Excel template "analyzer of exam results in literature" with automatic output of the analysis report.

None of the students scored the maximum number of USE points in literature (100 points).

In the examination work, two parts are highlighted and the end-to-end numbering of tasks is adopted. CMM includes 17 tasks that differ in form and level of complexity.

In part 1, it is proposed to complete tasks that include questions for the analysis of literary works. The ability of graduates to determine the main elements of the content and artistic structure of the studied works (topics and problems, heroes and events, artistic techniques, various types of tropes, etc.) is tested, as well as to consider specific literary works in conjunction with the course material.

Part 1 includes two sets of tasks.

The first set of tasks refers to a fragment of an epic, or lyroepic, or dramatic work: 7 tasks with a short answer (1-7), requiring the spelling of a word, or a phrase, or a sequence of numbers, and 2 tasks with a detailed answer in the amount of 5-10 sentences ( 8, 9).

The second set of tasks refers to a lyrical work: 5 tasks with a short answer (10-14) and 2 tasks with a detailed answer in the amount of 5-10 sentences (15, 16).

The general structure of part 1 is subordinated to the task of a wide content coverage of literary material. Literary texts offered for analysis allow to check not only the knowledge of specific works by graduates, but also the ability to analyze the text, taking into account its genre, 2 tasks involve entering a wide literary context (substantiation of the connection of this literary text with other works according to the aspects of comparison indicated in the tasks ). Thus, the reliance on the intra-subject connections of the studied course makes it possible to provide additional coverage of the content of the tested literary material.

Following the proposed work algorithm allows the examinees to identify the place and role of the episode (scene) in the general structure of the work (fragment analysis), to reveal the plot-compositional, figurative-thematic and stylistic features of the analyzed text, to generalize their observations with access to the literary context.

Part 2 of the work requires the participants of the Unified State Exam to write a full-length detailed essay on a literary topic (thus, one more substantial component of the tested course is added to the literary material worked out in part 1). The graduate is offered 3 questions (17.1-17.3), covering the most important milestones in the national historical and literary process: 17.1 - based on the works of Old Russian literature, classics of the 18th century. and the first half of the 19th century; 17.2 - based on works of the second half of the 19th century; 17.3 - based on the works of the XX century. The graduate chooses only one of the questions and gives an answer to it in the form of an essay, justifying his judgments by referring to the work (from memory).

Distribution of tasks by parts of the examination work

Structurally, the two sets of tasks in Part 1 are built in stages: from basic-level questions aimed at testing theoretical and literary knowledge (1-7 and 10-14), to tasks of an increased level of a generalizing type (8, 9 and 15, 16). Part 2 contains an alternative task of a high level of complexity (17.1-17.3), which to the greatest extent reflects the requirements of the profile-level standard.

The examination work includes tasks of basic, advanced and high levels of complexity. Part 1 contains 12 tasks of the basic level (1-7, 10-14) and 4 tasks of an increased level of difficulty (8, 9, 15, 16). Part 2 contains 1 task of a high level of complexity (the examinee is offered a choice of three tasks: 17.1-17.3), which requires the exam participant to write an independent full-length text on a literary topic.

A systematic long-term observation of the dynamics of the results of the USE participants in the literature shows that tasks requiring a short answer cause difficulties only for examinees with a low level of educational preparation in the subject. Well-trained USE participants for the most part cope with the tasks of this group successfully.

Students coped with tasks 1-7, 10-14, gaining from 8 to 13 points.

Thus, all students crossed the acceptable threshold and showed a 100% level of training.

Analysis of the results shows that students are most successful in coping with basic-level tasks that require a short answer. Tasks of this type require students to have solid knowledge, an accurate formulation of the results of observations on the text.

The greatest difficulties are caused by tasks of the advanced and high level, which require writing a detailed answer on a given problem.

Tasks 8 and 15 are assessed according to two criteria: "The depth of the judgments made and the persuasiveness of the arguments" and "Following the norms of speech." If, when checking tasks 8 and 15, the expert gives 0 points or 1 point according to the first criterion, then according to the second criterion, the task is not evaluated (0 points are set in the protocol for checking the answers). Thus, for the successful completion of each of tasks 8 and 15, the examinee receives a maximum of 4 points.

Tasks 9 and 16 are evaluated according to one criterion: "The inclusion of the work in the literary context and the persuasiveness of the arguments." For the successful completion of each of tasks 9 and 16, the examinee receives a maximum of 4 points.

