June 15, 2009 at 09:34Everything I think about the exam
After reading the opinion of a person on the one hand , I decided to tell t.z. a person who is on the other side, who was involved in the experiment, which began in our region back in 2003 and only in 2009 passes normally.
The main thing. (Ideology)
The exam is designed to ensure that at the end of school a person receives an objective assessment (two students, not three, for example), the personal interest of teachers is still in your assessment. Upon admission to higher education institutions, equalize the chances of different social groups, leveling the differences in the "solvency" of the applicant in one form or another and placing paramount importance on the ability of students. It was planned to do this by introducing a universal objective all-Russian system of grades (100 point USE system), and equating the grades obtained at the final with the grades that you automatically received at the entrance exam. Throughout the Russian Federation. In any university.
Personal experience:in the late nineties, there was a tendency, those who in one form or another (paid courses, specialized classes at any faculty) gave money to the university were taken to budget places. In return, you receive certain benefits on admission (to a budget place!), Which, you see, looks like a property qualification, which is not entirely good for the “accessibility” of education.
To implement objectivity, the following was carried out:
1. Differentiation of types of tasks.
Tasks were divided into three types. All three types were simultaneously part of one KIM (a personal set of personal examination questions for a graduate that do not overlap with anyone in the class).
Type (section) A. Easy, specifying the type of test.
By the way:most of the criticism fell on the test part, it was said that the test does not give an objective assessment of the student, etc. although the main task of this part is for the troechnik to get his well-deserved troika, and those who need more can solve the next part of KIM.
Type (section) B. Medium, type task insert the desired word, number, etc. Designed for students who can not only remember factual material (I'm talking about exact sciences), but also know how to solve typical problems.
Type (section) C. Complex, you need to write not only the answer to the problem, but give a complete solution in writing (this is for excellent students who have seriously set their sights on the university).
2. Avoiding the human factor in the assessment.For this, a division of the handing over, controlling, transporting and evaluating tasks was introduced.
The KIM’s transfer chain in the region is approximately the following:
RSCI (regional information processing center) -> Authorized representative -> PES (exam site) -> Student -> PES (exam site) -> Authorized representative -> RSCI. The KIM package is sealed; it is very difficult to open it without damage. All packages are transferred for signature - damaged ones are fixed. Attempting outside intervention is easily detected.
Personal experience: One representative in the same year decided to check it at your own peril, risk, and material benefit. Discovered quickly. They beat for a long time.
By the way:The exam is usually conducted not in your own school, teachers (not from your school) are present (supervised). So there’s no reason to tell them to the dealers.
Upon arrival at the RCIO already “answered” KIMs, all answer sheets are scanned.
Part A is checked almost without human intervention tests are automatically recognized.
Part B is checked beforehand by verifiers (they ensure that groups of characters are recognized correctly). The answers are grouped and they are evaluated by experts - subject teachers (allows us to take into account that the correct answer is “wobble” and “cock” are the same thing).
Part C is verified exclusively by subject matter experts. Like a regular written exam.
By the way:In parts C and B, tasks are checked more than once, and not by one expert. That allows you to level the possible error of the expert in the assessment. In addition, experts do not know whose answer they are checking, so the likelihood of juggling the results here is also minimal.
In addition, the base of answers is being accumulated in this way, according to which, using statistical methods, it is possible to identify “wrong questions” in the questions themselves, which allows them to improve their quality every year ...
Total:
There is nothing in the implementation or ideology of the USE that was would be directed against the student, on the contrary, this system is aimed at objectively dividing students according to their abilities.
If there are questions, doubts, attempts to point out the “bottlenecks” of the USE, I will be glad to answer and debate. Because despite the fact that the experiment is no longer an experiment - the myths are still alive.
UPD: An important addition from the user bat , regarding what exactly is the resulting exam score.
I will quote his post:
The main thing. (Ideology)
The exam is designed to ensure that at the end of school a person receives an objective assessment (two students, not three, for example), the personal interest of teachers is still in your assessment. Upon admission to higher education institutions, equalize the chances of different social groups, leveling the differences in the "solvency" of the applicant in one form or another and placing paramount importance on the ability of students. It was planned to do this by introducing a universal objective all-Russian system of grades (100 point USE system), and equating the grades obtained at the final with the grades that you automatically received at the entrance exam. Throughout the Russian Federation. In any university.
Personal experience:in the late nineties, there was a tendency, those who in one form or another (paid courses, specialized classes at any faculty) gave money to the university were taken to budget places. In return, you receive certain benefits on admission (to a budget place!), Which, you see, looks like a property qualification, which is not entirely good for the “accessibility” of education.
To implement objectivity, the following was carried out:
1. Differentiation of types of tasks.
Tasks were divided into three types. All three types were simultaneously part of one KIM (a personal set of personal examination questions for a graduate that do not overlap with anyone in the class).
Type (section) A. Easy, specifying the type of test.
By the way:most of the criticism fell on the test part, it was said that the test does not give an objective assessment of the student, etc. although the main task of this part is for the troechnik to get his well-deserved troika, and those who need more can solve the next part of KIM.
Type (section) B. Medium, type task insert the desired word, number, etc. Designed for students who can not only remember factual material (I'm talking about exact sciences), but also know how to solve typical problems.
Type (section) C. Complex, you need to write not only the answer to the problem, but give a complete solution in writing (this is for excellent students who have seriously set their sights on the university).
2. Avoiding the human factor in the assessment.For this, a division of the handing over, controlling, transporting and evaluating tasks was introduced.
The KIM’s transfer chain in the region is approximately the following:
RSCI (regional information processing center) -> Authorized representative -> PES (exam site) -> Student -> PES (exam site) -> Authorized representative -> RSCI. The KIM package is sealed; it is very difficult to open it without damage. All packages are transferred for signature - damaged ones are fixed. Attempting outside intervention is easily detected.
Personal experience: One representative in the same year decided to check it at your own peril, risk, and material benefit. Discovered quickly. They beat for a long time.
By the way:The exam is usually conducted not in your own school, teachers (not from your school) are present (supervised). So there’s no reason to tell them to the dealers.
Upon arrival at the RCIO already “answered” KIMs, all answer sheets are scanned.
Part A is checked almost without human intervention tests are automatically recognized.
Part B is checked beforehand by verifiers (they ensure that groups of characters are recognized correctly). The answers are grouped and they are evaluated by experts - subject teachers (allows us to take into account that the correct answer is “wobble” and “cock” are the same thing).
Part C is verified exclusively by subject matter experts. Like a regular written exam.
By the way:In parts C and B, tasks are checked more than once, and not by one expert. That allows you to level the possible error of the expert in the assessment. In addition, experts do not know whose answer they are checking, so the likelihood of juggling the results here is also minimal.
In addition, the base of answers is being accumulated in this way, according to which, using statistical methods, it is possible to identify “wrong questions” in the questions themselves, which allows them to improve their quality every year ...
Total:
There is nothing in the implementation or ideology of the USE that was would be directed against the student, on the contrary, this system is aimed at objectively dividing students according to their abilities.
If there are questions, doubts, attempts to point out the “bottlenecks” of the USE, I will be glad to answer and debate. Because despite the fact that the experiment is no longer an experiment - the myths are still alive.
UPD: An important addition from the user bat , regarding what exactly is the resulting exam score.
I will quote his post:
The exam is not a way to assess, but a way of ranking the examinees and he copes with this.
In terms of points, you cannot compare two people who handed in at different times, because the ranking is carried out on the mass of people who handed in at the same time.