Introduction

Currently, the number of street children, children regularly not attending school, is growing, and the relationship between students and teachers is disturbed at school. The school is dominated by the traditional teaching methodology that has developed over several decades. The traditional methodology includes a five-point grading system, which determines the level of knowledge, abilities and skills 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 25.09.2000. it is written that “in the first grade of a four-year elementary school, the point (grade) assessment system is excluded. It is also unacceptable to use any symbolic symbols replacing a digital mark (stars, airplanes, suns, etc.). Only a verbal explanatory assessment is allowed. In addition, if the student answers incorrectly, it is impossible to 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" from 1999. in article 15 "General requirements for the organization of the educational process" in clause 6 it is stated that "the discipline in the educational institution is supported on the basis of respect for the human dignity of students. The use of physical and mental violence against students and pupils is not allowed. " In the letter "On the organization of training ..." it is written that "not subject to any assessment: the pace of work of the student; personal qualities of schoolchildren, the originality of mental processes ”. This is written in the documents of the Russian Federation, but in practice, already in the first quarter of grade 1, symbols are placed that replace marks (clouds, flags, faces, etc.), and in some schools a digital mark appears already in the second quarter of grade 1. This leads to a violation of the child's mental balance, disorders, neuroses; conflict behavior in the "teacher - student" sphere.

It is also important that in school terms such as "grade" and "grade" are used interchangeably, often replacing "grade" with the word "grade". This lack of distinction is seen not only among teachers. So, in the diaries of students, in the column where the marks are set, there is the heading "grade".

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

The research problem is to study the effect of grading and grading on a child, and how, in accordance with it, the teacher should evaluate the work of students and give them grades.

The purpose of the study is to reveal how the grade and assessment affects the personality of the child, his relationship with others, and how the teacher needs to evaluate the work of the students.

Hypothesis: the reaction of a younger student to an evaluative situation is characterized by undifferentiation and generates increased psychological tension; the definition of assessment criteria and grades, familiarization with them of students and emotional support from the teacher significantly reduce the level of psychological tension.

Research objectives:

1. Show the deep roots of the assessment system.

2. To identify the options for the assessment system on the part of the teacher (styles of assessment activities).

3. To identify the options for the perception of the teacher's evaluative activity by children.

4. Determine the conditions for organizing the assessment situation.

The object of the research is the evaluative activity of the teacher; the subject of the research is the perception of evaluative activity by younger schoolchildren.

Research methods:

1. Questioning students

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

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

2. Questioning of parents (method of unfinished sentences).

Chapter 1. The psychological essence of the teacher's assessment activity

The psychological essence of evaluative activity.

Human evaluative activity is complex and contradictory; it has long attracted researchers. At the beginning of the XX century. Kurt Lewin noted the existence of an "objective scale of values" and "subjective evaluative activity" in the human evaluative act. He suggested that between them "there may be connections, but at times they may not coincide with each other at all." (quoted from 2.p.155)

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

Subjective assessment criteria are determined by the needs, aspirations of the individual, the mood of the person, i.e. the inner position of a person. Objective assessment criteria are determined by the psychological atmosphere, communication style, position and worldview of the team, i.e. external factors beyond the control of a person. From the perspective of the child, any objective assessment of the teacher will be subjective; an adequate assessment arises when correlating subjective criteria with objective ones. From the perspective of the teacher, an objective assessment will be an assessment without bias, without the teacher's attitude to the student as "good" or "bad", and the subjective assessment will be, taking into account all the characteristics of the student, his attitude to learning, the teacher's attitude to the student.

When they talk about control and evaluation activities, they primarily mean the activities of the teacher. The teacher's assessment activity is a special kind of activity that includes control, verification, assessment 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 on the positive side. Depending on the personal qualities of the teacher, on the direction of his activities, on the style and manner of teaching the subject, each teacher has his own forms of control, assessment criteria and grades.

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

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

Sh.A. Amonashvili, points out that “assessment is a process, activity (or action) of assessment carried out by a person”; "The mark is the result of this process, this activity (or action), their conditionally formal reflection." (1.P.17). According to Amonashvili, the verification and assessment of students' knowledge, abilities and skills “means the identification and comparison of the result of educational activity with the requirements set by the program at one stage or another of the training. The check is established: whether the educational task was completed correctly, whether there are any deviations in the formation of ideas and concepts, what are the level and quality of skills and abilities. The accuracy and completeness of the assessment determine the rationality of the movement towards the goal. ZUNs should be assessed for the sole purpose of outlining the ways of their improvement, deepening, clarification for the active inclusion of schoolchildren in multilateral labor and creative activities aimed at cognition and transformation of reality. " (1.P.20). However, it is not difficult to notice the subtext of the assessment system of learning, which consists in encouraging and forcing students to learn. This "scoring function reaches its peak when the mark is set." (1.P.20). The teacher uses the assessment with the help of marks not only to determine the level of progress of students in the assimilation of knowledge and orientation in their quality, but also to maintain discipline, to influence students. Based on the analysis of the level of knowledge and skills of each individual student found 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 to his personality and educational efforts. (1.P.18). Sh.A. Amonashvili believes that “the assimilation of the assessment and the mark is tantamount to the identification of the process of solving the problem with its result. On the basis of the assessment, a mark may appear as its formal and logical result. " (1.P.17).

The 1964 edition of the "Pedagogical Encyclopedia" says: "The assessment of the progress of schoolchildren is expressed in points, as well as in the value judgments of the teacher" (p. 243), here the concepts of "assessment" and "grade" are considered as synonyms.

E.I. Perovsky, like Sh.A. Amonashvili, opposes the identification of the concepts of "assessment" and "mark". He believes that “grades, or scores, are one of the forms of expression of the relationship, ie. evaluation ". (cited from 4.p.54).

N.F. Talyzina in her works does not separate the concepts of "assessment" and "grade", she uses only the term "assessment". (6.P.152).

The history of the development of marks is calculated for centuries, and the control and verification system - for millennia. Instead of marks and together with them, corporal punishment was used, but there were also such 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 dealt with one child, i.e. individual or tutoring lessons. This form was considered optimal, became widespread and has survived to this day. Children of simple and poor people studied in schools where education was based on the fear of physical punishment for poor performance and bad behavior.

Elena Alekseevna Sergienko, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Head of the Laboratory of Cognitive Psychology at the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

How likely is it to rain today? Is this person suitable for a certain position? What are the chances of your favorite football team winning the decisive match? How confident are you in the correctness of your decision? What is the real price of this car, is the seller asking too much for it? How much can you trust this person?

Each of us often has to answer such questions. The answers to them are value judgments (in the English-language literature - judgment). A value judgment is a subjective, or psychological, dimension. Making a value judgment, a person classifies, ranks, assigns certain numerical values ​​to objects, events or people.

The psychological study of value judgments began in the 50s of the XX century in the framework of decision-making problems. In 1954, Word Edwards published a survey of decision-making research by economists, mathematicians, and philosophers. In 1955, another famous researcher, Herbert Simon, formulated the principle of bounded rationality, the essence of which was that, due to the limited cognitive abilities of a person, his value judgments and decisions differ significantly from rational ones, they are non-optimal and full of errors. Since then, the efforts of psychologists working in the field of the study of value judgments have been aimed at identifying more and more errors in subjective measurements. At the same time, everything that does not correspond to the normative model - the mathematical model of decision-making developed by mathematicians or economists, was considered a mistake. It came almost to a tragic intensity of passions. The belief that human value judgments are very unstable, inconsistent and fuzzy, they ominously distort reality, their rationality is inevitably violated by many different factors: the specifics of the task, the context, the individual qualities of the person making the value judgment, his emotional state, etc. The picture was such that a person in his assessments of reality and decisions is almost a completely irrational being. The situation is paradoxical. On the one hand, we have rational, normative models, theories that prescribe a person how he should act, on the other hand, irrational human behavior. Moreover, the author of both the first (theories) and the second (real behavior) was all the same humanity.

This situation led to a turning point in the interpretation of rational behavior. This happened around the mid-90s. In this sense, the survey on value judgments and decision making published in 1998 is typical. What, in essence, was this approach and what needs to be revised in it? The only criterion for the optimality of evaluative behavior was its correctness. At the same time, correctness was understood as how accurately reality is reflected in a value judgment. If, for example, a person believes that his chances of getting a job in a given city are equal to 25%, and special objective data confirm this assessment, then the judgment can be considered correct. If a person systematically overestimates (or underestimates) his chances of getting a job, then such value judgments can rightfully be considered erroneous, and therefore suboptimal.

However, many years of research have convinced psychologists that correctness is not the only criterion that a person is guided by when making a value judgment. If you need to buy a disposable lighter, then you won't spend long hours researching the technical specifications of these highly inexpensive devices, polling power users and structured interviews with sellers. Let you mistakenly consider one of the lighters to be more reliable and convenient to use, let your evaluative behavior and subsequent choice be incorrect in the strict sense of the word, but they will be optimal in terms of the criterion of saving, or minimizing, effort. Let the players overestimate their chances of winning before the game, let their value judgments be incorrect, but they will be optimal in terms of the quality of the upcoming game, since by doing so they will kind of program themselves to win. They may not even win, but they will certainly play better than if they initially expected defeat.

So, as paradoxical as it sounds, a value judgment may be wrong, but optimal. The accuracy of the reflection of reality is not the only criterion for the optimality of value judgments. Modern research on evaluative behavior makes it possible to distinguish at least three more criteria. It is saving, or minimizing, cognitive effort; increasing the effectiveness of the subsequent action; improvement of the emotional state. The criterion of optimality is essentially what, for the sake of which, in the name of which a value judgment is made. In general, behavior can be considered optimal if it maximizes, contributes to the achievement of the criterion of optimality.

