The traditional system of knowledge assessment. "the system of assessment of students in a modern school"

Health 23.12.2020

Disputes over the return to a five-point system for assessing knowledge in our country do not subside. Someone says that five points are enough to assess the level of knowledge of schoolchildren, and someone wants to have a choice and instead of 4+ or 5- put 8 or 9 points, respectively. But if we look at the world with wide eyes, we will understand that the choice of rating scale is a global issue ...

five point system

1 - excellent;
2 - very good;
3 - good;
4 - satisfactory;
5 - unsatisfactory, bad.

The five-point system is used, for example, in Germany. But not in the way we are used to. Here, five points is the equivalent of our unit: In this form, the five-point system is also used in the Czech Republic, Austria, and Slovakia.

But in the usual version, where five is the highest score, the system is used in Estonia, Serbia, Hungary, Croatia, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Paraguay. As a minimum pass in these countries, it is enough to score 2 points.

ten point system

It is the closest and most understandable for us. I think it's not worth explaining that 10 is cool, and 1 is not just bad, but very, very bad. The same grading system in Latvia, but here they can put 0 points with absolutely zero knowledge. And in this Latvia is supported by Lithuania, Moldova, Romania, Albania, the Netherlands, Italy, Iceland, Greece (in higher educational institutions and primary school), Vietnam, Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador.

But in Nigeria they use an inverse ten-point scale. Here the highest score is 1, and 9 and 10 are unsatisfactory marks.

Twelve point system

Not anywhere, but in Ukraine, a student can consider himself an excellent student, in whose diary points 10, 11 and 12 prevail.

Twenty point system

At the secondary level of education in Greece (in lyceums and gymnasiums), a 20-point scale for assessing knowledge is used, in which the use of fractional numbers is acceptable:

18.5-20.0 - excellent;
15.5-18.4 - very good;
12.5-15.4 - good;
10.0-12.4 - satisfactory;
0.0-9.9 - unsatisfactory.

France also believes that 20 points is a range sufficient to assess the knowledge of schoolchildren. Only here it is not possible to get the highest score in this country. According to the French, only a teacher can know a subject by 19 points, and only God can know by 20. And in order to be confident good, it is enough to get 10-14 points.

Also, a twenty-point rating system is typical for Morocco, Iran, Lebanon, Tunisia, Mali, Peru, the Republic of the Congo, and Chad.

So not everywhere 10 points is an assessment of success.

100 point system

The maximum 100 points (or%, when it comes to the rating system) can be obtained, for example, by schoolchildren in Turkey. Although behind the scenes there is a five-point.

Excellent score - 85-100 - 5 points;
Good - 70-84 - 4 points;
Acceptable - 55-69 - 3 points;
Satisfactory - 45-54 - 2 points;
Mediocre - less than 44 - 1 point.

The same system is typical for Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, India, Cuba, Egypt. But in these countries, the minimum passing scores are radically different. If for Turkey and Jordan, for example, this is 50%, then for India - 35%, and Cuba - 70%. In Syria, for all subjects except the native language, this score is 40% (for Arabic - 50%).

Letter system

This form of expression of knowledge assessment was chosen in the USA. "Grades" here range from A to F:

A - excellent;
B - good;
C, D - satisfactory;
F - unsatisfactory.

In addition, the signs "+" or "-" can be added to the letters. A similar system is also typical for Norway, Sweden, Thailand, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Brazil, Kenya.

Mixed grading system

Some countries have chosen not to restrict themselves and use both letters and numbers.

Join us at

Numbers from 0 to 5 were used. Zero showed that the student did not fulfill his duties at all; if he received two zeros in a row, then he was subjected to corporal punishment (until 1864). One and two were put when the student prepared the lesson unsatisfactorily; a three was given for mediocre diligence; four - when the student performed his duties well; five he received only for excellent knowledge of the lesson. The teacher was obliged to give points in the class, characterizing only the knowledge of the lesson given at home, and had no right to take into account the attention or absent-mindedness of the students during the lesson, as well as the temporary or permanent diligence of the student, his age and abilities

International knowledge assessment systems

Most countries have their own school grading system in their schools. Of course, there are also standard international knowledge assessment systems.

International Baccalaureate

Currently, the GPA program does not exist separately from the International Baccalaureate program. The IB Diploma and IB MYP systems have introduced a single rating scale from 1 to 7, where 7 is the highest mark, 1 is the lowest. Moreover, the scores are always integers.

Russian Empire, USSR, Russia and CIS countries

In the history of Russian education, initially, as in Europe, there was a three-digit grading system. In the list of students of the Kyiv Theological Academy (city), the highest category denotes very good successes: "the teachings are fair, reliable, kind, honest, good, laudable." The middle rank denotes the successes of the “mediocre, mediocre, not bad teaching”. The lowest category characterizes successes below the average: "teachings of the weak, vile, wicked, hopeless, lazy."

Gradually, the verbal assessment became more monotonous and shorter, it was more often replaced by a digital one, and the direction of the scale was set opposite to the German one. At various times in Russia, 3-, 5-, 8-, 10-, 12-point knowledge assessment systems were used. Of these, a 5-point one took root, which was officially established by the Ministry of Public Education in 1937: "1" - weak successes; "2" - mediocre; "Z" - sufficient; "4" - good; "5" - excellent. During the 20th century, the "1" rating gradually fell into disuse, as a result, the 5-point system was transformed into the modern 4-point system. AT last years in Russia, in some educational institutions, a 5-point system is returned (“1” - a point for outstanding work). This system, traditional for Soviet education, is now widely used in Russia and many countries of the post-Soviet space, although in recent years there has been a departure from it:

The Republic of Belarus switched to a 10-point scale;
Ukraine on 12-point;
The Baltics preferred the Anglo-Saxon system (in Estonia, a five-point scale is still used, "1" is an assessment for outstanding work), etc.;
Moldova
Georgia switched to a 10-point scale.

In modern Russia, most often (due to the lack of regulatory documents at the level of the Ministry of Education and Science), a trimester grade is derived as the arithmetic mean of current (including control) grades. In this case, the assessment for the test is current - as it evaluates the student's knowledge at the time of writing, and not for the trimester. Therefore, you should set the grade for the trimester according to the formula:

((sum of all ratings)/(number of all ratings))

Europe

The scoring system originated in Jesuit schools in the 16th-17th centuries and had the humane goal of replacing the corporal punishments accepted at that time with rewards. The first three-point grading scale originated in Germany, it resulted from the division of all students into three numbered categories: the best, average and worst, and the transition from one category to a higher one marked the acquisition of a number of advantages and privileges. Initially, the unit had the value of the highest rating. Over time, the middle category, to which the largest number of students belonged, was divided into additional sub-categories, so a multi-level ranking scale was formed, with the help of which they began to assess the knowledge of students.

Austria

Kazakhstan

British Columbia

In Colombian universities, F is a failing grade. Faculties with universities use various systems assessments in terms of percentages and letter grades.

The only failing grade is F (or E).

Newfoundland and Labrador

Average score in the labor market

Students in and out of college often think about how much their GPA will influence their future careers. Employers, companies and industry play a big role in answering this question. Joni Taylor, senior vice president of IAC/InterActive Corp, said a company with more than 33,000 employers is the best indicator of future employer success. In accordance with National Association colleges and employers, since 2001 employers have been hired and upgraded based on a candidate's GPA, and this figure rose to 75 percent in 2010 .

But the GPA is not the only factor that determines the success of a future employer. Many employers named such personality traits as leadership, teamwork, flexibility and attitude to people as other factors determining the success of a future employer. They can use their reputation in college and other work by using their experience in internships.

In addition, the GPA plays an important role in the process of hiring employers, other variations can contribute to the successful hiring of employers. If the student's GPA is lower than 3.0, or if there is a chance of finding a job, you will be asked to calculate your GPA in subjects that will be useful to you in future endeavors.

The average score as an indicator of employment has received a lot of criticism. Armstrong (2012) argued that the relationship between grades and performance is small, as shown by recent studies.

Notes

History of Pedagogy and Education. From the origin of education in primitive society to the end of the 20th century: A textbook for pedagogical educational institutions Ed. A. I. Piskunova.- M., 2001.
WES Grade Conversion Guide. WES. (unavailable link - story)
University of Calgary: F.2 Undergraduate Grading System. Ucalgary.ca. Retrieved on September 28, 2011.
Grading System Explained - Office of the Registrar - University of Alberta. Registrar.ualberta.ca (1 September 2003). Retrieved on September 28, 2011.
http://www.mcgill.ca/files/student-records/transcriptskey.pdf
Footnote error? : Invalid tag ; umontreal1 footnotes have no text
http://www.usherbrooke.ca/accueil/fileadmin/sites/accueil/documents/direction/politiques/2500-008-adm.pdf
GPA - Grade point average. RMIT. Retrieved on September 28, 2011.
(unavailable link)

Grading systems

1. Point system

Students' knowledge is assessed differently in all countries of the world. In Russia - 5 points, in England - 6 points, in Poland - 6 points, in France - 20 points, in Moldova - 12 points, in Ukraine - 12 points, in Belarus - 10 points, in Latvia - 10-point system, in the USA - 100-point system, 100 - score - USE (testing).

In France today they study according to the 20-point system. Moreover, aerobatics is considered to earn 14-16 points, and those who receive 10-14 can safely be called good students.

In the educational system of Russia, a system for assessing students' knowledge has been adopted, which was defined by unified state programs back in the Soviet school.

(G.I. Shchukina “Pedagogy of the school)

The mark "5" ("excellent") is given for a deep understanding of the program material, for the ability to independently explain the provisions being studied, for a logical and literary correct answer, for the persuasiveness and clarity of the answer, when the student does not make mistakes.

The mark "4" ("good") is given for the correct and deep assimilation of the program material, however, inaccuracies and minor errors are allowed in the answer both in the content and in the form of the answer.

The grade “3” (“mediocre”) indicates that the student knows the basic, essential provisions of the educational material, but does not know how to explain them, makes individual mistakes and inaccuracies in the content of knowledge and the form of constructing an answer.

The grade "2" ("bad") is given for poor mastery of the material, and not for lack of knowledge. An unsatisfactory answer shows that the student is familiar with the educational material, but does not highlight the main provisions, makes significant mistakes that distort the meaning of what was learned. He conveys information that he remembered from the words of the teacher or from the textbook, but which is not logically processed in his mind, not brought into the system of scientific provisions, arguments.

Grade "1" (very bad) is given when the student is not familiar with the training material.

10-point scoring system

10 points (5+) deserves a student who has discovered a comprehensive, systematic and deep knowledge of the educational program material, independently completed all the tasks provided for by the program, deeply mastered the basic and additional literature recommended by the program, actively worked in practical, laboratory classes, understands the basic scientific concepts in the discipline under study, has shown Creative skills and a scientific approach in understanding and presenting the educational program material, whose answer is distinguished by the richness and accuracy of the terms used, the material is presented consistently and logically.

9 points (5) deserves a student who has discovered a comprehensive, systematic knowledge of the educational program material, who independently completed all the tasks provided for by the program, deeply mastered the basic literature and is familiar with additional literature recommended by the program, actively worked in practical, laboratory classes, showed the systematic nature of knowledge in the discipline, sufficient for further study, as well as the ability to replenish them independently, whose answer is differentaccuracy of the terms used, the material is presented consistently and logically.

8 points (4+) deserves a student who has revealed complete knowledge of the educational program material, who does not allow significant inaccuracies in the answer, who independently completed all the tasks provided for by the program, mastered the basic literature recommended by the program, actively worked in practical, laboratory classes, showed the systematic nature of knowledge in the discipline, sufficient for further learning, as well as the ability to replenish them independently.

7 points (4) deserves a student who has discovered a fairly complete knowledge of the educational program material, does not allow significant inaccuracies in the answer, independently completed all the tasks provided for by the program, mastered the basic literature recommended by the program, actively worked in practical, laboratory classes, showed the systematic nature of knowledge in the discipline sufficient for further study, as well as the ability to replenish them independently.

6 points (4-) deserves a student who has found a fairly complete knowledge of the educational program material, does not allow significant inaccuracies in the answer, independently completed the main tasks provided for by the program, mastered the basic literature recommended by the program, was sufficiently active in practical and laboratory classes, showed the systematic nature of knowledge in discipline, sufficient for further study.

5 points (3+) deserves a student who has found knowledge of the basic educational and program material in the amount necessary for further study, who has not been active in practical and laboratory classes, who has mastered the basic literature recommendedprogram, who independently completed the main tasks provided for by the program, however, made some errors in their implementation or in the answer to the exam, but who has the necessary knowledge to eliminate them independently.

4 points (3) deserves a student who has found knowledge of the basic educational and program material to the extent necessary for further study, who has not been active in practical and laboratory classes, who has mastered the basic literature recommended by the program, who independently completed the main tasks provided for by the program, however, made some errors in their implementation or in answering the exam, but having the necessary knowledge to eliminate errors under the guidance of a teacher.

