Development of the assessment system in foreign and domestic pedagogy: positive and negative aspects

Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №12 - 2020

Zaleskova Olga, Kazakh-American Free University, Kazakhstan
Oskolkova Anna, Kazakh-American Free University, Kazakhstan

The relevance of the evaluation system study to date is undeniable. The evaluation system is still being reformed throughout the world, and especially in our country. The system of evaluation of educational activities has always been a reliable tool for improving the quality of education. School grades have always been. Perhaps it is possible to determine the level of development of the child, see progress in education and notice emerging problems by this only objective criterion. In domestic pedagogy, a 5-point rating system was most common. Foreign countries do not understand such a graduation very well and consider it limited. There are 10, 12- and 100-point scoring systems. It is interesting how the formation of the evaluation system, its positive and negative aspects, as well as the need for the evaluation system itself.

The history of formation and development of evaluation can be conditionally divided into three stages:

The first stage covers the period from ancient times to the seventeenth century.

The training of this period was based on the fear of physical punishment of students for poor performance and bad behavior. There were no marks, verbal forms of assessment were used; students were instilled with a sense of humility and respect; the development of students' desire for knowledge was not the goal of learning and education. The first stage can be called "natural pedagogy." Pedagogical activity was an integral part of the life of a child and an adult. Each member of community participated in transfer and acquisition of knowledge, abilities, and skills necessary for survival. The main methods were imitation, exercise.

The second phase covers the period from the seventeenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century.

The essence of the second stage is the purposeful transfer of adult experience to children through a specially organized pedagogical process. The foundations of the modern educational system were born; the concepts "class", "lesson", "scheme of a lesson", "planning", "system", "method" and others were entered; the ideas of humanism and a comprehensively developed, intellectual person developed, physical punishment was openly condemned; there was a primary development of methodological ways of individual stimulation of cognitive activity of students. For the first time in the seventeenth century, a point system for assessing knowledge began to be used in Jesuit schools. In the XVIII century, there was an acute debate about the shortcomings of the point system; attempts were made to introduce education without grades. At the beginning of the twentieth century, a new knowledge assessment system was born - test.

The third phase covers the period from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present.During this period, intensive research is being carried out in foreign countries (Germany, France, Japan, USA and others) to improve the knowledge assessment system; application of multi-point elevation scale. Evaluation is based on the principles of individualization and differentiation, as well as training in general. Development of new assessment methods (qualimetric, modular, rating; ideas for the development of cognitive activity and creativity among students are leading. The child is no longer a subject of education and upbringing; he is considered as a full member of the educational and pedagogical process, where the creation of an adult and a child is important.

What goals are being pursued in the pedagogy of developed countries at present? Modern Western pedagogy adheres to the course of moderation, practicality, achievability [1, p. 10]. Pragmatic pedagogy is directly related to life. John Dewey, an American philosopher and teacher, a representative of the philosophical direction of pragmatism, managed to prove the need for pragmatic education and propose the goals of education corresponding to the time and the interests of the general population. Education, in his opinion, cannot be a means of preparing a person for life, it is life itself. You cannot prepare for the future of a child, since you cannot foresee how his life will turn out. Education should unite people, it is necessary to educate young people in a spirit of social peace and harmony [1, p. 10].

Combining the basic assumptions about the uniqueness of a person, the main goal of his education - preparation for life, J. Dewey concludes that education should ensure the growth of a person in the practical sphere, the growth of his experience, the development of a practical mind and analytical (evaluating) thinking [ibid.].

Modern psychologists and teachers share the views of John Dewey: A. Maslow, A. Combs, E. Kelly, K. Rogers, T. Brammeld, S. Hook. They argue that the value of education depends on the extent to which it contributes to the growth of the person, her self-consciousness, self-esteem, indicates how to better assess this situation, adapt to survive in it. In this sense, learning resembles the first stage of evaluation development, the so-called "natural pedagogy," where pedagogical activity was an integral part of the life of a child and an adult. Based on the above, we can conclude that the main goal of education within the framework of pragmatic pedagogy is self-affirmation of the personality, based on a correct assessment of oneself, others and the surrounding reality.