Unrealistic optimism

For a long time in psychology and psychiatry it was believed that a mentally healthy, in all respects normal person assesses himself correctly, i.e. he does not underestimate or overestimate his merits and demerits in comparison with other people. But it turns out that this is not entirely true. A fairly large number of studies on self-esteem show that people tend to overestimate themselves somewhat.

For example, you ask a large number of ordinary people to rate themselves on such a quality as intelligence, choosing one of the following answer options:

I am significantly more stupid than most people of my age, gender and educational level;

I am more stupid than most people of my age, gender and educational level;

I am somewhat more stupid than most people of my age, gender and educational level;

compared to people of my age, gender and educational level, my mental capacity is average;

I am somewhat smarter than most people of my age, gender and educational level;

I am smarter than most people of my age, gender and educational level;

I am significantly smarter than most people of my age, gender and educational level.

On average, people will rate themselves slightly above average. Think about it: the average person rates themselves above average.

This and a number of other similar tendencies have been called unrealistic optimism. Numerous studies carried out in various countries (USA, Russia, Israel, etc.) show a steady tendency of mentally absolutely normal adults to overestimate themselves according to a wide range of personal qualities.

There is a clear incorrectness of the value judgment. Self-esteem distorts reality. In this case, we are dealing with self-esteem given by a person in the format of social comparison. An individual evaluates his personal qualities by comparing himself with others. According to Wood, when resorting to social comparison, people can pursue three different goals: to form a correct idea about themselves (the criterion for an accurate reflection of reality); improve their behavior or personal properties (criterion for increasing the effectiveness of subsequent action); to increase their own self-esteem and self-esteem (a criterion for improving the emotional state). In addition, Wood noted that if a person believes that someone else is better than himself in some respect, then this serves as a powerful incentive for self-improvement, improving his own behavior ("If someone can do better, then I can." ). On the other hand, the realization that you are better than others in some way increases self-esteem and improves the emotional state ("I am good, I am better than many others"). In this regard, there is reason to believe that the phenomenon of unrealistic optimism is associated with the desire of the subject to improve his emotional state.

Illusion of control

Belief in the controllability of an event, in the fact that we can somehow influence its outcome, is associated with a subjective assessment of the likelihood of this event. If the outcome of an event has a positive meaning for us (for example, successful graduation from university, defense of a dissertation, etc.), then the more we believe that we can influence the outcome of the event, the higher we estimate its probability. If the outcome of the event is negative (for example, illness, dismissal from work, etc.), then its subjective probability decreases with an increase in belief in controllability. However, often the belief in the controllability of the situation turns out to be illusory, and in such cases the assessment of the probabilities of events turns out to be erroneous - overestimated or underestimated. In Lange's witty experiments, it was shown that people sometimes develop a belief in control, even in relation to purely random events. To illustrate the illusion of control, Lange gave each of his subjects the opportunity to buy a $ 1 lottery ticket that could win $ 50. The experimenter allowed one group of subjects to choose a ticket on their own. Another group received a randomly selected ticket from the experimenter. Before the drawing, the experimenter asked each subject from both groups for what price they would be willing to sell their ticket if they were willing to pay more than the original price for it, i.e. more than $ 1. While the subjects in the second group gave an average price of $ 1.96, the subjects in the first group (those who chose their own ticket) requested an average of $ 8.67. It is logical to assume that the "independent" subjects asked for a higher price because the probability of winning seemed to them greater than the subjects of the other group. Thus, the results of this experiment substantiate the fact that belief in the controllability of a situation affects the assessment of the probability of an event.

On the other hand, in relation to a number of situations, the belief in the controllability of events is quite reasonable and productive, since a person who strives for a positive outcome (or avoids a negative outcome) and is able to influence what happens to him really makes a positive outcome more, and negative is less likely. If a person believes that he is able to change the situation for the better, then this mobilizes him and thereby increases the likelihood of success. If the degree of controllability of the situation is somewhat exaggerated, then this is not optimal from the point of view of the criterion of the accuracy of reflecting reality, but optimal from the point of view of increasing the success of future action.

Availability heuristic and visibility effect

Another well-studied effect of event probability estimation is the availability heuristic. A heuristic is a creative method of solving a problem, as opposed to a given, "prescribed" method of solving. The essence of this effect is that a person estimates the likelihood of events depending on how easily examples of these or similar events come to mind, pop up in memory. In order to assess, for example, how often it rains in a given area, one can, of course, turn to a deep study of the geographical features of the area and the analysis of weather records over the past 20-30 years. But if you are not a meteorologist, you are unlikely to fool yourself in this way. You will save your cognitive efforts and, guided by this very criterion, solve the problem in a heuristic way: you will slightly strain your memory, remember the cases when it rained here, and based on this general impression, estimate its probability in the given area. Most likely, your estimate will differ from the true one (say, from the estimate of meteorologists), but the magnitude of the error is unlikely to be significant for you.

Typically, this heuristic works reasonably well because, other things being equal, frequent events are easier to remember or imagine than rare events. But in some cases, the availability heuristic (and, accordingly, the desire to minimize cognitive effort) leads to systematic errors. Some events come to mind more easily, not because they are more likely, but because of other factors. We remember the event better if it happened recently, if it had a strong emotional impact, if it is often covered in the press, etc. Thus, we assess the event as more likely, often without any real reason.

In one experiment, American students were asked what is the most likely cause of death in the United States: to die under the debris of a falling plane or be eaten by a shark. Most considered shark attacks to be more likely. However, statistics show that the real chances of dying under the wreckage of the plane are 30 times (!) More than the probability of being eaten by a shark. Apparently the movie Jaws and other emotionally charged information played a role.

Another effect close to the availability heuristic related to perception and estimation of probability is the vividness effect. Research shows that our assessments and judgments are influenced by the brightness and vividness of information. One of the most successful experiments demonstrating this effect was carried out by a group of American psychologists in 1980. The subjects participated as a jury in a simulated trial of a drunk driving charge against a certain person. Half of the subjects read the pale conclusion of the accuser and the bright conclusion of the defense lawyer, the other half, on the contrary, the bright, graphic conclusion of the accuser and the pale conclusion of the defense lawyer. For example, a pale description of the defense was: "The accused was not drunk because he was attentive enough to avoid colliding with an oncoming vehicle." And a graphic description of the same episode looked like this: "The accused was not drunk, because he managed to avoid a collision with a bright orange Volkswagen." The results of the experiment showed that the clarity of the conclusion did not affect the assessment by the subjects of the guilt of the accused immediately after reading the conclusions. However, the next day, when the same subjects were asked to re-assess the guilt of the accused, those who read the prosecutor's visual statement shifted their grades towards the plea, and those subjects who read the defense's visual opinion shifted their assessments towards the plea of ​​innocence.

According to the authors of the experiment, the visibility effect can be explained by the more efficient storage of bright, vivid information in memory compared to information devoid of visual features. Thus, visual information, other things being equal, comes to mind more easily, and therefore the events associated with it are assessed as more likely. In fact, in this case, too, we are dealing with the influence on value judgments of the desire (usually unconscious) to simplify the procedure for making a judgment, to save cognitive efforts, replacing a detailed analysis of information with a less laborious technique - reliance on the liveliness of information, on the freshness of its trace in memory.

Anchoring effect

This effect is directly related to the popular expression "to dance from the stove." Our value judgments depend on the starting point, from the starting point. Let's imagine such a strange, but quite real experiment. This is something like a roulette wheel. Numbers are applied along the perimeter. The experimenter launches a roulette wheel. In one of the two groups of subjects, the roulette wheel stops at 65. The subjects are asked: "Please tell me more or less 65 percent of African countries in the United Nations?" The next question: "What, in your opinion, is this percentage?" In another group of subjects, the situation is no different, except that the roulette wheel stopped at the number 10, and the number 65 was replaced by 10.

Let us now see how the subjects of these two groups answered the question about the percentage of African countries in the UN. The most interesting thing is that the average values ​​of their answers were very different. The subjects of the first group, on average, gave an answer of 45%. At the same time, the subjects of the second group had an average rating of 25%. The subjects, as is usually done in such cases, were randomly selected from the same population. Why, then, did they give such vastly different answers? The only possible reason (and the difference in conditions) is that the subjects of the experimental groups received different reference points: the first 65, the second 10. These anchors influenced the subsequent assessments, although the assignment of the anchor was purely random (the tape was rotated in front of the subjects) , and, moreover, the anchor itself had no thematically any relation to the problem being solved.

Consider the data of another experiment, which is most directly related to real life. Real estate agents (realtors) were given the opportunity to visit the home for sale. This house was officially appraised by experts at $ 135,000. Before visiting the house, realtors received a standard 10-page package of information that is usually used to assess the value of real estate. All agents received the same information with one exception: in the packages of some agents (group 1) the price was indicated by 11-12% lower than the real one, others (group 2) - 4% lower than the real one, the third (group 3) - by 4% higher than the real one, the fourth (group 4) - 11-12% higher than the real one. Realtors had 20 minutes to inspect the house, after which they had to give their estimates of the price of the house (four types of standard estimates in total). The experimental results are shown in table. 1.