The task of part 2 (17.1-17.3) is assessed according to five criteria: "The depth of disclosure of the topic of the essay and the persuasiveness of judgments", "The level of knowledge of theoretical and literary concepts", "Reasonableness of attracting the text of the work", "Compositional integrity and consistency of presentation", "Following the norms speech ". The maximum score for the criterion "The level of knowledge of theoretical and literary concepts" is 2 points, for each of the other criteria the maximum score is 3. The maximum score for completing the task of part 2 (composition) is 14. Only Inna Karpenko began to complete this task, but his not finished.

Graduates successfully cope with the tasks of the basic part: 1, 3, 5, 7, 12.

The students completed almost half of the tasks of the increased and higher parts successfully.

When preparing students, pay special attention to writing mini-essays and detailed essays.

Materials from the FIPI website www.fipi.ru can provide methodological assistance to teachers and students in preparation for the Unified State Exam:

–Documents defining the structure and content of the KIM USE 2017 (codifier of content elements and requirements for the level of training of graduates, specification and demo version of KIM);

–Open bank of USE tasks;

Teacher: Popova O.V.

Preview:

Deputy Director of MBOU Lyceum No. 5

For educational activities Lokteva L.I.

Popova O.V.,

teachers of the Russian language and literature of the 11th grade.

Explanatory.

The analysis of the final essay carried out in December, the students showed a fairly good level of preparation. In the 11th grade, 100% of the students received credits. This result was facilitated by systematic work aimed at teaching writing an essay:

1) In the lessons of the development of speech in the Russian language and literature, much attention was paid to systematic work with textual information. This ensured the formation of the student's communicative competence: "immersed in the text", interpret it correctly, highlight different types of information and realize the originality of the author's content-conceptual position stated in the text.

2) Sufficient attention, in my opinion, was paid to working with students to the practice of reasoned retelling, providing a competent transfer of information using the assessment of the facts set out by the author, with the involvement of their own facts. These practical skills made it possible to avoid mistakes in examination essays associated with the verbatim transmission of the author's text.

3) Increasing the time during additional classes for the work of students to prevent speech and grammatical errors in the written statement gave a positive result, since the general level of a graduate's speech culture is largely determined on the basis of an assessment of his practical mastering of the normative requirements of the Russian literary language.

4) In the classroom, such productive types of reading were carried out, as, for example, search with a focus on the selection of the necessary information, research and others, systematically improving the humanitarian skills of students working with reference, literary and linguistic literature.

Preparing for literature lessons, I select didactic electronic material (portraits, music, reproductions of paintings, images of sculptures and architectural structures, photo, video and film documents, etc.), reflecting the features of the writer's work or the main characteristics of the historical and cultural era. When preparing for an essay, I actively use a combination of traditional educational activities with access to electronic libraries (search for books in one or more libraries, texts, recordings of writers' voices, film documents, etc.), virtual museums and sites dedicated to individual writers. Creation on the basis of ICT tools, multimedia presentations of a cognitive nature and methodologically competently use them in the lesson.

The introduction of ICT in the lessons of the Russian language and literature allowed me to realize the idea of ​​developing education, to increase the pace of the lesson, to reduce the loss of working time to a minimum, to increase the volume of independent work, to make the lesson brighter and more exciting. It was ICT that made it possible to see linguistic and literary processes with different eyes, to become their participants. In the classroom, I use e-books, where I insert videos from electronic textbooks, musical works created on the words of poems of poets whose work is being studied. So, with musical accompaniment, my lessons on the works of Tyutchev, Fet, Yesenin pass. I introduce students to the content of the program works. Discs with recordings of films based on works of art also come to the rescue. Of course, in the lesson there is no time to watch the film in full, but individual episodes can still be used and compared with the author's text, thereby including even low-performing students in the analysis of a literary work, and also to interest the children by offering a film for home viewing. So, my students watched in full at home Sergei Bondarchuk's film "War and Peace" and a new version of this film, a joint project - France and Russia. Later in the lesson, their discussion turned into a discussion about their advantages and disadvantages. We watched the film "A Hero of Our Time" with pleasure and discussed the performance of the artists. Now in the literature lesson there is an opportunity to get acquainted with theatrical performances of the great playwrights. So the "Inspector" by N.V. Gogol, "The Thunderstorm" by N.A.Ostrovsky, "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov came to the lessons.

In the work on the essay, I suggest several types of work that students can perform using the Internet:

1. Search for a review of any literary work, the work of a poet or writer of a certain literary direction.
2. Creation of a multimedia presentation on a specific topic.