Lawrence Kohlberg is an American psychologist, a specialist in the field of developmental psychology; one of the founders of the theory of cognitive science, a representative of New Humanistic pedagogy sees the goal of education in the formation of an intellectual personality, including the theory of the development of morality. He led the direction for the development of cognitive and mental orientation (cognitive - developmental value education) of the personality. Kohlberg argued that the education system should develop in everyone the ability to make independent judgments, assessments and decisions [2, p. 11].

Then we should consider the pedagogy of existentialism, which sets as its main goal the arming of man with his own experience of existence. Representatives of this area (K. Gould, Z. Breizach (USA), W. Barrett (Great Britain), A. Fallico (Italy), M. Marcel (France), T. Morita (Japan), etc., note a general distrust of pedagogical theory, since upbringing and training claim to know the objective patterns of the child, and such do not exist. They believe that programs, methods and techniques of education and training are not needed, as they destroy the child's personality. Existentialism aims at arming a person with experience of existence. The goal of the whole process of education is to teach a person to create himself as a person. A creative person is an active person who longs for knowledge. The focus of existentialist concepts of education is on the individual, the assessment of her inner world, which determines the nature of all actions and actions of a person, his moral choice [3, p. 11].

In the 50-60s of the last century, new options for existentialist pedagogical goal setting arose in European countries and the USA. Prominent in them are the ideas of the German philosopher and teacher O.F. Volnov. The basis of his teaching is the concept of moral education. The author believed that one of the first and necessary tasks is the awareness of simple virtues, which in all ethical and political systems form the necessary basis for human life [1, p. 11].

All the above suggests that in modern pedagogy of Western countries, the main attention in the process of education and education is paid to the personality of the student. The main goal of modern pedagogy is the ability of the individual to survive in modern conditions, as well as the ability to cope with any situation. Of course, this is a positive aspect of the process of education and training. The moral side of learning and education will allow the student to form the right assessment and self-esteem judgments about himself and about the surrounding reality.

Recently, conventional assessments have been abandoned, but not the monitoring and evaluation of knowledge and skills in general. Evaluation takes an important stage in learning and education. There is a search for new ways to stimulate the educational work of students, where the student would be personally interested in assessing and controlling his work. The process of diagnosing educational knowledge and skills is very important and helps to clarify the current situation for both the student and the teacher. In addition, this process contributes to the self-determination of the individual, which in a competitive society is an important motivating factor. This diagnosis can and should be performed both for internal control purposes and for external control purposes.

Obviously, the emergence of the evaluation problem is rooted in the bias of the teacher and the lack of evaluation criteria, which is currently being tried to adjust. Pedagogical subjectivity is the main reason why current students prefer computer and test forms of control with minimal participation of the teacher. The teacher is responsible for the mark, which, if necessary, he is obliged to explain in accordance with the developed criteria for a certain subject.

In foreign schools, diagnostic tests have been used for a very long time. Edward Lee Thorndike - American psychologist and teacher identifies three stages of the introduction of pedagogical testing in the practice of an American school. The first period from 1900 to 1915 calls it the "search period." Here, the initial implementation of tests of memory, attention, perception, intelligence takes place. The next 15 years are years of "noise" in the development of school testing. Tests were developed and introduced by O. Stone (arithmetic), B. Zekingham (spelling), E. Thorndike (diagnostics of school subjects), etc. Since 1931, the modern stage of testing development begins. Creation of a continuous system of school test diagnostics, creation of improved means of test presentation and processing, accumulation and effective use of diagnostic information [4, pp. 12-13].

In schools, diagnostic tests of school performance are widespread, which use an alternative of the correct answer from several presented, comparisons, filling out passes, etc.