Table 1. Average estimates given by realtors, based on Northcraft and Neale (1987)

Why was there such a spread in the judgments of experienced realtors? Because each of the listed groups has been assigned its own anchor. The grades seem to be attracted by the anchor. Assessments are influenced not only by reality, "pulling" to itself, but also by an anchor that does not allow one to fully submit to reality. The larger the anchor, the overall greater each of the four rating types.

Thus, the anchor effect takes place not only in artificially created experimental situations, but also in real life; not only in relation to the assessment of probabilities (more precisely, frequencies, as in the experiment with the assessment of the frequency of occurrence of African countries in the UN), but also in relation to the assessment of values ​​in the direct and figurative sense of the word.

The anchor effect can manifest itself in a wide variety of situations. Typical examples are negotiations and assessment of the personality traits of another person. In the case of negotiations, we can be influenced by what conditions are put forward by the opposite side: these conditions can serve as an anchor, the starting point of bargaining. Our assessment of another person can be influenced by other people's feedback and poorly verified rumors, even if we try to be impartial and not rely on other people's opinions. The anchor effect can do us a disservice in cases where the anchor itself - the initial information on which we base our assessments - significantly distorts the idea of ​​the subject of assessment or (even worse) has nothing to do with it. Conversely, if the anchor represents some quintessence, concise and undistorted characteristic of the object being assessed, then the process and result of the assessment can be very successful.

Halo effect

Another very common human perception effect is the halo effect. Its essence lies in the fact that our assessment of the individual qualities of another person depends on our general impression of this person. At the same time, judging about the individual qualities of a person, we overly rely on our general impression and pay insufficient attention to the analysis and observation of its individual manifestations. We are, as it were, captivated by a common impression that dominates our assessments. For example, under the influence of certain circumstances, we have a very favorable impression of this person (Ivanov), i.e. we believe that Ivanov is generally a good person - smart, kind, honest, likable, sexually attractive, active, proactive, creative, etc.

Now let's do a thought experiment. We have been watching Ivanov for some time, talking with him, maybe even doing something with him. We are then asked to rate him for intelligence, kindness, honesty, likability, sex appeal, activity, and creativity. We give Ivanov our marks, using, for example, the usual five-point system: from 1 (very low development of quality: say, very low mental abilities) to 5 (very high development of quality: very high mental abilities). At the same time, a professional psychologist, wishing to test our psychological intuition, tests Ivanov for the same qualities by which we should evaluate him. Testing gives an objective picture, our assessments are subjective and intuitive. It's like measuring temperature with a thermometer versus judging (by eye) about temperature. What happens when we compare our judgments with the test results?

Even if we are good intuitive psychologists, but do not know anything about the halo effect, it turns out that our assessments of Ivanov for his individual qualities are, as it were, shifted towards his overall assessment (our general impression of him). And our opinion is as follows: "Ivanov is generally a good person," that is, on the whole, we mentally gave him a grade of 4. Our assessments of Ivanov in individual subjects (qualities) will, on average, be closer to 4 than his real "marks" ( test results). The essence of our conclusions (not necessarily, by the way, realized by us) boils down to the following: “Ivanov is not a bad person, above average. Smart enough. Rather kind than evil. In general, honest, although not crystal. It cannot be said that he is a handsome man, but of a pleasant appearance. "

When assessing another person, we all, to one degree or another, have a tendency to adjust our assessments to one template, to “cut one size fits all”. These patterns or "combs" are our overall impression of a person. The halo effect is one way of simplifying reality. Relying on our general impression, we believe that if a person is generally good, then he is good in everything or almost everything, if bad, then trashy in all his qualities.

The halo effect is, in the strict sense, a bias in value judgment. Let us clarify this idea. The halo effect takes place if and only if the correlation between assessments of a person's qualities is greater than the correlation between the objective (real, real) values ​​of these qualities. Guided by a general impression of a person, we overestimate the degree of consistency of his various properties with this general impression, we simplify the picture, considering a person more "monolithic" than he really is. To paraphrase a well-known saying, we do not see trees behind the forest. We have a very rough knowledge of the details, content with some generalized knowledge. We make a mistake in terms of the adequacy of the reflection of reality, but we act optimally in terms of minimizing cognitive efforts.

Counterfacts

Counterfacts are called representations of an alternative reality of the outcome of an event. This is thinking in the subjunctive mood like "if ..., then ..." this exam for 4 or even 5 "or" If I hadn't looked at the synopsis at all, then I would not have seen a triple. " It is easy to see that in the first case, our negligent student constructs an alternative scenario of events that would lead to a better outcome than reality. In other words, this means that he views his current situation as worse than what it could have been. These kinds of counterfacts are called upward counterfacts. In the second case, on the contrary, the current situation is perceived as relatively good, as it could be worse. This is a downward counterfact.

Rosa's study convincingly shows that upward counterfacts worsen the emotional state, but have a positive effect on future activity, and vice versa, counterfacts going downward, improve the emotional state, but lead to a relative deterioration in subsequent activity (compared with the control group that did not receive instruction counterfactual thinking). If a person is inclined to think about some event in the style of "if ... then ... (it would be worse)", then, naturally, he is glad that now is better than it could have been. On the other hand, if a person thinks "if only ... then ... (it would be better)", then his mood worsens. As for the influence of counterfacts on subsequent activities, the author of the concept argues as follows. Presenting an alternative course of events that could lead to a better outcome, a person imagines a scenario that implies a certain line of behavior in the past. This, most likely, prompts a person in the future to correct, to bring his behavior in accordance with this scenario (for example, henceforth, to hang out less at discos during the session). If a person thinks in the mode of counterfacts going down, thinking that everything turned out well, then there is no special need to correct his own behavior (next time you can look at the synopsis before the exam and again successfully "slip through").

Deferred Compensation Assessment

Imagine this situation. You are offered a choice of two one-time jobs at the same time. The amount of work and pay are the same in both cases. The only difference is that in the first case, you will receive money immediately upon completion of the work, and in the second - after six months. What kind of work would you prefer, even if you do not urgently need money and even if you distract yourself from the opportunity to earn a bank or other interest on the money received? The answer suggests itself. You will, of course, prefer your first job. Why? Because the usefulness (subjective value) of an outcome decreases as the delay in its implementation increases. Simply put, today's money is worth more than the money that you will have to receive in six months. This pattern - the discount function - reveals itself not only in relation to money. It is logical to assume that the reason for the described effect is the biological individual's “understanding” of its mortality, the finiteness of its existence. The longer you need to wait for what you want, the less likely it is to receive it (you may not live to see it). Apparently, this is why the $ 1,000 to be received today is subjectively perceived (estimated) as a large amount compared to the same $ 1,000 that you will have to receive six months, a year or a decade later.

That this error is an example of irrational behavior? Yes, in some cases, the tendency to underestimate the delayed reward can lead to abandoning an action associated with obtaining a significant, but very distant result. We can chase the tit in our hands all our lives, ignoring the pie in the sky, or, speaking in pragmatic terms: refuse the delayed receipt of $ 10,000. in favor of the immediate receipt of 1,000 c.u. And yet, in most cases, the sensitivity to the delay of reward, the dependence of the subjective value of the reward on when we can receive it, helps us choose the most successful options for behavior, and, therefore, works on one of the criteria we have specified for the optimality of a value judgment.

Subjective assessment of gains and losses

We perceive positive and negative events differently, not only in the sense of the sign, but also in modulus. In other words, the joy of winning $ 100. less than the chagrin of losing $ 100 We are more sensitive to the "stick" than to the "carrot"; to pain, loss, punishment, than to comfort, gains and rewards. But why? It can be assumed that this is due to the instinct of self-preservation. Punishment upon reaching a certain value leads to death. Preservation of life is a necessary condition for the functioning of the individual. First of all, you need to ensure your survival. If this condition is not met, then everything else will lose its meaning. In order for the ship to sail on the desired course, it is necessary first of all to make sure that it does not leak and, moreover, does not sink. Successful shipping is based precisely on this principle: first and foremost - buoyancy, and then - following the planned route. The success of an action is ensured in a similar way: first of all - safety, avoidance of losses, and then - achievements and gains.

Justification of a Difficult Decision, Flashback Error, and Confirmation Bias

Let us briefly consider three effects in value judgments, which, most likely, are caused by the need to remove (reduce) uncertainty, the desire for the consistency of one's own behavior and external events.

The effect of justifying difficult decisions was predicted by Leon Festinger, the author of the well-known theory of cognitive dissonance. This effect concerns the assessment of the attractiveness of alternative behaviors and occurs after a difficult decision has been made. A difficult decision is the case when the alternatives from which you need to make a choice do not differ much in their attractiveness.

An experimental study of one of Festinger's students - Brehm showed that after a difficult decision is made, the subjective attractiveness of the chosen option increases and the subjective attractiveness of the rejected one decreases. The experiment was constructed as follows. The subjects (women) were asked to rate the attractiveness of various household items such as a stopwatch, radio, desk lamp, etc. After that, one of the items was presented to the control group as a gift. The first experimental group (the group of difficult decision) was given a choice between objects close in attractiveness; the second (group of easy solutions) gave the opportunity to choose an object from two very different attractiveness. Subjects in all three groups were then asked to re-rate the items for their attractiveness. The results showed that the subjects of the experimental groups (those who had the right to choose) changed their assessments of the attractiveness of the objects that were given to them to choose from: in comparison with the initial assessments, the rejected object was perceived as relatively less attractive, and the chosen one as more attractive. In other words, the attractiveness of the rejected option diminished, while the attractiveness of the chosen one increased. Moreover, the change in the ratings of attractiveness was more significant in the case of a difficult decision.

