Analysis of passing the Unified State Exam in Russian. Analysis of the Unified State Exam in Russian

Analysis of the results of the Unified State Examination 2016 in the Russian language in grades 11a and 11b

Date of the Unified State Exam in Russian: 05/30/2016

Number of students in 11th grade: 47

Number of students who passed the Unified State Exam in Russian: 47

Performing the test part of the work:

All 11th grade students scored a passing grade on the Unified State Examination.

2 students (4.25%) completed the work with 100 points:Dobrokhotov N., Romanova K.

The number of students who completed work from 80 to 100 points is 35 (out of 47) or 74.46%:

100 points – 2 students: Dobrokhotov N., Romanova K.;

98 points – 4 students: Galieva A., Grishanov O., Sergeeva A., Khairutdinov R.;

96 points – 2 students: Batyrshina K., Gasishvili V.;

93 points – 4 students:Andreev P., Zakirova Z., Sorokina N., Shagieva A..

91 points – 5 students:Bochkova V., Galantseva A., Zakirova D., Kuzmin M., Shigaev V..

88 points – 2 students:Komarova O., Naumov D.;

86 points – 5 students:Butyakov S., Egorova E., Kirillova M., Novikov Y., Shilova A.;

83 points – 6 students:Gafiyatullina E., Gerasimova V., Zubkov A., Plotnikov A., Feoktistova K., Shilova An.;

81 points – 5 students: Bulusheva A., Polyakova E., Tukhvatullin B., Khabibulina I., Khisamova L.

Students who completed work below 80 points:

78 points – 2 students:Kalimullina D., Kolpakova A.;

76 points – 1 student: Rakhmatullina G.

73 points – 1 student: Knyazeva A.

72 points – 2 students:Nerobov K., Okruzhnov T.

71 points – 1 student: Cheredov M.

70 points – 1 student: Ksenofontov N.

66 points - 1 student: Speshilova M.

65 points – 1 student: Tolkien D.

64 points – 1 student: Alexandrov K.

61 points – 1 student: Potasev D.

Completed the test part of the exam without errors– 12 students (25.53%)

The most problematic tasks for students to complete were:

No. 21 (Functional and semantic types of speech)– mistakes were made by 12 students (25.5%);

No. 20 (Text as a speech work. Semantic and compositional integrity of the text)– 9 students (19.1%);

No. 13 (Contiguous, hyphenated, separate spelling of words)– 8 students (17%);

No. 5 (Lexical norms)– 7 students (14.8%);

No. 17 (Punctuation marks in sentences with words and constructions that are grammatically unrelated to the members of the sentence)– 7 students (14.8%).

Task No. 25 (essay) was completed by all students, and everyone did a good job.

Wrote for full points– 5 students (10.63%).

Teacher: Semenova T.A.

Analysis of Unified State Examination results in the Russian language

11th grade students of MBOU "Ozernovskaya Secondary School" in 2016.

Purpose of the analysis: to assess the level of development of the federal component

state educational standard of secondary (complete) general

Russian language education for OU graduates.

Objectives: Analyze exam results, formulate conclusions

5 people took part in the 2016 Unified State Exam in Russian in grade 11

graduates.

Average score for the class – 64.4

Success threshold – 24 points

Quality of knowledge -100%

Academic success – 100%

Compared to the trial, the main Unified State Exam was completed at a good level, the quality of knowledge increased from 80% to 100%, academic performance was 100%. Good performance of the work was facilitated by: systematic repetition and solution of variants of CIMs in a new format during the first and second half of the academic year, as well as individual work during the holidays, independent work of students during the academic year.

All graduates have passed the minimum level in the subject.

Structure of the Unified State Examination in the Russian language In 2016, the Unified State Examination test in the Russian language consisted of two parts, including 25 tasks. Part 1: 24 tasks (1–24) with a short answer that is a number (digit) or a word (multiple words). Part 2: one task (25) is an essay based on the text read. For part 1 (tasks 1 - 24) you can score 33 points, and for part 2 (task 25) - 24 points. Total number: 57 primary points.

Unified State Examination results in Russian language

Class

Number of graduates

Passed the Unified State Exam

Maxi

small score

Mini

small score

Average score

Kamneva M.P.

66,4

Results of mastering elements of the content of the Russian language standard.

Checked elements

Completed

exercise

% completed

Meaning of the text

Lexical meaning of the word

Orthoepic norms

Use of paronyms

Formation of word forms

Violation of syntactic norms

Spelling the vowel in the root

Spelling of prefixes

Spelling of suffixes (except -Н-/-НН-)

Spelling of personal endings of verbs and suffixes of present participles

Spelling NOT and NOR

Integrated, hyphenated, separate spelling of words

Spelling -Н- and -НН- in suffixes of VARIOUS PART OF SPEECH

Punctuation marks in a simple sentence with homogeneous members

Punctuation marks in sentences with isolated members

Punctuation marks in sentences with introductory constructions

Punctuation marks in a complex sentence with an attributive clause

Punctuation marks in complex sentences with different types of connections

Compliance of the statement with the content of the text

Lexical meaning of the word

Means of connecting sentences in the text

Language means of expression.