3. Selection of thematic or most liked poems of poets, the work of which will be considered in the upcoming lesson.

4. Preparation of vocabulary work. The Internet now has a variety of dictionaries, reference books, encyclopedias.

6. Creation of reports and abstracts on the topic.

I prefer working in a community - "teacher - student": student report + teacher presentation, often students find ready-made presentations for lessons on the Internet, and we use them in the classroom. On the teachers' websites there is a link with permission to use materials for free on various topics of the lessons. I use a variety of sites in my work.

We got acquainted with the peculiarities of the literature exam through the page of their personal account. After reading, they made an algorithm for working on the essay.

Electronic textbooks help to prepare for the essay.

In the practice of my work I use the "Encyclopedia of Russian Literature", "Phrase", "Cyril and Methodius. Russian language. Grades 5-11 ”,“ Russian language. Tutor ”,“ Unified State Exam in Russian ”, MP3 discs with recorded texts of literary works (I.S. Turgenev, A.P. Chekhov, M.Yu. Lermontov, etc.) and many others. In the textbook "Encyclopedia of Russian Literature" we use the page "Literary Cafe". This method of presenting educational material helps at the very beginning of studying a work to interest children, to encourage them to read it. In the section "Textbook" you can find the biographical data of the writer, and theoretical information, and a fairly diverse illustrative material. When monitoring students' knowledge at the end of the school year, I use the "Tests" section. The use of this tutorial is very convenient: all topics are subdivided into time periods, which makes it easier to find. I use discs with recordings of works by various poets and writers in order to show the perfect expressive reading performed by professional artists. Striving to read in the same way, striving for perfection is also a necessary and much needed lesson. In order to improve literacy, I use online tests.

The use of ICT is effective: the student works actively and independently; the form of knowledge control is changing: the student controls the computer, carefully checking and immediately evaluating the work;
individualization and differentiation of training is applied,
the student develops the ability to work, observing silence, without disturbing others, his communicative culture develops.

On the official website of the FIPI in the section "Analytical and methodological materials" there are published "Methodological recommendations for teachers, prepared on the basis of an analysis of typical mistakes of participants in the USE 2017", it is here that you can find information about what is the average USE score in literature was in 2017.

Download the document.

Table 1

Average USE score in 2017 in literature

The total number of participants in the 2017 USE in literature was 41,267 people, which is slightly lower than the number of those examined in 2016 (43,585 people), but higher than in 2015 (37,512 people). These data indicate a certain stability in the choice of the USE in literature by graduates entering universities of the corresponding profile.

The largest number of participants is noted in the following subjects of the Russian Federation: Moscow (5392 people), St. Petersburg (2556 people), Moscow region (2679 people), Krasnodar region (1368 people), Rostov region (1090 people), Sverdlovsk region (1035 people), Nizhny Novgorod region (931 people).

The average test score in 2017 was 59.68, which is slightly higher than in 2016 (57.91) and 2015 (57.12).

The most numerous are the groups of examinees who received 41-60 and 61-80 tb. (41% and 40% of participants, respectively). The group of high scorers makes up more than 8.6% of the total number of participants. Compared to 2016, in 2017, the share of examinees with results in the range of low scores (0–40 tb) decreased. There is a tendency towards an increase in the share of well-trained participants with results of 61–80 tb. (an increase of 2%), which is explained, in particular, by the tendency to improve the quality of teaching the subject "Literature" in connection with the introduction of the final essay.

The minimum USE score in 2017 was 8 pp. (32 tb.), As in 2016.The share of graduates who did not score the minimum number of points in 2017 is 2.9%, which is 1.4% less than in 2016 (4.3 %) and 2.4% less than in 2015 (5.3%). This result also indicates an improvement in the quality of graduates' preparation for the literature exam.

In 2017, 343 people received 100 points for the USE in literature. (0.83%), which is in absolute terms more than in 2016 (256 people). The dynamics of the number of 100-point students is associated with an increase in the quality of training of graduates who are motivated to successfully pass the exam in literature.

The analysis of the USE results in 2017 confirms the preservation of the measuring properties of the examination model and allows us to state that the degree of complexity of the CMM tasks is generally adequate to the cognitive capabilities of the examinees and makes it possible to differentiate them for admission to universities with different requirements for the level of literacy training.

Information and analytical reference

according to the results of the exam in literature

1 graduate took part in the Unified State Exam in Literature…. The exam lasted 235 minutes.

general description of work

In the examination work, two parts are highlighted and the end-to-end numbering of tasks is adopted. The content and structure make it possible to test the knowledge of the content side of the course (history and theory of literature), as well as the skills in the subject.