Festinger explains the described fact as follows. After making a difficult decision, a person experiences emotional discomfort, which is caused by the fact that, on the one hand, there are negative traits in the chosen option, and on the other hand, there is something positive in the rejected option: it was partially taken badly, but it was accepted; rejected is partly good, but rejected. In an effort to get rid of the contradiction he is experiencing, a person convinces himself that what he has chosen is not just slightly better than the rejected one, but much better, he kind of pushes the alternatives apart: the chosen one pulls up the scale of attractiveness, the rejected one pulls down. This results in changes in value judgments regarding the attractiveness of alternative behaviors.

Another effect, presumably associated with the need to remove uncertainty and, accordingly, emotional discomfort, is the hindsight bias: what has already happened seems inevitable and obvious to a person. Directly in value judgments, the effect is manifested in the fact that a person overestimates his own estimates of the probability of some event after the event has already occurred. It seems to a person that his predictions were more definite than they really are. Hence the other name for the effect: "I knew it would happen" ("I knew it would happen"). The classic experimental demonstration of the retrospection error was as follows. Subjects were asked to rate the likelihood of various events (such as US President Nixon's visit to China prior to his trip to the Soviet Union). Several months after the first interview and after an event occurred (for example, Nixon's trip took place), subjects were asked to recall their initial estimates of the likelihood of this event. The results showed that most of the subjects overestimated these probabilities.

The striving for certainty, avoiding inconsistency and ambiguity, perhaps even more clearly manifests itself in the so-called confirmation bias. Its essence lies in the fact that a person evaluates as more reliable the information that confirms his opinion or his decision, in comparison with information that contradicts this opinion or decision. The propensity for confirmation goes even further: a person not only appreciates confirming information relatively higher, but also more easily retrieves it from memory.

Experimental manipulations of criteria for optimality of evaluative behavior

Certain experimental manipulations of situational and personal factors can serve as direct evidence that the criterion for the optimality of value judgments can be not only the accuracy of reflection of reality, but also the above criteria, such as saving cognitive efforts, increasing the effectiveness of subsequent actions and improving the emotional state.

The lack of time is one of the obvious external factors that determine the need to save on cognitive operations and use simplified methods of evaluative behavior instead of a systematic and complete analysis of the situation. For example, if you choose a product in a store, you can, of course, carefully read everything that is written on the packaging, compare the composition of the product with the composition of other similar products, etc. But in a number of cases, there is simply no time for a meticulous analysis of external information. In such cases, as research results show, a person turns to internal information that is stored in his memory, in particular, to some integral assessment of the attractiveness of an object, formed in the course of previous experience. The role of such information can be the prevailing stereotypes and attitudes (for example, "The new generation chooses" Pepsi ""). Relying on these stereotypes and attitudes is fraught with serious misconceptions, but in those cases when it is necessary to act promptly, the extraction of schematic information from memory can be very successful.

One of the demonstrations of the effect of increasing the effectiveness of action as one of the criteria for the optimality of evaluative behavior can be the results of experiments of the famous German researcher in the field of motivation Heckhausen and his colleagues. The main methodological technique used in these studies was the diagnosis of the presence and severity of errors and illusions in value judgments at various stages of preparation for action. It is logical to assume that the closer to the moment the action starts, the more significant its effectiveness becomes for the individual, the more the individual focuses on the performance of the forthcoming action. Everything else fades into the background. The results of the statements of the subjects (using the method of thinking aloud) confirm this assumption: the closer to the beginning of the action, the more and important. Thus, the aspiration to achieve maximum efficiency of action becomes dominant. And it is at the stage immediately preceding the action, as the results of the same experiments show, that people relatively more often have the illusion of control.

Let us dwell on the study of the influence of two distinctly negative emotions - sadness (despondency) and anxiety - on value judgments. According to the opinions of researchers of emotional states, the emotions of sadness, despondency, depression and despair are based on the experience of the loss or absence of a beloved object or person. In this regard, it is logical to assume that people in a depressed, sad mood will, first of all, strive to acquire something personally significant for them. By virtue of this desire, people in a state of sadness and longing buy gifts for themselves. On the other hand, the reason for the emotions of anxiety, anxiety and fear is the uncertainty of the situation and its poor control on the part of the individual. Consequently, a person who is in an anxious state will strive by all means to reduce the uncertainty of the situation and avoid risk.

Recent experimental studies have shown that when individuals are faced with a choice between behaviors that can result in high rewards with a low probability of a successful outcome (for example, a job offer with a large salary in the presence of a large competition), reward and a high probability of success (say, a job with a low salary and little competition from potential applicants), depending on their emotional state, demonstrate opposite preferences. Thus, the subjects who were in a state of sadness and depression relatively more often chose the option with a high reward and high risk, and the subjects who were in a state of anxiety chose the less risky option with a lower reward. The data of the conducted experiments give grounds to assert that the former evaluate the reward, the possibility of obtaining some valuable result, as the most personally significant factor in the situation of choice, while the latter are more focused on risk avoidance.

The approach to value judgments is in its infancy. But the turning point happened. Evaluative behavior was no longer considered only from the point of view of the accuracy of the reflection of reality, when all deviations from "correctness" were interpreted as a consequence of the limited cognitive processes of a person. In the study of value judgments, the fact that a person is not just a cognizing, but also an acting being begins to be taken into account more and more. In this regard, further studies of motivational, intentional (goals, intentions, attitudes) and emotional factors on evaluative behavior seem to be very promising.

The teacher's testing activity ends with the assignment of marks. According to the established tradition in the educational process, the word "assessment" means a certain result. In a broader sense, this word means not only the final result, but also the process of forming an assessment. Assessment is a necessary component of the monitoring process, the results of which are of great importance for students and their parents, since school grades affect, to one degree or another, the child's future and introduce an element of competition in students' attitudes. It would seem that such arguments should cause the teacher to strive for maximum objectivity and impartiality. However, this often does not happen, for example, in cases where grades are given in a hurry or depend on the personal relationship between teacher and student, class attendance, student behavior in class, etc. To give the assessment the maximum objectivity and adequacy of the set control goal, it is necessary to focus on the subject of assessment and minimize the influence of other factors that shift value judgments. Of course, in reality, different factors influence each grade given in the traditional way, so such assessments cannot be used to compare the results of teachers' work, to interpret them in the management of the quality of education. Pedagogical assessments are often mistakenly equated with grades. ( Modern funds evaluating results learning, Zvonnikov V.I., Chelyshkova M.B., 2007. The textbook is devoted to the history, methods and means pedagogical control.)

View document content
"Assessment: concept, function."

Assessment: concept, functions Relationship between assessment and self-assessment

Executor:

Gladkikh A.A.

« Grade" - this is the process of assessment, expressed in a detailed value judgment, expressed in verbal form.

"Grade" is the process of correlating real results with planned goals.

"Grade" can be varied, variable depending on the type of educational institutions, their specificity and focus.

"Deuce Again" F. Reshetnikov

R.F. Krivoshapova and O.F. Silyutina assessment is understood as a detailed, deeply motivated attitude of the teacher and the class team to the results of the achievements of each student.

ON. Baturin believes that the score - it is a mental process of reflection of object-object, subject-subject and subject-object relations of superiority and preference, which is realized in the course of comparing the subject of assessment and the assessment basis.

"Deuce Again" F. Reshetnikov

• Assessment is an element of pedagogical technology .

• Evaluation is the definition and expression in conventional signs, points, as well as in the teacher's value judgments, the degree of students' assimilation of knowledge, skills and abilities established by the program, the level of diligence and the state of discipline.
• Assessment is a process or activity associated with assessing the intellectual, mnemonic, perceptual and motor activity of a student (problem solving). A mark is a formal and logical result of an appraisal activity.

Evaluation expresses the result, and the mark serves to establish numerical analogues of value judgments.

• Grade is a way of expressing pedagogical assessment

• Grade is a point expression of pedagogical assessment in accordance with the program norms for academic subjects.

"Five again" (1954) N. Zabolotsky

Unlike other assessment methods, students 'grades are recorded in school documentation - class journals, exam protocols, statements, as well as in students' personal documentation - diaries, certificates, certificates, specially issued certificates

"Re-examination" F. Reshetnikov

Evaluation functions

• orientation of the student about the level of his knowledge and the degree of compliance with the standard;
• informing about successes and failures in studies;
• expression of the general judgment of the teacher about the student;
• stimulation of active learning activity.

According to B.G. Ananiev's estimate can be:

• orienting, influencing the mental work of the student, promoting the student's awareness of the process of this work and his understanding of his own knowledge;
• stimulating, affecting the affective-volitional sphere through the experience of success and failure, the formation of claims and intentions, actions and relationships;
• upbringing - under the direct influence of the mark occurs "acceleration or deceleration of the pace of mental work, qualitative changes (change in working methods), a change in the structure of apperception, transformation of intellectual mechanisms."

There are several ways to assess

• Comparative or Comparative. (The teacher compares the actions, skills, and knowledge of one student with another.)
• Normative. (In this way, the results are assessed based on the requirements of the educational standard and on the program requirements.)
• Personal. (The student's response is compared with his actions, skills, knowledge and answers in the past, correlated with the student's personal potential.)

Types of pedagogical assessment

in psychological and pedagogical literature highlight grades on sign(positive and negative); on time(anticipatory, ascertaining, delayed); on scope of work(for a part of the work, for a completely completed work); on breadth of personality(as a whole or individual manifestations); on form(value judgment, grade, behavior towards the student), etc.

