ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF TERRITORIES AND THE UNIFIED STATE EXAMINATION RESULTS
https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-5-9-31
Abstract
Introduction. The results of the Unified State Examination (USE) in the entities of the Russian Federation are significantly different. This is mainly due to socio-economic, demographic, national-cultural and other features of the development of the territories. Therefore, an assessment of the quality of the work of the education system in the field should be carried out taking into account the available resources and conditions of school activities. The most important factor of success on the USE is the national composition of students and the degree of proficiency in the language of instruction, at which the exam is taken in.
The aim of the research presented in the publication is to find out whether the national composition of school leavers in different regions of the country influences the USE indicators in the Russian language.
Methodology and research methods. In the course of studying the problem, the methodology of comprehensive research was applied, including methods of comparative and statistical analysis of data published by the Federal Testing Center, Rosstat (The Russian Federal State Statistics Service) and regional information processing centers.
Results and scientific novelty. The USE-2013 statistics on compulsory school objects is processed and introduced for science research; a number of the determining factors behind the statistics are found out. For the first time, the pair correlation between the USE average scores in the Russian language and national composition of the Russian regions is considered. The statistical connection between the ethnic composition of participants and the average score turned out to be weak and unstable. The reasons are the following: poor discipline of organisers and participants of examination during the studies; coaching students to perform common actions when preparing for the examination; features of examination materials and tests tasks that poorly differentiate participants in terms of training; overestimation of points by the subject commissions when assessing the examination composition.
Practical significance. The authors believe that the findings of this study will contribute to improving the methodology and technology of the Unified State Examination.
About the Authors
L. M. Nurieva
Omsk State Pedagogical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics and Methods of Mathematics Teaching,
Omsk
S. G. Kiselev
Omsk State Pedagogical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sociologist, Center for the Adaptation and Employment of Graduates and Students,
Omsk
References
1. Bochenkov S. A., Valdman I. A. Kak mozhno ispol’zovat’ rezul’taty EGJe v rejtingah shkol? = How can the results of the USE be used in the ratings of schools? Rejtingi v obrazovanii: ot razovyh praktik k kul’turnym reshenijam = Ratings in education: From one-time practices to cultural solutions. Moscow: National Research University – Higher School of Economics; 2014. P. 160–173. (In Russ.)
2. Yastrebov G. A., Bessudnov A. R., Pinskaya M. A., Kosareckij S. G. The problem of the contextualization of educational outcomes: Schools, the social composition of students and the level of deprivation of territories. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies. 2013; 4: 188–246. (In Russ.)
3. Agranovich M. L. Possibilities of the analysis of educational systems on the basis of results of the Unified State Exam. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies. 2004; 2: 272–287. (In Russ.)
4. Goryajnova V. A., Akishin I. A. Effectiveness of school activities and socioeconomic characteristics of students’ families: Is there a relationship? Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies. 2010; 1: 151–160. (In Russ.)
5. Golubickij A. V. Regional socio-geographical atlas of the general education system: Is “the power of the territory” overcomable? Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies. 2017; 1: 58–87. (In Russ.)
6. Pinskaya M. A., Kruty N. S., Kosaretsky S. G., Frumin I. D. Vyravnivanie uslovij pri analize dostizhenij shkol: kontekstualizacija rezul’tatov = Alignment of conditions in the analysis of school achievements: The contextualization of results. Vyravnivanie shansov detej na kachestvennoe obrazovanie = Aligning the chances of children to a quality education. Moscow: National Research University – Higher School of Economics; 2012. P. 37–47. (In Russ.)
7. Pinskaya M. A., Frumin I. D., Kosaretsky S. G. Shkoly, rabotajushhie v slozhnyh social'nyh kontekstah = Schools working in complex social contexts. Vyravnivanie shansov detej na kachestvennoe obrazovanie = Aligning the chances of children to a quality education. Moscow: National Research University – Higher School of Economics; 2012. P. 9–36. (In Russ.)
8. Pinskaya M. A., Yastrebov G. A. Kak ob’ektivno ocenit’ kachestvo raboty shkoly: opyt kontekstualizacii obrazovatel'nyh rezul’tatov = How to objectively assess the quality of the school work: The experience of the contextualization of educational results. Rejtingi v obrazovanii: ot razovyh praktik k kul'turnym reshenijam = Ratings in education: From one-time practices to cultural solutions. Moscow: National Research University – Higher School of Economics; 2014. P. 147–160. (In Russ.)
9. Alexandrov D. A. Deti iz semej migrantov v rossijskih shkolah = Children from families of migrants in Russian schools. Vyravnivanie shansov detej na kachestvennoe obrazovanie = Aligning the chances of children to a quality education. Moscow: National Research University – Higher School of Economics; 2012. P. 48–54. (In Russ.)
10. Nurieva L. M., Kiselev S. G. Results of the USE: Experience of analysis. Part 1. Rektor vuza = Rector of the University. 2013; 5: 42–53. (In Russ.)
11. Nurieva L. M., Kiselev S. G. Results of the USE: Experience of analysis. Part 2. Rektor vuza = Rector of the University. 2013; 6: 44–52. (In Russ.)
12. Makarov A. A., Zvereva D. I., Simonova G. I. Methodology for analyzing the results of the USE on mathematics in 2014, taking into account the socio-demographic indicators of the regions of the Russian Federation. Statisticheskie metody ocenivaniya i proverki gipotez, Permskij gosudarstvennyj universitet = Statistical Methods for Estimating and Testing Hypotheses. Perm State University [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2017 May 02]; 26: 205–222. Available from: https://elis.psu.ru/ node/337948 (In Russ.)
13. Nurieva L. M., Kiselev S. G. Average score of the Unified State Examination. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2017; 6: 33–51. (In Russ.)
14. Popov P. L., Sarayev V. G. Results of the Unified State Exam in the subjects of the Russian Federation: Relations with socio-economic and worldview phenomena. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovanija = Contemporary Problems of Science and Education. 2015; 2 (2): 590–598. (In Russ.)
15. Nuriyeva L. M., Kiselev S. G. Results of the Unified State Exam: Experience of inter-regional comparisons Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2016; 10: 11–38. (In Russ.)
16. Pahomova L. S. Effective ways and methods of preparing students for the USE in the Russian language. Nauka i obrazovanie: novoe vremja = Science and Education: New Time [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Feb 03]; 2. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp? id=26144631 (In Russ.)
17. Makeeva A. Equation with 85 unknowns. Expand the data on the results of the exam in the regions call on foreign specialists. Kommersant.ru [Internet]. 2017 Apr 04 [cited 2018 Feb 12]. Available from: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3273395? utm_source=kommersant&utm_medium=strana&utm_ campaign = four 26144631 (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Nurieva L.M., Kiselev S.G. ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF TERRITORIES AND THE UNIFIED STATE EXAMINATION RESULTS. The Education and science journal. 2018;20(5):9-31. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-5-9-31
Views:
821
Email this article 