Part 1 included 16 tasks, including questions for the analysis of literary works. Tasks 1-7, 10-14 were assessed by 1 point with the correct choice of the answer (12 points in total); 8.15 were assessed according to two criteria (total 8 points); tasks 9, 16 were assessed according to one criterion (total 8 points)

In this part, the ability to determine the main elements of the content and artistic structure of the studied works was tested, as well as the ability to consider literary works in interrelation. Tasks 9, 16 of the first part involved entering a wide literary context, since it was necessary to find and substantiate the connection of this text with other works according to the aspects of comparison indicated in the tasks.

Part 1 included two sets of tasks: to an epic and a lyric work.

Part 2 required writing an extended essay on a literary theme.

The results of the tasks requiring a short answer 1-7.

Tasks of this type required from the examinees knowledge of terms and concepts, historical and literary facts, knowledge of the content of texts. Analysis shows that it is difficult to determine the type and genre of literature. Errors were also made in tasks that test good knowledge of the text of a literary work, which indicates a poor knowledge of the plot basis of the works (the task material is based solely on key plot elements and main characters). The difficulty was caused by task 4, aimed at testing the knowledge of the text of a work of art through establishing a correspondence between its content elements. The results of the tasks requiring a short answer 10-14.

The analysis shows that the graduate does not fully own the terminology, mistakes are made in the definition of expressive means. The ability to determine the poetic meter is not sufficiently formed.

The results of the tasks 8.9, 15.16.

Tasks 8, 9, 15, 16 are based on the traditions of writing essays on a literary theme and require the creation of written monologic statements of various types on the basis of a work of fiction. They are aimed at testing the ability to give a capacious detailed answer in the amount of 5-10 sentences. Tasks 9.16 involve the inclusion of the analyzed work of art in the literary context. The analysis shows that mistakes were made in the tasks where it was required to substantiate the thesis or compare the selected works. This indicates that the graduate lacks knowledge of both specific lyric works and classical lyrics in general. The complication caused the execution of the "context" task. This is due to the low level of reading.

Results of the task 17

Task 17 required writing a detailed essay and is based on the tradition of writing essays on a literary theme and requires the creation of written monologic statements of various types on the basis of a work of fiction. It tested the ability to deeply reveal the topic, mastery of theoretical and literary concepts, the validity of attracting the text, the consistency of presentation. Analysis of the work showed that the topic was disclosed unconvincingly, the text of a work of art was unreasonably involved.

Distribution of tasks by parts of the examination work

Item-by-item analysis of work performance

Element-by-element analysis of the performance of tasks 1-7 and 10-14 that require writing (basic level of difficulty)

Element-by-element analysis of the execution of tasks 8 and 15, which require writing a detailed answer in the amount of 5-10 sentences (increased level of complexity)

Assignment 8

Task 15

Element-by-element analysis of the performance of tasks 9 and 16, which require writing a detailed answer in the amount of 5-10 sentences (increased level of complexity)

Assignment 9

Task 16

Element-by-element analysis of the performance of tasks 17.1 - 17.3., Requiring writing a detailed reasoned answer in the genre of an essay of at least 200 words (high level of difficulty)

conclusions

The analysis shows that the topic was partially disclosed, the text was not always reasonably and versatile, factual errors were made, the logic of the presentation of the material was violated.

Major mistakes:

Incorrect definition of the belonging of the text to a particular genre;

Insufficient knowledge of linguistic means and determination of their role in disclosing the content of the work;

Lack of deep knowledge of literary works;

Violation of the sequence of presentation of the material;

Insufficient level of formation of skills of independent search for an answer to a question, commenting on a literary text.

The main reasons for the results according to the essay criteria:

A little practice in creating your own texts.

Insufficient work on the compositional construction of texts of different functional styles and functional-semantic types of speech.

Insufficient level of knowledge of theoretical and literary concepts.

To achieve good knowledge of the content of works by schoolchildren, as this is a key, fundamental condition for the successful passing of the exam in literature;

Analyze the mistakes made in more detail, organize assistance in filling knowledge gaps,

Carry out work on the development of literary terminology, provided for in programs and textbooks, and take special measures for the constant updating of theoretical and literary knowledge;

Continue to work on repetition of the read works;

Develop and improve the skills of comparing various works of art;

All of the above allows us to conclude that the most urgent requirement is knowledge of the texts of works of art and the ability to apply this knowledge for their direct analysis. The principle of text-centricity, which is the basis of the current USE model in literature, orients the teacher to systematic work in this direction, covering the entire period of studying the school literature course.