In the field of determining the system of assessments (marks) in foreign countries, there is a wide variety in both principles and specific approaches, the choice of methods for evaluating and putting marks. Various systems of estimation of knowledge, abilities, and skills practice in foreign schools, various scales of marks, including hundred - twelve - ten - two-point, etc. are accepted.

Let us give you the following example. The highest rating is 1, the lowest - 6. Each score corresponds to a certain number of points, taking into account the so-called "rating trend." For example, scores 15/14/13 reflect an excellent score - "1"; 12/11/10 correspond to a good rating - "2"; 09/08/07. They say that the student is doing satisfactorily. 06/05/04 reflect an estimate of "4"; 03/02/01 correspond to the estimate - "5". Finally, 00 signals a complete lack of knowledge of the subject and means a score of "6." In the evaluation, the ratings are issued only in points [5, p. 11].

Or a 100 system: A (93-100) - excellent; In (85-92) - above average; C (75-84) - satisfactory; D (65-74) - bad; E (0-64) - not counted [1, p. 13].

In some countries, students are tested when entering primary school, determining their mental giftedness. Depending on the established level of giftedness, children are divided into different streams: stream A - for capable,flow B - for medium, flow C (sometimes D and E) for less capable. Marks are set 2 times a year (at the end of the 1st and 2nd half of the year). The English school has a 6-point mark system, in high school - 15-point [5, p. 13].

There is also an evaluation system in which S (very good), A (good), B (satisfactory), C (bad), D (very bad). This system resembles the assessment system until recently in our country from 1 to 5, where 1 means "very bad," 5 means (very good).

All of these systems represent internal learning control. External evaluation is rarely carried out centrally, since there is a free choice of curricula and programs by the school, and subjects by students, and centralized inspections and assessment of knowledge and skills are rarely carried out. Or the function of practical control over the quality of academic training is assumed by university commissions, to which all grammatical and privileged schools are attached for the period of passing the final exams, which focus on preparing their graduates for further university education [6, p. 14].

In general, in foreign schools, there is the principle of individualization of education and each student overcomes his curriculum in his own way and pace and learns to the best of his capabilities, needs and realities of the world around him. At the end of the training, diagnosis is a statement of the results. At the same time, training in foreign countries does not imply concern for universal learning.

A characteristic feature of assessing the training of countries of the post-Soviet space, including our country, was in a five-point evaluation system, where 5 is "excellent," 4 is "good," 3- "satisfactory," 2- "bad," 1- "very bad." Nevertheless, in fact, only a three-ball evaluation system was used. "1" and "2" were used more for educational purposes. Putting the full-time score had a positive and negative side. The positive was that the student had to actively participate in the lesson and perform all the tasks, since he did not know whom the teacher would evaluate; he had to be constantly ready to answer the teacher's questions. The teacher exhibited the score at the end of the lesson for the knowledge and skills shown and the student's educational activity throughout the lesson. Many teachers in our country have applied the full-time score, as one of the effective ways to energize all students in the classroom [7, p. 16].

At the same time, there was subjectivity in the assessment of students by the teacher. Overstatement of marks to students was by no means an isolated character. Therefore, the issue of deficiencies in the evaluation system arose. There were various criticisms of the existing evaluation practice, including the lack of clear criteria.

In schools, there has been a transition to a new content of education for all levels. This transition was determined by the cultural, political, economic development of the country, the achievements of scientific and technological revolution. Improving the evaluation component of training has become one of the most pressing challenges [1 page 16].

In the Plan of the Nation "100 concrete steps," the Head of State pointed out as a fundamental basis for economic growth the improvement of the quality of human capital based on the standards of OECD countries.

The implementation of this direction provided for the updating of standards and an assessment system for the development of functional literacy of students.

