Translated material
Non-literary forms
Guess how many schoolchildren will read “Mumu” in this case?
"A" is missing
The unified exam in literature has been taken since 2003, and there are universities that do not conduct their own entrance exam in this subject, but only accept the results of the Unified State Exam. Until now, literature testing consisted of three parts: “A”, “B” and “C”. Part "A" - questions with four possible answers. Part “B” are questions that the student must briefly answer himself. Part “C” is the so-called “problem” question, on which you had to write a mini-essay.
An anecdote about the Unified State Exam in Literature: “On which shoulder was Ellen Bezukhova’s mole? Choose one of four options." But the real questions of part “A” are not far from the joke. For example, you are asked to guess what exactly the lyrical heroine of Akhmatova’s poem “Songs of the Last Meeting” discovers (“So helplessly my chest grew cold, / But my steps were light. / I put on my right hand / The glove from my left hand...”): “1 ) mental weakness, 2) moral blindness, 3) unawareness of feelings, 4) inner strength.”
Or an example from the 2004 Unified State Exam: “What is the fate of Firs in the finale of A.P.’s play? Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"? Possible answers: Firs goes abroad with Ranevskaya, is forgotten in an abandoned house, taken to the hospital, or goes into the service of Lopakhin. Let us remind you that in that Unified State Exam four years ago there were no more questions on “The Cherry Orchard”.
Needless to say, when they saw these tests, language experts - both school teachers and university professors - shuddered. Someone began to protest loudly, someone shrugged their shoulders: they say, it will resolve, they will experiment and understand how stupid it is. And someone closed their eyes and gave in because they had no choice.
In the 2008 version of the Unified State Exam there is no part “A”, but part “C” is supplemented with questions that require detailed answers, 5-10 sentences each.
But the main thing is that all these questions and tasks of parts “B” and “C” are just as doubtful as the canceled part “A”.
Little man with internal monologue
The published demo version of the 2008 unified literature exam contains a fragment from the novel “War and Peace” about Captain Tushin during the Battle of Shengraben. The student is asked: “What formula denotes in Russian literature a modest, “inconspicuous” hero, capable of revealing his unexpectedly bright side in certain circumstances?” The correct answer is “little man.”
What a strange thing, however, is “a little man” and “to reveal his unexpectedly bright side”? Who is traditionally considered a “little man” in Russian literature of the 19th century? Samson Vyrin from “The Station Agent”, Akakiy Akakievich Bashmachkin from “The Overcoat”, poor Evgeniy from “The Bronze Horseman”, Makar Devushkin from Dostoevsky’s “Poor People”. Officials, unfortunate ones, entering into a fight for something very dear to themselves and suffering defeat. Where do they reveal their unexpectedly bright side? And why is Captain Tushin suddenly ranked among the “little people”? Who decided this?
Another Unified State Exam question about Captain Tushin sounds like this: “Tushin’s remarks “to himself” constitute some kind of detailed reflection of the hero about what is happening around him. What is this kind of unspoken thinking called? The correct answer is “internal monologue.”
The problem is that Tushin does not have any internal monologue in this passage. There are separate lines, one of which is said “in a whisper to oneself”: “Look, he puffed again... now wait for the ball - send it back.” Tushin also thinks like this: “Come on, our Matveevna,” “Look, she started breathing again, she started breathing,” “Well, why did they bother me?” And there are two more lines spoken by Tushin out loud: “Nothing, a grenade...” and “I... nothing...”. Where is the monologue?
But absurdities are found not only in the two questions above. They are scattered across almost all tasks of the proposed version of the Unified State Exam. For example, one may ask why the hero of Mayakovsky’s poem “Listen!” it is so important to save humanity from “starless torment.” But it seems to most wordsmiths that this poem is not talking about humanity at all. And so on.
Why am I dwelling in such detail on the version of the Unified State Exam, which is offered as a demonstration, which no one will get, but is intended only to show what kind of tasks can be encountered on the exam?
Precisely because the demo version can be edited by the whole world. The tasks that schoolchildren will receive on the Unified State Exam are not subject to wide discussion by the professional community, which means that there will be the same numerous inaccuracies.
