Clear and implicit in the exam in history

In the continuation of the topic on how the answers of schoolchildren on a single state examination on history, begun by the articles of Alexander Morozov , Igor Danilevsky and Andrei Demidov in the Trav-hunger No. 183-185 are checked, we publish an article by Alexander Abalov , Kand. East. Sciences, teachers of the history of lyceum No. 1535.

In notes on the exam, it is customary to immediately determine its attitude to this format of knowledge testing. In my opinion, since 2009, the structure of the exam and the quality of tasks have improved markedly, became quite balanced. The exam allows you to check all the components of historical knowledge: knowledge of chronology, the ability to analyze a historical source at a simple level, understand historical geography, and work with visual sources. The task “Portrait of a historical figure” that appeared since 2012 could only be welcomed. After all, it makes it possible to a creative approach to the subject.

The task “Write a portrait of a historical figure” (in the latest nomenclature No. 40), in my opinion, is made well. It is required to indicate the life or activity of the character, formulate at least two directions of his actions, give them a characteristic based on specific historical facts, show what this led to. At the same time, the demonstration version is clearly indicated for what and how many points are set.

“Methodological recommendations posted on the FIPI website on some aspects of improving history teaching” contain the necessary material explaining what requirements are for students in this task [1] . Moreover, a similar training manual last year contained scans of specific works showing typical errors and shortcomings.

In a word, the verification criteria are formulated clearly. They would only follow when checking. But this does not happen. One gets the impression that each expert checks on the basis of his ideas about a particular historical character. At the same time, the main value of the assignment is lost: checking not so much knowledge of facts as the competencies and skills of the student, his ability to identify causal relationships, distinguish between general and special, etc.

If we take the already versed case with the portrait of Yaroslav the Wise, then here, in my opinion, a strange misunderstanding of the meaning of the 40th assignment from the leadership of the subject commission and experts very clearly arises. I am not going to argue about the significance of the battle of the battle of Yaroslav the Wise with the Pechenegs in 1036. But why will appeal to the “Tale of Bygone Years” and demand from graduates of detailed knowledge of Kyiv’s relations with steppe in the second half of the XI century and understanding the features of reflecting historical information in Russian chronicles?

It’s enough to know that many textbooks and textbooks on which children are preparing for the exam are prepared about the importance of this episode of Russian history. In my opinion, a clear misunderstanding of the meaning of this task is again manifested here. I repeat once again, it first of all checks the graduate’s ability to write a portrait of a historical figure according to certain parameters without actual errors.

It is noteworthy that in a number of other works, also dedicated to Yaroslav, such a characteristic of the direction (“defeated the Pechenegs in 1036”) and the result (“The Pechenegs were scattered, some of them switched to the Russian service”) were counted and apprained accordingly.

In general, it has been the impression that experts checking the work of schoolchildren have not been made up for several years, are simply not familiar with the criteria for checking the 40th assignment and evaluate the work of graduates in the most bizarre way. The formulation of the direction of activity of Monomakh: “... in order to prevent uprisings to allow uprisings, the prince made up the“ charter about cuts and bathes ”” - experts do not accept, explaining to the appeal that the direction is not given in explicitly.

In another work, where this task was evaluated as high as possible, the formulation of the direction of the foreign policy of Alexander II: “In an effort to free the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula from the Ottoman rule”, quite satisfied the experts. Does anyone explain where the line between the clearly formulated direction and implicitly?

It would seem that the situation can be corrected for appeal. But no. Experts with perseverance clearly deserving the best use refuse to correct the obvious flaws of colleagues and practically distort well -known facts.

Here is the student’s work, which is a portrait of L. D. Trotsky. At the check, the work was evaluated as follows: 1 (1) 2 (3) 1 (2). When asked by the student, what was wrong with his work, at which he lost two out of six points, the expert replied that Trotsky did not play an important role in conducting the October uprising and the civil war, that everything was done by Lenin. Trotsky’s assessments can be different, no one argues with this. But this task checks completely different skills than knowledge of the historiographical situation in this matter. It is easy to make sure that from a formal point of view, work is quite consistent with the required parameters.

Another example from the campaign last year. The student wrote a portrait of S. Yu. Witte, in which one of the directions was indicated by his diplomatic activity during Russian-Japanese negotiations in Portsmouth in 1905. Experts on the appeal directly stated that the contribution of Witte to the prevention of the clause on the indemnity of the indemnity is doubtful, it was necessary to indicate that a number of historians thought so. But is it necessary to show knowledge of historiography in this task?

With all this, the quality of the check is not God the news. Two experts manage to skip the student’s obvious blunder (the indicated date of the Austerlitsky battle - 1807), put the maximum score for the answer to the question about the achievement of Soviet cosmonautics (landing on the moon), the artist P. A. Fedotov is assigned to the mobility, “Russian Pravda” contains the beginning of the legal execution of serfdom.

The leadership of the subject commission refers to the fact that, they say, it is impossible to formalize the criteria for checking this task, because history is the subject of humanitarian, and therefore is not amenable to formalization. Clouding is all, in my opinion.

In connection with this situation, I have a number of questions for the organizers of the exam in history:

1. Why not immediately hang out the scans of tasks after checking the work of the scan, so that it is clear why the points are removed?
2. Why, at best, can be an assessment of an assessment by only two points? Why does it take, in fact, blackmail, that the work will be verified again and extremely thoroughly in the conflict commission and that the results can be reduced?
3. Why are the history of the history of this graduate not allowed to be appellations? (although such experience was already in 2009)? And by the way, the wording that legal representatives may be present at appeals cannot automatically mean only parents.
4. Why are there not the same experts on the appeal that they checked the work?
5. What does the training of experts look like?

I repeat once again, today the evaluation criteria are quite clearly spelled out, the basic concepts of this check are explained [1] . The case is small - to follow these rules. And stop perceiving the student at appeal as a holy encouraging, not ashamed to recognize and correct marriage; After listening to the appeal, to clarify his knowledge and skills. The exam is a good testing tool, but its weak place today is the preparation of experts.

1. Http://fipi.ru/ege-i-gve-11/analitichesheskie-i-metodicheskie-materialy