work is evaluated only if the graduate scored at least 4 points according to the K1-K4 criteria. The graduate's answer can be either a consistent, coherent presentation of the material (historical essay), or separate fragmentary provisions (for example, in the form of a plan (simple, complex, thesis), tables, diagrams). In the first case, the graduate will receive 1 point according to the K7 criterion, in the second - 0 points.
When evaluating task 25, it should be taken into account that in the case when historical events(phenomena, processes) are not specified or all specified historical events (phenomena, processes) do not belong to the selected period, the answer is rated 0 points (0 points are assigned for each of the K1-K7 criteria).
If a graduate wrote an essay not for one, but for two or three periods, then the expert checks the first of the essays written by the graduate.
Subscribe and stay tuned for new publications in my Vkontakte community " History of the exam and the cat Stepan
“An expert is a person who has made all possible mistakes in a very narrow specialty,” Niels Bohr believed. We suggest not to make mistakes, but to familiarize yourself with the recommendations of experts on preparing for the Unified State Examination in social studies!
As always, in the second half of the year, he pleased us with his methodological recommendations for preparing for the exam in all subjects, including social studies. Information of such an expert level is always useful to get firsthand, directly from the developers of the exam. Let's try to evaluate the vector of current comments from Mrs. T.E. Liskova, the level of examples and find out the main thing.
So, first of all, let's turn to the materials of the video conference (in this form, FIPI decided to give its recommendations this year) T.E. Liskova, head of the Federal Commission for the Development of Control Measuring Materials Let's look at her advice
- Since 2017, there have been no serious substantive changes in KIMs, which we already mentioned when
2. Experts consider tasks 14 and 16 to be the most difficult tasks, testing knowledge about the activities and powers of the highest state authorities in the Russian Federation and the fundamentals
Recall that you can get an analysis of the topic of the USE codifier in free video course on the main topics of the course.
3. They are advised to complete all the tasks (although this is obvious), and they are asked to carefully read the conditions of the tasks. For example, in task 2, some graduates of previous years searched for something not listed in the list (invented), instead of, as required in the condition, finding a generalizing one in this list.
4. Liskova especially drew attention to task 25, which is related to the analysis of a social science term. Here, the failure to fulfill the concept itself, the analysis of which is required to be given further in 2 sentences, leads to a general points 0 for the whole task. Therefore, I would like to remind once again the need for not just memorizing and “cramming” terms (forget it, not reproduce it in the right way - 0). And the development of the skill of their independent formulation, for example, in the section of our website.
Their common urge, in our opinion, is to narrow the graduate's opportunity by showing general intelligence (or pre-prepared templates) to “spill water”, avoiding specifics in the chosen topic. Although, I think, "METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ..." will support me here, that in some cases general erudition should only be welcomed by an expert.
It is debatable if, for example, in Lenin's statement (about socialism, restriction of freedom, dictatorship of the proletariat), through his socialism-Marxism, you go to the construction of the USSR (as an argument from history to K3).
Sometimes this is also useful for fulfilling an actual criterion (from history, social life).
Many people start essays like this. For example: “This statement belongs to the field of sociology. This science studies social interactions and social structure…”. It turns out you don't have to...
The question arises why? Let's leave it unanswered, and in conclusion, let's look at a couple of last year's essays from FIPI illustrating these remarks by Liskova.
REAL ESSAYS WITH EXPERT VERIFICATION
And here are some real examples. No. 1.
Despite the fact that really a lot has been written, there are examples from history (not quite correct, though), but total score 0. The meaning of the statement is not disclosed, the content of the answer does not give an idea of its understanding.
Unfortunately, almost all of this essay is a set of unrelated thoughts, not a single term is disclosed by the applicant, and looks like an arbitrary reflection (“information noise” is what the expert calls this product).
Example #2. A much more substantial essay, and look right at the beginning of it. Correctly used facts from the biography of the author of the quote. The question is why not?
Recall that you can quickly and efficiently work through ALL topics of the USE codifier with the same as getting a course on an essay! Good luck with these recent months in preparation!
______________________________________________________________________________
FEDERAL STATE BUDGET SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION
"FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF PEDAGOGICAL MEASUREMENTS"
Methodological materials for chairmen
and members of regional subject commissions
on checking the fulfillment of tasks with a detailed answer to the examination papers of the Unified State Examination in 2016
SOCIAL SCIENCE
Moscow
2016Authors-compilers: Lazebnikova A.Yu., Kotova O.A., Liskova T.E.