Meaning of the text

Tasks that the student could not cope with

Azhmuratova Anar

6.12.14.17.19

Aisarieva Farida

11.13.15.16.17.18.19.20,21,22.23.24

Almukanova Elvira

4.9.14.18.19.22.24

Begembetova Aigerm

4.7.15.19.20.24

Isengazieva Altynay

12.16.19.21.23.24

3. RESULTS OF EXECUTION OF AN OPEN TYPE TASK

WITH DETAILED ANSWER

(Task 25. Use

linguistic means depending on the speech situation)

Part 2 (task 25) Essay. (Information text processing) consisted of one open task with a detailed answer:

graduates need to write an essay based on the proposed text.

To evaluate the assignment of the second part of the work, which controls communicative skills in the Unified State Examination

competence of graduates, a system of 12 criteria has been developed. Some criteria

provide for the assessment of the corresponding skill with points from 0 to 2, others - from 0 to 1,

criteria 2, 4, 7, 8 provide for a score from 0 to 3. The maximum number of primary points for the third part of the work is 24 points

Results of task 25(C) (number of those who completed the task in%)

SK1

SK2

SK3

SK4

SK5

SK6

SK7

SK8

SK9

SK10

SK11

SK12

Testable skills

Problems

A comment

own opinion

Semantic integrity,

Precision and expressiveness

Spelling

Punctuation

Language norms

Speech norms

Ethical Standards

Factual accuracy

Achieved %

By 3 points

By 2 points

For 1 point

0 points

5 graduates started writing an argumentative essay (part 2) – 100%. The average score for the essay is 17.8 out of 24. The best result for completing part C belongs to Farida Aisarieva (23 points).

Results of assessment of task 25 according to criteria (in percentage)

5 students (100%) were able to correctly formulate and comment and determine the author’s position on one of the problems raised by the author of the analyzed text (Criteria SC1, SC2, SC3.) Qualitatively commented on the formulated problem (80%). The author's position can be determined by -5 students (100% of graduates). Give reasons for your own position – 96%. In general, students’ work is distinguished by semantic integrity, logic, and coherence. They show a communicative intent. When expressing their own position, 55% of examinees make speech and grammatical errors, as well as spelling and punctuation errors (40% and 50%, respectively). 61 graduates (20%) received the highest scores (3 points out of 3) for compliance with spelling standards. The share of works in which students showed the ability to consistently present the material, successfully connect parts of the work, and maintain their proportionality (criterion SC5) - 80%

The results of the work show that all graduates coped with the essay, correctly explained the problem of the text, knew how to work with arguments, and use fiction.

Based on the results obtained, the following can be formulated:

conclusions and offers:

When planning and conducting lessons per lesson, pay special attention to repeating and consolidating the most significant and complex topics, and also allocate a reserve of time for practicing test tasks.

Preparation for the exam should be carried out in parallel with the study of the program material, by including tasks in the forms used for the final certification starting from grades 8-9.

Identify and eliminate individual gaps in students’ knowledge, paying special attention to those sections that are considered to be failing based on the results of the Unified State Exam.

When studying the Russian language, it is necessary to increase the practical orientation of the subject and pay more attention to the application of knowledge in written works.

Use in your activities a unified criteria-based approach to assessing students’ creative works;

To develop skills related to reading and information processing of text. Create favorable conditions for the formation of communicative competence: work more with text, teach text analysis, interpretation and creation of texts of various styles and genres;

Comprehensively use work on essays and presentations to automate spelling and punctuation skills;

Regularly conduct test control so that students can master the technique of working with tests and can work in the Unified State Exam format (starting from the 5th grade); - study recommendations for improving the process of teaching the Russian language, created by the Federal Institute of Pedagogical Measurements;

Analysis of the results of the trial Unified State Exam In Russian

11 A class

Venue: Secondary School No. 53

Number of participants: 29

Duration of the Unified State Exam in Russian: 3.5 hours (210 minutes)

On December 27, 2016, 11th grade students took part in municipal trial testing in the Russian language.

General test results

The results of the trial Unified State Examination in the Russian language are presented in the table:

points

From 60 to 79 points

From 36 to 59 points

Less than 36 points

11A

No

total

1 person (3%)

22 people (76%)

6 people (21%)

(0%)

Thus, all test participants showed results sufficient to pass the so-called Unified State Exam threshold in the Russian language (36 or more points). The average score in class 11A is 65.5.

Test tasks in the Russian language, proposed to students of class 11A, were structured in accordance with the specifications of testing and measuring materials for state (final) certification in 2017. Examination paper consists of two parts and includes 25 tasks that differ in form and level of difficulty.

Part 1 contains 24 tasks with short answer. The examination paper offers the following types of short-answer tasks:

– open-type tasks for recording an independently formulated correct answer;

– tasks for choosing and recording one or more correct answers from the proposed list of answers.

Part 2 contains 1 open-type task with a detailed answer (essay), testing the ability to create your own statement based on the text you read.

For correct completion of all tasks of the examination paper, you can receive the maximum 57 primary points,which are converted into 100 points (percent).

Analysis of tasks of part 2

11A class

Subject

Number of people who made mistakes

Percentage of those who made errors

Information processing of written texts of various genres and styles

1 person

3,4%

1 person

3,4%

Lexical meaning of the word

10 people

34,4%

Orthoepic norms (stress placement)

13 people

44,8%

Lexical norms (the use of a word in accordance with the exact lexical meaning and the requirement of lexical compatibility)

12 people

41,3%

Morphological norms

5 people

17,2%

Syntactic norms. Approval standards. Governance standards

2 people

6,8%

Spelling of roots

9 people

31%

Spelling of prefixes

2 people

6,8%

Spelling of suffixes of various parts of speech (except –Н- / –НН-)

3 persons

10,3%

Spelling personal endings of verbs and participle suffixes

6 people

20,6%

Spelling NOT and NOR

6 people

20,6%

Integrated, hyphenated, separate spelling of words

9 people

31%

Spelling –Н- and –НН- in various parts of speech

11 people

37,9%

Punctuation marks in a simple complicated sentence (with homogeneous members). Punctuation in complex sentences and simple sentences with homogeneous members.

