Teacher's value judgments. Organizational and pedagogical foundations for the formation of teacher’s value judgments when using multi-point scales Elena Grigorievna Chernenko. Value judgment is the basis of the teacher’s control and evaluation function

The words “excellent student,” “good student,” and “low student” are some of the definitions that a child learns about himself in the first ten years of life, almost immediately after his name and hair color.

Grades are a criterion that applies to us for 11 long school years, and then another five years at the university. Why - and is this criterion really necessary? Today we are trying to figure out the issue with the help of a teacher from the Association of Tutors.

Historical value

The five-point system, currently in force in most domestic schools, did not appear yesterday. As we remember from textbook history, Pushkin had a “zero” in mathematics at the Lyceum. This “zero” should not be underestimated: for two such circles in a row, a gymnasium student received very real corporal punishment (this tradition continued until 1864).

The grade - from zero to five points - was given by the teacher based on how well the student knew the lesson assigned for homework; the teacher could not take into account “accidents” such as the student’s attention or absent-mindedness during class. To get an “excellent”, you had to really know the given task thoroughly, but to get a “B” you had to really try hard.

We find an eloquent description of the power of such a system in the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education” for 1861. The article “A few words about school grades” contains a conversation between an observer and a history teacher.

“How do you do,” I asked him at the end of the lesson, to maintain order and silence in such a large class, in which you barely have time to deal with twenty students? - The remedy is very simple: the fear of getting a bad grade, the severity of punishments and the impartial distribution of zeros and fives will explain this miracle to you. No one can blame me for giving someone a wrong score. (This was clearly said at my expense). This is what guides me when ruling classes, and would even be able to rule the world if it were entrusted to me.”

Today, despite the fact that this system has outlived the USSR, not everyone is ready to agree with such a view.

But how to judge?

It is quite difficult to imagine a school that does not give grades - even the very thought of it seems strange. But where do we have confidence about their necessity?

“Of course, grades are a necessary attribute,” says a biology teacher, a graduate of the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. “They allow the student to soberly assess his knowledge of the subject.”

This position is quite understandable, but questions immediately arise, one after another.

• How can you assess a student's physical education knowledge? Music? Drawing?
• Is it possible to count on the fact that the assessment given by the teacher is objective - and on its basis to draw conclusions about one’s own knowledge?
• Finally, is knowledge assessment always the main indicator of academic success?

Of course, an assessment on the part of a teacher will never be devoid of subjectivity, and one must obviously come to terms with this “error” of the system. However, this assessment mechanism has a number of other features.

Need a point!

The five-point scale, which migrated to us from the distant 19th century, is a rather strange device. Three of the possible five grades are obviously negative: being a “C” student is shameful, you should strive for at least a “Four”, and it’s better to know everything with “A” grades.

But the difference between a student, for example, who was completely unprepared for a test, and one who wrote it with a large number of errors, is enormous - much greater than between an “excellent student” and a “good student,” who are separated by one single mistake; meanwhile, the first will receive two points, and the second, at best, three.

At the same time, the desire for the coveted “five” is a fundamentally vicious desire. Not in the sense, of course, that there is malicious intent in it, no. The point is different: the thirst for a good grade gives rise to false motivation.

But with what ruler should we approach the assessment of academic performance, say, in literature? According to MHC? Does different essay writing ability indicate how someone feels? artistic text deeper, and someone more superficial? And even if we assume that this is so, can we evaluate (on that same scale from one to five) how a child perceives a work of art?

The same applies to MHC. Of course, memorizing the names of masterpieces of world culture is useful exercise for memory, however, it is unlikely that such a forced exercise will contribute to the development of personality and interest in art. But the main requirement - the highest score - will certainly be met.

Ask me how

One of the most common opinions in favor of grades in school is that the student needs it, he is interested in knowing what he is like. Indeed, during the period of personality formation, we actively collect information about ourselves received from others, we learn something about our character, abilities, etc.

But is it true that school grades are a reliable form? feedback? After all, by and large, the only thing that a grade reflects is the student’s level of compliance with the teacher’s criteria (note that this includes both charm and charisma). Many important indicators remain outside this field.

• Degree psychological adaptation student to current classroom conditions;
• His interest in a particular subject;
• The way what is being studied is included in his picture of the world;
• The teacher’s ability to captivate the subject.

And much more. It would be strange to evaluate these indicators, wouldn’t it? But can we deny that they are just as important (if not more important) than the student’s formal compliance with a number of requirements, the first of which is the ability to adapt to the prevailing system of once inherited criteria?

The eternal “why”

Social psychologist Liliya Brainis, in an article dedicated to her experience of working at school, reflects on the need to give grades that she encountered:

“The learning process becomes more like a cross-country marathon, where the main thing is to run the distance at all costs, cutting corners, hitchhiking and pushing aside opponents. The only difference: you can participate in the marathon if you wish, but attending school is mandatory for everyone. The problem with school racing is that it does not involve the desire to look around and just enjoy the process. But the student simply doesn’t have enough time to think about why he is running.”

Unfortunately, parents often contribute to strengthening the habit of “working for grades,” which is involuntarily instilled in children at school. The value of learning in itself, as a process in which it is interesting to be (both for the student and the teacher), as an exploration of the world, as a continuing enthusiastic discovery, gives in to the fear of receiving bad rating- that is, formally, does not fit into the series of frames drawn by the school curriculum.

Ken Robinson, a famous British educator, writes in his book “A Calling”:

“Current school delivery systems place serious limitations on how teachers teach and students learn. The educational system is increasingly pushing teachers towards universal teaching methods. Such approaches to education are holding back the development of some of the most important abilities that young people today need to find their place in the ever-higher demands and faster paced world of the twenty-first century. This is the ability to think creatively. Our education systems place a high value on knowing the one correct answer to a question.”

Perhaps, in order for this paradigm to change even a little, we can start with the smallest thing - asking the question of what exactly an adult wants when he demands from a child that he begins to get higher grades.

Introduction

Currently, the number of street children and children who do not regularly attend school is increasing; the relationship between students and teachers at school is disrupted. The school is dominated by traditional teaching methods that have developed over a number of decades. The traditional methodology includes a five-point rating system, which determines the level of knowledge, skills and abilities of the student.

In the letter of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation “On the organization of education in the first grade of a four-year elementary school” dated September 25, 2000. It is written that “in the first grade of a four-year primary school, the point (grade) assessment system is excluded. It is also unacceptable to use any iconic symbols that replace a digital mark (stars, airplanes, suns, etc.). Only verbal explanatory assessment is allowed. In addition, if a student gives an incorrect answer, you cannot say “I didn’t think”, “I didn’t try”, it is better to make do with the remarks “this is your opinion”, “let’s listen to others”, etc.” In the Law of the Russian Federation “On Education” of 1999. in article 15 " General requirements to the organization of the educational process" in paragraph 6 it is stated that "discipline in an educational institution is maintained on the basis of respect for the human dignity of students. The use of physical and mental violence against students and pupils is not permitted.” The letter “On the organization of training...” states that “the following are not subject to assessment: the pace of the student’s work; personal qualities of schoolchildren, originality mental processes" This is written down in the documents of the Russian Federation, but in practice, already in the first quarter of 1st grade, symbols are placed that replace marks (clouds, flags, faces, etc.), and in some schools a digital mark appears already in the second quarter of 1st grade. This leads to disruption of the child’s mental balance, disorders, and neuroses; conflict behavior in the “teacher-student” sphere.

It is also important that at school such concepts as “grade” and “grade” are used interchangeably, often replacing “grade” with the word “grade.” This lack of discrimination is observed not only among teachers. So, in student diaries, in the column where grades are given, there is a heading “grade”.

Thus, these two concepts are initially identified for students and their parents. But there is no mark in any type of activity, except for school, and assessment is inherent in any human activity.

The problem of the study is to study the influence of grades and assessments on the child, and how, in accordance with it, the teacher needs to evaluate the work of students and give them grades.

The purpose of the study is to identify how marks and assessments affect a child’s personality, his relationships with others, and how a teacher needs to evaluate students’ work.

Hypothesis: the reaction of a primary school student to an evaluative situation is characterized by undifferentiation and generates increased psychological tension; defining evaluation and marking criteria, familiarizing students with them, and emotional support from the teacher significantly reduce the level of psychological tension.

Research objectives:

1. Show the deep roots of the evaluation system.

2. Identify options for the evaluation system on the part of the teacher (styles appraisal activities).

3. Identify options for children’s perception of the teacher’s evaluative activities.

4. Determine the conditions for organizing the assessment situation.

The object of the study is the teacher's assessment activity; The subject of the study is the perception of assessment activities by junior schoolchildren.

Research methods:

1. Student survey

a) an open questionnaire for students in grades 2-3;

b) the method of unfinished sentences for students in grades 2-3.

2. Questioning parents (method of unfinished sentences).

Chapter 1. Psychological essence of a teacher’s evaluative activity

Psychological essence of assessment activity.

Human evaluative activity is complex and contradictory; it has long attracted researchers. At the beginning of the 20th century. Kurt Lewin noted the existence in a person’s evaluative act of an “objective scale of values” and “subjective evaluative activity.” He suggested that between them “there may be connections, but at times they may be completely at odds with each other.” (quoted from 2.P.155)

V.N. Myasishchev defines evaluative activity as the result of a person’s internal comparison of his actions and actions with the “models” contained in public assessments of social processes, i.e. given from outside. (2.P.155)

Subjective evaluation criteria are determined by the needs, aspirations of the individual, the person’s mood, i.e. a person's internal position. Objective evaluation criteria are determined by the psychological atmosphere, communication style, position and worldview of the team, i.e. external factors independent of a person. From the child’s perspective, any objective assessment of the teacher will be subjective; An adequate assessment occurs when subjective criteria are correlated with objective ones. From the teacher’s position, an objective assessment will be an assessment without bias, without the teacher’s attitude towards the student as “good” or “bad”, and a subjective assessment will be an assessment taking into account all the characteristics of the student, his attitude to learning, and the teacher’s attitude towards the student.

When they talk about control and evaluation activities, they primarily mean the activities of the teacher. A teacher’s assessment activity is a special kind of activity that includes control, verification, evaluation and the final result - a mark directed by the teacher to the student in order to determine the student’s level of knowledge and influence him positively. Depending on the personal qualities the teacher, on the direction of his activity, on the style and manner of teaching the subject, each teacher has his own forms of control, evaluation criteria and grades.

