Formative assessment in the training of technical students

The article deals with the issues of formative assessment. Formative assessment focuses on improving learning outcomes and teaching. It provides feedback to guide learning and learning for the learner. The significance of this article consists in that theoretical positions, conclusions developed during research, can find the use in the process of preparation of futurespecialists of technical profile; worked out and approved methodology of diagnostics and stage-by stage formative evaluation of students of technical specialities can be used in teaching of subject «Russian» in technical institution of higher learning; recommendations and provisions are given on to creation of the system of methodical bases of formative evaluation of students in accordance with by the qualified model of graduating student technical technical institution of higher learning.

In the age of innovative technology, in order for a student to succeed, he or she must have a high level of skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, cooperation, working with technology, independent work and communication. A young specialist should not only master the secrets of professional skills, but also fluently and competently master speech. Mastery of language and culture of speech helps a person to adapt in social reality, successfully interact, cooperate, work in a team, make decisions [1].

Today there is a lot of talk about individualization of the educational process of the university, increasing the educational motivation and learning independence of students. The most appropriate mechanism that takes into account individual and professional abilities of students is formative assessment, which can also be called assessment for learning [2].

The existing contradictions in the system of formative assessment in relation to the university is the need, on the one hand, to specify the theoretical provisions of the use of formative assessment in the conditions of the university, on the other hand, the lack of systematic experience of its use in the professional activities of the teacher.

Theoretical and methodological basis of the research was formed by the works of foreign scientists Anderson, P. Black, B. Bloom, D. Bowd, D. Williams, D. Krasvola, M. Lovatt, D. Rowntree, A. Smith, D. Wissy, K. Eccleston and others, Russian researchers A.A. Atabekov, G.A. Atanova, N.A. Belousova, V.P. Bespalko, G.B. Golub, L.I. Klarin, S. Merkulova, Y.G. Tatur, D. Tollingerova, I.S. Fishman, etc, and works of Kazakh scientists A.T. Aitpukeshev, G.M. Kusainov, L.G. Kolesova, K.M. Saginov and others.

Assessment — a category concerning any kind of activity, in which training certificates are systematically and systematically collected, used to make a conclusion about its quality.

It is no coincidence that the category «assessment» literally means «sitting next to each other» in Latin, expressing the essence of assessment, when one person carefully observes what one person says or does to another or, in case of self-assessment, reflexes the process of learning [3].

In the most general sense, evaluation is the process of judging the value or measuring the value of an object (person, process, program).

Evaluation is a general term used to measure learners' performance in a course against the goals and objectives of the course [4].

Assessment is a tool that allows to determine the development, progress in teaching activities; a way of correcting the activities of the learners, through which the teacher determines the level of readiness of the learner.

Principal characteristics of assessment for learning:

1. forms the educational process;
2. is a continuous process;
3. forms the communication process between the teacher and the student;
4. requires active participation and contributes to increasing the motivation of students;
5. does not constitute a basis for assigning points.

Different forms of assessment are described and assessed in terms of their potential to improve learning.

The whole variety of assessment forms is built on the same algorithm: pedagogical measurement (monitoring and observation); interpretation of results; conclusion for the purpose of improving the learning process.

Initially, in order to carry out the assessment, it is necessary to carry out an initial diagnosis of what the learners know and are able to do and to identify problem areas. Monitoring and observation of students' learning activities helps to determine the current level of STE and competencies. Regardless of the type and form of assessment, students' answers are interpreted to determine whether they meet the expected results and success criteria. Thus, learning outcomes are verified and the significance of learning outcomes is identified.

There are two types of such assessment: formative (formative) and summative (final) assessment. We are interested in formative assessment.

Formative assessment refers to all types of activities carried out by the teacher and learner. It provides feedback that allows for the regulation of learning and teaching in the interests of the learner.

Formative assessment focuses on improving learning outcomes and teaching. It is opposed to summa- tive assessment aimed at reporting and ranking learners.

Formative assessment aims to ensure that learning achievement is further improved.

Formative assessment is a mechanism that provides the trainer with information on where the student is at and what effective methods need to be applied to improve his or her teaching. First of all, it is feedback that gives information about what students have learned and how they are learning at the moment, and the extent to which the teacher has achieved their learning goals. Students need to understand why they are learning, what they are learning, what are the deep connections between individual actual knowledge, and how best to learn from it. They need access to assessment and the teacher, who has always been a monopolist in assessment, should share assessment tools with the student, disclose the grounds or criteria by which the assessment is made, and give the student the opportunity to benefit from the assessment results.