3 persons

10,3%

Punctuation marks in sentences with isolated members (definitions, circumstances, applications, additions)

5 people

17,2%

Punctuation marks in sentences with words and constructions that are grammatically unrelated to the members of the sentence

16 people

55,1%

Punctuation marks in a complex sentence

4 people

13,7%

Punctuation marks in a complex sentence with different types of connections

11 people

37,9%

Text as a speech work. Semantic and compositional integrity of the text

17 people

58,6%

Functional and semantic types of speech

14 people

48,2%

Lexical meaning of the word. Synonyms. Antonyms. Paronyms. Phraseological phrases. Groups of words by origin and use

18 people

62%

Means of connecting sentences in the text

8 people

27,5%

Speech. Language means of expression

1 person

3,4%

Analysis of tasks of part C (essay-reasoning)

The essay had the following requirements:

Formulation of problems in the source text,

Commenting on the formulated problem of the source text,

Argumentation by the examinee of his own opinion on the problem (examples from fiction and life experience),

Semantic integrity, speech coherence and consistency of presentation,

Accuracy and expressiveness of speech,

Compliance with spelling standards,

Compliance with punctuation standards,

Compliance with language norms,

Compliance with speech norms,

Compliance with ethical standards,

Maintain factual accuracy in background material.

Out of 24 possible points in the essay, the following were scored:

11A class

from 5 to 15 points - 5 people (17%),

from 16 to 19 points - 19 people (66%),

from 20 to 23 points - 4 people (14%),

did not complete the task - 1 person (Khomin Vadim) (3%)

Students in grade 11A did not complete the following requirements (excluding those who did not complete the assignment):

Formulation of problems in the source text – 3 people (10.3%),

Commenting on the formulated problem of the source text - 3 people (10.3%),

Argumentation by the examinee of his own opinion on the problem (from fiction and from life experience) - 5 people (17.2%),

Semantic integrity, speech coherence and consistency of presentation – 1 person (3.4%),

Accuracy and expressiveness of speech – 2 people (6.8%),

Compliance with spelling standards - 3 people (10.3%),

Compliance with punctuation standards – 7 people (24.1%),

Compliance with language norms – 11 people (37.9%),

Compliance with speech norms – 4 people (13.7%),

Compliance with ethical standards – 2 people (6.8%),

Maintaining factual accuracy in background material – 9 people (31%).

Based on the analysis of training testing results In Russian you can do the following conclusions: level of preparation of 11th grade secondary school students in the Russian language satisfactory.

SOLUTION:

1. Teacher Abdulmeneva should continue preparing 11th grade students for the Unified State Examination using rehearsal tests and practicing the skills of filling out forms.

2. Implement a differentiated approach to students in order to improve the level of quality of knowledge of graduates (use effective teaching technologies that provide a multi-level and individual approach).

3. Continue preparing for the Unified State Exam using the 2017 Demo versions located on the FIPI website.

The certificate was prepared by Deputy Director T.M. Prasova,

Head of the School of Education for Teachers of Russian Language and Literature Abdulmeneva E.R.

Analysis of the Unified State Examination in the Russian language 2016.

In total, 12 students took part in the Unified State Examination 2016 in the Russian language.

Academic success – 100%

The average score for the school was 80.33%;

The target was not lower than 69.42%, and was exceeded by 10.91%.

Number of students who received the highest scores:

maximum 100 points – 1 (Adeliya Fazlieva), which amounted to 8.33% of the total number of those who passed;

high-scoring (90 and above) – 1 (Ivanova Tatyana);

(more than 80) – 4 (Angelina Solovyova, Alexander Shilov, Sergey Petrov, Nadezhda Lyaplina).

The lowest score is 67 for Evgenia Kuchinskaya.

Teacher: Pavlova G. L.

Part Execution Analysis

100 %

Syntactic norms (use of conjunction)

Lexical norms (the use of a word in accordance with the exact lexical meaning and the requirement of lexical compatibility)

Orthoepic norms (stress placement)

3 lessons

25 %

Morphological norms (formation of word forms). Paronyms.

2 lessons

16, 67 %

Spelling standards

Syntactic norms. Approval standards. Management standards. Constructing sentences with homogeneous members. Construction of complex sentences

Received points 5b-9 academic.