In specialized literature, in pedagogy and didactics courses, and in school practice, concepts that are important for understanding the essence of learning assessment, such as “accounting,” “control,” “checking,” “evaluation,” “marking,” have not yet been fully revealed and understood. . Often these concepts are identified with each other and applied without first revealing their essence; This is especially true for the concepts of “assessment” and “marking”. In the current domestic education system, “grade” and “mark” are interpreted, as a rule, as identical terms, with the caveat that “grade” appears in the form of marks (points), but the reasoning does not go beyond this clause about marks and grades. Distinguishing the essence of the concepts of “assessment” and “mark” is very important for a deeper consideration of the psychological, didactic, educational and pedagogical aspects of the assessment side of traditional education.

According to F.V. Kostylev, “evaluation” “in any activity is always an expression of the relationship between the level of what has been achieved and what should be done (to the ideal, model, template). It lies in the very essence of human behavior and all its activities.” This is how self-regulation, self-government based on self-esteem arises. (4.P. 83)

Sh.A. Amonashvili, points out that “assessment is a process, activity (or action) of assessment carried out by a person”; “a mark is the result of this process, this activity (or action), their conditionally formal reflection.” (1.С.17). According to Amonashvili, testing and assessing the knowledge, skills and abilities of students “is understood as identifying and comparing the result at a particular stage of learning educational activities with the requirements specified by the program. The test establishes whether the educational task was completed correctly, whether there are any deviations in the formation of ideas and concepts, what is the level and quality of skills. The accuracy and completeness of the assessment determine the rationality of movement towards the goal. ZUNs should be assessed for the sole purpose of identifying ways to improve, deepen, and clarify them for the active inclusion of schoolchildren in multilateral labor and creative activities aimed at understanding and transforming reality.” (1.С.20). However, it is not difficult to see the subtext of the assessment system of learning, which is to encourage and force students to learn. This “evaluative function reaches its peak in marking.” (1.С.20). The teacher uses assessment using grades not only to determine the level of students’ progress in mastering knowledge and to orient their quality, but also to maintain discipline and influence students. Based on the analysis of the level of knowledge and skills of each individual student discovered by the test, the teacher can assess this level in the form of verbal judgments and marks.” Based on this, the teacher gives the necessary advice and instructions to the student and shows his attitude towards his personality and educational efforts. (1.С.18). Sh.A. Amonashvili believes that “the likening of an assessment and a mark is tantamount to identifying the process of solving a problem with its result. Based on the assessment, a mark may appear as its formal logical result.” (1.С.17).

The 1964 edition of the “Pedagogical Encyclopedia” states: “Assessment of schoolchildren’s performance is expressed in points, as well as in the teacher’s value judgments” (p. 243), and the concepts of “assessment” and “mark” are considered here as synonyms.

E.I. Perovsky, like Sh.A. Amonashvili, is against identifying the concepts of “assessment” and “mark”. He believes that “marks, or points, are one of the forms of expressing attitudes, i.e. assessments." (cited from 4.P.54).

N.F. Talyzina in her works does not differentiate between the concepts of “assessment” and “mark”; she uses only the term “assessment”. (6.P.152).

The history of the development of marks dates back centuries, and the system of control and verification dates back millennia. Instead of marks and along with them, corporal punishment was used, but there were also systems that did not involve marks and punishments, but the development of the child’s personality, enriching him with solid knowledge, skills and abilities.

In ancient China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, among the Slavs and other peoples, education was structured as follows: rich parents hired a teacher who taught one child, i.e. individual or tutoring sessions. This form was considered optimal, became widespread and has survived to this day. Children of ordinary and poor people studied in schools where education was based on the fear of physical punishment for poor performance and bad behavior.

PEDAGOGICAL AND AGE PSYCHOLOGY

TEACHER’S EVALUATION ACTIVITY AND FORMATION OF STUDENT’S SELF-ESTEEM

N. YU. MAKSIMOVA

It is well known that in our country the party constantly takes care of the younger generation, on whose shoulders in the coming decades will fall responsibility for the fate of society. “The task of party organizations, the Komsomol,” says the Resolution of the June (1983) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, “is to pay unremitting attention to all social groups and age categories of youth..., fully take into account their characteristics. Fill life Komsomol organizations great social content."

It is especially important to carry out this work with teenagers, whose behavior and educational activities often do not meet social requirements due to their insufficient assimilation of positive social experience. Sometimes their demonstrative devaluation of generally accepted values ​​acts as a defense mechanism for an individual who experiences great difficulties in communicating with others. The teacher often mistakenly views this behavior of adolescents only as unreasonable resistance to his efforts aimed at developing moral standards and behavioral skills. As a result of this, he may allow pedagogically unjustified actions that aggravate this resistance, which initially appeared as a result of the student’s personal characteristics. Many researchers note that the occurrence of deviations in the behavior of adolescents is associated with the development of their inadequate self-esteem (, , , etc.). Consequently, overcoming a child’s inadequate self-esteem can help remove adolescents’ resistance to pedagogical influence. As shown in the works of A.I. Lipkina, this can be achieved by including a teenager in specially organized socially useful activities, as well as pedagogically sound assessments of his knowledge and behavior by the teacher.

Reflecting the child’s level of knowledge of educational material, such assessments are at the same time a measure of the social value of the student’s activities and the basis for forming his own assessment of his educational activities as socially significant work.

Pedagogical practice shows that some teachers do not always realize the role of their evaluative judgments in the formation of adolescents’ self-esteem - one of the most important means of influencing personal development, therefore, improving the teacher’s evaluative activity and studying its mechanisms is one of the reserves for increasing the effectiveness of educational work and increasing the social activity of young people. citizens.

Teacher assessment activities are usually carried out in the form of marks in a journal and in verbal form. There is a significant difference between these two forms of assessment. The grade that the teacher puts in the journal is official document. Therefore, the teacher puts it on the basis of specially developed criteria and requirements of society. Society places only general, fundamental requirements on the teacher’s verbal value judgments that are not controlled by strict indicators - they must meet the humanistic tendencies of the people.

education, promote student development. Therefore, a verbal assessment is no less responsible for a teacher than an assessment in a magazine. It allows the teacher to take into account the current situation, emphasize the diligence of students who find it difficult to study, and, conversely, express condemnation of the capable but lazy ones.

As a rule, a teenager’s self-assessment of his educational activities is focused on the grades given in the journal, since they are the basis for social control and sanctions. However, verbal assessment can play a dominant role in the formation of a student’s self-esteem if the teacher knows how to use it correctly. This is also due to the fact that it is more labile, emotionally charged, and therefore more accessible to the mind and heart of a teenager.

The purpose of our study was to study the dependence of the formation of a student’s self-esteem on the teacher’s evaluative activity. In this regard, it was necessary to reveal the mechanism of influence of the teacher’s evaluative activity on the teenager’s self-esteem, to establish how aware the teacher is of his evaluative influences, how targeted and effective they are.

The research methodology was designed so that it was possible to compare the actually existing evaluative relationships between teachers and students and the idea of ​​these relationships between teachers and students. The subjective opinion of teachers about their assessment activities was checked through the use of a series of questionnaires and during conversations with the teacher, where the issues of interest to us were indirectly clarified. An objective study of the teacher's assessment activities was carried out through observation. Students' opinions about the teacher's evaluative activities were clarified during an experimental conversation (etc.) and using an encrypted questionnaire so that the teenagers would not guess who they were evaluating.

As a parameter for studying the personal characteristics of the subjects in this study, their self-esteem was considered, which was determined by using a number of special techniques (self-esteem and mutual assessment of personality traits that are significant for adolescents, studying the level of a student’s aspirations depending on the results of his activities, sociometric measurements, analysis of independent characteristics). The study was conducted in a number of schools in Kyiv; it involved 296 students and 65 teachers.

Analysis of the data obtained showed that, on the one hand, teachers do not always attach importance to the evaluative component in their relationships with students. Thus, 56% of teachers in grades VI and VII believe that students always agree with their verbal assessments and the marks they put in the journal; therefore, these teachers never analyze their value judgments and do not try to look for reasons for pedagogical failures in this direction. When characterizing the difficulties in raising teenagers, most teachers cite their students’ personal characteristics or shortcomings as the reason for their students’ negative behavior. family education. Only 16% of teachers note that the negative qualities of adolescents were formed due to incorrect pedagogical influences during the educational process.

On the other hand, as our research has shown (and others), the inadequacy of a teenager’s attitude towards himself is explained by insufficient attention to his difficulties on the part of the teacher. At the same time, among the students in the classes studied there were a significant number of children whose difficulty in educational work was due to the inadequacy of their self-esteem. It turned out that children sometimes disagree with the assessments and comments of teachers. Almost each of them named the names of two or three teachers, with whose assessments all the kids in the class usually disagreed. Among the teachers who, in the opinion of the students, were unfair were those who were confident that the students agreed with their opinions and assessments.

The specificity of the pedagogical process is such that the teacher usually does not know how the student perceived his assessment. Good socially by adolescence

an adapted student already knows quite clearly what can and cannot be said to the teacher. Thus, most teenagers believe that they should not defend their opinion in case of disagreement with the teacher’s assessment. It is therefore no coincidence that when asked: “What do you usually do if your student does not agree with your assessment of his behavior or performance?” - 25% of teachers responded that there are no such situations in their practice, 16% of teachers prefer simply not to react to such statements from students, and 35% of teachers begin to convince the student of the illegality of his statements. Only 6% of teachers noted that in such cases they first check their point of view, then clarify the student’s position, give them the opportunity to defend their opinion, or convince them of a mistake.

By giving the student the opportunity to defend his opinion and tactfully guiding the child’s reasoning, the teacher thereby helps him form his own evaluative activity, develop the ability to analyze the teacher’s evaluative judgments (and therefore, form his own self-esteem). Observations give reason to believe that this way of working as a teacher is very effective not only for educating teenagers (corrects their behavior, prevents the development of arrogance, high self-esteem or, conversely, self-doubt, a feeling of inferiority), but also for the development of his own professional qualities , such as respect for the child, patience, pedagogical tact, empathy. Conversations with teachers showed that many of them (62%) do not think about the causal relationship between their assessment activities and the formation of students’ self-esteem and therefore, apparently, do not try to master the skill of influencing students through verbal assessment. For example, out of 30 beginning teachers, 13 practically did not use this technique.

It is known that the best teachers allow some discrepancy between the verbal assessment and the mark that is given in the magazine. If a lagging student begins to devote more time to completing educational tasks and shows diligence, then an experienced teacher increases verbal grades, despite the fact that the grades still remain mediocre. This increases the teenager’s interest in learning and at the same time gives him confidence in his abilities. However, the constant discrepancy between the two types of assessments causes contradictory trends in the development of adolescents’ self-esteem and generates distrust in the teacher.