Formative assessment is used to measure students' educational progress and has the following methods: observation, oral responses, writing, test assignments, portfolios, essays, self-assessment, assessment by one student to another.

Formative assessment is an assessment as part of a course of study: questions and assignments for which grades are designed to help the student learn effectively, but are not used to determine the student's performance in the course.

In order to conduct an effective formative assessment process, the instructor needs to identify two positions for himself or herself: what the student should learn from the course, and what forms of assessment can contribute to this. Since evaluation aims to find out to what extent the objectives have been achieved, it is necessary to choose the forms and techniques of evaluation that are appropriate for the particular purpose.

In order for the formative assessment process to be more effective, the trainer needs to ask himself or herself questions at all times: «What essential knowledge and skills should I teach my students?», «How can I find out if they have learned this?» and «How can I help them learn better?

The research work was done in 3 stages:

Stage 1 — stating. consisted in definition of initial knowledge of students about formative assessment and definition of level of formation of aspiration to self-development. self-assessment of personal qualities and reflexion skill of students of the 1st year of technical specialties;

Stage 2 — forming. based on the implementation of the method of formative assessment in the subject «Russian language» through the use of various methods and techniques. the organization of paired assessment and self-assessment of students;

Stage 3 — a control stage. it was supposed to carry out a repeated cut of the formed qualities of students. conducting a comparative analysis and development of recommendations for teachers.

As the participants of the experiment were chosen the 1st year students of technical specialties.

From the results of the primary diagnostics we can conclude that the indicators of formative assessment of the students of the 1st year are average (3.0 — 3.7) and low (2.8). That is. the students have a fragmented. vague or virtually non-existent idea of formative assessment and its criteria.

In the control and experimental group and by the method of diagnostics of the level of reflexivity development of A.V. Karpov the high level of reflexivity is noted only in 3-4 students. The greatest number of students (62.5-65 %) is in the group with low level of reflexivity formation. Correspondingly. we can conclude that there are three types of reflexivity: situational. retrospective and prospective reflexivity is low or there is no reflexivity in 1-2 types.

The purpose of the formative experiment was to implement the method of formative assessment in the subject «Russian language».

At this stage of work with the students of the experimental group a number of tasks were set to comply with the technology of formative assessment:

1. definition of clear expected results and criteria of learning success;
2. organization of formative feedback;
3. organization of paired assessment and self-assessment.

This is how level expected results and learning criteria were developed:

A (knowledge and understanding):

B (application of knowledge and understanding):

C (making judgments):

E (communication skills):

F (learning skills):

Our next action was to develop a toolkit for evaluating the success of the Russian language training. Thus. for the assessment of the current performance the ball system of assessment was developed.

Further. at the formative stage of the experiment we developed and organized formative feedback directly in the process of teaching the discipline «Russian language» using such methods as a formative survey. posing questions on the taxonomy of Bloom. one-minute essay. test. exercise to test what has been learned. written comments.

In the paired assessment and self-assessment of students in the discipline «Russian language» we used such strategies as «Less is more». «Definition of mistakes». «Skills. not the content». «How good is it?». «Choose your partner». «Subvocarization».

At the 3 control stages of the experiment. the experiments were carried out:

• repeated slicing of the students' qualities (secondary diagnostics);
• Comparative analysis of research results;
• recommendations for teachers have been developed.

Figure 1. The results of the study at the stating and control stages of the experiment in the experimental group according to the questionnaire «Study of the peculiarities of organization and application of formative assessment in the education of students» (in points).

Comparative results were presented as Figures 1-3.

The results for all 4 indicators were close to the maximum:

The increase from 3.4 to 4.4 was noted in the criterion «Teaching peculiarities». The students of the first year of the experimental group highly appreciate the teaching methods based on the use of methods, strategies and techniques of formative assessment. Understand and accept the effectiveness of criterion assessment, opportunities for paired assessment and self-assessment for learning success.

According to the criterion «Image of the group» the indicator has changed from 3.3 to 4.3. After the experiment, the attitude towards classmates and their possibilities has changed in a positive way. Following the results of paired, group work the relations in group have been adjusted, the optimum psychological climate has been formed, the creative and working atmosphere develops.