4b-3 school

75 %

25 %

Find the vowel being tested

3 lessons

25 %

Spelling of prefixes

Choose a word without a mistake

1 lesson

8,33 %

Conjugation of verbs

3 lessons

25 %

Merged spelling of a word with no

Continuous writing of conjunctions

2 lessons

16, 67 %

Spelling -n- and –nn-

2 studies

16, 67 %

Place one comma in simple sentences with homogeneous members or in complex sentences

Got points

1b.-0

2b. -12 school

100 %

Punctuation marks in sentences with isolated members (definitions, circumstances, applications)

6 lessons

50 %

Punctuation in a complex sentence and a simple sentence with homogeneous members

1 lesson

8,33 %

Punctuation marks in sentences with words and constructions that are grammatically unrelated to the members of the sentence

Punctuation marks in a non-union complex sentence

Text as a speech work. Semantic and compositional integrity of the text

4 lessons

33,33 %

Information processing of written texts of various styles and genres

7 lessons

58,33 %

Lexical meaning of the word. Dividing the vocabulary of the Russian language into groups depending on the semantic connections between words

Means of connecting sentences in the text

2 lessons

16,67 %

Speech. Language means of expression

1b. - 2 hours

2 b. - 1 hour

3 b. – 3 lessons

4 b. – 6 lessons

16,67 %

8,33 %

25 %

50 %

More detailed information about completing tasks 1,7,15,24

Task 1 on text knowledge, maximum score – 2, was completed by all students, 100% completion.

Task 7 on grammatical errors. The maximum score - 5 points was received by 9 students, which is 75%, 4 points - by 3 students (25%), none received 0.1 or 2 points, which indicates a high level of knowledge of the syntactic norm.

Task 15 was also completed by all students with a maximum score of 2 points, 100% knowledge of placing punctuation marks in a simple sentence with homogeneous members and a complex sentence.

Maximum assignment score 24 – 4 points

As we can see, out of 12 students who made mistakes while completing the task, they did not receive 0 points. The overwhelming majority of those who took the test completed the task with 3 - 4 points, but there were also 1 and 2 points, although in the trial exam papers the children did a better job with this task.

Tasks 16 and 21 became the falling topics.

Task 16 tests knowledge on the topic “Punctuation marks in sentences with isolated members: definitions, circumstances, applications.” 6 students failed this task, which is 50% of those who completed it.

Task 21 is aimed at information processing of written texts of various styles and genres; 7 students failed this task, which is 58.33%.

Analysis of the implementation of part 2

3 b.

41,67 %

The problem formulated by the examinee is commented on based on the source text. The examinee gave 1 example from the text read, important for understanding the problem.

There are no factual errors related to understanding the source text problem in the commentary

2 b.

50 %

The text problem formulated by the examinee is commented on based on the source text,But

the examinee did not give a single example from the read text that was important for understanding the problem,

or

There was 1 factual error in the comment related to understanding the source text

1 b.

8,33 %

The problem formulated by the examinee was not commented on,

or commented without reference to the source text,

or there were more than 1 factual errors in the comments related to understanding the source text,

or another problem not formulated by the examinee was commented on,

or a simple retelling of the text or its fragment is given as comments,

or in A large fragment is quoted as comments

0 b.

K3

The examinee correctly formulated the position of the author (narrator) of the source text on the commented problem. There are no factual errors related to understanding the position of the author of the source text

1 b.

100%

or

0 b.

K4

Argumentation by the examinee of his own opinion on the problem

The examinee expressed his opinion on the problem formulated by him, posed by the author of the text (agreeing or disagreeing with the position of the author), argued it (gave at least 2 arguments, one of which was taken from artistic, journalistic or scientific

literature )

3 b.

66,67 %

at least 2 arguments based on knowledge and life experience),

or

provided only 1 argument from fiction, journalistic or scientific literature

2 b.

25 %

The examinee expressed his opinion on the problem formulated by him, posed by the author of the text (agreeing or disagreeing with the position of the author), argued it (gave1 argument), based on knowledge, life experience

1 b.

8,33 %

The examinee formulated his opinion on the problem posed by the author of the text (agreeing or disagreeing with the position of the author),but didn't give any arguments ,

or the examinee’s opinion is stated only formally (for example: “I agree / disagree with the author”),

or the examinee's opinion is not reflected in the work at all

0 b.

K5

Semantic integrity, speech coherence and consistency of presentation

The work of the examinee is characterized by semantic integrity, verbal coherence and consistency of presentation:

– there are no logical errors, the sequence of presentation is not broken;

– there are no violations of paragraph division of the text in the work

2 b.

91,67 %

The work of the examinee is characterized by semantic integrity, coherence and consistency of presentation,

But 1 logical error was made,

and/or there is 1 violation of paragraph division of the text in the work

1 b.

8,33 %

The examinee’s work reveals a communicative intent,But

more than 1 logical error was made,

and/or there are 2 cases of violation of paragraph division of the text

0 b.

K6

Accuracy and expressiveness of speech

The work of the examinee is characterized by the accuracy of expression of thoughts and the variety of grammatical structure of speech.

*The examinee receives the highest score for this criterion only if the highest score is obtained for the K10 criterion

2 b.

33,33%

The work of the examinee is characterized by the accuracy of expression of thoughts,But

the monotony of the grammatical structure of speech can be traced,

or

the work of the examinee is characterized by a variety of grammatical structure of speech,But there are violations of the accuracy of expression of thoughts

1 b.

58,33 %

The work of the examinee is characterized by a poor vocabulary and monotony of grammatical structure of speech

0 b.

8,33%

K7

Compliance with spelling standards

no spelling errors (or 1 minor error)

3 b.

66,67 %

no more than 2 mistakes were made

2 b.

25 %

3–4 mistakes were made

1 b.

8.33%

more than 4 mistakes were made

0 b.

K8

Compliance with punctuation standards

no punctuation errors (or 1 minor error)

3 b.

33,33%

1–3 mistakes were made

2 b.

58,33 %

4–5 mistakes were made

1 b.