In school practice, there are also cases of discrepancies between teachers’ ideas about the personal qualities of students and their actual characteristics. This is explained by the fact that the teacher’s idea of ​​students, which has developed over a fairly long period of communication, changes more slowly than the personal qualities of the same students develop. Positive changes go unnoticed. Errors of this kind are further aggravated by the fact that the parents of students, for the most part, in order to prevent conflict with the teacher, agree with the teacher’s assessment and apply a number of sanctions to the child, reinforcing the effect of the assessment. Teenagers' answers to questions about how parents react if they complain about the injustice of a teacher showed that parents do not believe their child (75%) and he is not only punished for a bad grade, but also for trying to deceive and relieve himself of blame .

Thus, a teenager, receiving negative assessments from adults significant to him, finds himself in difficult situation conflict between low self-esteem (derived directly from the assessments of elders) and claims to self-esteem. The way out of this traumatic situation may be the formation of inadequately low self-esteem (the student seems to be fixed on his failures, becomes passive, unsure of himself) or the development of a negative attitude towards educational activities. Low self-esteem combined with a reluctance to learn gradually leads to a decline in academic performance. It should be noted that in this case, students explain their bad

academic performance due to the unkind attitude of teachers towards them (they believe that teachers lower their grades) or the inability of teachers to explain educational material. In other words, they blame teachers and do not recognize their personal characteristics (inattention, poor memory, lack of will, etc.) as the cause of academic failure.

However, as the study showed, changes in the current situation depended mainly on the quality of the educational activities of adolescents. The teachers were unprejudiced towards these students and explained the educational material skillfully, but the inconsistency of their assessment activities led to the development of inadequate self-esteem of the students. Because of this, teenagers, recognizing the fact of failure, did not recognize it as their failure. An analysis of adolescents’ attitude to their position in the class team showed that it also depends on the evaluative activities of teachers. This dependence is especially clear in the example of difficult teenagers. They are often characterized by a discrepancy between the idea of ​​their place in the team and their actual position in it.

An interesting fact is that teenagers’ idea of ​​their place in the team, as a rule, reflects the teacher’s verbal assessment of the students’ position in the inter-system. personal relationships. However, in 72% of cases, teachers considered as outcasts those students who themselves spoke about their disadvantaged position in the team. At the same time, a tendency has been noticed for changes in a teenager’s ideas about his position among classmates under the influence of teachers’ value judgments: with an increase in grades, the teenager begins to believe that his position in the team is improving. But since a teacher’s positive assessment of a student can strengthen a teenager’s self-confidence, on this basis it is possible for the child to reassess his place in the team. In reality, continuing to occupy the same position, the teenager will evaluate it not so low.

A study of teacher assessments of significant personal qualities of adolescents and their self-esteem of these qualities showed that the main reason for difficulties in educational work with the students there was an inadequate assessment of their personal qualities. This is confirmed by the fact that the accuracy of assessing quality (as well as stating its presence or absence) depends not so much on the content side of this quality, but on the level of the subject’s aspirations, his attitude towards himself as a whole.

When assessing his qualities, a teenager proceeds not from an analysis of his actions in which these qualities are manifested, but from an assessment of himself as a whole, from an attitude towards himself as an individual. Just like if a child is not liked by his classmates, he receives low marks on all his positive qualities (even regardless of their actual content), since children evaluate him as “bad” and this generalized assessment determines all their judgments. Consequently, the child evaluates himself and others in a generalized manner and, based on this integral assessment (“I am good” or “He is bad”), notes the presence or absence of positive personality traits.

Thus, in our study, in 81% of cases, students highly rated the personal qualities of their classmates, despite the fact that they had low grades in individual academic subjects. The observation carried out makes it possible to explain this phenomenon by the fact that the students have developed a holistic idea of ​​themselves and their comrades, which prevents them from highlighting particular features.

Overestimation or underestimation of their qualities by teenagers does not affect the accuracy of their assessment of these qualities in their classmates. This means that the inadequacy of adolescents in assessing themselves is not a consequence of insufficient understanding of the meaning of the qualities being assessed or the inability to analyze people’s actions. She caused by teenagers' aspirations to be the best among their peers. Students do not want to admit that they belong to the “bad” category. Internally, they equate themselves in their personal qualities with “good” students. The fact that the teenager does not receive confirmation

Such an idea about himself on the part of teachers is caused by his affective attitude towards the current situation, which manifests itself in negativism towards the norms of behavior accepted in our society. Negativism is not due to the child’s negative attitude towards the content side of norms, but to the fact that he himself does not correspond to moral standards.

Thus, the psychological essence of a violation of a teenager’s personal relationships lies in the mismatch of his idea of ​​his relationships with actually existing relationships. Relationship inconsistency occurs when there is no correct pedagogical leadership in a traumatic situation for the child, constant failure in areas of activity that are vital for him. For example, a student who does well in the lower grades (with average abilities) begins to study worse when moving to grades V-VI. This may be the result lack of formation he has mental skills. The student increases his efforts, but this does not bring tangible results. In this case, the source of the child’s negative emotional experiences is a contradictory situation: he thinks that he is capable of studying well and strives for this, but the teachers reproach him for his dishonest attitude towards his studies, which, naturally, he perceives as injustice.

This situation is the impetus for the teenager to explain all his failures by the biased attitude of his teachers towards him. The thought of teachers being unfair makes him feel resentful, gives him an internal reason to consider himself an undeserved victim, and to be aggressive towards those who rate his activities low. A teenager’s inadequate idea of ​​​​the attitude of teachers towards him, becoming consolidated, becomes a unique position that determines everything further development his personality. Such a student does not strive to overcome difficulties, does not analyze the reasons for his failures, since his opinion about the success of his activities is inadequate to his real achievements.

The difficulty of working with him is that he does not see his negative qualities and therefore does not accept the teacher’s demands to change his behavior. Until the teacher manages to restore damaged personal relationships, educational influences aimed at overcoming the negative personality traits of a teenager will be ineffective. A teacher can overcome a teenager’s resistance to educational influences with the help of verbal assessments, emphasizing them on positive changes in student development.

Successful use of positive verbal assessment is possible with timely identification of violations in the adolescent’s personal relationships.

Our research has shown that a persistent violation of personal relationships is a symptom of inability to educate and can serve as a criterion for determining this phenomenon (, etc.). To measure the degree of discrepancy between a teenager’s ideas about his qualities and the actual manifestation of these qualities, we compared his integral assessment of these qualities and the generalized assessment of them by class students (generalized group assessment):

Where TO - mismatch coefficient;

F

S- integral assessment of one’s qualities by a teenager

Generalized group personality assessment ( F) and an integral assessment of one’s personal qualities by a teenager ( S) were determined by the following formulas

Where S- a teenager’s overall assessment of his qualities;

r - self-assessment (in points) for each quality;

N- the number of qualities being assessed;

Where Fi- generalized group assessment of personality;

i - serial number of each group member;

Li- the assessment received by the subject from each group member (averaged by the number of qualities);

Si - integral assessment of the subject’s personal qualities;

R- number of subjects.

The degree of inconsistency in the student’s relationships in the sphere of communication with classmates is determined as a result comparison of the value of the teenager’s self-esteem index in communication with the magnitude of his sociometric status.

To determine the inadequacy of adolescents’ perception of the results of their educational activities, it is necessary to use special experimental techniques that could serve as a model of real relationships that develop in a teenager during the learning process. During the study, we determined this indicator based on an analysis of the teenager’s actual educational activities. However, this method alone is not enough for the needs of practical psychodiagnostics. Thus, studying the development situation of a teenager at school, determining his level mental development, the formation of educational skills, the collection of anamnestic data make diagnosis cumbersome and time-consuming.

In our work, we used a methodology for selecting tasks of varying degrees of complexity, modified in accordance with the purpose of diagnosing the degree of inadequacy in adolescents’ assessment of the results of their educational activities. Testing of this technique showed that the data obtained during the experiment are not statistically different from the data obtained in a real situation. Therefore, the definition the adequacy of adolescents’ assessment of the results of their educational activities possible not only in a real situation, but also in an experimental situation, which is more appropriate.

The content validity of the proposed method was confirmed by us during the experiment, which consisted of proving the correspondence between the indicators of completing tasks using this method and the actual behavior of adolescents. 76% of agreement between empirical indicators and experimental data was noted, which is evidence of the content validity of the proposed method for diagnosing adolescents with difficult upbringing.

Taking into account the diagnostic results, it is possible to rationally use value judgments to correct the self-esteem of adolescents. It is desirable that the evaluative influences be included in a unified plan of pedagogical influences on the student, systematized and individually adjusted in the course of educational work with children. The results of the teacher’s evaluative influences must be constantly taken into account, and techniques must be refined.

The teacher’s evaluative activities contain great educational opportunities, the use of which will make it possible to consciously guide the process of formation of the child’s personality, in particular his self-esteem.

1. Materials of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on June 14-15, 1983. - M., 1983 -80 p.

2. Ananyev B. G.. Psychology of pedagogical assessment. - L., 1935. - 146 p.

3. Blonsky P. P. Difficult schoolchildren. - M., 1929.-131 p.

4. Questions of the psychology of a schoolchild’s personality. - M., 1961 -360 p.

5. Study of the motivation of behavior of children and adolescents / Ed. L.I. Bozhovich, L.V. Blagonadezhina. - M., 1972.- 350 p.

6. Lipkina A. I., Rybak L. A. Criticality and self-esteem in educational activities. - M., 1958.- 140 p.

7. Lipkina A. I. Student self-esteem.- M., 1976. -68 p.

8 Lipkina A. I. About the moral life of a schoolchild. - M., 1978. - 48 p.

9 Maksimova N. Yu. Education of modesty - Primary school, 1980, No. 3, p. 32-38 (in Ukrainian).

10. Maksimova N. Yu. Features of personal relationships of difficult-to-educate adolescents: Author's abstract. Ph.D. dis. - Kyiv, 1981. - 22 p.

11. Nevsky I. A.“Difficult” childhood, its causes, signs and forms of manifestation. - In the book: Issues in the study and prevention of juvenile delinquency. Ch. I. M., 1980, p. 5-17.

