The conception of the digital platform of independent assesment of the future teachers

   Introduction. Modern processes of digitalization of education put forward new requirements for the procedures for evaluating the results of research results of research results of teachers. Of particular relevance are approaches to the design of digital research tools, including electronic resources that allow consolidating the consumption and evaluation of the educational result by experts with the possibility of implementing an integrative and differentiated evaluation procedure.
   Materials and Methods. Methods of analysis, systematization and generalization of scientific literature on problematic studies were used.

   The purpose of the article is to analyze and substantiate the conceptual foundations for creating a digital platform for an independent assessment of the level of achievement of research results by future teachers.
   Results. The article analyzes approaches to the protection of electronic resources in the fields of education, substantiates the advantages and functionality of the phenomenon of electronic assessment. The conceptual foundations for creating digital platforms are the methodological unity of the platform and ecosystem approach, extended methodological assessments of the foundations for creating an independent educational result system, including systemic, activity-based, criteria-based, competency-based, technological, level-based approaches, objectivity, objectivity, reliability and openness of assessment procedures. The digital platform for independent assessment of the level of achievement of the educational result gives its idea based on the evaluation of the effectiveness of the study of results, the effectiveness of data and their use on the basis of broad procedures and algorithms for assessing the educational result of the observation of teachers, the modularity of the organization of procedures for assessing the educational result, non-linear functionality, partisipatory analytics and evaluation of results , popular results at the lowest cost of resources. The digital platform for independent assessment of the level of achievement of the educational result performs an analytical, predictive, evaluation, information and aggregation function.
   Discussion and Conclusions. As part of the study of the conceptual and practice-oriented statistical foundations for independent evaluation of the results of teacher research, promising areas for long-term research have been identified:
   – adding a digital platform for independent evaluation of the results of teachers' observation in the system of teachers' professional growth, accompanying young professionals in the life cycle of the profession;
   – improvement of the university accreditation system based on the use of a digital platform;
   – determination of approaches to the combination of emotional, psychological comfort and personality verification processes in the procedures for implementing the evaluation of research results.

1. Barber M., Donnelli K., Rizvi S. On the eve of the avalanche. Higher education and the coming revolution. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2013, no. 3, pp. 152-236. (In Russ.)

2. Gardner G. The structure of the mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. Moscow, OOO «I. D. Vil'yams» Publ., 2007. 512 p. (In Russ.)

3. Eltunova I. B. Model of automated assessment of the level of mastering the professional competencies of college students: dissertation of the candidate of pedagogical sciences. Ulan-Ude, 2015. 180 p. (In Russ.)

4. Ilaltdinova E. Yu., Fedorov A. A., Fil'chenkova I. F. Typology of electronic services in an open educational space. Vestnik Mininskogo universiteta, 2017, no. 2. Available at: https://vestnik.mininuniver.ru/jour/article/view/349 (accessed: 08. 08. 2022). (In Russ.)

5. Ilaltdinova E. Yu., Frolova S. V. The role of the teacher in the digital world of education. Nizhegorodskoe obrazovanie, 2019, no. 2, pp. 34-39. (In Russ.)

6. Overview of the market for direct and venture capital investments. 2013. Available at: http://innclub.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/000_%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82_%D0%9F%D0%92%D0%98.pdf (accessed: 08. 08. 2022). (In Russ.)

7. Education for a complex society. Global Education Futures report. 2018. 212 p. Available at: https://futuref.org/educationfutures_ru (accessed: 08. 08. 2022). (In Russ.)

8. Online resources for self-education of schoolchildren / V. V. Sinelnikov, S. G. Kosaretsky, A. G. Milyakina, N. A. Chebotar. Moscow, NIU VSHE Publ., 2016. 29 p. (Modern Analytics of Education. No. 4). (In Russ.)

9. Perevoshchikova E. N. Conceptual bases for constructing means for evaluating educational results. Vestnik Mininskogo universiteta, 2016, no. 2. Available at: https://www.minin-vestnik.ru/jour/article/view/198 (accessed: 08. 08. 2022).) (In Russ.)