8,33 %

more than 5 mistakes were made

0 b.

K9

Compliance with language norms

no grammatical errors

2 b.

50 %

1–2 mistakes were made

1 b.

50 %

more than 2 mistakes were made

0 b.

K10

Compliance with speech norms

no more than 1 speech error was made

2 b.

41,67 %

2–3 mistakes were made

1 b.

41,67 %

more than 3 mistakes were made

0 b.

16,67 %

K11

Compliance with ethical standards

there are no ethical errors in the work

1 b.

100%

ethical mistakes were made (1 or more)

0 b.

K12

Maintain factual accuracy in background material

there are no factual errors in the background material

1 b.

91. 67%

there were factual errors (1 or more) in the background material

0 b.

8.33 %

Analysis of the fulfillment of the content of the essay (criteria 1 – 4) indicates that the majority of students adequately perceive the text they read, are able to identify and formulate its problem, and identify the author’s position.

Most examinees do not have any difficulty commenting on the problem of the source text: 5 students were able to comment on 3 maximum points, 6 received 2 points, 1 student - 1 point out of 3 possible, 0 points - 0.

The students had some difficulty arguing their own opinion: 8 students were able to get a maximum of 3 points, 3 students - 2 points each, 1 student - 1 point, gave one argument.

When writing an essay, students demonstrated a fairly high level of spelling literacy: 3 points - 8 students, 2 points - 3 students, that is, 11 students received 2-3 points according to this criterion - 91.67%. The same percentage was obtained according to criterion K 8 for punctuation skills: those who made more than five mistakes - 0; 3 points were received by 4 students, 2 points by 7 students, 1 point by 1 student. They performed very well on the K9 criterion for grammatical errors: 6 students received the maximum 2 points and another 6 students received 1 point. There are 0 points for factual error for 1 student and for accuracy and expressiveness of speech.

You should pay attention to K10 speech skills: 5 students received the maximum 2 points, another 5 received 1 point and 0 points - 2 students.

The average score for completing the essay is 19.58 points out of a maximum possible 24 points. Of the 12 students, 2 received the highest score in the essay (maximum 24 points Adeliya Fazlieva, 23 points Tatyana Ivanova); 22 points – 2 students, 21 points – 1 student, 20 points – 1 student, 18 points – 2 students; 17 points – 3 academic points, 16 points. –1 school

It can be assumed that some miscalculations in teaching the Russian language are associated with ignoring the key role of systematic work on development and improvementall types of speech activityin their interrelation throughout all years of teaching the Russian language. The activity approach should become the leading one in the lesson. At the same time, in the process of teaching the Russian language, it is necessary to purposefully develop the dialogical and monological speech of students (oral and written); develop the ability to reason on a proposed topic, citing various ways of arguing one’s own thoughts, the ability to draw conclusions; learn to conduct any dialogue ethically correctly. With this approach, the focus is on the interests and creative potential of the student, his personal and reading experience, which meets the requirements of implementationpersonality-oriented approach to teaching the Russian language.

You should pay attention to common topics when preparing for exams, speech errors, expressive means of language, information processing of text, and types of text.

The analysis of the Unified State Examination results in Russian language and literature contains data on the results of these exams, an analysis of work completed by graduates of educational institutions, and recommendations for teachers on improving exam results. This material will be useful for deputy directors for teaching and learning, teachers of Russian language and literature, heads of methodological associations. The document contains 23 sheets devoted to the analysis of writing the Unified State Examination in Russian language and literature.

analysis of Unified State Exam results.docx

subject Text

image With pictures

Mekhontseva Marina Grigorievna, Deputy Director for Education and Resource Management of MKOU "Secondary School No. 4", Shadrinsk, Kurgan Region from the minutes No. 1 of the meeting of the methodological association EXTRACT of teachers of Russian language and literature Date: August 29, 2016 Present: Bryukhovskikh L. V., Konkova E.V., Vekshina L.N., Cherdantseva I.I., Gryaznykh O.S., Kuznetsova S.V. Absent: no 1. Analysis of the 2016 Unified State Examination in the Russian language. 2. Analysis of the 2016 Unified State Examination in literature. Agenda: Listened to: Analysis of the 2016 Unified State Examination in the Russian language. Reported by: Cherdantseva I.I., teacher of the Russian language. In 2016, everyone took the Russian language, since the exam is mandatory. The exam results are as follows: Subject Class Number of students Passed Avg. point Russian language Russian language Total 11 A 11 B 11a,b 19 25 44 19 25 44 74.1 71.2 72.3 Min. score (standard) 24 24 24 Min. Unified State Exam score 49 48 48 Did not pass Max. score on the Unified State Exam 91 93 93 Teacher Cherdantseva I. I. Bryukhovskikh L. V. Results of the unified state exam in the Russian language for completing parts B and C Passed Number of participants who received 0 points for The number of participants who received 0 points for completing tasks in part 2 ( C) completion of tasks in part 3 (C) Average score % of graduates who scored 75 points or more 44 0 0 72.48 34 Minimum and maximum points scored by graduates Minimum score Maximum score 1 2 25 54 2.3 4.5 Number Primary score Percentage Point 48 93 School graduates who received 75 points or more in the Russian language Last name, first name, patronymic of the graduate Predein O. P. Point 88 Last name, first name, patronymic of the graduate Mikhin E. E. Point 78