3 points (3-) deserves a student who has discovered knowledge of the basic educational and program material in the amount necessary for further study, who has not been active in practical and laboratory classes, who independently completed the main tasks provided for by the program, but who made errors in their implementation or in answering the exam, but who has the necessary knowledge to eliminate the most significant errors under the guidance of a teacher.

2 points (2) is given to a student who has discovered gaps in knowledge or lack of knowledge in a significant part of the main educational and program material, who has not independently completed the main tasks provided for by the program, who has made fundamental mistakes in performing the tasks provided for by the program, who has not completed the main practical, laboratory classes, and who makes significant errors in answering, and who cannot continue their studies without additional classes in the relevant discipline.

1 point - no answer (refusal to answer, the answer presented is completely not on the merits of the questions contained in the assignment).

2 . binary system

A) pass - fail;

B) right or wrong.

In 2003, the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, in order to implement the Modernization Concept Russian education proposed to change the assessment system in the lessons of physical culture, fine arts, music. This was explained by the fact that "these subjects require the presence of natural inclinations and individual abilities of students, and the mark in these subjects evaluates not so much the knowledge and skills of students as the possibility of their personal achievements in the field of physical culture and art." Therefore, it was recommended to switch to the pass/fail system.

The rating system for assessing knowledge in one form or another has existed for a long time. It is used in many Western universities, in educational institutions in the United States, in African countries, where the education systems of the former metropolises have been preserved, as well as in some universities of our country.

The advantages associated with the use of the rating system of knowledge control as a means of successfully mastering various disciplines are obvious, since they can significantly increase the efficiency of both the teacher and the students themselves due to a number of factors.

The maximum possible interest of students in this situation is stimulated in a particular topic of the lesson, and, consequently, in the discipline as a whole.
The learning process covers all students, their behavior is controlled by the teacher and classmates.
The spirit of competition and rivalry, originally inherent in human nature, finds the best way out in a voluntary game form that does not cause a negative repulsive and, most importantly, painful stress reaction.
Elements of creativity and introspection develop, additional reserves of the individual are activated, due to the increased motivation of students, which pave the way for the gradual erasure of rigid distance boundaries between the teacher and students. Students tend to rethink certain concepts, taking into account their own experience.
There is a turn in the thinking and behavior of the student in the direction of a more productive and active search activity.
There is a differentiation of the significance of the marks received by the student for the performance of various types of work (independent, control, "cut", current, etc.), and the current or final assessment reflects the amount of labor invested by the student to a greater extent than his abilities.
There is an opportunity to improve the obtained estimate.

Evaluation of knowledge in points does not cause stress, does not offend. A student being graded is like going up or down stairs. The main purpose of the knowledge rating control system is ranking according to the success of mastering the studied material.

You can offer students tests, in which each task has its own score. And then the class sets a rating for mastering the relevant topic.

However, despite all its advantages, the rating system for assessing knowledge has not received wide application especially at school. There are several reasons for this: the additional burden of registering points and processing them, the lack of didactic material on the application of the system in specific lessons.

1. Determine the list of concepts that students must learn in this topic, and the level of their assimilation.

a) reproductive: this concept the student must reproduce in the form in which it was voiced in the lesson by the teacher, recorded in the textbook, notebook;

b) productive: the student in the lesson must, on the basis of this concept, perform typical exercises, answer questions (that is, understand);

c) partially exploratory - based on the concept, the student not only performs typical exercises, but also transfers this concept to new conditions for solving non-standard tasks;

d) creative: the student discovers new knowledge (concepts) in the course of research, mental or mathematical experiment.

The level of assimilation offered for the most prepared students (as additional tasks) is indicated in brackets. It is also necessary to note the concepts specified in the minimum requirements for the subject. The marked concepts correspond to the mark "satisfactory" on this topic.

2. Determine the list of skills that, in accordance with thematic planning, the student needs to master. Mark the level of assimilation of each of the listed skills, mark the required skills in accordance with the mandatory requirements for the subject.

3. Determine the type of control (oral test or survey, written work, dictation, practical or laboratory work, etc.), as well as the level of complexity of the tasks. For example, the least complex work that requires simple memorization is scored no more than 5 points. Works involving the performance of typical (standard) exercises have a “cost” of 10 points. The control containing elements of creative tasks is estimated at 15 points. Final examinations have a price of 30-50 points (depending on the complexity and size of the topic). Practical work, although considered the most difficult, is estimated at 10 points, as it is performed by students in groups or pairs.

1. One of the mandatory properties of the system is its openness - students must know the "rules of the game": know the "cost" of any activity, understand how you can get points and what you can lose them for, etc. To fulfill this property, students must be cost table available. You can make it in the form of a poster and hang it in the office, you can make printouts of the table for each student.

2. With a tiered approach to assessing knowledge, the same actions performed at different levels are evaluated with a different number of points. For example, points for solving problems of different levels will vary from 3 to 10.

3. "Table of cost" can be changed. So, for example, if the teacher believes that students need to pay more attention to solving problems, points for this activity can be increased. Many students do not know how to correctly format tasks: enter the following line in the score table: “Correct design of the task” - and when setting a mark for tasks, consider completing this action as well. After fixing this skill, it can be excluded from the table.

4. It is necessary to use the stimulating role of additional points:

a) Encourage faster completion of tasks in the lesson. For example, when performing written work, a time coefficient should be applied, that is, the earlier you handed over the work, the more additional points you received;

b) encourage faster completion of the program by individual students. For example, if a student is ready to take a test or write an independent work 5 days ahead of the whole class, you can add 1 point to him for each day;

c) Encourage students to help other students and the teacher. For example, give extra points for explaining or checking a topic, etc.

All these additional points are approximate and may vary depending on the activity of the students: with a lot of activity, the points can be reduced, and vice versa (but changes should be made reasonably and best of all in the new academic year).

For missing lessons without a good reason;

For being late for the lesson;

For late work;

For inaccurate notebook keeping.

1) before any work, the date and its type (home or classroom) must be written;

2) all pages in the notebook must be numbered, have margins;

3) all work must be done carefully.

Creative tasks can be performed in pairs or in a group, but then the points for them must be reduced or divided between students.

Thus, with a rating system for assessing student achievements, it is possible to apply a wide variety of forms and methods of organizing educational and cognitive activities, but the most important thing is to arouse students' interest in the subject and arouse the desire to engage in it in the future.

2) the attitude to homework has changed: the guys began to do their homework with great desire and received high marks for it;

3) in the case of a small number of points for written work, students came to rewrite them after school hours;

4) the progress of students has increased in comparison with the five-point assessment system.

The rating system gives students the right to choose how to advance through the levels of education. With a rating system, the student has the opportunity to fulfill himself to a greater extent, and this contributes to the motivation of learning. Schoolchildren develop such qualities as independence and collectivism.

The position of the teacher in the educational process is also fundamentally changing. First of all, his role is changing. The task of the teacher is to motivate students, manage their educational and cognitive activities and directly advise students. The teacher, as it were, talks with the student, activates him for reasoning, searching, conjecture, encourages, orients him towards success.

4.Weight rating system

When determining the final mark for a quarter or half a year, one cannot be guided by the arithmetic mean. Each assessment has its own"the weight" and expresses indicators various activities students.

If the marks are denoted as A 1, A 2, A 3 etc., then the “weight” of the mark is determined as the product of its numerical expression by the corresponding coefficient. Final grade A total can be calculated using the formula:

Table of coefficients of significance of marks

Forms of control	What is checked	Coefficient
Programmable control	Knowledge	K 1 \u003d 1
Frontal survey	Knowledge	K 2 \u003d 1
Solving quality problems	Knowledge	K 3 \u003d 1
self control	Knowledge	K 4 \u003d 1
mutual control	Knowledge	K 5 \u003d 1
Problem solving	Knowledge, skills	K 6 \u003d 2
Homework	Knowledge, skills	K 7 \u003d 2
Independent work	Knowledge, skills	K 8 \u003d 2
Practical work	Skills	K 9 \u003d 2
Laboratory work	Skills	K 10 \u003d 2
Dictation	Knowledge	K 11 \u003d 2
Test	Knowledge, skills	K 12 \u003d 3
credit work	Knowledge, skills	K 13 \u003d 3
Exam at the end of the study period	Knowledge, skills, skills	K 14 \u003d 4

5. Unmarked assessment

Gradeless learning is a search for a new approach to the assessment system that would overcome the shortcomings of the existing "grading" assessment system.

The ungraded system is already firmly established in elementary school.

The priority goal of education in elementary school is the formation of educational activities as the desire and ability to learn, the development of cognitive interests and readiness for learning in the main link.

One of the goals of gradeless learning is to make student assessment more meaningful, objective, and differentiated. According to psychologists, this will allow the teacher, firstly, not to harm the emotional health of the child and, secondly, to form knowledge and skills more effectively.

The second important goal of non-marking education is to form and develop children's evaluative activity. Making the pedagogical process humane and focused on the personality of the child. This becomes both a condition and a result of cooperation between the teacher and children, reinforces mutual understanding and interaction.

Principles of gradeless learning (G.A. Zuckerman)

1. Student self-assessment must precede teacher assessment. The discrepancy between these two assessments is the subject of a special discussion, in which the objectification of assessment criteria is born.

2. Self-assessment of students should be gradually differentiated. Already in the first grade, the child must learn to see his work as the sum of many skills, each of which has its own evaluation criterion.

3. Only the achievements of students presented by the children themselves for evaluation should be evaluated, based on the rule “add, not subtract”.

5. Students should have the right to independently choose the complexity of controlled tasks, the complexity and volume of homework.

6. Dynamics should be evaluated first of all educational achievement students in relation to themselves.

7. Students should have the right to doubt and ignorance, which is formalized in the classroom and at home in a special way.

Principles of ungraded learning (A.E. Simanovsky)

1. The principle of grading the difficulty of educational material, which implies in the structure of any educational material to provide for the types of tasks that students of any level of training are able to cope with.

2. The principle of freedom of choice by the student of the difficulty of the educational task, the implementation of which allows him to realize his responsibility for the results of educational activities and form an adequate self-esteem. At the same time, some students can achieve significant educational achievements by completing a large number of simple tasks (showing diligence), while others can complete a small number of complex tasks (showing intelligence and creativity).

3. The principle of gradual accumulation of achievements: students with a low rate of learning will be able to feel successful even at the first stages of the formation of learning skills, if the time and forms of educational work to be assessed are not limited.

4. The principle of freedom: at any given time, the student must be able to improve his achievements. To do this, students are offered from time to time to return to the tasks of completed educational topics or to previously assessed skills.

Operation in the mode of ungraded learning requires the presence of certain conditions.

If an educational institution switches to an ungraded system, the following questions should be considered:

1. The ratio of common approaches to assessment between primary and secondary schools.

If the school does not have a unified evaluation system, children will suffer from a sharp drop in the evaluation relationship with teachers.

2. Correlation between the evaluation policy of the school and the family.

Mechanisms for the constant harmonization and coordination of the assessment policy of teachers and parents of the student at all stages of education should be thought out.

Functions of Gradeless Assessment in Primary Education

Health saving -is based on the technology of pedagogical support, which is based on an emotionally friendly background of assessment, cooperation and mutual understanding of all participants in the educational process. Evaluation activities are taught through the personal support of the child.

Psychological -is associated with the development of an adequate self-esteem of the child, which contributes to the successful adaptation and self-realization of the personality of the younger student. In this case, it becomes possible for the student to internally accept the assessment, it begins to help the child learn. The development of adequate self-esteem is possible with meaningful assessment associated with overcoming such problems as fear of punishment, mania of unjust insults, anger, indifference, depression, etc.

Dynamic - is associated with the formation of a holistic concept of evaluation activity, with the assignment of a training effectiveness coefficient, in which the criterion of relative success becomes the basis for evaluation. The idea of students about various models, types and forms of assessment makes it possible to obtain an objective assessment of their own development, since it can be measured in various ways and scales. The assignment of a learning efficiency coefficient implements an individual approach in educationand consists in the fact that today's achievement of the child is evaluated in comparison with what characterized him yesterday.

Implementation of health-saving, psychological and dynamic
cal functions is impossible without the implementationmethodological function
tions.As a central link in the implementation of this function
we consider school administration, methodological and psychologists
services that organize the training of teachers and parents on
all stages of the educational process and act as coordinators of their teachers
logical activity.

When using a gradeless system, it is important to see the growth of each student, his ability to work in the classroom and independently. It is impossible to evaluate the personal qualities of a student: features of memory, perception, attention. It is necessary to clearly define what can be assessed, which competencies.

In mathematics, the following competencies can be assessed:

Ability to perform arithmetic operations;

Ability to write short notes;

Ability to solve a problem;

Ability to draw a diagram;

With the introduction of gradeless education, special work should be done with parents. With the advent of gradeless assessment in school, parents should not give their child their marks at home, but they should see the successes and failures of their child in order to solve them if possible.