Received by editor 13.XII. 1982

Introduction

Chapter 1. Theoretical basis forming value judgments of the teacher

1.1. Value judgment is the basis of the teacher’s control and evaluation function 24

1.2. The relationship between a teacher’s value judgments and the basic concepts of human learning 32

1.3. Psychological, pedagogical and philosophical aspects of the problem of forming teacher’s value judgments 43

Chapter 2. Experience in forming teacher’s value judgments when using multi-point scales

2.1. Experimental work program on problem 52

2.2. Experience in forming value judgments in various academic subjects 65

2.3. The effectiveness of the process of forming value judgments based on the use of multi-point scales 85

Conclusion 93

Bibliography 97

Applications 112

Introduction to the work

The profound changes in the goals, structure and content of education that have occurred in the last decade have made serious adjustments both to the educational activities of teachers of all types of educational institutions, in general, and to its control and evaluation component, in particular. The structure and content of monitoring the progress and results of educational and cognitive activities of students at school and students at universities are also undergoing serious and very fundamental changes. Based on certain provisions of the Education Law of 1996, according to which educational institutions are allowed to independently determine the methodology and methods for assessing the knowledge, skills and abilities of students, many schools and universities began to move away from the traditional, formally five (four-point) scale, which has existed for more than fifty years, but actually three-point, to the use of more multi-point rating scales and, accordingly, to the expansion value judgments accompanying these scores.

An analysis of pedagogical practice shows that in recent years all kinds of surrogate rating scales such as “five with a minus”, “four with a plus”, “four with a minus”, etc. have spontaneously become widespread, which is due to the impossibility of assessing with three points the entire variety of moves and the results of the educational and cognitive activities of students, besides, even to simply evaluate “knowledge, abilities and skills”, at least the entire five-point scale is needed as a positive one. The use of a truncated three-point scale led to the impoverishment of the teacher’s value judgments and, as practice shows, most conflicts between a teacher and a student are caused by the weakness of argumentation on the part of the teacher when presenting the same score to different students

com for various learning of educational material. All this led to the beginning of experiments with multi-point scales from five to ten points to one hundred points, for example, when using various rating systems or when conducting monitoring.

Thus, there is a whole complex of contradictions that interfere with an accurate determination of the quality of education in general and the degree of student learning in a specific academic subject in particular. Here we are talking about the accuracy of the definition, the reliability of the assessment, without using the term objectivity, because the subject, by virtue of the very concept of this phenomenon, is always subjective, especially if he does not have an accurate measurement tool in his hands. Let us outline these main contradictions:

firstly, the contradiction between the need for a reliable assessment of the level of training and quality of education and the lack of reliable, reliable and accurate measures (evaluation scales), and therefore, the corresponding value judgments of the teacher, as a detailed verbal characteristic of the entire diversity of the course and result of educational cognitive activity of students;

secondly, the contradiction between the formal status of the five-point scale and its actual three-point content, as a result of which the teacher’s value judgments are also often superficial and formal;

thirdly, the contradiction between the goals of teaching staff

educational institutions and the goals of managers, because the former strive for the actual quality of education, and the latter require formal quality (a high “percentage of academic performance”, a large number of students studying at “four” and “five”, etc.).

All these contradictions predetermined undeveloped problem of forming teacher’s value judgments not adequate

only the degree of training of students (students), but also the quality and quantity of work expended by students, their attitude to a specific academic subject, their diligence, the level of development of their abilities and the presence of talent in a certain area. The grades “five”, “four” and “three” and the corresponding rather primitive value judgments of the first kind such as “excellent”, “good”, “satisfactory” mark success in mastering a particular academic subject as in groups for gifted children ( for example, gymnasium classes), and in general education classes and in CRO (correctional and developmental education) classes.

Thus, it turns out that, for example, “excellent”, like other grades, already have a threefold nature and, despite the same appearance in educational documents, they have nothing in common with each other, because behind them lies a different degree of training of these students. This is a serious consequence of the fact that three points on the official scale and the accompanying value judgments are clearly not enough, to evaluate the whole gamut of characteristics of students’ progress along the path of knowledge, along the path of personality development as a whole. All of the above predetermined relevance our research.

Checking and assessing the educational and cognitive achievements of students is, at the same time, the most important tool for the education and development of personal, social significant qualities trainees. Monitoring the degree of student learning (the level of their acquisition of knowledge, skills and abilities) has gone through many stages of development over all the years of formation of education in the world. Briefly, in chronological order, consider the history of the development of the problem of teacher control and evaluation activities and forming appropriate value judgments In this case, the following stages can be identified:

Mid-XV11th century. Monitoring the educational work of high school students, the teacher’s use of report cards for each month. Enter-

nє reference symbols, the form of expression of which was the initial
letters (V.I. - fulfilled everything WELL. - didn't know the lesson Z.U.N.T. - knew the lesson not-
% firmly etc.).

End of the 1111th century. Examination mechanical reproduction textbook texts. Accounting attentiveness student when working with texts. Leading verification parameters - accuracy and correctness of knowledge, skills and abilities.

First half of the 19th century. Wide use of diversity
verbal and book testing methods. Conversation as the main method
verification of knowledge. Introducing questions and tasks to develop thinking skills
> definitions (analysis, synthesis, comparison, generalization, etc.), student speech.

Additional evaluation criterion - awareness of knowledge.

Second half. XIX century. Preferred use on
clear control methods. Accounting for perception educational information And
"subjects" of study, verification of final performance results
students. Development of methodological techniques for monitoring and assessing household
k tasks (sketching in a notebook, description of phenomena, written report and

* etc.). The use of oral control techniques, such as: questioning with

changing the picture, demonstrating experience, condensed questioning, reproducing fragments of laboratory (practical) work, questioning with modeling.

During these years, controversy has already arisen on issues of assessment and
assessment of students' knowledge and skills, which states that the score
the system allegedly reduces the possibility of using individualization
9 in teaching schoolchildren. Offered replacement of the scoring system

reactions to verbal feedback, those. actually an attempt is made to go
і only to the teacher’s value judgments. In the same years, it was proposed

It is important to maintain exams for students who miss classes, for those who graduate from school and enter college.

Beginning of the 20th century. In May 1918, a Decree was adopted on the abolition of exams and assessment points for the knowledge and behavior of students. A number of schools operate according to the old five-point system, others - according to the “the student succeeds or fails”, "satisfactorily- unsatisfactory", and still others - no ratings at all.

Sharp criticism and subsequent abolition of success tests in 1936 by a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. Search and implementation of new forms of independent, verification work: student answer in front of the group; hearing communications; holding conferences, tests during outdoor classes; maintaining work files, diaries of students’ work at the training and experimental site and home experiments.

Particular attention is paid to “questions and tasks” as driving forces knowledge control. The evaluation criteria recommended in these years are: logic and consistency of the student’s answer/36/ - demanded the additional introduction of various value judgments of the teacher into the practice of the educational process.

In 1944, our country again returned to the “five-point” scale, the scores of which began to be accompanied by value judgments of the first kind, i.e. their simplest verbal characteristics: “excellent”, “good”, “satisfactory”, etc. Only these three listed verbal characteristics and scores began to mark the success of training, the success of knowledge acquisition and the level of developed skills and abilities, which was one of the reasons for the above contradictions. This reason and this controversy have existed for almost six decades.

Even from this brief historical review it is clear that value judgments of the first kind (verbal assessment) Even in the middle of the 16th century they were the prototype of assessment in the broad sense of the word. True, the set of these value judgments was quite meager: “I did everything,” “you don’t know the lesson,” “you know the lesson unsteadily,” “you don’t understand what you’re saying.”

rish”, “you were attentive”, “you told the paragraph accurately and correctly”, “well done, you understand”, “you were poorly prepared”, “you prepared the lesson well”, “you’re not trying”, etc. Thus, the problem of value judgments was not raised as an independent one and in many cases research work value judgments are only sometimes mentioned as accompanying certain scoring marks.

If you look at the Pedagogical Encyclopedia (1966), there is no article at all on value judgments. The article describing “Testing the knowledge, abilities, skills of students” does not say anything about the teacher’s value judgments (e. 511 - 513), and the article dedicated to “Assessing student performance” (p. 242 - 244) only mentions , which is formulated literally in the following form: “As a rule, assessment of schoolchildren’s performance is expressed in points, and Alsoin the form of teacher’s value judgments.” (our italics - B.Ch.). Nothing There is no mention of value judgments in the Pedagogical Dictionary, which was published in the late nineties of our century. All this shows about insufficient attention and poor development of the problem teacher's value judgments in secondary schools and universities, both theoretically and practically.

Purpose of the study consists in determining the organizational and pedagogical conditions for the formation of teacher’s value judgments when using multi-point scales in his control and evaluation activities.

Research objectives:

to clarify the concept of value judgment as the most important element of the control and evaluation activities of teachers of secondary educational institutions and universities;

develop basic indicators of the degree of learning of pupils and students to form value judgments using the example of a ten-point and twenty-five-point scale;

assess the degree of influence of the use of multi-point scales on the communicative, content-organizational and effective components of the educational process as an activity system;

to help practitioners in secondary educational institutions in creating specific developments for the use of a ten-point scale with corresponding value judgments in the field of a number of academic disciplines;

Object of study - control and evaluation component of the educational process in secondary and higher educational institutions.

Subject of study- basic organizational and pedagogical conditions for the effectiveness of the formation of teacher’s value judgments when using multi-point scales.

Research hypothesis lies in the assumption that the reliability and evidence of assessing the results of educational and cognitive activity of students will increase if value judgments based on the use of multi-point scales (ten-point, twenty-five-point, etc.) are introduced into the control and evaluation activities of the teacher, and also if the formal approach to assessing different indicators of training with the same points will be overcome, that is, if a departure is made from the actually three-point (formally four-five point) scale. It is expected that these measures will improve the moral and psychological climate in the staff of the educational institution, remove stressful situation among students due to the elimination of negative points from the proposed scales for so-called “ignorance”, which should result in a decrease

conflicts between students and teachers regarding the “objectivity” of assessing their knowledge, skills and abilities. Methodological basis research served:

The main position of materialist philosophy about the essence and
the essence of judgment as a form of thought in which it is affirmed or denied
something is said about objects and phenomena, their properties, connections and
relations and which has the property of expressing either truth or
lie (M.I. Karinsky, N.I. Kondakov /77/);

The theory of system activity approach as the basis of planning
introduction, organization, control and assessment of the effectiveness of educational
telny (teacher activity) and educational-cognitive (active
activity of students) of the process: P.K.Anokhin /9/, S.I.Arkhangelsky /12/,
L.Bertalanffy /18/, V.T.Bespalko /22/, I.V.Blauberg, E.G.Yudin /24/,
F.F.Korolev /79/, N.V.Kuzmina /85/, V.P.Simonov /149/, N.F.Talyzina
/166/etc.