Petrova S. A. Yurchak A. V. Abakshina M. V. Lamanova S. O. Smirnov I. V. Galkin E. O. Gaev S. S. 91 76 91 83 81 81 86 Shapovalova P. O. Batova N. P. Mamedova G. R. Kolchina M. V. Kislitsyna A. O. Koksharova P. S. 78 83 93 93 83 81 The highest score in the Russian language is 93 for Mamedova G. and Kolchina M., grade 11b, average score – 72.3 (teacher Bryukhovskikh L.V.), last year – 76.1. 80 75 70 65 60 Comparison of average scores for five years 66.5 69.5 69.7 76.1 72.3 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Characteristics of the structure and content of test materials Each version of the examination work consisted of two parts and included 25 tasks that differ in form and level of difficulty. Part 1 contained 24 short answer questions. The examination paper offered the following types of tasks with a short answer: – open-type tasks to write a self-formulated correct answer; – tasks for choosing and recording one correct answer from the proposed list of answers; – multiple choice task from a list. The answer to the tasks in Part 1 had to be given with the appropriate entry in the form of a word, phrase, number or sequence of words, numbers written without spaces, commas and other additional symbols. Part 2 contained 1 open-ended task with a detailed answer (essay), testing the ability to create one’s own statement based on the text read. Analysis of the results of completing individual tasks or groups of tasks. No. of the task in the work Tested content elements Tested skills Level of difficulty of the task Average percentage of completion 1 Information processing of written texts of various styles and genres 2.1. Use the main types of reading (introductory-study, introductory, abstract, etc.) depending on the communicative task 2.2. Extract the necessary information by region 1 point - 20.91%, 2 points 76.9%

information from various sources: educational and scientific texts, reference books, media 2.3. Know the basic techniques of information processing of written text 1.4. Conduct linguistic analysis of educational, scientific, business, journalistic, colloquial and literary texts 2.1. Use the main types of reading (introductory-study, introductory, abstract, etc.) depending on the communicative task 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.4. Conduct linguistic analysis of educational, scientific, business, journalistic, colloquial and literary texts 2.1. Use the main types of reading (introductory-study, introductory, abstract, etc.) depending on the communicative task 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts Means of connecting sentences in the text Lexical meaning of a word Orthoepic norms (stress placement) Lexical norms (use of a word in accordance with the exact lexical meaning and the requirement of lexical compatibility) Morphological norms (formation of word forms) Syntactic norms. Approval standards. Norms B 88.1% B 91.31% B B B C 82.81% 78.08% 70.93% 1 point 9.93%, 2 points 13.7%, 2 3 4 5 6 7

controls Spelling of roots Spelling of prefixes Spelling of suffixes of various parts of speech (except N/NN) Spelling of personal endings of verbs and suffixes of participles Spelling NOT and NI Merged, hyphenated, separate spelling of words Spelling N and NN in various parts of speech Punctuation marks in a simple complicated sentence (with homogeneous members). Punctuation in complex sentences and simple sentences with homogeneous members Punctuation marks in sentences with 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 3 points 18.68%, 4 points 19.02%, 5 points 30.22% 76.98% 77 .94% 89.59% 87.84% 68.85% 73.49% 62.75% 50.9% 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts B B B B B B B B 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts B 1 point 39.98%, 2 points

isolated members (definitions, circumstances and, applications, additions) Punctuation marks in sentences with words and constructions that are grammatically unrelated to the members of the sentence Punctuation marks in a complex sentence Punctuation marks in a complex sentence with different types of connection Text as a speech work. Semantic and compositional integrity of the text. Functional semantic types of speech. Lexical meaning of the word. Synonyms. Antonyms. 17 18 19 20 21 22 54.19% 69.84% 68.82% 54.36% 54.36% B 55.37% B 66.4% 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts B B B B 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 2.1. Use the main types of reading (introductory-study, introductory, abstract, etc.) depending on the communicative task 2.2. Extract the necessary information from various sources: educational and scientific texts, reference books, media 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.4. Conduct linguistic analysis of educational, scientific, business, journalistic, colloquial and literary texts 2.1. Use the main types of reading (introductory-study, introductory, abstract, etc.) depending on the communicative task 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.4. Conduct linguistic analysis

64.55% 1 point 14.72%, 2 points 24.82%, 3 points 30.08%, 4 points 22.82% 23 24 25 Homonyms. Phraseological phrases. Groups of words by origin and use Means of connecting sentences in the text Speech. Language means of expression Essay. Information processing of text. The use of linguistic means depending on the speech situation of educational, scientific, business, journalistic, colloquial and artistic texts 2.1. Use the main types of reading (introductory-study, introductory, abstract, etc.) depending on the communicative task 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.4. Conduct linguistic analysis of educational, scientific, business, journalistic, colloquial and artistic texts 1.1. Conduct various types of analysis of linguistic units, linguistic phenomena and facts 1.2. Exercise speech self-control; evaluate written statements from the point of view of linguistic design, effectiveness of achieving the set communicative tasks 1.3. Distinguish between variants of norms, intentional and unintentional violations of language norms 2.1. Use the main types of reading (introductory-study, introductory-abstract, etc.) depending on the communicative task 2.2. Extract the necessary information from various sources: educational and scientific texts, reference literature, media 2.3. Know the basic techniques of information processing of written text 3.1. Create written statements of various types and genres in the sociocultural, educational and scientific (based on the material of the studied academic disciplines), business spheres of communication; edit your own text 3.2. Apply in the practice of speech communication the basic orthoepic, lexical, grammatical norms of the modern Russian literary language; use in your own B V P