Reviewer: Fayzullina Albina Raisovna, Candidate of Political Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of History of Russia and CIS Countries, Department of the Higher School of Historical Sciences and World cultural heritage» Institute international relations, history and oriental studies of Kazan (Privolzhsky) federal university, chairman of the regional subject commission on social science
Methodological materials for chairmen and members of regional subject commissions for checking assignments with a detailed answer to the exam papers of the USE 2016 in social science have been prepared in accordance with Thematic plan works of the Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution "Federal Institute of Pedagogical Measurements" for 2016. The manual is intended for training experts in evaluating tasks with a detailed answer, which are part of the control measuring materials (CMM) for passing the unified state exam (USE) in social science.
The methodological materials provide a brief description of the structure of the 2016 control measuring materials in social science, characterize the types of tasks with a detailed answer used in the KIM USE in social science, and the criteria for assessing the performance of tasks with a detailed answer, provide examples of assessing the performance of tasks and provide comments explaining the set assessment.
© Lazebnikova A.Yu., Kotova O.A., Liskova T.E., 2016.
© Federal Institute of Pedagogical Measurements. 2016.
CONTENT
1. Tasks with a detailed answer in the KIM USE in social science 5
2. The system for assessing the performance of tasks with a detailed answer: the main approaches, criteria and scales with examples of the answers of the examinees 10
2.1. Assessing the performance of tasks for text fragments (21 (С1) -24 (С4)) 10
2.2. Assessing the performance of assignments for the application of basic concepts in the context of social science knowledge in a freely constructed fragment of text (25 (С5)) 16
2.3. Assessing the performance of tasks for concretizing any theoretical position (concept) using examples (26 (C6)) 19
2.4. Evaluation of tasks for solving problematic cognitive tasks (27(С7)) 22
2.5. Assessing the performance of tasks requiring a plan (28(C8)) 26
2.6. Assessing the performance of alternative tasks that require writing a mini-essay (29 (С9)) 32
Conclusion. 52
1. Tasks with a detailed answer in the KIM USE in social science
The structure and content of KIM, the types and level of complexity of the tasks of the examination work correspond to the goals of the USE - to provide an objective assessment of the quality of training of persons who have mastered the educational programs of the secondary (full) general education, using tasks of a standardized form. KIM in social studies of the Unified State Examination allow to differentiate school graduates by the level of subject preparation in order to select them for admission to universities and colleges.Tasks with a short answer in the first part of the examination work are aimed at recognizing and comparing signs, features, elements of the description of social objects, correlating theoretical material with life realities, evaluating the truth of judgments about social phenomena. The tasks of the first part also test the ability to identify the structural elements of social science knowledge using diagrams and tables, correlate specific concepts with generic ones, classify social objects and their features, select several correct positions (characteristics, manifestations) from the proposed list, differentiate facts in social information, value judgments and theoretical statements, use terms and concepts in the proposed context, concretize theoretical knowledge.
Tasks with a detailed answer in the second part of the examination work significantly increase its differentiating ability and thus help to identify examinees with the highest level of social science training.
Different types of tasks with a detailed answer together make it possible to check the qualitative mastery of the content of the social science course and the formation of complex intellectual skills in the examinees. These include the ability to holistically formulate, logically and consistently express one's thoughts, draw conclusions, determine the best ways of practical activity, use the acquired knowledge in simulated life situations, concretize theoretical knowledge, express and argue one's position on a significant social problem, apply theoretical knowledge when solving problematic problems, for predicting and substantiating social phenomena and processes.
Individual skills from this series are tested during the exam with the help of several varieties questions with extended answers. Each of them is based on a specific form cognitive activity :
list signs of a phenomenon, objects of the same class, etc.;
apply social science concepts in a given context;
disclose on examples the most important theoretical provisions and concepts of the social sciences and humanities;
give examples certain social phenomena, actions, situations;
decide cognitive and practical tasks reflecting actual problems human life and society;
search, analyze and interpret social information on a specific topic from original non-adapted texts (philosophical, scientific, legal, political, journalistic);
formulate on the basis of acquired societies historical knowledge, own judgments and arguments on social problems.
So 21 (C1) -24 (C4) represent a compound task, or the so-called mini test. It includes a fragment of the source and four questions-tasks for its analysis and interpretation.
Task 25(C5) is aimed at independent application of social science concepts in a given context.
Task 26(C6) requires examples or disclosure of any theoretical position (concept) on a specific example.
Task 27 (C7) - a task containing a condition in the form of a problem situation or statement and questions (prescriptions) to them.
Task 28(С8) requires the preparation of a complex plan for a detailed answer on a specific topic / problem of the social science course.
Tasks 29(С9).1 - 29(С9).5 are alternative. They require examinees to write a reflection essay based on the choice of one of five proposed statements. Each statement raises a specific problem related to a particular area of scientific social science.