Based on the theory of the system activity approach, we examined the concepts of an object, a tool and a product (result) of labor, which are the most important characteristics of any professional activity. In the production sector, these concepts are all clear and understandable. For example, the subject of a turner’s work is a workpiece, the tool of labor is a lathe (cutter), and the result is a part turned from this workpiece. And so in all specialties, except for management and pedagogy. These are those specialties (professions) in which the subject and product of labor coincide.

As you know, the subject and product of the work of a teacher and leader at any level is information. Because of this, assessing the result of their work is very difficult, because it cannot be assessed by the amount of information issued or received. Of no small importance here is the fact that, unlike a turner working on a lathe, where subject- object interaction, in pedagogy

gical process, another type of the same activity system - subject-subjective interaction. All this predetermines the need to correctly determine the product (result) of intellectual work. At the same time, there is an urgent need in society to evaluate the results of any work in measurable quantities. Such attempts in relation to intellectual work have been made for several centuries. Particularly important here is the problem of assessing the results of intellectual work as a whole.

The development of this problem is carried out by institutes and laboratories conducting research in the field of standardization labor activity both in production and in the intellectual sphere. We proposed (in collaboration with V.P. Simonov and I.V. Baykova) our classification of the main types of intellectual product, which served as the basis for us to first develop more accurate indicators (characteristics) for assessing the progress and results of the educational process, and later criteria generally. Let us immediately define what we mean by indicator what's under criterion.

Index- this is the quantitative component of any criterion, expressed, as a rule, either as a percentage, or as a fraction of the whole, or in units of some measurement scale. A group of indicators allows you to further determine the degree of compliance of something with a specific criterion. Criterion is a generalized characteristic of the state of an object, process or phenomenon. The criterion is always based on a combination of a number of indicators. For example, a person’s temperature or pressure are indicators that are integral part criterion “healthy - unhealthy” /148/. We took these characteristics as a basis.

Let's look at the one we developed structure of the main types of human intellectual product, which allows us to determine the role, place and significance of what we and other researchers propose -

our theoretical and methodological developments.

Possible discoveries First level (highest)

Law Second level

Pattern 3. Principles Third level

4. Fact 5. Effect 6. Phenomenon

Theoretical developments Fourth level

7. Idea 8. Hypothesis 9. Concept 10. Theory Fifth level 11. Formula 12. Forecast 13. Properties 14. Order (system)

Methodological developments Sixth level

15. Invention 16. Model 17. Project Seventh level 18. New solution 19. Methodology 20. Algorithm

Practical developments Level Eight

2 1. Device 22. Technology 23. Methods Ninth level 24. Recipe (composition) 25. Service

As can be seen from this list, the intellectual product according to our development consists of four blocks: possible discoveries, theoreticaldevelopment, methodological developments and practical results, in contrast to those offered by other developers (See Information Bulletin No. 4-5, 1998, Moscow, VNTITs, p. 28). In addition, we propose to introduce nine levels characterizing this product: from the first - the highest, to the ninth - the lowest.

Let us characterize in more detail this type of intellectual product as the discovery and formulation Law, which determines the general basis for the functioning and development of any activity system. In natural systems, laws are objective in nature, while in artificial systems they are subjective. This is confirmed by the fact that, for example, the Law of Universal Gravitation, discovered by I. Newton, cannot be violated, because this is an objective reality, but the Rules traffic, unfortunately, are sometimes violated without serious consequences for the subjects of the “pedestrian-transport” system, because although these are extremely important, they are subjective laws of the artificial system /149, p. 45/.

Let's consider another type of intellectual product, which is presented as “Order (system)” and is important characteristic our research. Here we mean the existence of two types of systems: systems of the first type are the arrangement of something in a certain sequence or ordering, which we call summative. Systems of the second type include the interaction of two or more components, leading to the emergence of a new quality - this is activity systems... Thus, the widely used expression “systematize” means to create a certain structure, sequence or simply orderliness, i.e. summative system 1 149/.

Now let’s highlight this type of intellectual product as "service". Examples here include many types of intellectual professions: teacher - provides educational services, lawyer - legal services, and the journalist provides information Services and so on. We will consider assessing the teacher's intellectual product.

The psychological and didactic features of the process of assessing the educational activities of pupils and students are characterized by the following researchers: Sh.A. Amonashvili /5,6/, B.G. Ananyev /7/, L.P. Doblaev /49/,

R.S.Nemov /111/, A.A.Ponukalin /130/, V.D.Shadrikov /175/, I.Ya.Yakimanskaya /186/ and others;

the problem of determining and assessing the level of knowledge as a way of diagnosing the results of mastering an academic subject was considered in 1997 by E.K. Artishcheva /10/, who followed candidate's thesis V.P. Simonova “Analysis and assessment of the effectiveness of a teacher’s educational activities by a school leader” (Moscow, 1979), highlighted the issue of identifying the background level of knowledge, skills and abilities of students (in the work of V.P. Simonov the concept of “intellectual background of the class” was used "and a method for determining it is given), i.e. in this study, she actually assigned a new name to the concept of “intellectual background of the class,” introduced into pedagogy by V.A. Sukhomlinsky /164/;

Many scientists have directly dealt with the problem of diagnosing results and assessing the quality of teaching and learning: M.V. Artyukhov /I/, V.P. Bespalko /21/, N.E. Bobkov /26/, G.I. Dormi-donova / 51/, M.N. Skatkin, A.I. Kochetov with a team of researchers /120/, V.V. Kraevsky /72/, I.Ya. Lerner /94/, N.F. Privalova /132/ and a number of others ;

Research from the standpoint of certain specifics of measuring and assessing pedagogical phenomena was carried out by the following scientists: L.V. Bolotnik, A.V. Levin, G.A. Satarov, M.A. Sokolova, I.K. Fraint (Measuring knowledge during mass surveys) / 28/, M.I.Grabar, K.A.Krasnyanskaya (Implementation of the sampling method in studying students’ knowledge) /44/, G.Vorobiev, V.Malinin /61/, K.K. Platonov /124/, G. Soldatov /158/, N.F. Talyzina /167/ and others;

in recent years, the control and evaluation function of teachers has also begun to be highlighted in the development of test control: V.SAva-nesov /3/, E.N. Lebedeva /90/, M.M. Miroshnikova /106/, S.R. Sakaeva /141 /, A.F.Safonov, V.A.Zinchenko, R.Ya.Kasimov /142/, A.Ya.Shulman /179/, as well as from the standpoint of developing the foundations of rating control systems and mo-

monitoring: a team of researchers led by A.I. Barsukov /135/, as well as V.A. Grigoriev /45/, B.M. Dodonov /50/, G.Yu. Kapustina /68/, R.Ya. Kasimov, V.A.Zinchenko, I.I.Grandberg /74/, E.V.Korotaeva /80/, V.A.Popkov /131/, V.E.Sosonko /159/, S.E.Shishov, V. A. Kalney /177/ and many others;

The problem we are studying is also an integral (mainly at the mention level) part of the training of future teachers: K.M.Durai-Novakova /54/, N.D.Kuchugurova /88/, B.O.Muriy /108/, M.S.Pashkova /119/, V.L. Sinebryukhova /151/, as well as in works devoted to monitoring the knowledge of students themselves: V.SAvanesov /2/, I.V. Dulepova, L.A. Belchenko /53/, M.P .Eretsky, M.A.Chekulaev /55/, M.N.Katkhanov, V.V.Karpov /71/ and a number of others;

The problem of the relationship between assessment and self-esteem of control and self-control is considered by the following authors: B.S. Bratus, V.N. Pavlenko /29/, A.V. Burova, T. Suvorova /30/, T.V. Gazhina /37/, MA .Goncharova /40/, L.G.Gromova /46/, A.I.Lipkina /95.96/, N.Yu.Maksimova /97/ and others;

directly related to the topic we are researching are works covering the development statistical characteristics in pedagogy and psychology: G.E.Vorobiev /34/, D.J.Glaas, J.Stanley /39/, L.M.Myakinina /109/, V.I.Ogorelkov /113/, as well as works characterizing the problem of monitoring and assessing learning outcomes in a broad sense: A.V.Zakharova /59/, I.Ya.Konfederatov /76/, E.I.Perovsky /121/, V.M.Polonsky /128/, V. P. Simonov /148/, B.G. Sladkevich /153/ and a number of others.

It should be noted here that all of the above authors and works, while dealing to one degree or another with the problem of control, appraisal activities,do not consider the problem of forming evaluative teacher's judgment specially. From these positions, we are closest to: the work of I.Yu. Gorskaya, dedicated to the problem of pedagogical conditions for the formationmusic teacher's value judgments in the process

all choirmaster training (Ekaterinburg, 1997) /42/, as well as work
" R.P. Milrud "Psychological structure of a teacher's statement in

“learning activities” /105/, the latter was published in

1985. Thus, the analysis of the presented topics, defended and published works, also indicates insufficient development of the problem of forming teacher’s value judgments and even more so based on the use of multi-point scales.

Research methods. To test our hypothesis and
to solve the assigned problems, a whole complex of mutual
dependent and complementary research methods:
theoretical and methodological analysis of scientific psychological and

pedagogical literature close to the research topic;

study and analysis of dissertations devoted to problems related to our topic;

observation and analysis of teaching practice in applied conditions
, understanding of multi-point rating scales;

I survey and analysis of questionnaires of teachers and students in the experiment

“mental educational institutions;

modeling of ten-point rating scales (with the participation of experimental teachers) and the formation on this basis of a variety of value judgments of the second and third kind;

methods of statistical analysis and mathematical processing of results obtained during the experiment;

actually a pedagogical experiment, which includes a number of
» stages: ascertaining, formative and control.

Scientific novelty The research carried out is as follows:

theoretically justified and experimentally verified basic model of a ten-point scale assessment of students’ knowledge, skills and abilities as the basis for the formation of a wide range of diverse assessments

nightly judgments of the teacher, allowing to move away from formal assessment with the same points of students of different levels of preparedness in the field of a particular academic subject;

the most important organizational and pedagogical conditions for the formation of teachers’ value judgments when using multi-point scales as a basis for overcoming formalism and subjectivism in their control and evaluation activities and overcoming the syndrome of mistrust among parents and students in this function of the teacher;

revealed and clarified the content of the concept of “teacher’s value judgments” of the first, second and third kind (type), in relation to the broad pedagogical practice of the last decade in all types of educational institutions.

Practical significance The conducted research is that:

developed main indicators of the degree of learning of pupils and students based on the use of a ten-point scale with the development of corresponding value judgments of teachers of various academic disciplines;

analysis and assessment of the degree the impact of using multi-point scales on. communicative, content-organizational and effective components the educational process as an active, self-developing system;

created and put into practice guidelines on the use of multi-point scales with corresponding evaluative judgments of teachers.