speech practice synonymous resources of the Russian language 3.3. Apply spelling and punctuation norms of the modern Russian literary language in writing practice 3.4. Comply with the norms of speech behavior in various areas and situations of communication, including when discussing debatable problems Formulation of problems in the source text Commentary on the problem of the source text Reflection of the position of the author of the source text Argumentation by the examinee of his own opinion on the problem Meaningful value, speech coherence and consistency of presentation Accuracy and expressiveness of speech Compliance with spelling norms Compliance with punctuation norms Compliance with language norms 97.64% 1 point 22.45%, 2 points 37.84%, 3 points 34.07% 93.58% 1 point 17.36%, 2 points 28.70% , 3 points 46.99% 1 point 45.13%, 2 points 50.79% 1 point 66.29%, 2 points 31.46% 1 point 18.49%, 2 points 38.27%, 3 points 31 .88% 1 point 23.10%, 2 points 34.64%, 3 points 17.39% 1 point 52.08%, 2 points 36.49% K 1 K 2 K 3 K 4 K 5 K 6 K 7 K 8 K 9

K 10 K 11 K 12 Compliance with speech standards Compliance with ethical standards Compliance with factual accuracy in background material 1 point 53.83%, 2 points 38.24% 98.99% 89.39% based on the results of checking the examination papers of graduates in the Russian language in 2016 year Analytical note Typical mistakes when completing tasks in Part 2. Open-type task No. 25 with a detailed answer is an essay based on the proposed text. The task checks the development of students' individual communicative skills: analyze the content and issues of the text read; comment on the problems of the source text, the author’s position; express and argue your own opinion; express thoughts consistently and logically; use a variety of grammatical forms and lexical richness of the language in speech; practical literacy – skills of formatting statements in accordance with spelling, punctuation, grammatical and lexical norms of the modern Russian literary language. K1. Formulation of problems in the source text The content of the texts was close and understandable to the examinees, therefore, there were generally no difficulties with the formulation of problems in the source text. OPTION 433, 428, 436 (according to K.M. Simonov). Graduates clearly formulate one of the problems raised by the author of the text. Most often, they pay attention to the problem of the possibility of a white lie, and most students comment on the problem of the possibility of a white lie under extreme conditions. However, several people wrote about the need for lies, in particular about those lies that “do not harm anyone” (a student did not do his homework, was afraid of the teacher and lied that the notebook was eaten by a dog), about lies that cover up shame (“if you don’t lie, it will be a shame"). These students were unable to formulate problems in the source text. Two people wrote about the problem of choice that a person faces in war (this topic is not in the original text). About 20% of graduates do not have a specific formulation of the problem, there is only an indication of the nature of the problem, for example: a deep moral problem, a problem of moral choice. The authors of individual essays replaced the formulation of the problem with the formulation of the topic, for example: “K. Simonov talks about the difficult fates of people during the war years.” There are single works where the examinees were unable to formulate any of the problems in the source text in any form, therefore, according to the K1K4 criteria, zeros were given. It is gratifying that in almost all the essays the students tried to be consistent in their reasoning: highlighting a specific problem, they tried to bring the thinking they started to the end. OPTION 426, 430, 434 (according to A.P. Chekhov). The content of the text of Chekhov's story “Tosca” is close and understandable to the examinees, so there were no difficulties in formulating the problems of the source text. Most graduates correctly identified one of the problems in the text, but it was not explicitly formulated in the table for experts. Chekhov's story “Tosca” is included in the 9th grade school curriculum; the lessons specifically address the problem of human loneliness in a crowded city. It is not surprising that the graduates formulated the problem this way. There was a paper in which a student wrote about the problem of “inattentive attitude towards representatives of service sector professions,” which he consistently revealed throughout the entire essay. We met in 23 works

comments on the theme of “the little man” in Chekhov, which did not prevent the writers from coming to the main problems of the passage related to the loneliness of a person in his grief and the indifference of those around him. OPTION 427, 429, 435 (according to S.A. Alexievich). Most graduates correctly formulated one of the problems in the original text of S.A. Alexievich (the feat of women in the war, the influence of war on the destinies of people, growing up during the war). Some students named the problem of mercy, which is not central. There were errors in the formulation of the problem: “Aleksievich’s text poses the problem of the unity of women and war”; the concepts of “problem” and “topic” were confused: “The topic in this text is the role of women in the war and what it was like.” In some works the problem was not formulated: “The country was attacked by the Germans. Women also went to war. They rescued the wounded and went on reconnaissance missions. I agree with the author’s opinion, because if it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t exist now.” Typical mistakes when fulfilling this criterion are: superficial understanding of the text, the problems posed by the author; lack of problem formulation; replacing the formulation with general thoughts on the problem or only with an indication of the nature of the problem: important, relevant, topical; confusion of the concepts “problem of the text” and “topic of the text”, substitution of the formulation of the problem with the formulation of the topic. K2. Commentary on the problem of the source text This academic year, changes were made to the assessment of essays according to criterion 2. The maximum score that a graduate can receive according to this criterion is 3 points. Apparently, this is why comments appeared in the essays (unlike in previous years). The graduates gave two examples each to illustrate the problem they formulated. In most essays, the commentary on the problem is based on the text. Children give at least two (and most often more) examples from the text, using the techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, indicating sentence numbers and quoting. Most of the graduates were able to comment on the problem of the source text, but, unfortunately, only a little more than 40% of students did this with three points. The impression was that the graduates were not familiar with the second criterion and did not know that in order to get the maximum score on it it is necessary to provide two examples from the text they read. In most of the works, graduates used textual commentary as the most understandable way for them to work with the source text. At the same time, speech clichés were successfully used: “to draw attention to this problem, the author tells the story of Fr. .. (hereinafter a retelling of the contents of the source text).” The vast majority of students understand this stage of work and cope well with it. One of the writers of the essay correctly formulated the problem raised by the author of the text, formally mentioned the author of the text, and then on two pages talked about how he served in Chechnya, how he participated in hostilities, how two soldiers died before his eyes on the very first day . This is very emotional, but it’s still difficult to call it both a commentary on the text (without relying on the original text) and an argument for one’s own opinion on the issue. Some comments were replaced by graduates expressing their attitude to the problem: “It is impossible not to agree with the position of K. Simonov, since the problem he raised is relevant at all times.” In some works, the commentary was reduced to general reasoning without relying on the original text. Typical mistakes when commenting on a problem are replacing the comment with a simple paraphrase (and sometimes even simple rewriting of sentences) or reasoning on the problem without relying on the proposed text. It was difficult to evaluate works where the author, having identified a problem, comments on it in one phrase: “This problem is specified by the author in sentences 30, 32, 33.” Since the FIPI reference materials say that “illustration is understood as a reflection of the problem of the source text based on the involved text material,” and