Types of pedagogical assessment

• Subject assessments
• Personal pedagogical assessments
• Material
• Moral
• Effective
• Procedural
• Quantitative
• Qualitative

Ananiev B.G. considers the assessment as a dynamic system and highlights the levels of its development:

• 1) partial estimates(exist in the form of separate statements of the teacher about the personality traits of the student and his achievements in the situation of the survey);
• 2) fixed grades(exist in the form of marks as marks of appreciation);
• 3) integrated assessments(exist in the form of pedagogical characteristics; a pedagogical characteristic is not just a set of statements by a teacher, but a certain connection between them, that is, a combination and correlation of qualities of a student's personality).

Psychologist and teacher B.G. Ananyev singled out the types of assessments in the survey situation:

indirect, uncertain assessment, remark, denial, agreement, encouragement,

censure, approval, reinforcement and punishment

"Arrived for Vacation" F. Reshetnikov

Self-esteem

• Heightened self-esteem - it is the tendency of a person to exaggerate his own abilities and achievements, often while underestimating the abilities of others.

• Low self-esteem - this is a person's tendency to not quite objectively assess ourselves and our abilities, downplaying their importance.

“I am far from intending to banish the mark from school life altogether. No, you can't do without a mark "(V.A. Sukhomlinsky)

First of all, it is necessary to take into account the psychological characteristics of a child of primary school age: inability to objectively assess the results of their activities, weak control and self-control, inadequacy of acceptance of 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. Equally important is the requirement for the objectivity of the assessment. This is manifested, first of all, in that. that the result of the student's activity is assessed. The teacher's personal attitude towards the student should not affect the assessment. This is especially important because often the teacher divides children into excellent students, good students, and C graders and, regardless of the specific result of the work, puts mark in accordance with this division: an excellent student - overestimates, and a C grade - underestimates. The nature of the schoolchildren's acceptance of the teacher's assessment depends on the degree of their self-esteem formation. The implementation of this requirement is of particular importance in the development of educational and cognitive motivation of the child and his attitude to learning. The negative side of the teacher's activity in monitoring and evaluation 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 ("do not prompt" - and he found a mistake with a neighbor; "corrected" - and he found a mistake in himself ...). This approach forms the student's conviction 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 formation of students' skills to assess their results, compare them with the reference ones, 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 the work meet as "excellent", is this work assessed correctly, what is the general impression of the work, what needs to be done to correct the mistakes? These and others questions become the basis collective discussions in the classroom and help the development of assessment activities in schoolchildren. Let's give an example. The teacher conducts a dictation, and offers to check it before delivery. The student finds mistakes in his work and corrects them. In accordance with the instructions, the teacher lowers the grade by a point. Let's analyze this situation. The student himself found mistakes, which means that he has the skill of self-control. Naturally, in this case, not punishment is required, but encouragement. But there will be a teacher who will say: "The student should write without mistakes right away." However, the process of transferring skill to skill (and this is what the teacher requires) is rather difficult and uneven, therefore the fact that the student cannot immediately apply the rule of writing is rather his misfortune than his fault. And until a schoolchild has developed this or that skill, he should have the right to correct the mistake by analyzing the reasons for his failures jointly with the teacher. In addition, this situation is also non-pedagogical because at school a negative attitude towards the action of self-control is formed, an indifferent attitude towards assessment ("Why look for mistakes if the teacher will lower the grade anyway?"). The contradiction that forms in such a situation negatively affects 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 qualities of the personality, which become an incentive for a positive attitude towards learning. This applies primarily to skills and desire to exercise self-control. These include: the ability to compare the result of their activities with the standard; the ability to analyze the correctness (incorrectness) of the choice of the method of educational action, means of achieving the goal; search for mistakes in someone else's and his own works, analysis of their causes and determination of ways of correction. Thus, the monitoring and evaluation system becomes a regulator of relations schoolchild and learning environment. The student turns into an equal participant in the learning process. He is not only ready, he seeks to test his knowledge, to establish what he has achieved and what he still has to overcome. The teacher applies a digital score (grade) and value judgment for assessment.

Characteristics of digital mark and verbal assessment

It must be admitted that assessment based on the analysis of current and final marks is still the most productive form. At the same time, attention should be paid to its significant shortcomings: underestimation of the teacher's value judgments, enthusiasm for "percent addiction," the subjectivity of the marks set. The tendency of formal "accumulation" of marks, orientation to the "average" mark, derived by arithmetic calculations, should be avoided. The final mark cannot be a simple arithmetic mean of the current check. It is exhibited taking into account the actual level of training achieved by the student by the end of a certain period. At the same time, the student gets the right to correct a bad grade, get higher scores and improve his performance. For example, a student received for dictation on Russian language "2", as he made gross mistakes when applying the passed spelling rules. But in his subsequent work, he learned these rules and did not break them in the next dictation. This position means that the first "2" is invalid, corrected and is not taken into account when displaying the final mark. Thus, the fetishization of the mark as the only "tool" for the formation of diligence and motives for learning should be combated and encouraged refusal from formalism and "percent mania". It is necessary to improve, first of all, the method of current control, to strengthen the value of educational functions. Another important issue of activity evaluating are different approaches to using grade in first grade. Avoid grading first grade students for the entire first year. The mark as a digital formulation of the assessment is introduced by the teacher only when the students know the main characteristics of the different marks (in which case a "5" is put, in which cases the mark is lowered). Before the introduction of marks, it is not recommended to apply any other marks of assessment - asterisks, flowers, colored stripes, etc. The teacher should know that in this case the function of the mark is assumed by this subject mark and the child's attitude to it is identical to the relation to 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, counting until any definite learning outcomes are achieved, the mark evaluates the learning process more, attitude student to fulfillment specific educational task, fixes unsettled skills and unconscious knowledge. Proceeding from this, it is inappropriate to evaluate this stage of training with a mark. Taking into account modern requirements for assessment activities in primary school, a four-point system of digital assessments (grades) is introduced. The rating "very bad" (mark 1) is canceled. This is due to the fact that the unit as a grade in primary school is practically not used and the "very bad" grade can be equated with the "bad" grade. The score "mediocre" is canceled and the score "satisfactory" is entered. Characteristic of digital assessment (grade) "5" ("excellent") - the level of fulfillment of the requirements is much higher satisfactory: the absence of errors both in the current and in the previous educational material; no more than one defect (two defects are equated to one error); consistency 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 consistency of the disclosure of the question; independence of judgments, reflection of one's attitude to the subject of discussion. The presence of 2-3 errors or 4-6 shortcomings in the current training material; no more than 2 mistakes or 4 shortcomings in the passed material; minor violations of the logic of the presentation of the material; the use of irrational techniques for solving educational problems; some inaccuracies in the presentation of the material; "3" ("satisfactory") - a sufficient minimum level of fulfillment of the requirements for a particular job; no more than 4-6 mistakes or 10 shortcomings in the current training material; no more than 3-5 mistakes or no more than 8 shortcomings in the passed training material; separate violations of the logic of the presentation of the material; incomplete disclosure of the issue;

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

The mark "for the general impression of the written work" is introduced. Its essence is to determine relationship teachers To the appearance of the work (accuracy, aesthetic appeal, cleanliness, design, etc.). This mark is put as an additional one, it is not entered in the journal. Thus, in the notebook (and in the diary), the teacher puts two marks (for example, 5/3): for the correct performance of the educational task (mark in the numerator) and for the general impression of the work (mark in the denominator). A downgrade for the overall impression of the work is allowed if:

The work contains at least 2 sloppy corrections, - the work is framed carelessly, poorly readable, there are many strikethroughs, blots, unjustified abbreviations of words in the text, absent margins and red lines.

This position teachers v evaluative activities will allow more objectively assess the learning outcomes and "dilute" the answers to the questions "what did the student achieve in mastering subject knowledge?" and "what is his diligence and diligence?"

Characteristics of verbal assessment (value judgment)

Verbal assessment is a brief description of the results of schoolchildren's educational work. This form of value judgment allows you to reveal to the student the dynamics of the results of his educational activities, to analyze his capabilities and diligence. A feature of the verbal assessment is its meaningfulness, analysis of the work schoolboy, clear fixation (first of all!) of successful results and disclosure of the reasons for failure. Moreover, these reasons should not relate to personal characteristics student ("lazy", "inattentive", "did not try"). A value judgment accompanies any notation as a conclusion on the merits of the work, disclosing how positive, and its negative sides, as well as ways to eliminate shortcomings and errors.

Introduction

Chapter 1. Theoretical foundations of the formation of value judgments of the teacher

1.1. Evaluative judgment is the basis of the teacher's control and evaluative function 24

1.2. The relationship of the teacher's value judgments with the basic concepts of human learning 32

1.3. Psychological, pedagogical and philosophical aspects of the problem of the formation of value judgments of a teacher 43

Chapter 2. Experience in the formation of value judgments of a teacher using multi-point scales

2.1. Pilot 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

Appendices 112

Introduction to work

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

The analysis of pedagogical practice shows that in recent years, all kinds of surrogate assessment 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 all the variety of moves and the results of educational and cognitive activities of students, moreover, even to simply assess "knowledge, skills and abilities" need at least the entire five-point scale as positive. The use of a truncated three-point scale led to the impoverishment of the teacher's value judgments. and, as practice shows, most of the conflicts between the teacher and the student are due to weak argumentation on the part of the teacher when setting the same score for different students

com for different assimilation of educational material... All this led to the fact that experiments began with multi-point scales from five to ten points to one hundred points, for example, when using all kinds of rating systems or when conducting monitoring.