Submitted for defense the following provisions:

the use in practice of formally five-point, but in fact three-point (in secondary educational institutions) and four-point (in universities) scales does not allow the implementation of the entire variety of existing and developed value judgments, which leads to leveling out the assessment of the degree of training of students of different levels (gifted, ordinary and KRO );

The teacher’s value judgments only contribute to the implementation of the stimulating function of the process of checking and assessing the degree of learning of students when they reflect not only the level of mastery of educational material and the level of development on this basis of the student’s skills and abilities, as well as the degree to which he has formed a positive attitude towards educational and cognitive activity, degree of efficiency and talent in a certain area;

the reliability and evidence of assessing the progress and results of educational and cognitive activity of students increases if the teacher’s control and evaluation activities are based on a wide range of his value judgments using ten or more point scales;

the use of a wide range of teacher’s value judgments based on multi-point rating scales removes a number of contradictions in the system of relationships “teacher-student” and “teacher-parents”, and also creates an adequate level of aspirations among students and their parents;

The teacher’s value judgments in no case replace or substitute for grades, but only expand the capabilities and evidence of the teacher’s control and evaluation activities as a whole.

Basic experimental base served: Kashira Training and Production Plant (Deputy Director for Training and

educational work Chernenko E.G.), Balashikha secondary school No. 25 (director Chernenko E.G.), Sergiev Posad secondary school No. 22 with in-depth study of a number of subjects (school director candidate of pedagogical sciences Dolottseva E.D.), Moscow school- boarding school No. 58, which works on differentiated education for students based on multi-level classes, as well as curriculum European Bilingual School (school director T.N. Rodionova); Pedagogical College No. 7 “Maroseyka” in Moscow (Director, Honored Teacher of the Russian Federation, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences Kapustina G.Yu.), Faculty of Advanced Training for University Teachers of Moscow Pedagogical University (Dean of the Faculty, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences V.P. Simonov). The study was carried out in three stages.

First stage(1980-1988) was dedicated theoretical study and understanding the problem of forming teacher’s value judgments in secondary educational institutions and universities in general and in the field of various academic disciplines in particular. During this stage, the obvious insufficiency and weak evidence of the formally five-point, but in fact three-point in secondary educational institutions and four-point in universities, assessment scale were revealed. In the course of theoretical work at this stage, we came to the conclusion that the degree of a person’s training will be measured more reliably and conclusively only when the assessment scale can characterize in more detail all types and stages of the student’s ascent from ignorance to knowledge, skills and abilities, to their high and quality level. At this stage, we also studied the readiness of teachers and lecturers to use more detailed and evidence-based assessment scales and corresponding value judgments.

Second phase(1988-1997) focused on the development and implementation of experimental work on the problem of using multi-point rating scales and forming assessments on this basis.

nightly judgments of teachers. Developed by the method of technology for the formation of the main indicators of the degree of student training -

Xia and students using multi-point scales allowed us
identify existing shortcomings of the implemented three-point model
scales that were of a typical, mass nature. It was here
It has been determined that the range of value judgments is extremely poor, not
systematized and, in general, is beyond the scope of attention of scientists and
practitioners The impossibility of reliably assessing the entire diversity
the history of human advancement along the path of ascent from ignorance to knowledge
led, according to some scientists, to the emergence of the so-called

“surrogate scale” /148/, which was confirmed by our analysis of practice.

At this stage, it was also revealed that teachers’ evaluative judgments based on the “surrogate scale” are quite primitive, monotonous and insignificant, and in general they do not contribute in any way to the implementation of the basic functions of monitoring and testing students’ knowledge, skills and abilities, such as teaching, stimulating , evaluative, educational, etc. This stage ended with goal setting and

research objectives, as well as formulating the first version of the hypothetical
theses, which made it possible to move smoothly and on a scientific basis to the third stage
pu.

Third stage(1997-2000) was the final one. During this stage, the shortcomings and difficulties that were identified at the previous stages of work were taken into account, and multi-point scales (ten-point and twenty-five-point) for assessing the degree were introduced into our experiment.

penalties for students’ learning with the development of corresponding assessments
significant judgments of teachers of various academic disciplines: mathematics,
physics, Russian language and literature, conducting, etc. The basis of all
these scales were based on the Basic principles developed by V.P. Simonov
divide the ten-point and twenty-five-point degree rating scales
student learning /148/, which we have clarified and supplemented

more detailed description teachers’ value judgments corresponding to a particular score.

At this stage, a methodology for the formation of multi-point scales and a technology for their implementation in the practical activities of teachers of specific academic subjects were proposed. During this period, annual interim results of the progress of experimental work were summed up and the further structure and content of this activity were clarified. This stage ended with summing up the final results of all experimental work.

Approbation and practical implementation research results was carried out continuously during the second and third stages. The shortcomings of the three- (four) point assessment scale identified during the second stage made it possible to begin creating a model of a multi-point scale with the corresponding filling of its evaluative judgments of teachers, first in general view, without relative reference to any specific academic subject, and then with specification in individual academic subjects and the involvement of an increasingly larger circle of people in the experimental work. Here, an assessment was made of the influence of primary value judgments of a three-point scale on the communicative, content-organizational and effective components of the educational process as an activity system. It was found that all these components suffer from a certain dysfunction due to the narrowness and primitiveness of teachers’ value judgments when using a three-point scale, which leads to its expansion through the use of plus and minus signs (“surrogate scale” according to V.P. Simonov). However, when using a surrogate scale, value judgments are not expanded, but remain in accordance with the first kind, i.e. “good with a minus”, “good with a plus” or “not good enough”, or “five with a minus”, etc.

Testing and implementation were also carried out through presentations at scientific and practical conferences and seminars, which were held both in experimental educational institutions and beyond. The results of the study were presented at a conference in the Penza Institute of Industrial and Industrial Culture and PRO in 1997, which was dedicated to “Current problems of education standardization”, as well as at the International scientific and practical conference “Pedagogical thought and education of the 21st century: Russia - Germany”, held 20-21 April 2000 in Orenburg. The results and experimental materials were annually reported and discussed at scientific and practical seminars for school leaders in the Sergiev Posad district (1997-2000 academic years), as well as on pedagogical councils and subject cycle commissions at boarding school No. 58 in Moscow. Teachers from universities in the Russian Federation became acquainted with these materials while improving their qualifications at the Faculty of Education and Training of the Moscow Pedagogical University. On this issue, we have published more than ten works in such publications as: the scientific and theoretical journal “Pedagogy”, “Teacher’s Newspaper”, in collections of scientific works “Improving the educational process and its management”, “Training and advanced training of teaching staff: problems , experience, prospects”, “Current problems of training and advanced training of teaching staff”, “Problems and experience of training teaching staff in teacher training college”.

Credibility The results obtained are due to the full compliance of the chosen methodology with the purpose and objectives of the study, as well as the combination of all the above methods. The representativeness of the sample and the reliability of the experimental data obtained are confirmed and supported by many years of research experience and the breadth of implementation of these recommendations in practice. Comments and wishes of experimental teachers received during the study

served to clarify, specify and increase the reliability of the overall result as a whole, which we disclosed in more detail when characterizing the stages of the study.

Structure of the dissertation: the dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography and appendices. The text of the dissertation contains fifteen tables. The applicant has published eleven works on the research topic.

Value judgment is the basis of the teacher’s control and evaluation function

The problem of forming a teacher’s value judgment cannot be considered without its connection with the theoretical aspects of the teacher’s control function in the educational process as a whole. Control means identifying, measuring and assessing the knowledge, skills and abilities of students, from which it follows that control contains evaluation (as a process), expressed in the form of a value judgment. Based on the results of the control, the assessment process carried out by the teacher begins. To evaluate the results of control, the teacher selects certain criteria and, with their help, evaluates the object of control. The assessment result is formulated by the teacher in the form of a detailed verbal assessment - characteristics of the object from the point of view of the accepted criterion.

The information obtained during the control is compared (contrasted) with the standard and, based on the data obtained, an analysis is carried out, the student’s errors and their causes are identified. As a result of comparison, the degree of mismatch between the controlled and reference components is established, and if the mismatch signal is equal to zero, this will mean that the controlled component corresponds to the standard. In this case, a summary is summed up, expressing the assessment results in a certain form assessments (value judgment, point mark, etc.), notes N.D. Kuchu-gurova /88/ in her study.

Thus, control is closely related to an equally important component of the educational process - its pedagogical assessment. “Evaluation” as a general scientific term in the literature has many meanings and connotations, but has not yet received a single definition. In the philosophical dictionary, assessment (though only moral) is considered as approval or condemnation of various phenomena depending on their meaning. It establishes the compliance or non-compliance of something with certain requirements and is based on some criteria. In the logical dictionary, an assessment is equated to an opinion about something, a judgment about the level or significance of something, an establishment of the degree of something /77/.

For the first time and completely, the problem of pedagogical assessment, in relation to the educational process, was developed in the 30s by the famous psychologist B.G. Ananyev. Already at that time, he emphasized that pedagogical assessment is “a factor in the direct guidance of the student” and that “students’ knowledge of their own capabilities and learning results is a prerequisite for their further mental development” PI. Sh.A. Amonashvili notes that “assessment” is a process, activity (or action) of assessment carried out by a person /6/, in this case - a teacher.

Assessment occupies far from the last place in the educational process, because all of our indicative and, in general, all activities in general depend on it. The accuracy and completeness of the assessment (evaluative judgment - E.Ch.) determine the rationality of movement towards the goal. It is difficult to imagine what kind of chaos we could plunge into if we turned off the assessment component 161 from our activities at least temporarily. It is important to note that assessment in the educational process takes place wherever there is a place for control. Without these two interrelated components, any activity loses all significance. The connection between control and evaluation is two-way: control in its final part is always a partial partial assessment. For its part, assessment, formed on the basis of control, motivates it - control can only be where there is assessment, as almost all researchers note.

According to B.G. Ananyev, pedagogical assessment performs two main functions: orienting and stimulating. In its first function, pedagogical assessment serves as an indicator of certain results and the level of achievement that a particular student achieved in academic work. The stimulating role of pedagogical assessment (and therefore value judgment - E. 4.J, in his opinion, is associated with an incentive effect on the volitional sphere of the student’s personality, changes in which are caused by significant shifts in a person’s self-esteem, in the level of his aspirations in the field of motivation, behavior , in the methods of educational work, in the system of relations between all participants in the educational process 111.