The tasks for the unified exam are not written by random people, not by officials without special education. For example, the chairman of the Federal Subject Commission on Literature is Sergei Zinin, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, author of one of the school textbooks. And if today none of the language experts raises the question of the professional incompetence of those who write tasks for the Unified State Exam, then the problem is not in the exam format. The problem is the discrepancy between the views of philologists themselves on what is considered an internal monologue and what is not, who can be called a little person and who cannot. If there were a unified system of evidence, axioms and commonplaces in literary criticism, there would be no disputes. What all experts are unanimous on is that, for example, Pushkin’s name was Alexander Sergeevich, that Raskolnikov did kill the old pawnbroker, and “The Cherry Orchard” was staged for the first time at the Moscow Art Theater. Further discrepancies are possible.
Assessing the very possibility of holding the Unified State Examination in literature, teachers of the Department of History of Russian Literature of St. Petersburg State University, in an open letter sent to the Forum of Literature Scholars, note: “An objective centralized test will be possible only if philological science recognizes uniform criteria for interpreting a text, the only correct ones.” its interpretations , which contradicts generally accepted principles and the entire path of development of literary criticism up to the present moment. Who and on what basis will take upon themselves the courage to choose the “correct” ones from the many interpretations proposed by science, rejecting others as unnecessary garbage?.. Not a single logically thinking schoolchild or teacher based on the text, as well as currently existing critical, literary works and textbooks are not able to correctly answer the Unified State Exam tests in literature, because their tasks and answers contradict sound logic, the content of the works, and the literary tradition.” In justifying their point of view, St. Petersburg philologists refer to Unified State Examination tasks that seemed strange or even “provocative” to them. Thus, schoolchildren are asked to answer which century’s monument of Russian literature is “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” although it is known that, from the point of view of different scientists, different of the given options are correct. Or, for example, the question is, what type of pathos determines the author’s attitude towards the characters and action in The Government Inspector? Satirical, heroic, tragic or didactic? “It is well known,” philologists note, commenting on this task, “that Gogol simultaneously taught and laughed through tears invisible to the world.”
But how then can a student be prepared to take a literature exam? Sofya Kaganovich, head of the department of theory and methodology of general education at the Novgorod Regional Center for Educational Development, advises “everyone to work according to Zinin’s textbook.”
It turns out that a thinking child will not be able to write an “excellent” exam on the Unified State Examination because he will not be able to answer the questions correctly? Natalya Belyaeva, head of the laboratory at the Institute of Content and Teaching Methods of the Russian Academy of Education, believes that this is not entirely true. In her opinion, “the same question about the “little man” is worth only one point. And the maximum number of points for this year’s Unified State Examination is 45.”
It is obvious that difficulties associated with objective external verification of works on literature arise not only during the unified exam. Speaking at the Forum of Literature Scholars, Ernst Krasnovsky, Chairman of the Federal Commission for Developing Tasks for the Unified State Exam in Literature 2002-2004, reported disappointing data: “When the experiment with the Unified State Exam began, we conducted monitoring: from 45 regions, according to a certain sample, 5,000 essays were sent to us. And three teachers, led by me, rechecked them according to the Unified State Exam criteria - and these are our standards for checking essays, which have existed since the 1950s, only slightly expanded! We put 19% on twos! Although we were told that for all this mass - 5,000 works - only 0.2% got D's! We saw in the submitted works a substitution of topics, sometimes a substitution of writers: he was asked about Gorky, but he wrote about whatever he could. I'm not even talking about that typical standard essay that began like this: Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol is a great Russian writer, he fought and so on. Then the main part - it’s good if it’s about landowners, or even about something else - and the finale. We are still dejected by the picture that opened up to us. I do not recommend trusting a school to check your exam. This is a trick. Like, send us topics, and we will put the mark that we consider necessary.”