According to the criterion «How the teacher conducts classes» changes from 3,2 to 4,7. This shows the interest of students in the new teaching methods, the professionalism of the teacher, his skills in applying strategies and technologies of formative assessment in the discipline «Russian language» are highly appreciated. The rating of this subject, thanks to the teacher, undoubtedly, has grown.

Under the «Evaluation» criterion, the indicators increased from 2.8 to 4.8. The students changed their attitude to the evaluation process in comparison with the primary diagnostics. If earlier it was considered as an «examination» procedure, a method of punishment or authoritarian control, now they see it as a great potential for self-realization. The assessment has become clear, clear, the expected results are realistic, and students can participate directly in the procedure itself.

Comparative results on the method of diagnostics of the level of reflexivity development of A.V. Karpov show:

1. The composition of students with high level of reflexivity changed from 10 to 45 %. 18 out of 40 students of the experimental group have a high level of reflexive skill formation. They can resort to the analysis of what is happening, to the constructive analysis of their mistakes, to the planning of the forthcoming activity; they are inclined to the systematic self-analysis in concrete life situations; they use planning of details of the behavior and forecasting of probable outcomes, their actions and behavior orient on the future.

2. The number of students with an average level increased from 25 % to 30 %, and with a low level decreased from 6 % to 25 %. This is also a certain result, as there is a positive trend towards understanding the need for introspection and self-reflection. These students strive to master the methods of self-assessment, realize the need for for formative assessment to improve their academic performance and their own professional development.

At the end of the control stage of the experiment, we again divided the students of the experimental sample into 3 groups according to the student's readiness and ability to make formative assessment (Figure 4).

Concluding the practical analysis we consider it necessary to formulate a number of recommendations for university professors on the use of formative assessment technology:

1. When introducing this technology, it is important to assimilate the key values of formative assessment:

• Assessment should be valid (the objects of assessment should correspond to the set goals of the course);
• evaluation should be reliable (use uniform standards or criteria);
• evaluation should be fair (different students should have equal opportunities to succeed);
• Assessment should be developmental (document what students can do and how they can improve their results);
• Assessment should be timely (supporting developing feedback);
• Assessment should be effective (feasible, not taking up all your students' time and time).

1. Respect the basic characteristics of formative assessment:

• Evaluate both during the session and at the end;
• Evaluate students with comments on how they can further improve their performance;
• Learn from students' mistakes;
• Use a variety of assessment methods;
• Try to be as objective and accurate as possible in assessing students' abilities.

1. Try to involve students in the evaluation process at your expense:

• Discuss the functions of evaluation methods and their appropriateness to course objectives;
• using self-esteem and mutual evaluation of students;
• Encouraging students to share responsibility in the choice of assessment methods;
• Do what you can to reduce the anxiety that assessment initiates;
• Never offer an assignment or an examination question until you have prepared your own answer;
• Prepare response models and use them to show students what you expect them to do.

1. During the course of the class, you should consider what you need to get feedback from them:

• Start with a positive, encouraging comment;
• Balance negative and positive comments;
• turn all criticism into positive suggestions;
• suggest further work and recommendations;
• suggest certain ways to improve the performance of the task;
• offer to discuss the evaluation and your comments.

References

1. Boiarskii, E.A., & Kolomiets, S.M. (2007). Otsenivanie obobshchennykh competentsii vypusknikov vuza [Estimation of generalized competences of university graduates]. Vysshee obrazovanie sehodnia — Higher education today, 11, 31–35 [in Russian].
2. Аvanesov, B.C. (1998). Sovremennye metody obucheniia i kontrolia znanii [Modern methods of education and knowledge control]. Moscow: Issledovatelskii tsentr problem kachestva podhotovki spetsialistov [in Russian].
3. Mizherikova, V.A. (Eds). (1998). Psikholoho-pedahohicheskii slovar [Psychological-Pedagogical Dictionary]. Rostov on- Don: Feniks [in Russian].
4. Shakirov, R.H., Burkitova, A.A., & Dudkina, O.I. (Eds). (2012). Otsenivanie uchebnykh dostizhenii uchashchikhsia [Evaluation of educational achievements of students]. Bishkek: Bilim [in Russian].