Thus, there is a whole complex of contradictions that interfere with an accurate definition of the quality of education in general and the degree of training of students in a specific academic subject, in particular. Here we are talking about the accuracy of the definition, about 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 instrument in his hands. Let's designate these main contradictions:

firstly, the contradiction between the need for a reliable assessment, the level of training and the quality of education and the lack of reliable, reliable and accurate indicators (assessment scales), and hence the corresponding value judgments of the teacher, as a detailed verbal characteristic of the entire variety of progress and results of educational cognitive activity of trainees;

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 teachers

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

All these contradictions predetermined underdevelopment of the problem of the formation of value judgments of the teacher adequate not

only the degree of training of pupils (students), but also the quality and quantity of labor expended by the trainees, 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. Grades "five", "four" and "three" and the corresponding rather primitive value judgments of the first kind of the type - "excellent", "good", "satisfactory" mark the success in mastering a particular subject as in groups for gifted children ( for example, gymnasium classes), and in general education classes and in KRO classes (correctional and developmental education).

Thus, it turns out that, for example, "excellent", like other grades, already have a triple nature and, despite the similarity in appearance, they have nothing in common with each other in education documents, because behind them hides a different degree of training of these students. This is a serious consequence of the fact that three points of the official scale and the accompanying value judgments are clearly not enough, to evaluate the whole gamut of characteristics of students' advancement along the path of cognition, along the path of personality development as a whole. All of the above and 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 upbringing and development of personal, socially significant qualities of students. Control over the degree of training of students (over the level of assimilation 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 the teacher's control and evaluation activity and forming appropriate value judgments at the same time, the following stages can be designated:

Middle of the ХУ111 century. Monitoring the educational work of gymnasium students, Using the teacher's report cards for each month. Introduce

no supporting symbols, the form of expression of which was the initial
letters (V.I. - I did everything, WELL. - didn't know the lesson Z.U.N.T. - knew the lesson not-
% firmly etc.).

End of the ХУ111 century. Examination mechanical reproduction textbook texts. Accounting attentiveness student when working with texts. The leading check parameters are - accuracy and correctness of knowledge, skills and abilities.

First half of the 19th century. Extensive use of diversity
verbal and book methods of verification. Conversation as the main method of
verification of knowledge. The introduction of questions and tasks for the development of thinking
> definitions (analysis, synthesis, comparison, generalization, etc.), student speech.

Additional evaluation criterion - awareness of knowledge.

Second half. XIX century. Preferential use on
visual control methods. Taking into account the perception of educational information and
"Subjects" of study, verification of the final results of activities
students. Development of methodological techniques for monitoring and assessing home
k tasks (sketch in a notebook, description of phenomena, written report and

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

changing the picture, demonstration of experience, condensed survey, reproduction of fragments of laboratory (practical) work, survey with simulation.

During these years, controversy has already arisen on the issues of assessment and self
assessment of knowledge, skills of students, which states that the score
the system seems to reduce the possibilities of using individualization
9 in teaching schoolchildren. Offered replacement of the scoring system

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

The preservation of exams for students who are missing classes, for those who graduated from school and who are entering schools.

The beginning of the XX century. In May 1918, the Decree was passed abolishing exams and assessment points for student knowledge and behavior. A number of schools work according to the old five-point system, others - according to the system "The student is in time or not in time", "satisfactorily- unsatisfactory ", and still others - no ratings at all.

Sharp criticism and subsequent cancellation in 1936 by the decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks success tests. Search and implementation of new forms of independent, test work: the student's answer to the group; hearing messages; holding conferences, tests during outdoor activities; keeping cards of labor 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 of knowledge control. The recommended evaluation criteria for these years are - the consistency and consistency of the student's response/ 36 / - demanded an additional introduction of various value judgments of the teacher into the practice of the educational process.

In 1944, our country 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 points began to mark the success of training, the success of the assimilation of knowledge and the level of skills and abilities formed, which was one of the reasons for the above contradictions. This reason and this contradiction has existed for almost six decades.

Even this brief historical overview shows that value judgments of the first kind (verbal assessment) even in the middle of the ХУ111 century they were the prototype of the assessment in the broad sense of the word. True, the set of these value judgments was rather meager: “I did everything,” “you don’t know the lesson,” “you don’t know the lesson firmly,” “you don’t understand what you are saying.

read, ”“ you were attentive ”,“ you accurately and correctly told the paragraph ”,“ well done, you understand, ”“ you did not prepare well ”,“ you prepared the lesson well ”,“ you are not trying ”, etc. Thus, the problem of value judgments was not posed as an independent one, and in many research works value judgments are only sometimes mentioned as accompanying certain points.

If you look at the Pedagogical Encyclopedia (1966), then there is no article on value judgments at all. The article describing "Testing the knowledge, skills, and abilities of students" does not say anything about the value judgments of the teacher (f. 511 - 513), and in the article on "Assessment of student progress" (p. 242 - 244), there is only a mention , which is formulated literally in the following form: “As a rule, the assessment of the progress of schoolchildren is expressed in points, and alsoin the form of the teacher's value judgments. " (our italics - B.Ch.). Nothing there is no value judgments in the Pedagogical Dictionary, which was published in the late nineties of our century. All this testifies about insufficient attention and poor development of the problem value judgments of the teacher 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 value judgments of the teacher when using multi-point scales in his control and assessment activities.

Research objectives:

to clarify the concept of value judgment as an essential element of the control and assessment activities of teachers of secondary educational institutions and universities;

to develop the main indicators of the degree of learning of pupils and students for the formation of value judgments on the example of ten-point and twenty-five-point scales;

to 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 of secondary educational institutions in the creation of specific developments for the use of a ten-point scale with appropriate 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- the main organizational and pedagogical conditions for the effectiveness of the formation of value judgments of the teacher when using multi-point scales.

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

conflicts between students and teachers about the "objectivity" of the assessment of their knowledge, skills and abilities. Methodological basis of the research served:

The main position of materialistic philosophy about the essence and
essence of judgment as a form of thought in which it is affirmed or negated
anything is valued 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 the systemic activity approach as a basis for planning
management, organization, control and evaluation of the effectiveness of training and education
educational (teacher's activity) and educational and cognitive (act
trainees) 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 systematic activity approach, we examined the concepts of an object, tool and product (result) of labor, which are the most important characteristics of any professional activity. In the industrial sphere, everything is clear and understandable with these concepts. For example, the object of labor of a turner 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 teaching. 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 of any level is information. Due to this, the assessment of the result of their work is very difficult, because it cannot be estimated 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 the teacher

in the chemical process, another type of the same activity system - subject-subject 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 assess the results of any work. in measured values. Such attempts have been made in relation to intellectual work for several centuries. The problem of assessing the results of intellectual work as a whole stands in a special row here.

Institutes and laboratories are engaged in the development of this problem, conducting searches in the field of standardization of labor activity in both industrial and intellectual spheres. We proposed (co-authored with V.P. Simonov and I.V. Baykova) our classification of the main types of intellectual product, which served as the basis for developing, at first, more accurate indicators (characteristics) for assessing the progress and results of the educational process, and later on criteria generally. Let's immediately define what we mean by indicator, and what is under criterion.

Index- This is a quantitative component of any criterion, expressed, as a rule, either as a percentage, or in fractions of a whole, or in units of any scale of measurement. The 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 set of indicators. For example, the temperature or pressure of a person are indicators that are an integral part of the criterion "healthy - unhealthy" / 148 /. These characteristics were taken by us as a basis.

Consider the developed by us the structure of the main types of human intellectual product, which allows you to determine the role, place and value of the proposed by us and other researchers -

mi 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 The fifth level 11. Formula 12. Forecast 13. Properties 14. Ordering (system)

Methodological developments Sixth level

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

Practical Development Level Eight

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

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

Let us characterize in more detail this kind of intellectual product, such as the discovery and formulation Of the law, which determines the general basis for the functioning and development of any activity system. In natural systems, laws are objective, and in artificial ones, 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 it is an objective reality, but the Rules of the road, unfortunately, are sometimes violated without serious consequences for the subjects of the pedestrian-transport system, because it is although extremely important, but the subjective laws of an artificial system / 149, p. 45 /.

Consider another type of intellectual product, which is presented as "Orderliness (system)" and is an important characteristic of 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 order, which we call summative. The 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 commonly used expression To "organize" means to create a certain structure, sequence, or simply ordering, i. E. summative system 1 149/.

Now let us single out such a type of intellectual product as "service". Many types of intellectual professions are examples here: teacher - provides educational services, lawyer - legal services, and the journalist provides information Services etc. We will consider the assessment of the teacher's intellectual product.