Sergei Volkov, a literature teacher at Moscow school No. 57, does not agree with the official: “Yes, I do not hide the fact that some schoolchildren will receive a mark from our hands. I have a student, an average C student, who has difficulty connecting words. And then one day something woke up in him. When we started reading “Antonov Apples,” he brought a bag of these apples so that the class could smell of them. I understand that he may not be able to reach the understanding of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, and there is a problem here: do we have the right to bring the work closer to such a student? Distorted, straightened, simplified? As one teacher says: “When I die, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky will say to me in the next world: what are you talking about us? What are you grinding?!” But my student, whom I was talking about, will at least remember that it was great. And maybe the main result is that a person will want to read further, even if he doesn’t understand anything from the point of view of our criteria.
And the state comes to me, takes his essay and says: go, “two”! Who needs his literature grade? No one, only I need her and he needs her! And I’ll lie and give him a “three”, and why is that bad - kill me, I don’t understand! But those who want to become a professional philologist can go to the state to get a mark.”
The exam no one needs
According to the law on education, the unified state exam must be “conducted by the federal executive body jointly with the executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation” (that is, assignments do not come from the school and are also tested not at school). In addition, according to the law on education, the results of the Unified State Examination are recognized by schools “as the results of state (final) certification, and by educational institutions of secondary vocational education and educational institutions of higher professional education as the results of entrance tests in the relevant general education subjects.” In other words, universities must accept the results of the unified exam as an entrance exam. Both of these conditions, if we talk about the Unified State Exam in literature, are doubtful.
The difficulties with objective external verification were discussed above. If philologists themselves look at Captain Tushin differently, then whose point of view becomes the only correct one during the Unified State Exam?
As for entering a university, another problem arises. For example, it is very difficult today to become a professional philologist using the results of the Unified State Exam. The best philology departments in Moscow and St. Petersburg do not accept the results of the unified exam in literature. The Unified State Exam, in their opinion, does not reflect either the student’s knowledge or his ability to analyze and interpret a literary text. By the way, the cost of classes with tutors who prepare applicants for admission to the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University can reach up to 150 euros per week.
As for other universities, the picture here is completely strange. Sofya Kaganovich, for example, explained why the philology department of Novgorod University does not accept the Unified State Exam in literature: “Not only talented philologists go to the philology department. This faculty is often attended by those who cannot get anywhere else, and there is very low competition there. The faculty management claims that the Unified State Exam in Literature is too difficult for their applicants, and they conduct their own “written interview”: a written answer to two questions out of four proposed.”
It turns out that the Unified State Exam in Literature, designed to become a specialized exam, turns out to be unnecessary neither for universities nor for those schoolchildren who intend to continue their literary education in the future, and a single exam could help save applicants nerves and money upon admission.
Reading aloud
Just recently, everyone wrote a final essay, for which two marks were given, in Russian and in literature. But then the Unified State Examination in the Russian language was introduced, and the general exam fell apart into two. Schools were allowed to choose the form of their final literature test. By that time, all sorts of collections of graduation essays and methods for writing them had already appeared on book shelves. The work, which already, as a rule, turned out to be a set of literary cliches spotted in reviews, turned out to be completely discredited. Therefore, in many schools (but not all), they decided to abandon the traditional essay and replaced it with an oral exam on tickets, defense of research papers, or analysis of an unfamiliar text by a familiar writer.
But can a mandatory literature exam guarantee that children will read at least those books that “pass” according to the program? Of course not. Was it possible to write an essay on War and Peace without reading War and Peace? Of course, it is possible, the majority wrote this way - both in Soviet times, in the nineties, and now.
But in Soviet times, teachers had the opportunity to read texts in class. Today's compulsory literature course, which includes more than 60 authors and more than 140 works, does not provide such an opportunity to read aloud in class: only three hours a week are allocated for literature in high school.