When determining the functions of assessment, Sh. A. Amonashvili’s considerations are of particular interest, namely that “pedagogical assessment will fulfill its main developmental and educational purpose if it is built on the basis of the interests and development prospects of students, on the basis of a humanistic principle and an optimistic teaching strategy , in conditions of complete, including evaluative, cooperation between teacher and students" 161.

Based on the analysis of the above psychological and pedagogical studies, pedagogical assessment and the corresponding value judgment are considered by us as the process and result of the teacher’s assessment of the level of students’ acquisition of knowledge, skills and abilities in accordance with the requirements (standards) that are determined by school programs and educational standard in general and in general. In the educational process, as an activity system, pedagogical assessment, as an integral part of control, is given one of the leading places, since it is one of the most important factors in the development of students’ personality and the way of managing their educational and cognitive activities. When characterizing the educational process as a system, it is necessary to dwell, first of all, on its structural components. Yu.K. Babansky and others, considering the educational process, includes target, stimulating-motivational, content-based, operational-activity, control-regulatory and evaluative-effective components /13/.

The relationship between a teacher’s value judgments and the basic concepts of human learning

The question that the teacher’s value judgments are most directly related to the concept implemented in practice, reflecting the process and result of teaching (the actions of the teacher) and learning (the actions of students), is beyond doubt. Let's consider three main levels that characterize the nature of learning in general: 1st level - informational - forms knowledge; Level 2 - reproductive - forms the simplest skills; Level 3 - creative - forms complex skills and abilities. The problem of level gradation of educational and cognitive activity, both as a process and as a result, has been and is being studied by many scientists. Let's consider some basic concepts of teachers and psychologists in this area. Concept by S.I. Arkhangelsky. Sign: degree of scientific knowledge and ability to operate with knowledge. 1. Operating with ideas, studying the characteristics of an object. 2. Operating with concepts, logical connections between concepts. 3. Generalization of characteristics of representations and concepts of invariant and isomorphic transformations. 4. Free handling of abstract concepts and abstract scientific symbols. Construction of iconic models. Concept by Yu.K. Babansky. Sign: the nature of the student’s activity in the aspect of didactic interaction with the teacher. 1. Reproductive activity: a) perception and comprehension of educational information; b) application of knowledge in practice; c) element-by-element assimilation; d) algorithmized; d) step-by-step. 2.Search educational and cognitive activity: a) problem-based assimilation of information; b) resolving problem situations, searching for new knowledge; c) putting forward cognitive tasks. 3. Reproductive-search activity: a) partial search activity with simultaneous reproductive assimilation of the material; b) independent completion of tasks at school and at home; "c) with an emphasis on the solid assimilation of essential elements; d) inductive and deductive nature. Concept of G. Bateson (USA). Sign: stage-by-stage processing of information. 1. Reception of information as a known stimulus and adequate answer to it. 2. Changing the situation by the subject and his ability to receive the answer “yes” and “no.” 3. Assimilation of the nature of the test. 4. Formation of an assessment that stimulates activity. Concept of V.P. Bespalko. Sign: degree of training and character student's educational activity 1. Level of familiarity: recognition, recognition, discrimination, identification (knowledge - acquaintance) 2. Level of reproduction: reproduction of information about the object being studied from memory or meaning (knowledge - copies). 3. Level of skills: application of knowledge in practice in literal application to familiar objects and situations (knowledge - skills). 4. Level of transformation: application of knowledge in practice with its transfer to unfamiliar objects and situations (knowledge - transformation). Concept of I. Herbart. Sign: stage of cognition in the learning process. 1. Clarity. Mastering the material to a complete and clear understanding. 2. Association. Establishing a connection between new material and previously studied, new knowledge with previously acquired. 3. System. Constructing rules and conclusions, defining laws based on new knowledge. 4. Method. Application of new knowledge in exercises and assignments. Concept of G. Klaus (Germany) - Feature: nature and form of information transformation. 1. Initial (primitive) form of information transformation. 2. Subconscious based on unconditioned reflexes. 3. Semantic level of information transformation (based on conceptual symbolism) 4. Pragmatic level. Transformation of information depending on incentives and motives. Concept by I.Ya. Confederatov. Sign: depth of assimilation of material in the field of monitoring the effectiveness of the educational process. 1. Level of discrimination. The student distinguishes this material from similar ones. 2. Memorization level. The student retells the material, knows the definitions and formulations of the main provisions of educational theory. 3. Level of understanding. The student understands the material presented. 4. Skill level. The student applies theoretical material in practice. Thinks logically. 5. Transfer level. The student applies knowledge in a non-standard situation. Concept by V.P. Simonov. Attribute: the degree of student learning (SD) based on the results of a certain educational period. 1. Level of discrimination, recognition (level of familiarity). 2. Memorization level (cumulative level). 3. Level of understanding (the degree of awareness of the theoretical material learned by students). 4. Level of elementary skills and abilities (application of acquired knowledge in practice according to a template, according to an example, i.e. purely reproductive). 5. Transfer (application of acquired theoretical knowledge in practice creatively, not standard, not algorithmic). Concept by M.N. Skatkin. Sign: degree of mastery of the material. 1. Level of perception, comprehension and memorization. 2. The level of application of knowledge in a similar situation, according to a certain pattern. 3. Level of application of knowledge in a new situation. Concept by V.A. Slastenin.

Experimental work program on the problem

Research topic: Formation of teacher’s evaluative judgments when using multi-point scales for assessing the knowledge, skills and abilities of students (their degree of training), as a didactic and psychological way of influencing their positive motivation to learn, as well as as the main factor influencing the reliability of the assessment of educational work trainees in general. Statement of the problem: The experimental work we carried out (1980 - 1985 - Kashira Training and Production Plant; 1985 - 1988 - Ministry of Education of the USSR; 1988 - 1997 - Balashikha Secondary School No. 25, since 1997 - Pedagogical College No. 7, Moscow “Maroseyka”, secondary school No. 22, Sergiev-Posad, Moscow region, secondary boarding school No. 58, Moscow) made it possible to determine that a reliable assessment of the results of educational and cognitive activities of students and the corresponding value judgment of the teacher are impossible when using an actual three-point scale, and what is required, at a minimum, is either the entire five-point scale, or another, more detailed, but also multiple of five scale (ten-point, twenty-five-point, hundred-point, etc.). Otherwise, teachers are forced to use a surrogate scale (points on a three-point scale, supplemented by them with “plus” or “minus” signs) and evaluate different levels of learning with the same points /14-7/. Points “3”, “4” and “5” and corresponding value judgments are used to evaluate: students in gymnasium classes and classes for gifted children; students of general education classes and students of correctional and developmental education classes. As practice shows, it is simply impossible to distinguish between these grades given in educational documents, which is a serious contradiction, resulting in unreliable assessment of a person’s training as a whole, therefore, in recent years, many educational institutions in the country have spontaneously switched to using multi-point scales, but unfortunately, often devoid of any scientific basis, including the use of unsystematized and often inconsistent value judgments. Let us briefly consider the history of the issue. The problem of assessing the knowledge, skills and abilities of students throughout the formation and development of the Soviet school was dealt with by both scientists and policymakers, but was rarely identified as independent problem teacher's value judgments. If we briefly outline the main stages of attempts to solve this problem, then in chronological order they are as follows: May 1918 - Resolution of the People's Commissar for Education A.V. Lunacharsky “On the abolition of marks”, which stated: 1. Application of a point system for assessing the knowledge and behavior of students is canceled in all cases of school practice without exception. 2. Transfer from class to class and issuance of certificates is carried out on the basis of student success based on feedback from the pedagogical council on the performance of educational work; September 1935 - five verbal assessments were introduced: “very bad”, “bad”, “mediocre”, “good”, “excellent”, which existed until the end of 1943 (i.e. these were the prototypes of those value judgments , which should have guided teachers, despite the fact that the characteristics of these assessments were quite primitive and seemed to reflect certain qualitative changes in student learning); January 1944 - a decision was made to once again replace the verbal assessments used at school with a digital “five-point” system for assessing the performance and behavior of students in primary, seven-year and secondary schools, with the corresponding addition of each point with the simplest value judgment such as “excellent”, “good”, “satisfactory” ", "unsatisfactory", etc. /112/. In the instructions issued after this resolution on the use of a digital “five-point system” of assessment, it was formulated that when assessing student performance: 1. A point of “5” is given in the case when the student comprehensively 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 different practical tasks knows how to independently use the acquired knowledge. In oral answers and written work, he uses literary correct language and does not make mistakes. 2. A score of “4” is given when the student knows all the material required by the program, understands it well and has mastered it firmly. Answers questions (within the program) without difficulty. Able to apply acquired knowledge in practical tasks. In oral answers he uses literary language and doesn't make big mistakes. Makes only minor errors in written work. 3. A score of “3” is given when the student demonstrates knowledge of the basic program material.. When applying knowledge in practice, he experiences some difficulties and overcomes them with a little help teachers. In oral answers he makes mistakes when presenting the material and in constructing his speech. Makes mistakes in written work. 4. A point of “2” is given when the student reveals ignorance of a large part of the program material and, as a rule, answers only suggestive questions teachers are unsure. In written work he makes frequent and serious mistakes. 5. A score of “I” is given when the student shows complete ignorance of the educational material being covered.