Of course, the system for evaluating the educational achievements of younger students should improve the psychological state of children, eliminate anxiety, encourage them to correct their previous result, help the child find himself not only in school, but also in other activities, emphasize the individuality of each child.

6.Portfolio

The portfolio should provide a report on the student's education process, see a picture of significant educational results as a whole, provide tracking of the student's individual progress in a broad educational context, and demonstrate his ability to practically apply the acquired knowledge and skills.

A traditional portfolio is a collection of work that aims to showcase a student's educational achievement. Being essentially an alternative to traditional forms (test, exam) assessment method, the portfolio allows you to solve two problems:

1. Track the individual progress of the student, achieved by him in the process of obtaining education, beyond comparison with the achievements of other students.

2. Evaluate his educational achievements and supplement (replace) the results of testing and other forms of control. In this case, the final document of the portfolio can be considered as an analogue of the certificate (as in the American specialized school).

Portfolio is a modern form of assessment, meets the spirit of specialized education, allows you to solve the following pedagogical tasks:

Encourage the activity and independence of students, expand opportunities for learning and self-learning;

To develop the skills of reflective and evaluative activity of students;

To form the ability to learn - set goals, plan and organize their own learning activities;

To promote the individualization of education for schoolchildren;

To increase the validity of the choice of profile and the effectiveness of its correction.

With regard to the tasks of specialized education, it can be said that the portfolio serves as the basis for making the right choice of profile, an indicator of the student's focus on the chosen direction, his educational activity, readiness to move to the next stages of education and career choice. The portfolio allows for long-term monitoring of individual educational achievements of the student and the development of his sphere of interest at different levels of education.

The portfolio allows you to most fully reflect the methods and results of the student's profiling: it contains information about the subjects and courses taken in the course of profile education, about project and research activities, etc.

Portfolios have many advantages as a form of presentation of student achievement, but there are also disadvantages.

Portfolio Disadvantages

1. There is a problem of mandatory minimum and optional maximum of its corresponding elements.

2. There may be difficulties with the distribution of the "weight" of the assessment among the various elements of the portfolio.

3. A contradiction between the focus of the portfolio on qualitative and quantitative assessment and the requirement of the school administration to “translate everything into a standard quantitative assessment” is not ruled out.

Portfolio Features(T.G. Novikova)

Diagnostic - captures changes and growth over a certain period of time.

Goal setting - supports learning goals.

Motivational - encourages the results of students, teachers and parents.

Developing - ensures the continuity of the learning process from year to year.

Portfolio types (T.G. Novikova)

Portfolio of documents, or working portfolio

Includes a collection of work collected over a specific period of study that demonstrates the student's progress in a particular area of study. This portfolio can contain any materials, including plans, drafts, which show what success the student has achieved in the learning process from the moment he set himself a certain goal until he achieved it. Therefore, both successful and unsuccessful works can be presented in the portfolio.

Process Portfolio

Reflects all phases and stages of learning. Allows you to show the entire learning process as a whole: how the student integrates special knowledge and skills and progresses, mastering certain skills, both at the initial and advanced levels. In addition, this portfolio demonstrates the student's process of reflecting on their own learning experiences and includes self-observation diaries and various forms of self-report and self-assessment.

Illustrative Portfolio

Allows you to best assess the student's achievements in the main subjects of the school curriculum. Can only include best work selected during a joint discussion between the student and the teacher. A mandatory requirement is a complete and comprehensive presentation of the work. As a rule, this portfolio includes a variety of audio and video recordings, photographs, electronic versions of works. Submissions may be accompanied by written comments from the student justifying the choice of submitted work.

During the transition to specialized education in Russia, the following types of portfolios have been developed: a portfolio of documents, a portfolio of works, a portfolio of reviews.

The portfolio assessment procedure is a rather complicated process and requires the involvement of students, teachers, and parents.

Factors that determine the popularity and success of a portfolio in foreign education

1. Portfolio is part of a holistic educational strategy.

2. The portfolio fully gives the student the opportunity for independence and learning initiative.

3. The portfolio is consonant with the idea of "lifelong learning", that is, learning throughout life.

4. Portfolio management is well organized and systematic.

5. The work of schoolchildren with a portfolio is organized and accompanied by both well-functioning teams of specialists and carefully designed training programs and teaching aids.

7.Testing

In pedagogical practice, testing has long been used as an effective procedure for pedagogical certification. Currently, test methods of control are increasingly being introduced into domestic practice.

An analysis of domestic and foreign literature on the problems of pedagogical testing shows that only the pedagogical test that meets the criteria of testing theory, the principles and conditions for organizing pedagogical control can be effective enough.

Traditionally, in testing theory, there are two main requirements for the quality of tests: reliability and validity.

Advantages of the test form:

For a certain, rather limited, period of time, a large amount of various educational material can be tested in a large group of subjects;

High objectivity of the process of measuring and interpreting the results;

It is possible to control at the required, predetermined level; it is allowed to change the degree of difficulty of questions, as answer options are given typical mistakes occurring at this level;

Self-control is possible at a preliminary stage in order to evaluate the results of training;

Obtaining an objective assessment of knowledge, both for the teacher and for the student (with an understanding of their mistakes);

Fixing the attention of students not on the formation of answers, but on comprehending their essence;

The ability to automate the process of checking answers;

The ability to minimize the subjective influence of the teacher on the measurement result; |

Statistical evaluation of the results of control, and hence the learning process itself.

The advantages of test control include the ability to conduct a test at all stages of training (introductory and current, boundary and final control), which allows you to effectively manage the educational process.

However, test control has a number of disadvantages:

Significant time spent on the initial preparation of high-quality control and measuring materials (KIMs);

High probability of choosing an answer at random;

Checking only the final results of actions, difficulty on the part of the teacher, and more often the inability to trace the logic of students' reasoning;

Development of textbooks focused on the test form of control;

A small number of testers in the education system, which slows down the transition to modern testing.

Literature

1. Gladkaya I.V. Evaluation of educational results of schoolchildren.

SPb., 2008

Mathematics 2003, no. 33

3. Novikova T.G., Pinskaya M.A., Trubchenkov A.S., Fedorova E.E. Profile school No. 3, 2005

4. Potashnik M.M. The quality of education: problems and management technology.

M.: Pedagogical Society of Russia, 2002

5. Simanovsky A.E. Gradeless learning: opportunities and ways of implementation.

M.: Balass, 2003

6. Tsukerman G.A. Rating without mark.

M., 1999

Application

Evaluation of students' oral responses

Mark "5" put if the student: 1) fully presents the studied material, gives the correct definition of mathematical concepts;

2) shows understanding of the material, can substantiate his judgments, apply knowledge in practice, give the necessary examples not only from the textbook, but also independently compiled;

3) presents the material consistently and correctly.

Mark "4" it is set if the student gives an answer that meets the same requirements as for the “5” mark, but makes 1-2 mistakes, which he himself corrects, and 1-2 shortcomings not in mathematical content, but in the language of the presentation.

Mark "3" it is put if the student shows knowledge and understanding of the main provisions of this topic, but: 1) presents the material incompletely and makes inaccuracies in the definition of concepts, the formulation of theorems, rules, laws;

2) does not know how to substantiate his judgments in sufficient depth and convincingly and give his own examples;

3) presents the material inconsistently and makes mistakes.

Mark "2" is set if the student shows ignorance of most of the relevant section of the material being studied, makes mistakes in the formulation of definitions, rules, theorems, laws that distort their meaning, randomly and uncertainly presents the material. A score of "2" indicates such shortcomings in the preparation of the student, which are a serious obstacle to the successful mastery of subsequent material.

The mark ("5", "4", "3") can be put not only for a one-time answer

(when a certain time is allotted to check the student’s preparation), but also for dispersed in time, i.e. for the sum of the answers given by the student during the lesson (a lesson score is displayed), provided that during the lesson not only the student's answers were heard, but also his ability to apply knowledge in practice was tested.

Evaluation of the solution of written works

intermediate control

To gross mistakesinclude errors that reveal students' ignorance of formulas, rules, basic properties, theorems and the inability to apply them, ignorance of the methods for solving problems considered in teaching aids, as well as computational errors.

To the non-rude errors include: the loss of a root or the preservation of an extraneous root in the answer, the rejection of one of the roots without explanation, and equivalent computational errors.

To the shortcomings include: insufficiency or lack of explanations, justifications in decisions.

If the same error (the same defect) occurs several times, then this is considered as one error (one defect). Strikethroughs in the work (it is desirable that they be accurate) indicate the search for a solution, which should not be considered a mistake.

Mark "5" is set if the work is completed completely and without errors. The number of shortcomings in such work should not exceed two.

Mark "4"

a) the work is completed completely and does not contain blunders, but contains minor errors or more than two flaws, or minor errors and flaws;

b) all tasks, except for one, are completed without errors, and one task is either not completed or contains errors.

Mark "3" placed in the following cases:

a) completed tasks that correspond to the mandatory level (LS), the mandatory learning outcomes on the topic;

b) an error was made in the task of the OS, but proceeded to the task of the HC.

Mark "2" is set if less than 50% of the tasks of the OS are completed.

Retrieving final scores

For the academic quarter and academic year, the final mark is put. It is unified and reflects in a generalized form all aspects of the student's preparation in mathematics.

The final mark should not be derived mechanically, as an arithmetic mean of the previous marks. However, in order for students to take math classes seriously throughout the school year, their current performance is taken into account when deriving final grades.

When deriving the final mark, priority is given to marks for written control (independent, verification) work. Therefore, the final mark in mathematics cannot be positive if during the quarter (year) the majority control works were rated "2".

Evaluation of the oral survey in mathematics

Oral questioning is one of the ways to test theoretical knowledge in mathematics. The student's answer should be a coherent, logicalsequential message on a given topic.

When evaluating the student's answer, one must be guided by the following criteria, taking into account: the completeness and correctness of the answer; the degree of awareness, understanding of what is being studied; language design

Mark "5" is set if the student:

1) Builds an answer according to his own plan, fully presents the studied material,gives correct definitions.

2) Detects an understanding of the material, can substantiate his judgments, give the necessary examples not only from the textbook, but also independently compiled.

3) Presents the material in a certain logical sequence,mathematical language.

4) Able to apply knowledge in a new situation when performing practical tasks, can establish a connection between the studied and previously studied material in the course of mathematics.

Mark "4" is set if the student's answer satisfies the basicrequirements for answering the mark "5", but

1) Makes one minor mistake or no more than two shortcomings, which he corrects himself or with a little help from the teacher.

2) The answer is given without using your own plan, new examples.

3) The answer is given without the use of links with previously studied material learned in the study of other subjects.

Mark "3" put if the student's answer:
1) Contains a significant error.

2) Not complete, incoherent.
3) Contains gaps in the assimilation of the questions of the mathematics course, not

Interfering with the further assimilation of the material.

4) Able to apply the acquired knowledge in solving the simplest problems, but finds it difficult to solve more complex problems.

5) Made no more than one gross mistake and two shortcomings; no more than one gross and one non-gross error; no more than two - three minor errors; one minor error and three shortcomings; made four or five mistakes.

Mark "2" is set if the student has not mastered the basic knowledge and skills in accordance with the requirements of the program and made more mistakes andshortcomings than necessary for the mark "3".

Evaluation of control work

The control work is used in the frontal current and final control in order to test the knowledge and skills of schoolchildren on a fairly large and fully studied topic of the program. The content of work for a written survey can be organized according to single-level and multi-level options that differ in degree of complexity. The instruction offered to schoolchildren explains to them that each
can choose a job of any complexity. At the same time, for the correct implementation of option A, the student will receive a mark no higher than "3", for option B - no higher than the mark "4", and for option C - a mark of "5". If the student wishes, the teacher can assist in choosing a work option.

Level A - these are the tasks that correspond to the required learning outcomes on the topic. Mistakes of any kind are not allowed.

Level B - these are the exercises of the main educational material of the program. They are covered in the classroom, but are not so simple or important that the ability to perform them becomes mandatory for all students. A student may make minor mistakes, shortcomings.

Level B - this is an increased level, which is determined by an increased requirement for the preparation of a student in mathematics. To solve, you need to be able to apply knowledge in a new environment, with unusual combinations of data, and have good technical skills.

Mark "5" is putfor the correct performance of all tasks with 1 or 2 shortcomings. G

Mark "4" is put,if 1 mistake and 2 shortcomings are made; 3 or 4 flaws.

Mark "3" is put,if half of the tasks are completed.

Mark "2" is put,if significant errors are made showing that the student has not mastered the required learning outcomes.

List of errors.