10. Perevoshchikova E. N., Novik I. R., Belyaeva T. K., Saberov R. A., Fil'chenkova I. F. Conceptual foundations for creating a system of independent assessment of educational results of future teachers. Laplage em Revista, 2021, vol. 7 (3A), pp. 634-643. (In Russ.)

11. Perevoshchikova E. N., Stafeeva A. V., Kudryaevcev V. A. i dr. Modernization of the educational process: technology for constructing evaluation tools for assessing educational results: a teaching aid. Nizhny Novgorod, Mininskij universitet Publ., 2016. 70 p. (In Russ.)

12. The online education market in Russia and the world: a segment of mass online courses. 2014. Available at: https://media.rbcdn.ru/media/reports/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B52014-12-10_Online_education_Report_Part_2_Massive_online_courses.pdf (accessed: 08. 08. 2022). (In Russ.)

13. Altbach Ph. G., Reisberg L., Rumbley L.E. Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution. A Report Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO, 2009. 246 p. Available at: https://www.cep.edu.rs/public/Altbach,_Reisberg,_Rumbley_Tracking_an_Academic_Revolution,_UNESCO_2009.pdf (accessed: 08. 08. 2022).

14. Ananiadou K., Claro M. 21st-century skills and competencies for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, no. 41. 2009. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/21st-century-skills-and-competences-for-new-millennium-learners-in-oecd-countries_218525261154 (accessed: 08. 08. 2022).

15. Baylor A. L., Ritchie D. What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived learner learning in technology-using classrooms // Computers & Education. 2002. Vol. 39 (4). Pp. 395-414.

16. Billingsley G., Smith S., Smith S., Meritt J. A Systematic Literature Review of Using Immersive Virtual Reality Technology in Teacher Education // Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 2019. Vol. 30 (1). Pp. 65-90. Available at: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/176261/ (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

17. Bruce B. C., Levin J. A. Educational technology: Media for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression // Journal of Educational Computing Research. 1997. Vol. 17 (1). Pp. 79-102.

18. Bruce B. C., Levin J. A. Technology as Media: A Learner Centered Perspective. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32966815_Technology_as_Media_The_Learner_Centеred_Perspective (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

19. Bunderson C. V., Inouye D. K., Olsen J. B. The four generations of computerized educational measurement // Linn R. L. (ed.) The American Council on Education/Macmillan series on higher education. Educational measurement. New York, NY, England: Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc; American Council on Education, 1989. Pp. 367-407.

20. Caldwell J. E. Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips // CBE Life Science Education. 2007. Vol. 6 (1). Pp. 9-20.

21. Dewey J. The child and the curriculum: The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943.

22. Distance Learning: A Global Outlook // Global Industry Analysts. 2012. Available at: https://www.strategyr.com/GOS.asp?code=GOS-231 (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

23. Fisher M. How To Design A 21st Century Assessment. 2019. Available at: https://www.teachthought.com/the-future-of-learning/how-to-design-a-21st-century-assessment/ (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

24. Fitz Gerald E., Kucirkova N., Jones A. [et al.] Dimensions of personalisation in technology-enhanced learning: a framework and implications for design // British Journal of Educational Technology. 2018. Vol. 49 (1). Pp. 165-181. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12534.

25. Freedman M., Houtz J. A Glossary of Terms Used in Educational Assessment. Davidson Institute, 2004. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003237020-5/glossary-terms-used-educational-assessment-michael-freedman-john-houtz (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

26. General ability test: Assess your students’ general reasoning ability. Available at: https://www.acer.org/au/agat (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

27. Hayward L., Jones D. E., Waters J. [et al.] Learning about Progression. CAMAU Research Report. April 2018. Available at: https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/163362/7/163362.pdf (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

28. Heritage M. Assessment for Teaching and Learning. 2009. Available at: https://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/paper/2009/jvid.html (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

29. Heritage M. Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Available at: https://www.michiganassessmentconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/Learning-Progressions.pdf (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

30. Hernandez-Lara A., Perera-Lluna A., Serradell-Lopez E. Applying learning analytics to students’ interaction in business simulation games. The usefulness of learning analytics to know what students really learn // Computers in Human Behavior. 2019. Vol. 92. Pp. 600-612. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.001.