In the OECD report "National Education Policy Review. Secondary Education in Kazakhstan "(2014) proposed a number of measures aimed at improving the quality, relevance and periodicity of the assessment in the classroom. In particular, implementation criteria-based assessment systems, definition of evaluation criteria for high-level thinking skills, teacher training, national standardized testing at the end of each stage of education, creating a system efficient and reliable data collection, etc. This indicates the need to use the results of the evaluation effectively.

Since 2016, a new assessment system has already been used to evaluate first-graders. This was a very difficult period of implementation of this system. There were many disputes among teachers, but teachers unequivocally agreed on one thing - it is impossible to return to the old, in fact 3 point system. The methodology of the benchmarking system provided new standards and assessment mechanisms comparable to those of the lead countries. A criterion evaluation system was introduced.

Previously, there was an assimilation of factual knowledge, the level of which was assessed through retelling and reproduction of small fragments in lessons, testing and a system of control sections. Students were offered recycled and finished material.

The new evaluation system strengthened the requirements for evaluation tools to ensure objectivity. The developed criteria and tasks made it possible to determine not only the level of knowledge, but also the ability to apply knowledge and thinking skills of a higher level (as a student speaks and argues whether he knows how to highlight the main thing and draw conclusions, whether he can make decisions, apply the acquired knowledge in life).

Summative assessment for the unit (hereinafter referred to as SAU) and Summative assessment for the term (hereinafter referred to as SAT) are previously used thematic and quarter control works. The frequency of their implementation remained almost unchanged. Evaluation of the performance of these works is determined by accumulating points, and not by subtracting them as before. The accumulative system stimulates the self-activity of students and ensures the mastery of the curriculum, that is, it contributes to the improvement of the quality of knowledge. Formative evaluation is carried out throughout each lesson through commenting on the activities of the student. In this evaluation system, there are both positive and negative aspects. Students are not afraid to receive poor grades. In fact, they simply do not know what the concept of "assessment" is. Instead of assessment, students hear comments from the teacher on the work performed and that they did not succeed.

Worse adaptation in the assessment occurs in children who were trained and evaluated first in the old system and now have moved to the new one. A teacher relates their difficulties to the fact that they are used to seeing a specific result of work as a lesson in the form of an assessment, rather than verbal comments. Parents who have studied under the old assessment system also have trouble and often do not understand how successfully or unsuccessfully their child learns the curriculum. The Kundelik information system is introduced, where the teacher must write a detailed comment on each student on the material studied, which significantly complicates the work of teachers. In addition, work began on improving the qualifications of teachers through courses, seminars, trainings to explain the features of the new assessment system.

The process of reforming the evaluation system is ongoing. In addition, now, in connection with the coronavirus pandemic and distance learning, formative assessment in the form of teacher comments does not give an objective assessment of the student's knowledge. It is decided to put points on the formative assessment and these points will affect the final assessment for the term and half year. At the same time, the formal assessment does not depend on the form of training. This can be distance learning and full-time training. That is, there is a certain return to evaluation in the form of "assessment." However, this is no longer an grade, it is a score from 1 to 10 with existing criteria. Moreover, here again there is a positive and negative side of this point system. Now we are trying to compare 5-point evaluation system and 10-point evaluation system.

A five-point rating system demonstrates how a student has learned educational material. In this case, each quantitative assessment corresponds to a certain semantic characteristic.

Table 1. A Five-Point Rating System

The positive side is that this system is traditional and familiar, and therefore understandable to both students and parents. Moreover, the negative side is not the ability to accurately and objectively understand the knowledge of the student; the student's educational progress is not objectively determined; the subjectivity of the teacher plays a very important role.

The main difference of the 10-point system is a deeper classification and detailing of the student's achievements. In addition to the level of assimilation of material, such a scale shows the qualitative characteristics of educational activities.

Table 2. A Ten-Point Rating System

The positive side is extended gradation, which allows a clearer and more objective determination of the current level of knowledge; It is possible to analyze the mental abilities of the student, assess the involvement in the educational process and detect his weaknesses; the system is psychologically comfortable - scores from 5 points are already positive.