Psychological and didactic features of the process of assessing the educational activity 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 a subject was considered in 1997 by E.K.Artischeva / 10 /, who, following V.P. Simonov's Ph.D. 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 of determining it was given), i.e. in this study, she actually gave a new name to the concept of "intellectual background of the class", introduced into pedagogy by VA Sukhomlinsky / 164 /;

Many scientists were directly involved in the problem of diagnosing results and assessing the quality of teaching and assimilation of knowledge: M.V. Artyukhov / I /, V.P. Bespalko / 21 /, N.E. Bobkov / 26 /, G.I.Dormidonova / 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 a certain specificity of measuring and evaluating pedagogical phenomena was carried out by the following scientists: L.V. Bolotnik, A.Vlevin, G.A. Satarov, M.A. Sokolova, I.K. 28 /, M.I. Grabar, K.A. Krasnyanskaya (Implementation of the sampling method in the study of 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

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. A. Kalnei / 177 / and many others;

the problem we are investigating is also an integral (mainly at the level of mention) 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 the 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-assessment of control and self-control is considered by the following authors: B.S.Bratus, V.N. Pavlenko / 29 /, A.V. Burova, T.A. 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 of statistical characteristics in pedagogy and psychology: G.E. Vorobiev / 34 /, D.Zh.Glaas, J.Stanley / 39 /, L.M. Myakinina / 109 /, V .I.Ogorelkov / 113 /, as well as works characterizing the problem of control and assessment of learning outcomes in a broad sense: A.V. Zakharova / 59 /, I.Ya. Konfederatov / 76 /, E.I. Perovskiy / 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, dealing to one degree or another with the problem of control appraisal activities,do not consider the problem of forming assessment 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 establishmentvalue judgments of a music teacher in process

all choirmaster training (Yekaterinburg, 1997) / 42 /, as well as work
"R.P. Milruda" The psychological structure of the teacher's utterance in

"Educational activities" / 105 /, the latter was published in

1985 Thus, the analysis of the presented topics, defended and published works, also testifies to insufficient development of the problem of the formation of value judgments of the teacher and even more so on the basis of the use of multi-point scales.

Research methods. To test our hypothesis and
solving the assigned tasks, 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 on problems related to our topic;

observation and analysis of pedagogical practice in the conditions of
, the definition of multi-point grading scales;

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

“Practical educational institutions;

modeling of ten-point assessment 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 the results obtained during the experiment;

the pedagogical experiment itself, which includes a number of
»Stages: ascertaining, formative and control.

Scientific novelty the study carried out is as follows:

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

nightly judgment 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 subject;

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

disclosed and refined the content of the concept of "teacher's value judgments" of the first, second and third kind (type), in relation to the wide pedagogical practice of the last decade in all types of educational institutions.

Practical significance the study carried out is that:

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

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

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

Are brought to the defense the following provisions:

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

evaluative judgments of the teacher only then 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 assimilation of the educational material and the level of development on this basis of the skills and abilities of the student, but also the degree of formation of a positive attitude in him towards educational and cognitive activity, degree of efficiency and talent in a particular area;

the reliability and validity of the assessment of the course and results of educational and cognitive activities of pupils and students increase if the teacher's control and assessment activity "is based on a wide range of his value judgments when using ten or more point scales;

the use of a wide range of teacher's value judgments on the basis of multi-point assessment scales removes a number of contradictions in the system of relationships "teacher-student" and "teacher-parents", and also forms an adequate level of claims among students and their parents;

the teacher's evaluative judgments in no way replace or replace the point marks, but only expand the possibilities 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

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 (director of the school, candidate of pedagogical sciences Dolotseva E.D.), Moscow school boarding school № 58, working on the differentiated education of students on the basis of multi-level classes, as well as according to the curriculum of the European bilingual school (school director T.N. Rodionova); Pedagogical College No. 7 "Maroseyka" of Moscow (Director, Honored Teacher of the Russian Federation, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences Kapustina G.Yu.), faculty of advanced training for teachers of higher educational institutions of Moscow Pedagogical University (Dean of the faculty, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences V.P. Simonov). The study was carried out in three stages.

First step(1980-1988) was devoted to the theoretical study and understanding of the problem of the formation of value judgments of a teacher in secondary educational institutions and universities in general and in the field of various academic disciplines in particular. In the course of this stage, a clear inadequacy and weak evidence of a formally five-point, but in fact three-point in secondary educational institutions and four-point in universities, grading scale were revealed. In the course of theoretical work at this stage, we came to the conclusion that the degree of a person's learning 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 educators to use more detailed and evidence-based grading scales and their corresponding value judgments.

Second phase(1988-1997) focused on the development and implementation of experimental work on the problem of using multi-point assessment scales and the formation on this basis of assessment

night judgments of teachers. The technologies developed by the methodology for the formation of the main indicators of the degree of training of students

Xia and students using multi-point scales allowed us
identify the existing shortcomings of the implemented three-point model
scales that were typical, massive. It was op
It is determined that the range of value judgments is extremely poor, not
systematized and, in general, is outside the scope of attention of scientists and
practitioners. Impossibility of reliable estimation of the whole variety
zia of human progress 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 the value judgments of teachers, due to the "surrogate scale", are rather 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 the knowledge, skills and abilities of students, such as teaching, stimulating , evaluative, upbringing, etc. This stage ended with the setting of a goal and

research objectives, as well as the formulation of the first version of the hypo
theses, which made it possible to move smoothly and on a scientific basis to the third
poo.

Stage Three(1997-2000) was final. 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 appropriate assessments
judgments of teachers of different academic disciplines: mathematics,
physics, Russian language and literature, conducting, etc. The basis of all
these scales were developed by V.P. Simonov Basic mo
divided by ten-point and twenty-five-point scales for assessing the degree
student learning / 148 /, which were clarified and supplemented by us

a more detailed description of the value judgments of teachers 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, the annual intermediate results of the progress of the experimental work were summed up and the further structure and content of this activity were refined. This stage ended with the summing up of the final results of all the 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 start creating a model of a multi-point scale with the corresponding filling of it with the value judgments of teachers, first in a general form, without relative reference to any specific academic subject, and then with concretization. in individual academic subjects and the involvement of an increasing circle of people in 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 do not expand, but remain in accordance with the first genus, i.e. "Good with a minus", "good with a plus" or "not good enough", or "five with a minus", etc.

Approbation and implementation were also carried out through speeches at scientific and practical conferences and seminars, which were held both in experimental educational institutions and outside them. The results of the study were reported at a conference in the Penza IPK and ABM in 1997, which was devoted to "Actual problems of education standardization", as well as at the International scientific-practical conference "Pedagogical thought and education of the XXI century: Russia - Germany", held on 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 region (1997-2000 academic years), as well as at pedagogical councils and subject cycle commissions at boarding school No. 58 in Moscow. Teachers of higher educational institutions of the Russian Federation got acquainted with these materials while improving their qualifications at the FPK 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", "Uchitelskaya Gazeta", in collections of scientific papers "Improving the educational process and its management", "Training and professional development of teaching staff: problems , experience, prospects "," Actual problems of training and advanced training of teaching staff "," Problems and experience of training teachers in the pedagogical college. "

Credibility the results obtained are due to the full compliance of the chosen methodology with the goals and objectives of the study, as well as the totality 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. Obtained during the research remarks and wishes of experimental teachers

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

Dissertation structure: the dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography and annexes. The thesis text contains fifteen tables. The applicant published eleven papers on the topic of research.

Evaluative judgment is the basis of the teacher's control and evaluative function

The problem of forming a teacher's value judgment cannot be considered outside of its connection with the theoretical aspects of the teacher's control function in the educational process as a whole. Control means identifying, measuring and evaluating the knowledge, skills and abilities of trainees, 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 begins, carried out by the teacher. To assess the results of control, the teacher chooses certain criteria and, with their help, evaluates the object of control. The result of the assessment is formulated by the teacher in the form of a detailed verbal assessment - the characteristics of the object from the point of view of the accepted criterion.

The information obtained during the control is compared (compared) with the standard and on the basis of the data obtained, an analysis is carried out, the student's errors and their causes are revealed. As a result of the comparison, the degree of mismatch between the controlled and reference components is established, and if the mismatch signal turns out to be zero, this will mean that the controlled component corresponds to the standard. In this case, a result is summed up that expresses the results of the assessment in a certain form of assessment (value judgment, point mark, etc.), notes ND Kuchu-gurova in his research / 88 /.

Thus, control is closely related to an equally important component of the educational process - its pedagogical assessment. "Assessment" as a general scientific term in the literature has many meanings and connotations, but still has not received a single definition. In the philosophical dictionary, assessment (although only moral) is considered as approval or condemnation of various phenomena, depending on their meaning. It establishes the conformity or non-conformity of something, some requirements and is based on any criteria. In the logical dictionary, an assessment is equated to an opinion about something, to a judgment about the level or meaning of something, to establishing 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 a student” and that “knowledge of students 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 - by a teacher.

Assessment is far from the last place in the educational process, because all our indicative and, in general, all activities in general depend on it. The accuracy and completeness of the assessment (value judgment - E.Ch.) determine the rationality of movement towards the goal. It is hard to imagine what chaos we could plunge into if we turned off the evaluative component 161 from our activity at least for a while. It is important to note that evaluation in the educational process takes place wherever there is a place for control. Without these two interconnected components, any activity loses all significance. The connection between control and assessment is two-sided: control in its final part is always a partial partial assessment. For its part, assessment, being formed on the basis of control, motivates it - control can only be where there is an 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 plays the role of an indicator of certain results and the level of achievements that a particular student achieved in educational work. The stimulating role of pedagogical assessment (and hence value judgment - E. 4.J, in his opinion, is associated with a stimulating effect on the volitional sphere of the student's personality, a change in which causes significant shifts in a person's self-esteem, in the level of his claims in the field of motivation, behavior , in the ways of educational work, in the system of relations between all participants in the educational process 111.

In defining the assessment functions, of particular interest are the considerations of Sh.A. Amonashvili, which is that “pedagogical assessment will fulfill its main developmental and educational purpose if it is based on the interests and development prospects of students, on the basis of a humanistic principle and an optimistic teaching strategy , in the conditions of complete, including evaluative, cooperation of the 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 mastering by students of knowledge, skills and abilities in accordance with the requirements (standards), which are determined by school programs and educational standards in general and in general. ... In the educational process, as an activity system, pedagogical assessment, as a component of control, is given one of the leading places, since it is one of the most important factors in the development of the personality of students and a way of managing their educational and cognitive activities. Characterizing the educational process as a system, it is necessary to dwell, first of all, on its structural components. Yu.K. Babanskiy and others, considering the educational process, includes target, stimulating and motivational, content, operational and activity, control and regulatory and evaluative and productive components / 13 /.