Tasks 21(С1) and 22(С2), 25(С5) are two-point. For the complete and correct completion of each of these tasks, 2 points are awarded. In case of incomplete correct answer - 1 point. All other tasks with a detailed answer (23(C3), 24(C4), 26(C6)-28(C8)), except for alternative ones, are three-point. For the complete and correct completion of each of these tasks, 3 points are awarded. With incomplete correct - depending on the representation of the required components of the answer - 2 or 1 point.
Alternative tasks are five-point. They are accompanied by a generalized scoring scheme from 0 to 5 points.
WE PAY ATTENTION!!!
The mini-essay is evaluated according to several criteria.
Criterion 1 (K1) -Disclosure of the meaning of the statement
Criterion 2 (K2) -The nature and level of theoretical argumentation
Criterion 3 (K3) -The quality of the factual argument
!!!CRITERION K1 IS DEFINING.
Points
The following may be specified dignity:
1) extreme dynamism and ability to self-regulate;
2) susceptibility to innovation, the ability to ensure rapid and efficient economic growth;
3) high ability to efficiently allocate resources, to quickly develop and widely introduce competitive production technologies;
4) survivability and adaptability.
The advantages of a market economy can be given in other formulations that are close in meaning.
Three virtues are correct
2
Two virtues are correct
1
One advantage is correct.
OR Answer is wrong
0
Maximum score
2
22 (C2)
What are the disadvantages of a market economy considered by the authors? List any five flaws.
| Correct Answer Content and Grading Instructions (Other formulations of the answer are allowed that do not distort its meaning) | Points |
| The following may be specified limitations: 1) gradual weakening and even conscious elimination of competition; 2) does not provide full employment of the population and stable level prices; 3) frequently manifested inflationary processes; 4) does not create material incentives for the production of public goods; 5) does not solve a number of important social problems (organization of public health care, free education, support for vulnerable sections of the population, development of culture, etc.); 6) high differentiation in the incomes of the population. The disadvantages of a market economy can be given in other formulations that are close in meaning. | |
| Five flaws correctly identified | 2 |
| Three or four shortcomings are correctly identified | 1 |
| One or two shortcomings are correct. OR Answer is wrong | 0 |
| Maximum score | 2 |
Evaluation criteria tasks with a wide range of response options, differ significantly from the criteria of the previous subgroup. As a guideline for the expert, an approximate, incomplete set of correct answer elements is given. Usually indicated examples or possible approaches to complete the task (see Examples 2 and 3). Criteria guide the expert to determine the correct direction of “unfolding” of the answerer’s thought, his approach to formulating the answer, but in no case require tracking in the answer the direct, verbatim reproduction of the provisions specified in the criteria.
Example 2
26 (C6)
Confirm with three examples the need for state participation in the economic life of society (the need for state regulation of the economy).
| Response Elements and Instructions for Grading (Other wordings are allowed that do not distort the meaning) | Points |
| In response, the need for state regulation of the economy can be confirmed by the following examples:
| |
| The need for state participation in economic life is confirmed by three examples | 3 |
| The need for state participation in economic life is confirmed by two examples | 2 |
| The need for state participation in economic life is confirmed by one example | 1 |
| Reasonings of a general nature that do not meet the requirements of the task are given. OR Answer is wrong | 0 |
| Maximum score | 3 |
Example 3
27 (C7)
In country Z, the main sectors of the economy are mass industrial production and the service sector. What additional information will allow us to establish the type of economic system of country Z? Formulate three questions to obtain the necessary additional information.
| Content of the correct answer and instructions for scoring (Other formulations of the answer are allowed that do not distort its meaning) | Points |
| The following can be formulated questions:
Other questions may be asked | |
| Three questions are formulated | 3 |
| Two questions are formulated | 2 |
| One question formulated | 1 |
| Reasoning of a general nature corresponding to the requirement of the task is given. OR Answer is wrong | 0 |
| Maximum score | 3 |
As already noted, tasks with a detailed answer require graduates to carry out a certain type of cognitive activity based on the application of the knowledge and skills acquired as a result of studying the course. In various examination options, different content of social science knowledge is presented at one or another position of part 3. So, in one version task 25(C5) has an economic content, in another it has a political content, in a third it has a legal content, and so on. Similarly, the content of the course is presented in various options for other assignments. Alternative task 29(C9) covers all basic sciences. What remains unshakable for each position is the verifiable skill . Of course, possession of the content affects the result of the performance of a particular task, but the object of verification in the first place is the mastery of one or another skill. This provides a basis for systematizing tasks with a detailed answer, a holistic analysis of statistical materials and determining trends in mastering the necessary skills.