1. Gross mistakes:

Ignorance of the definitions of basic concepts, laws, rules, basic provisions of the theory, formulas, units of measurement of quantities found in mathematics;

Inability to highlight the main thing in the answer;

Inability to apply knowledge to solve problems;

Errors showing a misunderstanding of the condition of the problem, the rules for writing the solution in mathematical language or a misinterpretation of the solution;

2. Non-gross errors:

Inaccuracies in wording, definitions, concepts, laws, caused by incomplete coverage of the main features of the concept being defined;

Ignorance of methods for solving problems similar to those previously solved in the classroom

3. Disadvantages:

Careless record keeping;

Spelling and punctuation errors.

Mathematics portfolio option

Section 1 "Hello, it's me!"

1.1. "Let's Get Acquainted"

1. Surname, name, patronymic

2.Date of birth

3.Place of birth

4.Address

5. Favorite place where you live now

6. Main character traits

7. Leisure activities

8. TV shows

9. Attitude towards reading, books

10. Music preferences

11. Favorite sport

12. Hobby

13. Classes in circles

1.2. "Math Around Me"

1. Calculation of biopotential by date of birth

2. Calculation of character traits by date of birth (Hindu square)

3. Building a graph of the cycle of life

4. Mathematical discoveries, people, scientists connected by the same place of birth with me

5. Interesting observations, coincidences associated with numbers, figures

1.3. "Why do I need math?"

1. Life plans of the student related to mathematics

2. How did mathematics help in life? - Stories from the life of family and friends

3. Mathematical family tree - the biggest achievements in the field of mathematical knowledge among my family members

Section 2 "My progress in mathematics"

2.1. "I'm in the world of numbers"

Documented individual, educational achievements are placed in this chapter. These include the results of intellectual development, namely:

Annual final marks in mathematics for each year of study;

Average score for control, test, test work for each year of study;

The average score of the certificate of incomplete secondary education;

The average score of the results of state exams for previous years of study;

Additional points for participation in various competitions, scientific and practical conferences, olympiads.

2.2. "Official documents"

Here will be stored a kind of "evidence" of the student about the work done by him, learning, both in school and outside of it:

Diploma of a participant or winner of the Olympiads, both at the school level and above;

Certificates of participation in competitions;

Diplomas;

Thanks.

Section 3 "Mathematical activity"

3.1. "Me and Mathematics"

Materials are invested here about what interested the student in this subject, why he decided to make a portfolio on this subject.

By reviewing this course choice, students will be able to:

To form ideas about the main stages and the most significant events in the development of mathematics;

Increase cognitive interest in the study of mathematics, using active methods and modern technical means learning.

To develop independence, elements of search activity, searching for information on the Internet on a given topic.

To form the skills and abilities of summarizing information, highlighting the main thing in the studied material, building a message, the ability to make assumptions, explain and justify them, put forward problems and reformulate tasks.

3.2. "I'm in math"

This chapter contains works, projects, models created by students in the subject area "mathematics". Considering that the child can additionally engage in this subject and make progress in studying it not only at the school level, or vice versa: he did not have the opportunity to prove himself outside the school walls, it is proposed to break this chapter into parts:

"I am at school";

"I'm in the area";

"I'm in the city".

Design work. The topic of the project is indicated, a description of the work is given. Perhaps an application in the form of photographs, text of the work in printed or electronic form.

Research papers and abstracts. The studied materials, the title of the abstract, the number of pages, illustrations, etc. are indicated.

Technical creativity: models, layouts, devices. Specified concrete work, its brief description is given.

Elective courses and electives. A record is made about the name of the course, its duration, the form in which the classes were held.

Classes in institutions of additional education, in various training courses. The name of the institution or organization, the duration of the classes and their results are indicated.

Participation in olympiads and competitions. The type of event, the time of its holding, the result achieved by the student are indicated.

Participation in scientific conferences, training seminars and camps. The topic of the event, the name of the organization that organized it, and the form of student participation in it are indicated.

Other.

Section 4 "Opinions of others"

The section should contain reviews of competent people:

Reviews for research work or project;

Own assessment of the results achieved in the field of mathematics, their abilities and strength for further study, work.

Grade 9 Algebra. Final examination.

Criteria for evaluating tasks with a detailed answer

1. General approaches to the formation of evaluation criteria.The requirements for completing tasks with a detailed answer are as follows: the solution must be mathematically literate and complete, from which the student's reasoning must be clear. The design of the decision must ensure the fulfillment of the above requirements, but otherwise it can be arbitrary.

If the student's solution satisfies these requirements, then the maximum number of points is given for the task: No. 17 - 2 points, No. 18 and 19 - 4 points, No. 20 and 21 - 6 points. If a typo or error is made in the solution that does not affect the correctness of the overall course of the solution (even with an incorrect answer) and allows, despite its presence, to draw a conclusion about the mastery of the material, then the student is credited with a number of points less than the indicated one by 1.

Below are some general items that are the basis for a one-unit deduction.

Task 17 (2 points).For the decision is exposed 1 point if it does not contain errors, but is not complete, for example, there is no answer to an additional question (if any), factorization or fraction reduction is not completed; or there is one typo / error in the solution that does not fundamentally affect the course of the solution, taking into account it, all further steps were performed correctly, the solution was completed.

Tasks 18 and 19 (4 points).For the decision is exposed 3 points if there are no errors in it, but it is not complete, for example, there is no answer to an additional question (if any); or the course of the solution is correct, the answer is received, but there is a typo or a non-principal error (for example, an error in the calculation), and taking into account it, the further steps are performed correctly, the solution is completed.

Tasks 20 and 21 (6 points).For the decision is exposed 5 points, if the work provides a correct, completed solution, but it lacks explanations that are essentially necessary for the task and are a step in the solution, or the existing explanations contain logical errors; or the solution is "almost correct", i.e. the course of the solution is correct, it has been completed, but there is one non-principal computational error / omission, taking into account it, the further steps were performed correctly.

In the evaluation criteria for each specific task of the second part of the examination paper, given below, these general positions are specified and supplemented taking into account the content of the task. Criteria are developed in relation to one of the possible solutions, namely the one described in the recommendations. If there are other solutions in the works of students, the criteria are developed by the subject committee, taking into account the general approaches described. Students' decisions may contain shortcomings that are not reflected in the criteria, but which, nevertheless, allow assessing the result of the assignment positively (with the removal of one point). In such cases, the decision on how to qualify such a defect is made by the subject committee.

Thesaurus

Thesaurus – a dictionary of commonly used concepts and terms in any branch of knowledge (education)

Grade - expresses the degree of compliance of the results of the student's educational actions with the norms (models) of these actions.

Mark - symbol, external evaluation expression.

Grade - this is an opinion about the quality, dignity of someone.(“ Brief explanatory dictionary”)

Grade - an opinion about the value, level or significance of someone or something(S.I. Ozhegov “ Dictionary")

mark - designation of the assessment of students' knowledge(I.A. Gorodetskaya, T.N. Popovtseva and others.“ Brief explanatory dictionary”)

Formative assessmentis a progressive process that takes place throughout the school year and is designed to improve the system being assessed.

Result is an objective characteristic of the product

Achievement is a subjective experience of the result as a significant positive event

Success - this is the subjective experience of achievement as a significant positive event; represents a subjectively experienced state of joy in a situation where the desired and the achieved coincide.

Self-esteem is the result of constantly comparing what a person observes in himself with what he assumes others see in him. (M.G.Kazakina)

Self-esteem - This is an assessment of oneself, one's achievements and shortcomings. The main meaning of self-assessment lies in the self-control of the student, his self-regulation, self-examination of his own activities. (M.M.Potashnik)

Test - a tool consisting of a statistically verified system of tasks, a standardized procedure for conducting and a pre-designed technology for processing and analyzing results designed to assess the qualities and properties of a person, the change of which is possible as a result of systematic training.

Validity - reasonableness corresponding to reality, suitability

Test- one of the components of the structure of the didactic test, which includes a brief instruction for the subject, a test task, a standard answer

PISA- Program for International Student Assessment - a program of comparative study and assessment of student achievement different countries, an international study carried out by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Portfolio is a purposeful collection of student work that demonstrates their efforts, progress, or accomplishments in one or more areas. The collection should involve students in the selection of its content, the definition of criteria for its selection; should contain criteria for evaluating the portfolio and a certificate of student reflection. (D. Meyer)

Reflection - one of the types of theoretical human activity, aimed at comprehending by him his own actions and signs

Competence - the ability to carry out complex culturally appropriate types of actions based on acquired knowledge and life experience

Skill – automated action devoid of meaningfulness

Intelligence, general intelligence- ability to learn

Creativity - Creative skills

Score - learned unit for assessing the results of a test or task on a specific scale

Diagnostics - precise definition the results of the didactic process;

a field of psychological science that develops methods for identifying and measuring individual psychological characteristics of a person

Control - monitoring the process of mastering knowledge, skills and abilities

Examination - a system of actions and operations to control the assimilation of knowledge, skills and abilities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knowledge assessment system- system for assessing the quality of development educational programs students , the most important element of the educational process .

Currently, there are many scales for assessing knowledge in use around the world. In some scales, it is customary to use numerical designations of categories, and fractional marks are allowed, other scales (for example, in the USA) traditionally deal with letter designations. The American scale also has a numerical interpretation, in which the highest grades A and A + correspond to a score of 5. Letter designations, by the way, are also abbreviations and have their own percentage (used for the rating evaluation system and for maintaining the rank / class of the student and not only), namely:

International knowledge assessment systems

Most countries have a national school grading system in their schools. There are also standard international systems for assessing knowledge.

International Baccalaureate

CIS countries, Russian Empire and USSR

Gradually, the verbal assessment became more monotonous and shorter, it was more often replaced by a digital one, and the direction of the scale was set opposite to the German one.

The tradition of designating the diligence and success of students with numbers was established in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. Then in the gymnasiums the numbers from 0 to 5 were used. Zero showed that the student did not fulfill his duties at all; if he received two zeros in a row, then he was subjected to corporal punishment (until 1864). One and two were put when the student prepared the lesson unsatisfactorily; a three was given for mediocre diligence; four - when the student performed his duties well; five he received only for excellent knowledge of the lesson. The teacher was obliged to give points in the class, characterizing only the knowledge of the lesson given at home, and had no right to take into account the attention or absent-mindedness of the students during the lesson, as well as the temporary or permanent diligence of the student, his age and abilities.

At various times in Russia, 3-, 5-, 8-, 10-, 12-point knowledge assessment systems were used. Of these, a 5-point one took root, which was officially established by the Ministry of Public Education in 1837: "1" - weak successes; "2" - mediocre; "3" - sufficient; "4" - good; "5" - excellent. During the 20th century, the "1" rating gradually fell into disuse, as a result, the 5-point system was transformed into the modern 4-point system. In recent years, in some educational institutions in Russia, the 5-point system is returning (“1” - a point for outstanding work). This system, traditional for Soviet education, is now widely used in Russia and many countries of the post-Soviet space, although in recent years there has been a departure from it:

The Republic of Belarus switched to a 10-point scale;
Ukraine on 12-point;
The Baltics preferred the Anglo-Saxon system (in Estonia, a five-point scale is still used, "1" is an assessment for outstanding work), etc.;
Moldova
Georgia switched to a 10-point scale.
Armenia switched to a 10-point scale.

Kazakhstan

Moldova

In Moldova, a 10-point scale is used, where 5 is the minimum satisfactory score:

10 (excellent)
9 (very good)
8 (good)
6–7 (medium)
5 (satisfactory)
1–4 (unsatisfactory)

Russia

School knowledge assessment system

Since January 11, 1944, a digital five-point system for assessing student progress has been introduced in Russian schools in accordance with the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR No. 18 of January 10, 1944 and the Order of the People's Commissar of Education of the RSFSR No. 24 of January 10, 1944.

In accordance with the instructions of the Department of Primary and Secondary Schools of the People's Commissariat for Education of the RSFSR, approved by the People's Commissar of Education of the RSFSR on February 29, 1944, the following criteria for assessing students were established:

Grade	Description
5	A score of "5" is given when the student exhaustively knows all the program material, understands it perfectly and has firmly mastered it. Gives correct, conscious and confident answers to questions (within the program). In various practical tasks, he is able to independently use the acquired knowledge. In oral answers and written works, he uses literary correct language and does not make mistakes.
4	A score of "4" is given when the student knows all the material required by the program, understands it well and has firmly mastered it. Answers questions (within the program) without difficulty. Able to apply the acquired knowledge in practical tasks. In oral answers, he uses literary language and does not make gross mistakes. Allows only minor errors in written work.
3	A score of "3" is given when the student discovers knowledge of the main program educational material. When applying knowledge in practice, he experiences some difficulties and overcomes them with a little help from the teacher. In oral answers, he makes mistakes in the presentation of the material and in the construction of speech. Makes mistakes in writing.
2	A score of "2" is given in the case when the student reveals ignorance of a large part of the program material, answers, as a rule, only to the leading questions of the teacher uncertainly. In written work, he makes frequent and gross errors.
1	A score of "1" is given in the case when the student reveals complete ignorance of the educational material being passed.