The relationship of the teacher's value judgments with 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 learning (teacher's actions) and learning (student's actions), is beyond doubt. Let us consider three main levels that characterize the nature of education in general: 1st level - informational - forms knowledge; 2nd level - reproductive - forms the simplest skills; 3rd level - creative - forms complex skills and abilities. The problem of level grading of educational and cognitive activity, as a process and as a result, has been and is being dealt with by many scientists. Let's consider some of the basic concepts of educators and psychologists in this area. The concept of S. I. Arkhangelsky. Sign: the degree of scientific knowledge and the ability to operate with knowledge. 1. Operating with ideas, studying the attributes of a subject. 2. Operating concepts, logical connections between concepts. 3. Generalization of signs of representations and concepts of invariant and isomorphic transformations. 4. Free operation with abstract concepts and abstract scientific symbols. Building iconic models. YK Babansky's concept. 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) algorithmic; e) phased. 2.Search educational and cognitive activity: a) problem assimilation of information; b) solving problem situations, searching for new knowledge; c) the advancement of cognitive tasks. 3. Reproductive-search activity: a) partial-search activity with simultaneous reproductive assimilation of the material; b) independent fulfillment of tasks at school and at home; "c) with an emphasis on the solid assimilation of essential elements; d) inductive and deductive. Concept of G. Bateson (USA). Sign: phased information processing. 1. Reception of information as a known irritant and an adequate response to it 2. Change of the situation by the subject and his ability to receive an answer “yes” and “no.” 3. Assimilation of the nature of the test 4. Formation of assessment, stimulating activity. Concept of VP Bespalko. Sign: degree of training and character learning activity of a student 1. Level of acquaintance: recognition, recognition, discrimination, identification (knowledge - acquaintance) 2. Level of reproduction: reproduction of information about the studied object from memory or meaning (knowledge - copies). 3. Skill level: application of knowledge in practice in a 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). I. Herbart's concept. Sign: the level of cognition in the learning process. 1. Clarity. Assimilation of the material until complete and clear understanding. 2. Association. Establishing a connection between new material and previously studied, new knowledge with previously obtained. 3. System. Building rules and conclusions, defining laws based on new knowledge. 4. Method. Application of new knowledge in exercises and assignments. The concept of G. Claus (Germany) - Sign: the nature and form of information transformation. 1. The initial (primitive) form of information transformation. 2. Subconscious on the basis of unconditioned reflexes. 3. Semantic level of information transformation (based on conceptual symbols) 4. Pragmatic level. Transformation of information depending on incentives and motives. I.Ya. Konfederatov's concept. Sign: the depth of mastering the material in the field of monitoring the effectiveness of the educational process. 1. The level of discrimination. The student distinguishes this material from similar material. 2. The level of memorization. The student retells the material, knows the definitions and formulations of the main provisions of the 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. V.P. Simonov's concept. Sign: the degree of student learning (SDA) based on the results of a certain academic period. 1. The level of discrimination, recognition (level of familiarity). 2. Memorization level (cumulative level). 3. The level of understanding (the degree of comprehension of the theoretical material assimilated by students). 4. The level of elementary skills (application of the acquired knowledge in practice according to a template, according to a model, ie purely reproductive). 5. Transfer (application of the obtained theoretical knowledge in practice in a creative way, not standard, not algorithmic). M.N. Skatkin's concept. Sign: the degree of assimilation of the material. 1. The level of perception, comprehension and memorization. 2. The level of application of knowledge in a similar situation, according to a certain pattern. 3. The level of application of knowledge in a new situation. V. A. Slastenin's concept.

The program of experimental work on the problem

Research topic: Formation of teacher's value judgments when using multi-point scales for assessing the knowledge, skills and abilities of pupils and students (their degree of training), as a didactic and psychological way of influencing their positive motivation for learning, 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 carried out by us (1980 - 1985 - Kashira educational 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, 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 actually three-point scale, but at least either the entire five-point scale is required, or another, more detailed, but also a multiple of five - scale (ten-point, twenty-five-point, one-hundred-point, etc.). Otherwise, teachers are forced to use a surrogate scale (points of 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 the corresponding value judgments are assessed: students of gymnasium classes and classes for gifted children; students of general education classes and students of classes of correctional and developmental education. As practice shows, it is simply impossible to distinguish between these grades given in education documents, which is a serious contradiction, the consequence of which is the inaccuracy of the assessment of a person's training as a whole, therefore, in recent years, many educational institutions of the country have spontaneously switched to the use of multi-point scales, but, to unfortunately, they are often devoid of any scientific basis, including the use of unsystematic and often inconsistent value judgments. Let us briefly consider the history of the issue. Throughout the formation and development of the Soviet school, both scientists and decision-makers have dealt with the problem of assessing the knowledge, abilities and skills of students, but they rarely singled out the problem of teacher's value judgments as an independent one. If we briefly outline the main stages of attempts to solve this problem, then in chronological order they are the following: May 1918 - Resolution of the People's Commissar for Education A. V. Lunacharsky "On the abolition of marks", which indicated: 1. The use 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 the success of students according to the feedback of the pedagogical council on the performance of educational work; September 1935 - five verbal (verbal) evaluations were introduced: "very bad", "bad", "mediocre", "good", "excellent", which existed until the end of 1943 (that is, these were prototypes of those value judgments which teachers should have been guided by, despite the fact that the characteristics of these assessments were rather primitive and supposedly reflected certain qualitative changes in the students' learning); January 1944 - the decision was made to replace the verbal grades used at school again with a digital “five-point” system for assessing the progress and behavior of primary, seven-year and high school students, with the corresponding addition of each point by the simplest evaluative judgment of the type “excellent”, “good”, “satisfactory” "," Unsatisfactory ", etc. / 112 /. In the instructions on the use of a digital “five-point system” of assessment that followed this resolution, it was formulated that when assessing student performance: 1. A point “5” is given when the student thoroughly knows all the program material, perfectly understands and firmly mastered it. He gives correct, conscious and confident answers to questions (within the program). In various practical tasks, he is able to independently use the acquired knowledge. In oral answers and written works, he uses literary correct language and does not make mistakes. 2. A point "4" is given when the student knows all the material required by the program, understands well and has firmly mastered it. Answers questions (within the program) without difficulty. Knows how to apply the knowledge gained in practical tasks. In oral answers he uses literary language and does not make gross mistakes. In his written works, he makes only minor mistakes. 3. Point "3" is given when the student discovers knowledge of the main program material .. When applying knowledge in practice, he experiences some difficulties and overcomes them with a little help from the teacher. In oral answers, he makes mistakes in the presentation of the material and in the construction of speech. Makes mistakes in written works. 4. The score "2" is given when the student discovers ignorance of a large part of the program material, answers, as a rule, only to the teacher's leading questions uncertainly. In his written works, he makes frequent and gross mistakes. 5. Score "I" is given when the student reveals a complete ignorance of the passed educational material.

Experience in the formation of value judgments in various academic subjects

As already noted in the first section of the second chapter, the experimental work on the formation of value judgments using multi-point scales was carried out by us in secondary school No. 22, Sergiev Posad (school director, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences Dolotseva E.D.), in Pedagogical College No. 7 "Maroseyka" of Moscow (Director of the Pedagogical College, Honored Teacher of the Russian Federation, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences Kapustina G.Yu.), at boarding school No. 58 in Moscow (school director T.N. Rodionova), etc. experiment, the usual school disciplines were introduced: 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 and pedagogical workers for the preschool and primary education system, the experiment was introduced subjects such as, for example, "conducting", "choral singing", "methods of physical education", "methods of musical education education in general education "," psychology of children of early and preschool age ", etc. In all these educational institutions, the experiment began with familiarizing 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 holding the relevant lectures and seminars, our individual consulting work began with teachers of specific academic disciplines of these educational institutions, which resulted in the scales of ten-point and twenty-five-point grading systems developed by them and approved by the scientific advisor (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, prior to their practical application, were brought to the attention of students and their parents. Let us consider examples of such developments that have been used for several years in the practice of these educational institutions. Our research has shown that a value judgment is stimulating and stimulating to activity, 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 formation 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 a teacher (educator); object or subject of assessment - any action or activity of a student (pupil) in general; the nature of the assessment - 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, on the basis of the research conducted, both by us and by a number of other authors / 6, 13, 85, 88, 129, 147, 151, 166 / are in the following: - the lack of clear indicators characterizing the points of the three-point (formally 5-point, 1944) scale; - mismatch between the goals of control and the content of the teacher's control and evaluation actions; - lack of an environment of trust and psychological comfort when organizing control and assessment activities in the classroom; - identification of the assessment for success or failure in educational and cognitive activity with an assessment of the personality of the student as a whole; - weak argumentation and evidence of the comment (value judgment) to the assigned score; - neglect by many teachers of commenting (value judgment) of the given score in general; - the reluctance of many teachers to take into account not only the result, but also the quality of the student's (student's) response, his emotionality, hard work and giftedness in a particular 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 the 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 of negative assessments on the psyche and health of students (all value judgments when using multi-point scales are positive, since they assess only the increase in knowledge, skills and abilities of students); to develop among students and their parents a level of aspirations adequate to the degree of the child's training for a given period;