RATING PLAN AS A MECHANISM OF EVALUATING THE DEGREE FORMATION OF COMPETENCES

Introduction: the article is devoted to the identification of the specifics of the construction of a rating plan for the academic discipline. It is shown that the rating system, implemented in the university, is not a stable developing system.  One of the reasons is the discrepancy between the three documents: the program on discipline, the rating-plan and the fund of evaluation tools for the academic discipline. The article reveals the author's approach to the development of a rating-plan, evaluation criteria and a fund of valuation means as component parts of  methodical support for students in the study of the academic discipline.

Materials and methods: in the article the key components of the rating system of evaluation are identified, the place of the rating-plan in the rating system of evaluation is determined, its role in establishing the connection between the program on discipline    and the fund of valuation means is determined.

The results of the research: the article establishes the specificity of the rating-plan construction, describes the evaluation tools and the form of their presentation in the rating plan and the fund of valuation means , and shows how to determine the rating scale. Examples are given of the construction of the rating- plan, criteria and scales of assessment, the decomposition of competences in the passport of the fund of valuation means. Recommendations are formulated on the development of the passport of the fund of valuation means, which ensure the coordination of the discipline program, of a rating- plan  and the fund of valuation means.

Discussion and conclusion: the article discusses the existing difficulties in the construction of a rating-plan and a fund of valuation means , analyzes typical errors in the selection of valuation tools, in the description of criteria and scales of assessment. The conclusion formulated in the article is that the rating-plan should be built as a mechanism for assessing the degree of competences formation, which clearly indicated the evaluation criteria and relevant indicators, scale of assessment. This mechanism should be disclosed in the fund of valuation means.

1. Ajzenshtat G.V., Stebleva N.N. Formation of the funds of evaluation means as a necessary condition for the implementation of the basic professional educational program. INFORMIO. Sovremennye obrazovatel'nye tekhnologii v obrazovanii i kul'ture. Available at: http://www.informio.ru/?id=20&pid=214 (accessed: 23.03.2018) (in Russian).

2. Topical issues of quality education in higher education: materials of the International Distance Learning and Methodical Conference (May 15-30, 2009). Perm, 2009 (in Russian).

3. Bystrickaya E.V., Dmitriev S.V. The technology of diagnostics of professional competencies and abilities of students. Nizhegorodskoe obrazovanie, 2011, no. 3, pp. 55-60 (in Russian).

4. Gruzdeva M.L., Smirnova ZH.V. Results of the introduction of the model of management of independent work of students in the educational process of the university. Vestnik Mininskogo universiteta, 2017, no. 1, p. 12 (in Russian).

5. Kasprzhak A.G., Kalashnikov S.P. Priority of educational results as a tool for the modernization of teacher training programs. Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie, 2014, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 87-104 (in Russian).

6. Kasprzhak A.G., Kalashnikov S.P. Development of models of academic baccalaureate and research magistracy in the framework of the program for the modernization of pedagogical education: first results. Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie, 2015, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 29-44. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2015200504 (in Russian).

7. Majorova K.V. The rating system as a method of assessing the quality of education. Available at: http://ego.uapa.ru/issue/2010/03/05/ (accessed: 23.03.2018) (in Russian).

8. Margolis A.A. Requirements for the modernization of the basic professional educational programs (OPOP) for the training of pedagogical personnel in accordance with the professional standard of the teacher: proposals for the implementation of the activity approach in the training of pedagogical personnel. Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie, 2014, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 105-126 (in Russian).

9. Merkulova S. To the problem of competence assessment. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2008, no. 2, pp. 163-165 (in Russian).

10. Methodological recommendations on the formation of funds of valuation means. Tomsk, National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, 2012 (in Russian).

11. Modernization of the educational process: the technology of designing evaluation tools for the evaluation of educational results: a teaching aid. Nizhny Novgorod, 2016.

12. Modernization of the educational process: the design of modules of the basic professional educational program: the educational-methodical manual. Nizhny Novgorod, 2016.

13. Panova I.V. The method of projects in the system of monitoring the educational achievements of students at a pedagogical university. Vestnik Mininskogo universiteta, 2016, no. 2(15), p. 12 (in Russian).

14. Perevoshchikova E.N. Conceptual foundations of designing means for evaluating educational results. Vestnik Mininskogo universiteta, 2016, no. 2. Available at: http://vestnik.mininuniver.ru/reader/search/kontseptualnye-osnovy-konstruirovaniya-sredstv-dlya/ (accessed: 23.03.2018) (in Russian).

15. Perevoshchikova E.N. Evaluation of educational results. Innovacii i innovacionnye tekhnologii v nauke: sbornik statej Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii (10 aprelya 2016 g., g. Moskva). Moscow, RIO EFIR Publ., 2016. P. 58-60 (in Russian).

16. Perevoshchikova E.N., Lekomceva A.A. Designing a case-task as an evaluation tool. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya, 2016, no. 3. Available at: http://www.science-education.ru/en/article/view?id=24851 (accessed: 23.03.2018) (in Russian).

17. Perevoshchikova E.N. Modern approaches to the evaluation of learning outcomes: a textbook: Nizhny Novgorod, 2014. 235 p. (in Russian).

18. Perevoshchikova E.N. Creating tests for the certification of students in the discipline: a textbook. Nizhny Novgorod, 2014. 71 p. (in Russian).

19. Regulation on the rating system for assessing the quality of student training. Nizhny Novgorod, 2017 (in Russian).

20. Potapova T.K. Challenges of the times, educational reforms and the preparation of the future teacher in the model of separation of pedagogical work. Vestnik Mininskogo universiteta, 2016, no. 3(16), p. 14 (in Russian).

21. Professional standard "Teacher (pedagogical activity in the field of preschool, primary general, basic general, secondary general education) (educator, teacher)". Approved by the order of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation of October 18, 2013 no. 544n. (in Russian).

22. Implementation of the rating system for assessing the quality of students' training in the National Pedagogical University: a teaching aid. Nizhny Novgorod, 2012 (in Russian).

23. Rebrin O.I. Use of learning outcomes in the design of educational programs. Ekaterinburg, 2014 (in Russian).

24. Temnyatkina O.V. Methodology for the development of the Evaluation Fund of the Basic Professional Educational Program based on GEF. Guidelines. Ekaterinburg, 2011 (in Russian).

25. Federal state educational standard of higher education in the areas of training 44.03.05 Pedagogical education (with two training profiles). Approved by the order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation on February 9, 2016 no.91 (in Russian).

26. SHekhonin A.A. Evaluation of competences in the network environment of the university. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2009, no. 9, pp. 17-24 (in Russian).

27. Angrist J. D., Lavy V. Does Teacher Training Affect Pupil Learning? Evidence from Matched Comparisons in Jerusalem Public Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 2001, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 343-370.

28. Darling-Hammond L. Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence. Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy – University of Washington, 1999.

29. Cristina Hennig Manzuoli, Yasbley Segovia Cifuentes. Computing Education Competence in Higher Education: Challenges for Teachers. American Journal of Educational Research, 2013, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 406-412. DOI: 10.12691/education-1-9-9.

30. Fedorov A.A., Paputkova G.A., Ilaltdinova E.Y., Filchenkova I.F., Solovev M.Y. Model for employer-sponsored education of teachers: opportunities and challenges. Man in India, 2017, vol. 97, no. 11, pp. 101-114.