According to the Instructions of the Office of Primary and Secondary Schools of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR, approved by the People's Commissar of Education of the RSFSR on February 29, 1944, when determining quarter and final (at the end of the school year) marks, it is not allowed to derive them as arithmetic averages. These final grades must correspond to the level of knowledge of the student at the time of his certification.

In certificates and certificates, marks of progress are indicated by numerical points and in brackets by the name: 5 (excellent); 4 (good); 3 (satisfactory).

Knowledge assessment system in secondary and higher educational institutions

In universities and colleges of Russia, knowledge assessments were established by Order of the USSR State Committee for Public Education dated June 22, 1990 No. 432 “On Approval of the Regulations on the Forms of Monitoring the Educational Work of Students in Daytime and Evening Departments of Secondary Specialized Educational Institutions”. According to this normative document, the knowledge, skills and abilities of students in all forms of control of educational work, including educational and technological practices, are evaluated in points: 5 (excellent); 4 (good); 3 (satisfactory); 2 (unsatisfactory). Laboratory work, practical exercises and pre-diploma practice are evaluated: "passed", "failed". Educational institutions of culture and arts may use other systems for assessing student progress, agreed with a higher authority.

Ukraine

Ukraine introduced its new grading scale in autumn 2000, which replaced the Soviet grading scale.

The new grading system is practiced on the basis of the previously existing 5-point grading scale, which correlates with the 12-point grading system. Rating "12" is given only for outstanding achievements or for any creative work.

5 (10,11,12) - Full disclosure of the topic or question with examples, as well as the correct semantic construction of the answer.

4 (9,8,7) - A satisfactory answer regarding the question asked.

3 - (6,5,4) Inaccuracy or generalization of the answer to the question. semantic errors.

2 - (3,2,1) Minimum score. There is no answer to the question or it contains gross errors.

Europe

Austria

The 10-point rating scale provided by the Indian Institute of Technology is as follows:

Grading in high school

For grading in high school an average percentage is used. A score above 90 percent is considered excellent; between 70-89 percent - the first level; between 50-69% - the second level, 40-49% are the minimum passing score; however, this terminology and classification is up to the Board of Education.

Indonesia

Write a review on the article "Knowledge assessment system"

Notes

An excerpt characterizing the Knowledge Assessment System

- What? what? Natasha asked.
“This is this, that, this…” said Sonya with a pale face and trembling lips.
Natasha quietly closed the door and went with Sonya to the window, not yet understanding what she was being told.
“Do you remember,” Sonya said with a frightened and solemn face, “remember when I looked for you in the mirror ... In Otradnoye, at Christmas time ... Do you remember what I saw? ..
- Yes Yes! - Natasha said, opening her eyes wide, vaguely remembering that then Sonya said something about Prince Andrei, whom she saw lying.
– Do you remember? Sonya continued. - I saw then and told everyone, both you and Dunyasha. I saw that he was lying on the bed,” she said, making a gesture with her hand with a raised finger at every detail, “and that he closed his eyes, and that he was covered with a pink blanket, and that he folded his hands,” Sonya said, making sure as she described the details she saw now, that these same details she saw then. Then she saw nothing, but said that she saw what came to her mind; but what she thought up then seemed to her just as real as any other memory. What she then said, that he looked back at her and smiled and was covered with something red, she not only remembered, but was firmly convinced that even then she had said and seen that he was covered with a pink, precisely pink blanket, and that his eyes were closed.
“Yes, yes, exactly pink,” said Natasha, who also now seemed to remember what was said in pink, and in this very she saw the main extraordinary and mysteriousness of the prediction.
“But what does that mean? Natasha said thoughtfully.
“Ah, I don’t know how extraordinary all this is! Sonya said, clutching her head.
A few minutes later, Prince Andrei called, and Natasha went in to him; and Sonya, experiencing a feeling of excitement and tenderness rarely experienced by her, remained at the window, pondering the whole unusualness of what had happened.
On this day there was an opportunity to send letters to the army, and the countess wrote a letter to her son.
“Sonya,” said the countess, looking up from her letter as her niece passed her. - Sonya, will you write to Nikolenka? said the countess in a low, trembling voice, and in the look of her tired eyes, peering through glasses, Sonya read everything that the countess meant by these words. This look expressed both prayer, and fear of refusal, and shame at what had to be asked, and readiness for irreconcilable hatred in case of refusal.
Sonya went up to the countess and, kneeling down, kissed her hand.
“I will write, maman,” she said.
Sonya was softened, agitated and touched by everything that happened that day, especially by the mysterious performance of divination that she just saw. Now that she knew that on the occasion of the resumption of relations between Natasha and Prince Andrei, Nikolai could not marry Princess Marya, she gladly felt the return of that mood of self-sacrifice in which she loved and used to live. And with tears in her eyes and with joy in the consciousness of committing a generous deed, she, interrupted several times by tears that clouded her velvety black eyes, wrote that touching letter, the receipt of which so struck Nikolai.

In the guardhouse, where Pierre was taken, the officer and soldiers who took him treated him with hostility, but at the same time respectfully. There was also a sense of doubt in their attitude towards him about who he was (isn't he a very important person), and hostility due to their still fresh personal struggle with him.
But when, on the morning of the next day, the shift came, Pierre felt that for the new guard - for officers and soldiers - he no longer had the meaning that he had for those who took him. And indeed, in this big, fat man in a peasant's caftan, the guards of the other day no longer saw that living person who fought so desperately with the marauder and the escort soldiers and uttered a solemn phrase about saving the child, but they saw only the seventeenth of those held for some reason, according to the order of the higher authorities, taken by the Russians. If there was anything special in Pierre, it was only his timid, concentrated, thoughtful look and the French language, in which, surprisingly for the French, he spoke well. Despite the fact that on the same day Pierre was connected with other suspects taken, since the officer needed a separate room that he occupied.
All the Russians kept with Pierre were people of the lowest rank. And all of them, recognizing the gentleman in Pierre, shunned him, especially since he spoke French. Pierre sadly heard ridicule over himself.
The next day, in the evening, Pierre learned that all these detainees (and, probably, including himself) were to be tried for arson. On the third day, Pierre was taken with others to a house where a French general with a white mustache, two colonels and other Frenchmen with scarves on their hands were sitting. Pierre, along with others, was asked questions about who he is with that allegedly exceeding human weaknesses, accuracy and determination with which defendants are usually treated. where was he? for what purpose? etc.
These questions, leaving aside the essence of life's work and excluding the possibility of disclosing this essence, like all the questions asked at the courts, were aimed only at substituting the groove along which the judges wanted the defendant's answers to flow and lead him to the desired goal, that is, to the accusation. As soon as he began to say something that did not satisfy the purpose of the accusation, they accepted the groove, and the water could flow wherever it wanted. In addition, Pierre experienced the same thing that the defendant experiences in all courts: bewilderment, why did they ask him all these questions. He felt that it was only out of condescension or, as it were, courtesy that this trick of the substituted groove was used. He knew that he was in the power of these people, that only power had brought him here, that only power gave them the right to demand answers to questions, that the only purpose of this meeting was to accuse him. And therefore, since there was power and there was a desire to accuse, there was no need for the trick of questions and trial. It was obvious that all answers had to lead to guilt. When asked what he was doing when they took him, Pierre answered with some tragedy that he was carrying a child to his parents, qu "il avait sauve des flammes [whom he saved from the flame]. - Why did he fight with a marauder? Pierre answered, that he defended a woman, that the protection of an offended woman is the duty of every man, that... He was stopped: it did not go to the point. Why was he in the yard of the house on fire, where witnesses saw him? He answered that he was going to see what was being done in Moscow. They stopped him again: they did not ask him where he was going, but why he was near the fire? Who is he? They repeated the first question to which he said that he did not want to answer. Again he answered that he could not say this .
- Write it down, it's not good. Very bad, - the general with a white mustache and a red, ruddy face said sternly to him.
On the fourth day, fires began on Zubovsky Val.
Pierre was taken with thirteen others to the Crimean Ford, to the carriage house of the merchant's house. Walking through the streets, Pierre was choking on the smoke that seemed to be rising over the whole city. Fires were visible from all sides. Pierre did not yet understand the meaning of the burned Moscow and looked at these fires with horror.
Pierre stayed in the carriage house of a house near the Crimean Ford for another four days, and during these days, from the conversation of the French soldiers, he learned that everyone contained here was expecting the decision of the marshal every day. What marshal, Pierre could not learn from the soldiers. For a soldier, obviously, the marshal seemed to be the highest and somewhat mysterious link in power.
These first days, until September 8, the day on which the prisoners were taken for a second interrogation, were the most difficult for Pierre.

X
On September 8, a very important officer entered the barn to the prisoners, judging by the respectfulness with which he was treated by the guards. This officer, probably a staff officer, with a list in his hands, made a roll call to all Russians, calling Pierre: celui qui n "avoue pas son nom [the one who does not speak his name]. And, indifferently and lazily looking at all the prisoners, he ordered the guard it is proper for the officer to properly dress and tidy them up before taking them to the marshal. An hour later a company of soldiers arrived, and Pierre and thirteen others were taken to the Maiden's Field. The day was clear, sunny after the rain, and the air was unusually clean. The smoke did not creep down, as in the day when Pierre was taken out of the guardhouse of the Zubovsky shaft; smoke rose in pillars into clean air. The fire of fires was nowhere to be seen, but columns of smoke rose from all sides, and all of Moscow, all that Pierre could see, was one conflagration. Wastelands with stoves and chimneys and the occasional burnt walls of stone houses could be seen from all sides. Pierre looked at the conflagrations and did not recognize the familiar quarters of the city. In some places, the surviving churches were visible. The Kremlin, undestroyed, was white from afar with its towers and Ivan the Great. Nearby, the dome of the Novo Devichy Convent shone merrily, and the bells and whistles were heard especially loudly from there. This Blagovest reminded Pierre that it was Sunday and the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin. But it seemed that there was no one to celebrate this holiday: the ruin of the conflagration was everywhere, and from the Russian people there were only occasionally ragged, frightened people who hid at the sight of the French.
Obviously, the Russian nest was ruined and destroyed; but behind the destruction of this Russian order of life, Pierre unconsciously felt that his own, completely different, but firm French order had been established over this ruined nest. He felt it from the look of those, cheerfully and cheerfully, marching in regular rows of soldiers who were escorting him with other criminals; he felt it from the look of some important French official in a twin carriage, driven by a soldier, who rode towards him. He felt this from the cheerful sounds of regimental music coming from the left side of the field, and he especially felt and understood this from the list that the French officer, who had arrived this morning, called to the prisoners. Pierre was taken by some soldiers, taken to one place, to another with dozens of other people; it seemed they could forget about him, mix him up with the others. But no: his answers given during interrogation returned to him in the form of his name: celui qui n "avoue pas son nom. And under this name, which was terrible for Pierre, he was now led somewhere, with undoubted confidence, written on their faces that all the other prisoners and he were the very ones who were needed, and that they were being led where they were needed.Pierre felt like an insignificant chip that had fallen into the wheels of an unknown to him, but correctly operating machine.
Pierre and other criminals were led to the right side of Maiden's Field, not far from the monastery, to a large white house with a huge garden. It was the house of Prince Shcherbatov, in which Pierre often used to visit the owner and in which now, as he learned from the conversation of the soldiers, the marshal, Duke of Ekmul, was standing.
They were brought to the porch and one by one they began to enter the house. Pierre was brought in sixth. Through a glass gallery, a vestibule, a front hall familiar to Pierre, he was led into a long, low office, at the door of which an adjutant stood.
Davout sat at the end of the room, above the table, his glasses on his nose. Pierre came close to him. Davout, without raising his eyes, seemed to be coping with some paper lying in front of him. Without raising his eyes, he quietly asked:
Qui etes vous? [Who are you?]
Pierre was silent because he was unable to utter words. Davout for Pierre was not just a French general; for Pierre Davout was a man known for his cruelty. Looking at the cold face of Davout, who, like a strict teacher, agreed to have patience and wait for an answer for the time being, Pierre felt that every second of delay could cost him his life; but he didn't know what to say. He did not dare to say the same thing that he had said at the first interrogation; to reveal one's rank and position was both dangerous and shameful. Pierre was silent. But before Pierre had time to decide on anything, Davout raised his head, raised his spectacles to his forehead, narrowed his eyes and looked intently at Pierre.
“I know this man,” he said in a measured, cold voice, obviously calculated to frighten Pierre. The cold that had previously run down Pierre's back seized his head like a vise.
– Mon general, vous ne pouvez pas me connaitre, je ne vous ai jamais vu… [You couldn't know me, general, I never saw you.]
- C "est un espion russe, [This is a Russian spy]," Davout interrupted him, referring to another general who was in the room and whom Pierre did not notice. And Davout turned away. With an unexpected boom in his voice, Pierre suddenly spoke quickly.
“Non, Monseigneur,” he said, suddenly remembering that Davout was a duke. - Non, Monseigneur, vous n "avez pas pu me connaitre. Je suis un officier militionnaire et je n" ai pas quitte Moscou. [No, Your Highness… No, Your Highness, you couldn't have known me. I am a police officer and I have not left Moscow.]
– Votre nom? [Your name?] repeated Davout.
- Besouhof. [Bezukhov.]
- Qu "est ce qui me prouvera que vous ne mentez pas? [Who will prove to me that you are not lying?]
- Monseigneur! [Your Highness!] Pierre cried out not offended, but in an imploring voice.
Davout raised his eyes and looked intently at Pierre. For a few seconds they looked at each other, and this look saved Pierre. In this view, in addition to all the conditions of war and judgment, a human relationship was established between these two people. Both of them in that one minute vaguely felt countless things and realized that they were both children of humanity, that they were brothers.
At first glance, for Davout, who only raised his head from his list, where human affairs and life were called numbers, Pierre was only a circumstance; and, without taking the bad deed into his conscience, Davout would have shot him; but now he saw him as a man. He thought for a moment.
– Comment me prouverez vous la verite de ce que vous me dites? [How will you prove to me the justice of your words?] – said Davout coldly.
Pierre remembered Rambal and named his regiment, and his last name, and the street on which the house was.
- Vous n "etes pas ce que vous dites, [You are not what you say.] - Davout said again.
Pierre, in a trembling, broken voice, began to give evidence of the validity of his testimony.
But at that moment the adjutant entered and reported something to Davout.
Davout suddenly beamed at the news given by the adjutant, and began to button up. He apparently completely forgot about Pierre.
When the adjutant reminded him of the prisoner, he, frowning, nodded in the direction of Pierre and told him to be led. But where he was to be led - Pierre did not know: back to the booth or to the prepared place of execution, which, passing through the Maiden's Field, was shown to him by his comrades.
He turned his head and saw that the adjutant was asking something again.
– Oui, sans doute! [Yes, of course!] - said Davout, but Pierre did not know what "yes" was.
Pierre did not remember how, how long he walked and where. He, in a state of complete senselessness and stupefaction, not seeing anything around him, moved his legs along with others until everyone stopped, and he stopped. One thought for all this time was in the head of Pierre. It was the thought of who, who, finally, sentenced him to death. These were not the same people who interrogated him in the commission: none of them wanted and, obviously, could not do this. It was not Davout who looked at him so humanly. Another minute, and Davout would have understood what they were doing badly, but this minute was prevented by the adjutant who entered. And this adjutant, obviously, did not want anything bad, but he might not have entered. Who, finally, executed, killed, took away his life - Pierre with all his memories, aspirations, hopes, thoughts? Who did it? And Pierre felt that it was nobody.
It was an order, a warehouse of circumstances.
Some kind of order was killing him - Pierre, depriving him of his life, of everything, destroying him.