31. Hopson M. H., Simms R. L., Knezek G. A. Using a Technology-Enriched Environment to Improve Higher-Order Thinking Skills // Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2001. Vol. 34 (2). Pp. 109-119. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2001.10782338.

32. IMS Global Developer. Available at: http://developers.imsglobal.org/developers (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

33. Kaplan Ed Tech Accelerator. Available at: https://kaplanedtechaccelerator.blogspot.com/ (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

34. Klenowski V., Wyatt-Smith C. Assessment for Education: Standards, Judgement and Moderation. Sage Publications, 2014. doi: 10.4135/9781526401878.

35. Knezek G., Christensen R. The evolving role of attitudes and competencies in information and communication technology in education // Voogt J., Knezek G., Christensen R., Kwok-Wing L. (eds) Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. Vol. 1. Springer International Publishing, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9_16.

36. López L. L. Ambient Insight’ S H1 2015 Global Analysis of Learning Technology Investment Patterns. Analysis by Sam S. Adkins, Chief Researcher. Available at: https://learninglovers.org/2015/09/13/ambient-insight-s-h1-201-5-global-analysis-of-learning-technology-investment-patterns/ (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

37. Luckin R., Cukurova M. Designing educational technologies in the age of AI: A learning sciences‐driven approach // British Journal of Educational Technology. 2019. Vol. 50 (6). Pp. 2824-2838. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12861.

38. Merlot Advanced Material Search. Available at: https://www.merlot.org/merlot/advSearchMaterials.htm (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

39. Millard J. Open governance systems: Doing more with more // Government Information Quarterly. 2018. Vol. 35, no. 4. Pp. S77-S87. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.08.003.

40. Mislevy R. J. [et al.] Making Sense of Data From Complex Assessments // Applied Measurement in Education. 2002. Vol. 15, no. 4. doi: 10.1207/S15324818AME1504_03.

41. Mosher F., Heritage M. A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Thinking about Literacy, Learning Progressions, and Instruction. 2017. Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/97 (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

42. Nussbaumer A., Hillemann E. C., Guti, C., Albert D. A competence-based service for supporting self-regulated learning in virtual environments // Journal of Learning Analytics. 2015. Vol. 2 (1). Pp. 101-133. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1126954.pdf (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

43. Redecker C., Johannessen Ø. Changing Assessment – Towards a New Assessment Paradigm Using ICT // European Journal of Education. 2013. Vol. 48. Pp. 79-96.

44. Siemens G. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age // International Journal of Instructional Design and Distance Learning. 2005. Vol. 2, no. 1. Available at: https://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/Connectivism.pdf (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

45. Tech E. Mapping the K-12 Ed Tech Market. 2011. October 13 // New Schools Venture Fund blog. Available at: https://www.newschools.org/blog/edtechmap/ (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

46. The EdTech Market Landscape // Prezi. Available at: https://prezi.com/xguky7u7aur6/ed-tech-market-map/ (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

47. Timmis S., Broadfoot P., Sutherland R., Oldfield A. Rethinking assessment in a digital age: opportunities, challenges and risks // British Educational Research Journal. 2016. Vol. 42, no. 3. Pp. 454-476. doi: 10.1002/berj.3215.

48. Turner R., Adams R., Schwantner U. [et al.] Development of Reporting Scales for Reading and Mathematics: A report describing the process for building the UIS Reporting Scales. 2018. Available at: HTTPs://research.acer.edu.au/monitoring_learning/33 (accessed: 22. 08. 2022).

49. Vieira C., Parsons O., Byrd V. Visual Learning Analytics of Educational Data: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda // Computers & Education. 2018. Vol. 122. Pp. 119-135. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.018.

50. Yarbro J., McKnight K., Elliott S., Kurz A., Wardlow L. Digital Instructional Strategies and Their Role in Classroom Learning // Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2016. Vol. 48 (4). Pp. 274-289. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2016.1212632.