Tver State University
Tver Regional Institute for the Improvement of Teachers
Unified State Exam
TVER
2009
Compiled by:– Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of the Russian Language, Tver State University;
- Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Head of the Department of Innovative Pedagogical Practice of Tverskoy regional institute teacher improvements.
This manual contains recommendations on the preparation of experts of the regional subject commission for checking tasks with a detailed answer in the system of control and measuring materials of the Unified State Exam in the Russian Language.
It is based on the materials of the manual "Russian Language: Guidelines for assessing the performance of tasks with a detailed answer" (authors:, ).- M., 2006), contains numerous examples of errors from the work of graduates educational institutions Tver region at the Unified State Exam 2006 - 2009.
INTRODUCTION
The Unified State Examination is an integral part of the all-Russian system for assessing the quality of education that is currently being created.
During the experiment on the introduction of the USE in Russian Federation a number of important tasks must be solved :
When assessing literacy (K7-K10), the volume of the essay should be taken into account. The assessment standards indicated in the table are designed for an essay of 150-300 words.
The purpose of the manual is to train experts for the unified state exam in foreign languages the "Letter" section. This goal is achieved by solving the following tasks:
- to familiarize teachers with the key provisions of regulatory and program materials that reveal the content, structural and organizational features of the USE as a new final form of control:
- to form the competencies of teachers in the field modern technologies testing and evaluation;
- to ensure the high quality of mastering the content component of the course by developing reflective skills in teachers.
The structure of the examination paper.
The examination paper contains written and oral parts. The written part, in turn, includes four sections: "Listening", "Reading", "Grammar and Vocabulary" and "Writing". To differentiate examinees by the levels of foreign language proficiency within the limits formulated in the Federal component of the state standard of secondary (complete) general education in foreign languages, all sections are included along with tasks basic level tasks of higher difficulty levels.
The work on foreign languages included 38 tasks with a short answer and 6 tasks of an open type with a detailed answer.
In the examination paper, the following types of tasks with a short answer are proposed:
- tasks for choosing and recording one or more correct answers from the proposed list of answers:
- assignments to establish the correspondence of positions presented in two sets:
- tasks to fill in the gaps in a connected text by converting the proposed initial form of the word into the desired grammatical form:
- tasks to fill in a gap in a coherent text by forming a related word from the proposed key word.
CONTENT
Introduction
SECTION I. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF TESTING. FORMAT OF TASKS AND TECHNOLOGIES FOR ASSESSING THE WRITTEN PART OF THE EXAM
Topic 1. Unified State Examination as a final form of control of foreign language communicative competence
test questions
Reflection
Topic 2. Structure, content and evaluation criteria for completing tasks in the "Writing" section
test questions
Reflection
SECTION II. WRITING ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
Topic 1. Technology for assessing the performance of the task according to the letter "Personal letter" (39, formerly C1)
test questions
Reflection
Topic 2. Technology for evaluating the completion of the writing task “Written statement with elements of reasoning” (“Your opinion”) (task 40)
test questions
Reflection
Annex 1. Criteria for assessing the performance of tasks 39 and 40 of the section "Letter"
Topic 2. Technology for evaluating the completion of the writing task “Written statement with elements of reasoning” (“Your opinion”) (task 40) Control questions Reflection
Appendix 1. Criteria for assessing the performance of tasks 39 and 40 of the section "Letter" Appendix 2. Additional assessment scheme for completing task 39 - "Choice of profession"
Annex 3. Additional assessment scheme for task 39 - "Independent life"
Appendix 4. Additional assessment scheme for task 39 - "Healthy lifestyle"
Annex 5
Appendix 6. Additional grading scheme for task 39 "Personal letter"
Appendix 7. Additional grading scheme for task 39 "Personal letter"
Appendix 8. The procedure for determining the percentage of textual matches in task 40
Appendix 9. The order of counting words in English writing
Appendix 10. Instructions for checking answers to tasks in form No. 2 (section "Letter")
Annex 11. Instructions for the Chairman of the Subject Committee on Conducting the Inception Workshop for Assignment Reviewers 39-40
Annex 12. Protocol for identifying unproductive responses to task 40
Appendix 13. Protocol for identifying fully or partially textually matching answers to task 40
Annex 14. Form-protocol of checking tasks by an expert with a detailed answer.
Free download e-book in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the book Unified State Examination, English language, Guidelines for assessing assignments, Letter, Verbitskaya M.V., Makhmuryan K.S., 2016 - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.
- USE 2019, English language, Speaking section, Guidelines, Verbitskaya M.V., Makhmuryan K.S.
- USE 2019, English language, Letter section, Methodological recommendations, Verbitskaya M.V., Makhmuryan K.S., Kurasovskaya Yu.B.