From the house of Prince Shcherbatov, the prisoners were led straight down the Maiden Field, to the left of the Maiden Monastery, and led to the garden, on which stood a pillar. Behind the post was a large pit with freshly dug earth, and a large crowd of people stood in a semicircle around the pit and the post. The crowd consisted of a small number of Russians and a large number of Napoleonic troops out of order: Germans, Italians and French in heterogeneous uniforms. To the right and left of the pillar stood fronts of French troops in blue uniforms with red epaulettes, boots and shakos.
The criminals were placed in a certain order, which was on the list (Pierre was the sixth), and brought to the post. Several drums suddenly struck from both sides, and Pierre felt that with this sound, a part of his soul seemed to be torn off. He lost the ability to think and reason. He could only see and hear. And he had only one desire - the desire that something terrible be done as soon as possible, which had to be done. Pierre looked back at his comrades and examined them.
Two people from the edge were shaved guards. One is tall, thin; the other is black, furry, muscular, with a flattened nose. The third was a courtyard, about forty-five years old, with graying hair and a full, well-fed body. The fourth was a peasant, very handsome, with a bushy blond beard and black eyes. The fifth was a factory worker, yellow, thin fellow, eighteen years old, in a dressing gown.
Pierre heard that the French were discussing how to shoot - one at a time or two at a time? “Two,” the senior officer answered coldly and calmly. There was a movement in the ranks of the soldiers, and it was noticeable that everyone was in a hurry - and they were in a hurry not in the way they are in a hurry to do a task understandable to everyone, but in the same way as they are in a hurry to complete a necessary, but unpleasant and incomprehensible task.
A French official in a scarf approached the right side of the line of criminals and read the verdict in Russian and French.
Then two pairs of Frenchmen approached the criminals and, at the direction of the officer, took two guards who were standing on the edge. The watchmen, going up to the post, stopped and, while they brought the bags, silently looked around them, as a downed animal looks at a suitable hunter. One kept crossing himself, the other scratched his back and made a movement like a smile with his lips. The soldiers, hurrying with their hands, began to blindfold them, put on bags and tie them to a post.
Twelve men of shooters with rifles stepped out from behind the ranks with measured, firm steps and stopped eight paces from the post. Pierre turned away so as not to see what was to come. Suddenly there was a crash and a roar, which seemed to Pierre louder than the most terrible thunderclaps, and he looked around. There was smoke, and the French, with pale faces and trembling hands, were doing something by the pit. They took the other two. In the same way, with the same eyes, these two looked at everyone, in vain, with the same eyes, silently, asking for protection and, apparently, not understanding and not believing what would happen. They could not believe, because they alone knew what their life was like for them, and therefore did not understand and did not believe that it could be taken away.
Pierre wanted not to look and turned away again; but again, as if a terrible explosion struck his hearing, and together with these sounds he saw smoke, someone's blood, and the pale, frightened faces of the French, again doing something at the post, pushing each other with trembling hands. Pierre, breathing heavily, looked around him, as if asking: what is this? The same question was in all the looks that met Pierre's.
On all the faces of Russians, on the faces of French soldiers, officers, all without exception, he read the same fear, horror and struggle that were in his heart. “But who is doing this after all? They all suffer just like me. Who? Who?” - for a second flashed in Pierre's soul.
– Tirailleurs du 86 me, en avant! [Arrows of the 86th, forward!] Someone shouted. They took the fifth, who was standing next to Pierre, - one. Pierre did not understand that he was saved, that he and all the others were brought here only to be present at the execution. He looked at what was being done with ever-increasing horror, feeling neither joy nor calm. The fifth was a factory worker in a dressing gown. As soon as they touched him, he jumped back in horror and grabbed Pierre (Pierre shuddered and pulled away from him). The factory worker could not go. They dragged him under the armpits, and he shouted something. When they brought him to the post, he suddenly fell silent. He seemed to suddenly understand something. Either he realized that it was useless to shout, or that it was impossible for people to kill him, but he stood at the post, waiting for the bandage along with the others and, like a wounded animal, looking around him with shining eyes.
Pierre could no longer take it upon himself to turn away and close his eyes. The curiosity and excitement of him and the whole crowd at this fifth murder reached the highest degree. Like the others, this fifth one seemed calm: he wrapped his robe and scratched one bare foot against the other.
When they began to blindfold him, he straightened the very knot on the back of his head, which cut him; then, when they leaned him against a bloodied post, he fell back, and, as he was uncomfortable in this position, he recovered and, putting his legs straight, leaned calmly. Pierre did not take his eyes off him, not missing the slightest movement.
A command must have been heard; after the command, shots of eight guns must have been heard. But Pierre, no matter how much he tried to remember later, did not hear the slightest sound from the shots. He only saw how, for some reason, the factory worker suddenly sank down on the ropes, how blood appeared in two places, and how the very ropes, due to the weight of the hanging body, unraveled and the factory worker, unnaturally lowering his head and twisting his leg, sat down. Pierre ran up to the post. Nobody held him back. Frightened, pale people were doing something around the factory. An old, mustachioed Frenchman's jaw shook as he untied the ropes. The body went down. The soldiers awkwardly and hurriedly dragged him behind a post and began to push him into the pit.
Everyone, apparently, undoubtedly knew that they were criminals who needed to cover up the traces of their crime as soon as possible.
Pierre looked into the pit and saw that the factory worker was lying there with his knees up, close to his head, one shoulder higher than the other. And this shoulder convulsively, evenly fell and rose. But already shovels of earth were falling all over the body. One of the soldiers angrily, viciously and painfully shouted at Pierre to return. But Pierre did not understand him and stood at the post, and no one drove him away.
When the pit was already filled up, a command was heard. Pierre was taken to his place, and the French troops, standing in fronts on both sides of the pillar, made a half-turn and began to walk past the pillar with measured steps. Twenty-four men of riflemen with unloaded rifles, standing in the middle of the circle, ran up to their places, while the companies passed by them.
Pierre was now looking with meaningless eyes at these shooters, who ran out of the circle in pairs. All but one joined the companies. A young soldier with a deadly pale face, in a shako that fell back, having lowered his gun, was still standing opposite the pit in the place from which he fired. He staggered like a drunk, taking a few steps forward and then back to support his falling body. An old soldier, a non-commissioned officer, ran out of the ranks and, grabbing a young soldier by the shoulder, dragged him into the company. The crowd of Russians and French began to disperse. Everyone walked in silence, with their heads bowed.
- Ca leur apprendra a incendier, [This will teach them to set fire.] - said one of the French. Pierre looked back at the speaker and saw that he was a soldier who wanted to console himself with something in what had been done, but could not. Without finishing what he started, he waved his hand and walked away.

After the execution, Pierre was separated from the other defendants and left alone in a small, ruined and filthy church.
Before evening, the guard non-commissioned officer with two soldiers entered the church and announced to Pierre that he was forgiven and was now entering the barracks of prisoners of war. Not understanding what they told him, Pierre got up and went with the soldiers. He was led to the booths built at the top of the field from burnt boards, logs and hews and entered into one of them. In the darkness about twenty different people surrounded Pierre. Pierre looked at them, not understanding who these people were, why they were and what they wanted from him. He heard the words that were spoken to him, but did not draw any conclusion or application from them: he did not understand their meaning. He himself answered what was asked of him, but did not understand who was listening to him and how his answers would be understood. He looked at faces and figures, and they all seemed equally meaningless to him.
From the moment Pierre saw this terrible murder committed by people who did not want to do this, it was as if in his soul that spring was suddenly pulled out, on which everything was supported and seemed to be alive, and everything fell into a heap of senseless rubbish. In him, although he did not realize himself, faith was destroyed in the improvement of the world, and in the human, and in his soul, and in God. This state was experienced by Pierre before, but never with such force as now. Before, when such doubts were found on Pierre, these doubts had their source of guilt. And in the very depths of his soul, Pierre then felt that from that despair and those doubts there was salvation in himself. But now he felt that it was not his fault that the world had collapsed in his eyes and only meaningless ruins remained. He felt that it was not in his power to return to faith in life.
Around him in the darkness stood people: it is true that something interested them very much in him. They told him something, asked about something, then they took him somewhere, and he finally found himself in the corner of the booth next to some people who were talking from different sides, laughing.
“And now, my brothers ... the same prince who (with a special emphasis on the word which) ...” said a voice in the opposite corner of the booth.
Silently and motionlessly sitting against the wall on the straw, Pierre first opened and then closed his eyes. But as soon as he closed his eyes, he saw before him the same terrible, especially terrible in its simplicity, the face of a factory worker and the faces of unwitting murderers, even more terrible in their anxiety. And he opened his eyes again and stared senselessly in the darkness around him.
Sitting next to him, bent over, was a small man, whose presence Pierre noticed at first by the strong smell of sweat that separated from him with his every movement. This man was doing something in the dark with his legs, and, despite the fact that Pierre did not see his face, he felt that this man was constantly looking at him. Looking closely in the darkness, Pierre realized that this man was taking off his shoes. And the way he did it interested Pierre.
Unwinding the twine with which one leg was tied, he carefully folded the twine and immediately set to work on the other leg, looking at Pierre. While one hand was hanging the string, the other was already beginning to unwind the other leg. Thus, in neat, round, argumentative movements that followed one another without slowing down, the man took off his shoes and hung his shoes on pegs driven in above his heads, took out a knife, cut something, folded the knife, put it under the head of the head and, having sat down better, hugged his raised knees with both hands and stared directly at Pierre. Pierre felt something pleasant, soothing and round in these disputed movements, in this well-organized household in the corner, in the smell of even this man, and he, without taking his eyes off, looked at him.

Assessment problems include two aspects: the creation of assessment standards and the verification of the individual's compliance with these standards.