However, the system does not solve the traditional problems of schooling: psychological trauma of "academically weak" students, subjective attitude of teachers, etc.; teachers are not just getting used to the new assessment system; parents are confused in new scores and do not always understand what a particular score indicates.

Obviously, both systems have both positive and negative points, but still, the 10-point scale is still more detailed for evaluation by the teacher and is comfortable for students. The transition to a system without assessments in our country is not yet possible now, as in Finland, for example. The learner's awareness of learning to apply it has not yet reached a level where assessments are not required [7].

Thus, we can conclude that the issue of assessing the educational achievements of students occupies an important place in the training and education of students from both foreign countries and countries of the post-Soviet space, especially our country. In addition, now, the evaluation system is still being formed.


1. Smirnova L. Teoreticheskie osnovy problem otsenivaniya I ego roli v razvitii poznovatelnoy aktivnostiu chashchhsya. [Theoretical Foundations of the Problem of Assessment and Its Role in the Development of Cognitive Activity of Students]: monografiya. - Ul'janovsk: Ul'janovskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogicheskij universitetimeni I.N. Ul'janova, FLINTA, Nauka, 2014. p. 128.

2. Dzhurinskij A.N. Pedagogika: istorija pedagogicheskih idej: [Pedagogy: History of Pedagogical Ideas]: ucheb, posobie. M.: Pedagogicheskoe obshhestvo Rossii, 2000. p 352.

3. Rukovodstvo po kriterial'nomu ocenivaniju dlja uchitelej osnovnoj I obshhej srednej shkol: [Guidelines for Criteria-Based Assessment for Teachers of Primary and General Secondary Schools] Uchebno-metod. Posobie. / Pod red. O.I. Mozhaevoj, A.S. Shilibekovoj, D.B. Ziedenovoj. Astana: AOO Nazarbaev Intellektual'nye shkoly, 2016. p. 56.

4. Metodicheskie rekomendacii po ispol'zovaniju sistemy kriterial'nogo ocenivanija uchebnyh dostizhenij uchashhihsja vseh urovnej. Sbornik metodicheskih rekomendacij. [Methodical Recommendations on the Use of the System of Criteria-Based Assessment of Educational Achievements of Students of All Levels]. Astana: NAO imeni I. Altynsarina, 2015. p 507.

5. Sulejmenova A.S. Kriterial'noe ocenivanie uchebnyh dostizhenij uchashhihsja na urokah informatiki v uslovijah obnovlennogo soderzhanija obrazovanija. [Criteria Assessment of Educational Achievements of Students in Computer Science Lessons in the Context of the Updated Content of Education. / URL: (reference date: 30.11.2015)

6. Davletkalieva E.S., Perezhogina L.I., Temirgalieva R.T., Ledjaeva G.G., Emel'janova T.P. Kriterial'no-orientirovannyj podhod kak uslovie formirovanija kljuchevyh kompetencij uchashhihsja na urokah informatiki [A Criterion-Oriented Approach As a Condition for the Formation of Key Competencies of Students in Computer Science Lessons (Teaching Aid)] (uchebno-metodicheskoe posobie). Zhurnal Mezhdunarodnyj zhurnalj eksperimental'nogo obrazovanija. 2015. 12 (chast' 1), p 124.

7. Abekova Zh.A., Oralbaev A.B., Berdalieva M., Izbasarova Zh.K. Tehnologija kriterial'nogo ocenivanija, metodika ee primenenija v uchebnom processe [Criteria-Based Assessment Technology, Methodology for Its Application in the Educational Process] // Mezhdunarodnyj zhurnal jeksperimental'nogo obrazovanija. 2016. 2-2. p. 215-218.

Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №12 - 2020

About journal
About KAFU

   © 2022 - KAFU Academic Journal