Experience in forming value judgments in various academic subjects

As already noted in the first section of the second chapter, experimental work on the formation of value judgments when using multi-point scales was carried out by us in high school No. 22, Sergiev Posad (school director, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences Dolottseva E.D.), in Pedagogical College No. 7 “Maroseyka” in Moscow (Director of the Pedagogical College, Honored Teacher of the Russian Federation, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences Kapustina G.Yu.), in secondary school -boarding school No. 58 in Moscow (school director T.N. Rodionova), etc. In experimental schools, ordinary school disciplines were introduced into the experiment: Russian language and literature, mathematics and physics, foreign language and a number of other subjects, and in the Pedagogical College , due to the specifics of its focus - the training of music pedagogical workers for the preschool and primary education system, such subjects as, for example, “conducting”, “choral singing”, “methodology” were introduced into the experiment physical education", "methods of music education in secondary schools", "psychology of children of early and preschool age " and so on. In all these educational institutions, the experiment began with familiarization of the teaching staff with the theory, methodology and technology of forming multi-point assessment scales based on the concept of Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor V.P. Simonov. After conducting the relevant lectures and seminars, our individual consulting work began with teachers of specific academic disciplines of these educational institutions, which resulted in the ten-point and twenty-five-point grading system scales developed by them and approved by the academic supervisor (see, for example, Table 3). Based on the data in this table, teachers formed a structure of value judgments in the field of their academic subjects, which were brought to the attention of students and their parents before the moment of their practical application. Let us consider examples of such developments that have been used in the practice of these educational institutions for several years. Our research has shown that an evaluative judgment is stimulating and stimulating in nature if it is positive, and has a certain inhibitory effect on the student if it is negative. Value judgment is a necessary attribute of the professional activity of a teacher in any educational institution. The ability of a teacher (educator) to form a competent and reliable judgment about the course and result of any activity of students is an indicator of the degree of development of his pedagogical skills. As evidenced by the analysis of psychological and pedagogical literature and the experience of our experimental work, the structure of any assessment includes the following components: the subject of assessment is the teacher (educator); object or subject of assessment - any action or activity of the student (pupil) as a whole; the nature of the assessment is verbal or quantitative, based on certain indicators. At the same time, there are typical difficulties and shortcomings in the implementation of the control and evaluation function by the teacher as a whole, and they, based on the research conducted by us and a number of other authors /6, 13, 85, 88, 129, 147, 151, 166/ are: in the following: - the absence of clear indicators characterizing the points of the three-point (formally 5-point, 1944) scale; - discrepancy between the goals of control and the content of the teacher’s control and evaluation actions; - lack of an atmosphere of trust and psychological comfort when organizing control and assessment activities in the classroom; - identification of assessments for success or failure in educational and cognitive activities with assessment of the student’s personality as a whole; - weak argumentation and evidence of the commentary (value judgment) to the assigned score; - neglect by many teachers to comment (evaluate judgment) on the assigned score as a whole; - the reluctance of many teachers to take into account not only the result, but also the quality of the student’s answer, his emotionality, hard work and talent in a certain area. The main reason for these difficulties and shortcomings, as our research has shown, is that in the process of preparing a future teacher, the problem of forming value judgments is not given the necessary attention, and during school teaching practice it is also not updated. The introduction of a multi-point scale for assessing the degree of learning of pupils and students and a corresponding wide range of diverse value judgments made it possible to: create a more favorable psychological climate in the structure of teacher-student interaction; eliminate the existing negative impact negative ratings on the psyche and health of trainees (all evaluative judgments when using multi-point scales are positive, since they assess only the increase in knowledge, skills and abilities of trainees); develop in students and their parents a level of aspirations that is adequate to the child’s level of learning for a given period;

First of all, it is necessary to take into account the psychological characteristics of a child of primary school age: the inability to objectively evaluate the results of one’s activities, poor control and self-control, inadequacy of accepting the teacher’s assessment, etc. Any test of knowledge should be determined by the nature and volume of previously studied material and the level of general development of students. No less important is the requirement of objectivity of the assessment. This is manifested, first of all, in that. that the result of the student’s activities is assessed. The teacher’s personal attitude towards the student should not be reflected in the grade. This is especially important because teachers often divide children into excellent students, good students, and C students and, regardless of the specific result of their work, assign mark in accordance with this division: for an excellent student it is overestimated, and for a C student it is underestimated. The nature of students’ acceptance of a teacher’s assessment depends on the degree to which their self-esteem is formed. The implementation of this requirement has special meaning in the development of the child’s educational and cognitive motivation and his attitude to learning. The negative side of the teacher’s monitoring and evaluation activities is his self-centeredness. He stands, as it were, above the children, only he himself has the right to evaluate, praise, and correct mistakes. The student does not participate in this activity. Moreover, his participation is often punished (“don’t tell me” - and he found a mistake on his neighbor’s; “correct” - and he found a mistake on his own...). This approach forms in the student the belief that assessment is a manifestation of the teacher’s attitude not to his activities, but to himself. The teacher should remember that one of the main requirements for assessment activities is the development in schoolchildren of the ability to evaluate their results, compare them with reference standards, see errors, know the requirements for different types of work. The teacher’s job is to create a certain public opinion in the class: what requirements does an “excellent” job meet, is this work assessed correctly, what is the overall impression of the work, what needs to be done to correct mistakes? These and others questions become the basis collective discussions in class and help develop students' assessment activities. Let's give an example. The teacher conducts a dictation and offers to check it before taking it. The student finds errors in his work and corrects them. In accordance with the instructions, the teacher reduces the grade by a point. Let's analyze this situation. The student found the mistakes himself, which means he has the skill of self-control. Naturally, in this case, what is required is not punishment, but encouragement. But there is a teacher who will say: “The student must immediately write without errors.” However, the process of transforming a skill into a skill (and this is what the teacher requires) is quite difficult and uneven, so the fact that the student cannot yet immediately apply the writing rule is rather his problem, not his fault. And until a student has developed one or another skill, he should have the right to correct a mistake and analyze the reasons for his failures together with the teacher. In addition, this situation is also unpedagogical because from a schoolboy a negative attitude towards the action of self-control and an indifferent attitude towards assessment are formed (“Why look for mistakes in yourself if the teacher will lower the grade anyway?”). The contradiction that arises in such a situation has a negative impact on the entire educational process, as it brings discomfort to the relationship between the student and the teacher, between classmates, children and parents. In the process of implementing the educational function, conditions are created for the formation of those personality qualities that become a stimulus for a positive attitude towards learning. This applies, first of all, skills and desire to exercise self-control. These include: the ability to compare the results of one’s activities with a standard; the ability to analyze the correctness (incorrectness) of the choice of method of educational action, the means of achieving the goal; searching for errors in someone else’s and one’s own work, analyzing their causes and identifying ways to correct them. Thus, the control and evaluation system becomes a regulator of relations schoolboy and learning environment. The student becomes an equal participant in the learning process. He is not only ready, he strives to test his knowledge, to establish what he has achieved and what he still has to overcome. The teacher uses a digital score (mark) and a value judgment for assessment.

Characteristics of digital marks and verbal assessments

It must be admitted that assessment based on the analysis of current and final grades remains the most productive form. At the same time, attention should be paid to its significant shortcomings: underestimation of the teacher’s value judgments, passion for “percentage mania,” and subjectivity of the grades given. The tendency to formally “accumulate” marks and focus on the “average” mark derived by arithmetic calculations should be avoided. The final mark cannot be a simple arithmetic average of the data for the current test. It is set taking into account the actual level of training achieved by the student at the end of a certain period. In this case, the student receives the right to correct a bad grade and receive more high scores and improve your academic performance. For example, a schoolboy received for dictation By Russian language "2", as he made serious mistakes when applying the spelling rules he had learned. But in his subsequent work, he learned these rules and did not violate them in the next dictation. This situation means that the first “2” is invalid, corrected and is not taken into account when calculating the final mark. Thus, it is necessary to combat the fetishization of the mark as the only “tool” for the formation of diligence and motives for learning and encourage refusal from formalism and "percentomania". It is necessary to improve, first of all, the methodology of current control, to strengthen the importance of educational functions. Another important problem of activity assessments There are different approaches to using grades in first grade. There should be no grading of first grade students for the entire first year. A mark as a digital form of assessment is entered by the teacher only when students know the main characteristics of different marks (in which case a “5” is given, in which cases the mark is reduced). Before introducing marks, it is not recommended to apply any other marks of assessment - stars, flowers, multi-colored stripes, etc. The teacher should know that in this case the functions of the mark are taken over by this subject sign and the child’s attitude towards it is identical to the attitude towards a digital assessment. The mark evaluates the result of a certain stage of training. While children are just beginning to learn the basics of reading, letters, scores, until any specific learning results are achieved, the mark evaluates the learning process more, attitude student to implementation a specific educational task, records unestablished skills and unconscious knowledge. Based on this, it is inappropriate to evaluate this stage of training with a mark. Taking into account modern requirements for assessment activities in primary schools, a four-point system of digital assessments (marks) is being introduced. The rating “very bad” (mark 1) is canceled. This is due to the fact that the unit is practically not used as a mark in primary school and a “very bad” rating can be equated to a “bad” rating. The “mediocre” rating is canceled and the “satisfactory” rating is introduced. Characteristics of digital assessment (marks) "5" ("excellent") - the level of fulfillment of requirements is significantly higher satisfactory: absence of errors both in the current and in the previous educational material; no more than one defect (two defects are equal to one error); logic And completeness of presentation. “4” (“good”) - the level of fulfillment of the requirements is higher than satisfactory: the use of additional material, the completeness and logic of the disclosure of the issue; independence of judgment, reflection of one’s attitude to the subject of discussion. The presence of 2-3 errors or 4-6 shortcomings in the current educational material; no more than 2 errors or 4 shortcomings in the material covered; minor violations of the logic of presentation of the material; the use of irrational methods for solving an educational problem; some inaccuracies in the presentation of the material; “3” (“satisfactory”) - a sufficient minimum level of fulfillment of the requirements for a specific job; no more than 4-6 errors or 10 deficiencies in the current educational material; no more than 3-5 errors or no more than 8 shortcomings in the completed educational material; individual violations of the logic of presentation of the material; incomplete disclosure of the issue;

"2" ("poor") - the level of fulfillment of requirements is below satisfactory: the presence of more than 6 errors or 10 shortcomings in the current material; more than 5 errors or more 8 shortcomings By passed material; on breakdown of logic, incompleteness, lack of disclosure the issue under discussion, absence argumentation or the fallacy of its main provisions.

Enter the score "for general impression from written work." Its essence lies in the definition relationship teachers To appearance of the work (neatness, aesthetic appeal, cleanliness, design, etc.). This mark is placed as an additional mark and is not entered into the journal. Thus, in the notebook (and in the diary), the teacher gives two marks (for example, 5/3): for the correct completion of the educational task (mark in the numerator) and for the general impression of the work (mark in the denominator). A reduction in the mark “for overall impression of work” is allowed if:

The work contains at least 2 sloppy corrections - the work is formatted carelessly, is difficult to read, the text contains a lot of strikethroughs, blots, unjustified abbreviations of words, none fields and red lines.

This position teachers V assessment activities will allow more objectively evaluate learning results and “divide” answers to the questions “what has the student achieved in mastering subject knowledge?” and “what is his diligence and effort?”

Characteristics of verbal assessment (value judgment)

Verbal assessment is a brief description of the results of schoolchildren’s educational work. This form of evaluative judgment allows the student to reveal the dynamics of the results of his educational activities, to analyze his capabilities and diligence. The peculiarity of verbal assessment is its content, analysis of work schoolboy, clear recording (above all!) of successful results And revealing the reasons for failure. Moreover, these reasons should not concern personal characteristics student (“lazy”, “inattentive”, “didn’t try”). A value judgment accompanies any mark as a conclusion on the merits of the work, revealing how positive, and its negative sides, as well as ways to eliminate shortcomings and errors.