Performers are people who work using their individual abilities. There are no general standards by which to evaluate their performance. Of course, only a description of their work cannot satisfy. After all, they show only what each performer should be able to do, but a certain indicator of the conditions under which the work is done well is needed. In a number of large organizations, they begin to do this in detail, that is, they carry out a detailed analysis of the problem of how the department should function if each performer does his job well. But it still considers abstractions, and this corresponds exactly to conditions that are beyond the control of the individual worker.

Assuming 10% more output to be produced, wouldn't it be possible to pass the responsibility on to the manager for the shortage of materials that prevents the increase in output? But even if you create standards, how can you work on their basis? Is it possible to evaluate the innovations of the manager of the research unit or line manager, or the effectiveness of the work of the dean of a higher educational institution in ensuring student achievement?

In a conventional assessment, by using a special survey methodology, first of all, the manager's opinion about the individual business and personal qualities of employees is revealed, and only then about their real production impact. In order to correctly assess the qualifications of an employee and the incentives for this return, the survey must be objective. This requires two types of participation in the evaluation process: one from the assessor and the other from the assessee. The first one requires the most objective assessment, i.e. when analyzing the work of subordinates, it is necessary to exclude their own emotions. Their personality, clothing, or hairstyle should not influence the decision. It is required to evaluate the effectiveness of the work as a whole, regardless of the particulars. At the same time, the survey should be conducted honestly, its goal is organizational benefit, and not the desire to ask an insidious question or remove someone from their position.

From the second participant in the survey, a certain courage is required - the ability to do a job well, even if the manager does not approve of it. Courage also requires the presence of such a property in a person as refusing to try to adapt to the requirements of the analyzer in order to get a good mark. To address this issue of objectivity, an organization can use an appeals system. This gives a person the right to ask the evaluator why this or that mark was given and to respond to what he considers to be an incorrect assessment, appealing against it in the prescribed legal manner.

Both intentional and accidental deviations cannot be eliminated completely. That is why the evaluation process will never be absolutely reliable. No system can completely insulate a manager from errors or inaccuracies in judgment or from having to make complex, difficult decisions instead of simple ones. But the rating system can be improved to reduce the likelihood of an undesirable result. It should be aimed at an objective analysis of the activity of the employee from the standpoint of a specific specific case: achieving a goal or failure on this path, and not at developing a universal methodology for achieving a result with an indefinite criterion. It should also be such that the people managing the training processes are honest and fair in their assessments and understand the nature of the assessment system being applied. The evaluator must be required to know the business and personal qualities of his subordinates as completely and in detail as possible and to understand how these qualities affect their production returns.

Without an appropriate appraisal framework, the appraisal and relocation systems in place will not be viable. This concept should be aimed at strengthening the organization. Creating an organizational climate in which evaluations are reliable and effective and serve as a sound basis for personnel changes takes time and patience.

There are two opposing types of organizational climate: one is focused on the goals of the company, and the other - on personal authority. The authority-oriented manager is largely dependent on orders from above, on company policy, and seeks to make others dependent on him. Goal orientation, on the contrary, implies that the manager uses orders and restrictions imposed by various organizational circumstances as a focus in which the problems of his own improvement are concentrated. The informal approach is a key element of relationships, communications and business dealings among employees at all levels. It is clear that this state of affairs is conducive to the development of effective methods of evaluation and results-based promotion.

Thus, an important task for the HR professional is to determine whether the organizational climate of the company allows for the evaluation plans, policies and procedures that he would like to implement. He should investigate the problems of evaluation in relation to the entire performance environment, including such an area of activity related to evaluation as counseling and training of persons who then have to evaluate workers.

Evaluation occurs whether or not the formal system prevails. Many primary types of evaluation arise as a result of long-term relationships between the leader and his subordinates. But periodic formal evaluations increase the likelihood of achieving principles such as fairness, accuracy, and completeness. They help bridge differences in the habits and behaviors of managers involved in evaluation processes and establish a consistent evaluation flow throughout the company. Two main types of scoring systems are widely used:

assessment of an employee according to his character traits, personal qualities, the main characteristics of his behavior at work;

assessment of the results of work and the degree of achievement of the goals set by the employee.

Both approaches involve a two-stage process: the first stage is the receipt of assessment materials and their analysis, and the second stage is the review of the results with subordinates.

The approach to the employee, which is based on the assessment of his character traits, arose first in the history of management. It has led to the development of several kinds of qualification systems and illustrative rating scales. Such scales became widespread in the 1920s and early 1930s. Performance appraisals are much newer and have been used in the last 20 years. These two main approaches are inseparable. Focusing on performance ultimately requires an assessment of a combination of business and personal characteristics of employees. Focusing on the personal traits of the employed creates the need to assess the volume, quality and timeliness of the work performed by him.

Let us consider three main methods of assessment, which differ from each other in technique and procedures: ranking scales, graphical scales, which are considered in detail in mathematical statistics, and forced selective assessment.

Rank scales of assessment. The main idea of this method is to sequentially rank individuals from the best to the worst, or vice versa, according to one or more characteristics at the same time. The rank method is simple and at the same time really correlates with the corresponding everyday complex assessment. However, it is difficult to use this method in large groups, since rank differences do not show absolute or comparable differences in the abilities of individuals. In addition, it is highly subjective, allowing only very significant differences to be taken into account.

A variation on ranking systems designed to be used with larger groups is called the pairwise comparison method. According to this approach, it is easier to decide which of the two workers is better than to place relative to each other in

according to their qualities a large number of employees. In the pairwise comparison method, the specialist compares each employee in the group with everyone else, and the final rating of each of them is determined by the number of times when he was rated better than others. While this makes the evaluation methodologically easier, there is more work to be done. For example, for a group of 50 people. 1,225 separate pairwise comparisons need to be made.

The rank principle of evaluation began to be used in the economy before the First World War. Its variation is the scale of comparison of man with man. The person-to-person comparison system implies that the specialist develops his own scale, placing good, average and bad subordinates from the group at various points on it, based on comparing these people with a certain specific person located in the middle of the scale. Scales can be developed according to various business personality traits. The difficulty in using this system is that the evaluators did not form the scales with sufficient care, thus creating obstacles to obtaining reliable results. From the presence of these difficulties, the need arose for the development of graphic evaluation scales.

Graphical rating scales. The main idea of the graphic evaluation scale is to provide a specialist with a certain continuum characterizing the levels of development of individual personal characteristics. For a trait such as willingness to cooperate, which managers like to see in their subordinates, the scale can be built in degrees: from a high degree of desire for cooperation to a very weak or even lack of this trait entirely. This means that the scale correlates the relative preference of certain workers with the presence of the necessary features in accordance with the degree of their presence. In addition, the evaluator can reasonably reliably assess the degree to which a particular trait is present in his subordinates, evaluating their behavior at work.

In recent years, discontinuous and inverted scales, numerical significance rating systems, and other more precise ways of characterizing individual traits of an employee and their significance have been introduced. The ranking forms provide a separate scale for each feature that the firm considers important. In constant scales, the levels of each character trait are divided into equal intervals inherent in each individual scale. In discontinuous scales, these levels are delimited into unequal segments and differ from each other in accordance with the purpose of these scales. In inverted scales, positive results will be deposited in some cases on the left side of the scale, and in others on the opposite end.

Thus, changes in the model help to minimize the tendency of the results to the center of the scale and other distortions that force the researcher to be more attentive to each particular scale. Digital systems for weighting the value of a trait were developed to help assessors in determining the degree of significance of each personality trait, to create the possibility of comparing digital sets with each other and forming profile curves (professiograms). Ultimately, psychologists tried to make the search for the set of traits inherent in each scale as specific as possible, and to increase the accuracy with which the levels of presence of each such trait are graduated on the scales. When using rating systems using rating scales, among the main recommendations are:

performing hierarchical assessments at specific intervals of time, necessary for evaluators to know and study each specific person they are evaluating;

carrying out the necessary control over assessments, the development of specific classifiers used in the assessment process, the training of personnel for this work and the use of specific scales and terms, the fulfillment of obligations on the part of specialists conducting the assessment;

Communicating the results of the assessment to those being assessed so that deficiencies noted can be corrected.

Forced qualifying evaluation. Such evaluation methods were developed by psychologists during World War II and were subsequently widely used in economics. The method was developed with the aim of reducing possible errors resulting from either leniency or excessive rigor.

The forced selection method combines a rating system with a points system. The evaluator has a questionnaire in which the answer to each item is a set of four suggestions. The evaluator selects two of the four assumptions, one of which he feels is the most characteristic and the other the least characteristic of the person he is evaluating. Two of the guesses appear to be favorable and two to be unfavorable, but only one of each pair is scored. The evaluator does not know which question in each of the two pairs will be relevant, thereby reducing the likelihood of bias and subjectivity. The 15 to 50 questions included in this questionnaire make up a typical survey form.

An examination of the degree of reliability of the forced screening method shows that although there is ample evidence in favor of this method, the initial

the assertion that it has a fundamentally higher validity than the previously described assessment on scales is not supported by experiment.

Evaluation using systems based on characteristic personalnostalgic features. Another common method is assessment using systems based on characteristic personality traits. New approaches developed by specialists have eliminated most of the complexities associated with the use of rating scales, so that a well-designed system, accepted by both those who use it and those who act on the data obtained from it, can provide acceptable results. . However, systems focused on personality traits, including ranking scales, have low popularity and scope. The main reasons for this are:

lack of illusions associated with overcoming the technical and semantic difficulties associated with them;

failures in the training of line specialists using these assessment systems;

pressure from above so that these assessment methods are not accepted for use;

4) low statistical validity. Experts testify that the performer does not like,

when it is evaluated according to a system based on typical characteristics, especially in cases where the evaluation is based more on what managers think about the employees than on the results of the labor activity of the latter.

The practice of using individual performance appraisals has developed these sentiments, as performers now prefer to be paid for actual performance rather than what their employees might think of them. They reject the existence of favorites and prefer evaluation based on a reasonably clear or quantifiable system of performance comparison.

Evaluation of employees based on the results of work. Doubts about the ability to measure personality traits and correlate them with the quantity and quality of work performed have led to an increase in the importance of the method of evaluating employees based on the results of their work. Rank scales are used as an auxiliary means of a unified assessment system. Performance-oriented methods are based on the manager's observations of the performance of subordinates, measured in terms of achieving specific predetermined goals, taking into account the actions of subordinates, their positions and organizational behavior in general, considered from this angle. Conclusions are based rather on observations and substantiations of one or another type of behavior.

employee’s opinion than on the manager’s opinion about his subordinate as a person.

While there are countless variations on this situation, the six main elements of this approach are common to most types of performance appraisal.

The manager and each subordinate jointly plan production tasks and the responsibility of the employee for them. This analysis focuses on the key responsibilities and critical elements of the work, based on its expected results.

The subordinate prepares preliminary considerations on his goals and objectives for a six-month or one-year period. He reviews with the manager all the points of this plan, and they jointly agree on all the main points.

Both confirm the need for the support of the performer by the manager and the role of the latter as the person evaluating the work upon its completion.

At the end of the period, the boss evaluates the work performed by the subordinate, using pre-agreed goals as standards for this.

Feedback is generated through an interview in which the manager discusses the results of the work and his assessment with subordinates and again clarifies the goals in order to jointly approve them again for the next period. As a result, a cyclic evaluation system is established.

This system removes the emphasis on the assessment of personality traits and personal characteristics and focuses the manager's attention on the results of the work performed.

We can say that performance-based evaluation arose from the forces that shaped the popular management philosophy known today as controlaccording to circumstances, or results management. Results-oriented evaluation methods are more of a manager's lifestyle than just a technical tool. If a management style that is in harmony with a circumstance-based approach prevails, results-based evaluation serves to improve upon previous management practices. But such a system may not work if its participants, managers and executors, do this work poorly. Their most important and most difficult task is to establish feedback during interviews and develop permanent, worker-supported connections with each subordinate.

It is recommended that targets be set in the following three main areas: accountability for individual operations, complexity of work, and relationships with other employees. Thus, goals are not synonymous with responsibility. Slave-

Companies are encouraged to analyze in terms that can be calculated: in terms of prices, company-wide objectives, and not to consider only their specific narrow task. The evaluation process involves self-examination by both parties: both the manager and the subordinate. Both sides are developing a set of measures necessary to better fulfill their tasks and further develop their goals.

Results-based evaluations are thus very dynamic and time-consuming compared to those used in the past. The training of evaluators includes training in the ability to create feedback during the interview process, methods of conducting it and related business recommendations, techniques for observing and drawing conclusions from interviews on the nature of work performance.

Emphasis on the development of effective relationships between the leader and subordinates is stimulated by the development of a methodology for researching personal qualities, perceptions and rating procedures. It can be said with all obviousness that, especially in uncertain situations, the personal characteristics of the evaluator significantly predetermine the results of the assessment. With his support or lack thereof, good or bad attitude towards the subordinate, desire to help him, he creates the conditions under the influence of which the assessment is carried out. But many executives are unaware of factors that reduce the validity of their ratings, and that ratings differ significantly depending on who conducts them.