Sergei Volkov: “I’ll give just one example, which was mentioned by the director of the Center for Sociology of Education of the Russian Academy of Education, Vladimir Sobkin. He has been researching children's reading since 1975. In 1976 and 2005, schoolchildren were given the same task: they had to determine from eight excerpts of works of fiction belonging to two authors who wrote what. Do not name the name or work, do not explain your choice, but simply, based on your sense of literary style, divide the passages into two groups. For the purity of the experiment, fragments were offered from authors not included in the school curriculum (to exclude the moment of recognition): prose - Olesha and Platonov, poetry - Samoilov and Voznesensky (as we see, the authors are quite contrasting). So, if in 1976 35% of boys and 46% of girls from 9th grade completed the poetry task, and 15 and 21%, respectively, completed the prose task, today only 6.2% successfully completed the poetry test. boys and 11% girls. And the success of the prose test does not exceed the percentage of random selection of correct answers - 3%. The question is, what do we do in class? The huge problem is that today we don’t have time to read books to children. The list of “program” texts is huge, it needs to be shortened. Many teachers say that if there were no compulsory exams, then there would be no such race in the classroom and we would be happy to read wonderful texts to children. We are ready to read, of course. But if there is no compulsory exam, children will not be ready to listen to us.” This is especially noted in the final document of the Russian Literature Forum: “Without a compulsory exam, many years of school literary education loses its meaning.”
To study other subjects, the child needs to read a textbook. To pass literature, you won't get away with just a textbook. You need to read a lot. Of course, no literature exam will force a schoolchild to do this if the child does not love and is not accustomed to reading. But a literature exam is also needed so that the student has a good reason not to skip these classes and still find time to read.
Officials don't like "essay"
It is impossible to come up with an ideal exam format that would suit everyone. And it is impossible to fit a large book into a short lesson. Therefore, teachers are forced to seek a compromise between great literature, school education and the unified state exam.
Literature experts suggest letting the student choose for himself: to take the Unified State Exam or a mandatory school final exam. This can be either written work (analysis and interpretation of one artistic work or a detailed answer to a problematic question), or an oral answer (by tickets or in the form of an interview), or the protection of essays and projects (a similar form is practiced by many Russian gymnasiums).
As for the exam itself in literature, experts believe that “the optimal genre of such an exam is a written work related to the analysis and interpretation of one literary work (with an independent expert verification). The verification criteria should be widely discussed by the professional community. ” The idea is good. True, so far the proposed compromise contradicts both today's law on education and the instructions received by the compilers of egash tasks.
When the teachers asked the chairman of the Federal Subject Commission for Literature Sergei Zinin, why the composition cannot be the format of the exam in literature, he called two reasons. The first - officials do not like the word “composition”: “If we return to the essay again, it turns out that all reforms were in vain, there was no point in starting all this. Modernization is a mandatory modification of the format. ” Nice. That's really a good reason not to write a serious greater job, but to enter one or two words into cells.
However, the Wordsmen took into account such a dislike for the composition and now carefully formulate: "Written work on literature." Indeed, more precisely.
Sergei Zinin also called the second reason why the written work for one work cannot be the format of the exam: “We work as part of the technical specifications. All objects should be checked in one format, otherwise it will not be the exam. Do you think I don’t understand that the issues of part “A” are checked only whether the child read the text or not? But we fought for five years to be allowed to remove part “A”. And now they tell me: fine, but it would be nice to remove part of “B”! Officials, after listening to us, answer: do not want the exam - and do not! Wonderful! Since your subject is so unique, since you do not have a single system of criteria and assessments, since you have nothing to check, except for love for literature, go to the objects of the humanitarian cycle, in art! But then literature becomes an object without an exam, but this cannot be allowed. ”
However, since the developers of a single exam received this terms, much has changed. For example, the Federal Service for Supervision of Education and Science (Rosobrnadzor) has appeared, one of the tasks of which is the preparation of proposals "to improve the legislation of the Russian Federation on the basis of analysis and generalization of law enforcement practice in the field of control and assessment of the quality of education."
And the head of this service Victor Bolotov recently stated that the search for the optimal form of the exam in literature continues. He admitted that the main thing is that such an exam should be “the level of ability to analyze the artistic text and write an essay, which corresponds to the tradition of literary education in a Russian school.” That is, written work as an exam is possible, despite the fact that the Law on Education says that a single exam takes place with "the use of tasks of a standardized form."
And the obligatory final exam in literature is not in the format of the USE, apparently possible. It is only necessary, realizing the uniqueness and absolute significance for the society of this school subject, to amend the legislation.
And now.
Otherwise, the cherry garden will be sold for debts, and then it remains only to board the firce in the master's house. Or Ranevskaya still took him with her to Paris? Does anyone remember?