Result-oriented assessments have the great advantage that they require the manager to first consider the elements of the content of the work, which is within his competence, as well as job duties, and only then - the personality traits of the employee. As a result, the assessed employee sees better what steps need to be taken to correct the situation, because at the same time he does not need to rebuild his internal psychology in order to better match the manager's ideal. Managers are more willing to propose changes in the content of work and rather act practically than try to "play God", striving to change the internal personality traits of subordinates. Maybe the latter have problems stemming from their personality traits, but voluntary and conscious changes in personality traits work better than those imposed from above, which cause resistance, hostility and a defensive position in some of the subordinates.

Let us briefly characterize a number of additional evaluation concepts. Although none of them has achieved widespread acceptance, they are interesting as innovations from a number of firms.

Evaluations of the boss by subordinates. Such an assessment is used in a number of firms. For example, each boss gets a report showing how people rated him and how other bosses were rated as a group as a whole. The main objective of this assessment method is the self-development of leaders. He is the only person who sees how appreciated he is. As a result, the manager can and should try to change the nature of his behavior. The score report is anonymous. The evaluation form used covers personality traits, the degree of achievement of tasks, management technology and general comments on the work. The disadvantages include a certain likelihood of interpersonal conflicts in the team based on the results of the assessment.

Self-esteem. From time to time there are methods of evaluation based on the principle of employee self-improvement. Some of these methods include the completion of special questionnaires that serve as personal records of an employee's successes and failures in completing tasks. Other systems rely on more formal arrangements, including preparation for systematic self-assessments.

The critical elements in self-esteem are the individual's ability and willingness to identify and acknowledge their own weaknesses and to identify actions that lead to improvement in the situation. The first experiments in this area found that such a desire, as a rule, exists, but it may not always be realized. Psychological studies of individuals' ability to self-esteem provide little support for the view that self-esteem is better than that of superiors. Comparing the assessments of department heads and self-assessments, experts found that the latter are more lenient, which naturally raises doubts about the value of this approach.

A common problem with self-assessments is their adequacy. Due to psychophysiological reasons, many individuals do not know and do not try to recognize themselves, are not capable of adequate introspection, as a result of which self-esteem is often overestimated or underestimated. It is also important that, due to negative life experiences, people try not to advertise their shortcomings or negative information about themselves, rightly believing that in most cases this will be used against them.

Assessments from equals in status. The peer or "colleague" rating came from research during World War II. It is based on the sociometric concept, according to which each member of the group evaluates all other members of the group. He usually evaluates them according to certain traits and characteristics. Grades can be converted into points, and the total points

correlated with the criterion or itself used as the criterion against which the evaluation is carried out. Relative methods are sometimes used, in which some members of a group rank others, or select members of a group that they believe rank high or low for each trait being assessed. This scoring method relies heavily on the ability to identify the traits and characteristics to be assessed and on the training of the evaluators. Poor quality rating can cause failure and difficulties in all assessment methods.

Evaluation for critical situations. This method implies that the heads of departments analyze all non-standard incidents or cases in the work practice of a subordinate, which are decisive for success or failure. Various means are used to identify what is decisive. Both favorable and unfavorable events are recorded. The accumulated records are periodically analyzed and based on them, in order to achieve feedback, conversations are held, designed to inform the subordinate about the shortcomings and direct his energy to eliminate them. Only facts are recorded, not reviews or opinions, and this registration is not used as a basis for reward or punishment.

The Critical Case Appraisal method has the disadvantages that it increases the amount of paperwork and assumes a "black box" approach to management. Identifying critical factors is no easier than setting standards for any other system, but probably no more difficult. This system among subordinates is unpopular.

Group grades. Group assessments involve a team meeting where opinions are exchanged and discussed, the results of which are initiated by the boss. Forms and methods are usually not developed in advance. The immediate supervisor involves three or four people who know the person being assessed, or those with whom he has contact when doing work. Sometimes the self-assessed is offered to invite candidates to the assessment group. The meeting is led by a chief who acts as chairman. The meeting is recorded to take into account all comments. During the discussion, only those points of view with which everyone agrees are taken into account. As a result, they make an assessment.

This method is simple and requires less preparation than other assessment methods. However, group discussion techniques are not always so easy to stick to unconditionally, especially when interpersonal tensions

relationship can affect the discussion. The chairman must learn not to put pressure on the speakers. This method is time consuming as it involves many evaluators. It requires some experience to make the discussions effective with little time investment. An informal conversation contributes to the normal start of this kind of group meeting. However, such an approach can be fraught with various complications: resentment for bringing personal traits to public discussion, settling scores, and so on.

There is also a variation of the group assessment method, when a survey of the head of the unit, persons of the same official status and his subordinates is conducted using identical assessment forms - a total of 5 - 6 people. Then the results are brought together, and the extreme estimates are discarded. Each analyzed quality is evaluated either on a rating scale or in points. This approach has been very successful in practice.

Panel research technology. The method includes formal appraisal procedures conducted by a human resources representative. This method relies heavily on interviews. An HR representative goes to different departments of the firm to talk to each boss about his employees. He makes detailed notes and analyzes the data obtained, and reports the conclusions to the manager.

The technique of panel studies is not widely used. Divisional managers tend to resent what they call corporate service interference in their affairs. Some companies have tried to obtain in this way additional assessments of the abilities and personal qualities of managers and an assessment of the quality of management of the unit by the members of the team. Skilled interviewers have the distinct advantage of being able to get executives to confirm or refute their assessments, relying more on facts than personal opinions.

9.3. Evaluation strategy

In order to ensure the effectiveness of evaluation programs, it is necessary to adequately address a number of problems:

staff coverage;

frequency of assessments;

responsibility for the quality of assessments;

use of evaluation results.

Coverage. Most companies strive to ensure that all their employees are covered by a systematic assessment.

Obviously, the problem is different for different groups of workers, such as engineers, specialists, department heads or hourly paid workers. The problems also differ by the levels of management of the organization. Thus, a company may conduct not one, but several assessment methods that correspond to different groups at different levels of management. Typically, different valuation methods are substantially compatible with each other in their valuation methodology and philosophy. If a single evaluation program cannot be created in the firm, evaluation systems are developed for each division, provided that it is homogeneous in composition.

The need for an initial experiment at the highest levels of the company's management, if possible, is obvious. The lower levels of the organization will respond better if they are not forced to first put forward their unit to check the quality of work in a way imposed from above. Moreover, in this way top management gets first-hand generalized experience of the functioning of the system, on which it is possible to improve performance at all levels.

Frequency of assessments. The recommended maximum interval between official assessments is 1 year. A longer interval encourages the postponement of organizational and technical measures to correct the identified deficiencies and reduces the significance of the assessment in the eyes of employees.

The six-month interval eliminates the long period between assessments, but increases managerial responsibility for taking action. It requires a lot of labor and time and is more expensive. An interval of 6 months can make managers use the procedures mechanically, they will be offended by the fact that they are assigned to conduct an assessment as out of the ordinary work. In some companies, the six-month period falls within the first 2 or 3 years of operation, after which the interval may be extended.

It is important that managers understand that formal evaluation characterizes only one aspect of the analysis of an individual's behavior in an organization. Evaluation in itself does not build or destroy the basis of relationships, but rather reflects their nature. However, without a periodically conducted systematic assessment, without the presence of a coherent methodology for its implementation, the results become superficial and unreliable.

Responsibility for the quality of the assessment. Everything that has been said before implies that each manager should be responsible for the assessment he conducts. The implementation of the assessment cannot be transferred to anyone else, since the requirements of its technology include continuous observation and analysis of the work of a subordinate and an in-depth understanding of him as a person.

and as an employee. Only the immediate superior is adequately aware of the results of the work of the subordinate. The opinion is expressed that the authority and the connections it causes between the boss and subordinates interfere with the objectivity of the assessment and prevent the receipt of reliable results. It is recommended to consider the problem of transferring the process of assessing a subordinate outside the sphere where the burden of management operates by making the necessary structural changes in organizations. An alternative solution could be in-house teams or specialized assessment teams. Another option could be to create a system of evaluation by colleagues of equal rank who carry out this operation. These proposals are quite logical, but so far little has been implemented.

A firm strategy should be developed that recognizes that one of the main areas of managerial responsibility is the development of people, and one of the key elements in such development is the process of their assessment.

Use of evaluation results. An essential element of successful evaluation systems is the use of evaluation results. First of all, assessments are used to assess employees for their suitability for their position (certification options: corresponds, does not correspond, is suitable for promotion). Surprisingly, organizations often do not use the full and even appropriate extent of the information obtained during the assessment.

There are various ways in which managers can apply the results in practice. The use of the results should include:

determination of the need and directions for the development of the available performance qualities and abilities of the employee;

assessing the extent to which the employee uses his potential and deciding whether it is appropriate to increase the individual;

regulation of the size and form of his wages;

assistance in resolving the issue of his official movements;

dismissal or issuance of a final opinion on the official career of an employee.

The first two points are the most common. The primary use of evaluation results is aimed at developing the current, related to the current work, business qualities of employees. This setting of goals shows that the quality of the results depends on both the immediate superior and the subordinate. However, some managers do not like to communicate the results of their assessments to subordinates, believing that the latter already automatically know their own.

place in the organization. Others follow all the formal requirements of the official program, reporting results to their employees, but do not conduct discussion, analysis, preventing questions or doubts. Professionally savvy bosses, however, use the results of evaluations to help subordinates improve their performance. This requires special training and the necessary knowledge in the field of providing feedback technology and the ability to provide professional advice.

Using evaluation results to select candidates for promotion is less reliable than using them to improve the process of achieving the goals already set by the employee. Potential is a rather unpredictable factor. Therefore, the company needs as much carefully collected and analyzed information as it can get. But the assessment does not give any guarantee of the future successful performance of the work of an individual, especially if the work activity of an employee who can be presented for promotion will have significantly different requirements from the work that he currently performs. Other factors not taken into account by the evaluation methodology can also significantly affect its chances of success in the new environment.

Nevertheless, most managers, when discussing a candidate for promotion, tend to build their opinion on the basis of consideration of the evaluation results obtained earlier. However, to collect information about the opportunities for promotion of an employee, a slightly different methodology is required than for its current assessment.

An important strategic issue in the use of grades relates to wages and, specifically, wage increases. Most firms prefer to separate the valuation process from decision making. wages for several months, justifying this by the fact that if both processes are clearly interconnected or if they coincide in time of implementation, dissatisfaction with the chosen option for wage decisions or evaluation results can paralyze the process of correcting identified personal shortcomings. This approach tends to shift the focus of the performer away from improving personal performance to increasing cash income. Linking pay decisions to performance appraisals provides the manager with a powerful toolkit in addition to other sources of his power. Finally, the need for evaluations arises the more often the firm is more inclined to regulate the wages of employees.

Estimates provide useful additional information for decisions on the suspension of activities, demotion.

the employee's relocation or dismissal, although such information is usually not a decisive element in deciding whether to leave the employee in office or transfer him to another place.

The development of individual abilities and the precise identification of sources of potential for promotion serve well in those organizations where systematic and periodic evaluations of employees are carried out. They are especially useful at a time when it is necessary to justify changes that have already taken place. They can also be used in the selection of candidates for opening vacancies, to encourage self-development and to successfully guide the career development process.

test questions

What is the difference between appraisal and performance appraisal?

Where can the results of job and worker evaluation be used?

What is the difference between evaluation forms aimed at the current evaluation of an employee and the selection of candidates for promotion?

What evaluation methods would be acceptable to you?

We recommend reading

In War Thunder, a large-scale update "Storm

Description: War Thunder is a next generation military MMO game dedicated to...

Titan Siege - boring hardcore

"Titan Siege" is a large-scale online game on the theme of Scandinavian and ancient Greek...

The Tempest in War Thunder, new vehicles, graphics, effects and music

Being an avid lover of German tank looks, I spent a lot of time...

The traditional system of knowledge assessment. "the system of assessment of students in a modern school"

five point system

ten point system

Twelve point system

Twenty point system

100 point system

Letter system

This form of expression of knowledge assessment was chosen in the USA. "Grades" here range from A to F:

Mixed grading system

International knowledge assessment systems

International Baccalaureate

Russian Empire, USSR, Russia and CIS countries

Europe

Austria

Kazakhstan

British Columbia

Newfoundland and Labrador

Average score in the labor market

Notes

International knowledge assessment systems

International Baccalaureate

CIS countries, Russian Empire and USSR

Kazakhstan

Moldova

Russia

School knowledge assessment system

Knowledge assessment system in secondary and higher educational institutions

Ukraine

Europe

Austria

Grading in high school

Indonesia

Write a review on the article "Knowledge assessment system"

Notes

An excerpt characterizing the Knowledge Assessment System

We recommend reading

Site search