the writer did not use the story material to derive/comment on the problems raised by the author; according to this criterion, such work was given 0 points. K3. Reflection of the position of the author of the source text In most works, the position of the author (narrator) of the source text on the commented problem is correctly formulated. The examinees correctly identified the author's position in the text and tried to choose thoughts and words so that they corresponded to the stated problem. There are no factual errors related to understanding the position of the author of the source text. In some essays the author's position is expressed in general terms. Students write: “The author’s position is positive,” “The author of the text expresses his position very clearly,” and that’s all. There are cases when one problem is named in an essay, and a commentary is given on another problem stated in the text. Typical mistakes in this part of the work are the following: the author’s position is formulated incorrectly; replacing the formulation of the position with indications of one’s own perception (“the author’s position is very clear”); replacing the formulation of the author's position with reasoning on the problem. K4. Argumentation by the examinee of their own opinion on the problem Many graduates expressed their opinion on the problem they formulated, posed by the author of the text (agreeing or disagreeing with the author’s position), argued it, gave at least 2 arguments, one of which was taken from fiction. Most of the examinees agreed with the author's position. About a third of the participants in the state final certification give two examples from literary works. There are fewer and fewer arguments with so-called “primitive” life reasoning, which, as a rule, repeats the situation described in the text read. The list of works on which schoolchildren based their arguments turned out to be large and varied. Speaking about the importance of military letters, about the problem of white lies, students most often turned to works on military subjects (B. Vasiliev “The Dawns Here Are Quiet”, “Exhibit No.”, “Not on the Lists”, “Tomorrow there was a war”, V Bykov “One Night”, V. Rasputin “Live and Remember”, M. Sholokhov “The Fate of a Man”, to the pages of L. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”, describing military scenes, to works about the war by Ravil Bikbaev). If the student identified the problem of moral choice, then he used for argumentation the works of M. Sholokhov “Quiet Don”, M. Gorky “At the Lower Depths”, M. Bulgakov “The Master and Margarita”, K. Paustovsky “Telegram”, V. Rasputin “Farewell to Matera” and “French Lessons”, A. Kuprin “Pomegranate Bracelet”, T. Tolstoy “Sonya”, V. Tendryakova “Bread for the Dog”, V. Kaverin “Two Captains”, E. Katishonok “Once Upon a Time an Old Man” with an old woman”, Y. Buida “Eva Eva”. The works of foreign writers did not go unnoticed: “Les Miserables” by V. Hugo, “The Untamed Planet” by G. Garrison, “Reason and the Soldier” by F. Jordan, “Asphyxiation” by C. Polanik, “451 degrees Fahrenheit” and “The Dwarf” R. Bradbury, “Life on Borrow” by E.M. Remarque, “From Here to Eternity” by D. Jones. This year the number of references to modern literature, mainly foreign, has increased. This can be explained by the introduction of a compulsory essay on literature since last year, which has noticeably affected the quality of literary arguments in the Russian language exam. Unfortunately, several works reveal ignorance (or uncertain knowledge) of historical facts. So, two people wrote about the blockade of Stalingrad, which lasted two years, one person wrote that the Patriotic War took place, “it seems, in 1939 or a little later,” one person decided that “Kutuzov also had a hard time writing to the wives of soldiers that their husbands killed in the war." Some graduates draw their arguments from fantasy (Andrei Belyanin, JK Rowling, George Martin, Terry Pratchett). It turns out that the commentary to the text about the deaths of people on

the real war that shook the country, thinking about how to alleviate the experiences of real people, are fictional events, the heroes of which are orcs, trolls, elves and similar creatures. Also, Jonah’s loneliness was compared to the loneliness of the vampire Luck from E. Rice’s book “Interview with the Vampire.” This year, the number of so-called arguments from the examinees’ own life experience has decreased. As an argument, the student chose a primitive example at the everyday level, repeating the situation in the text. As usual, these arguments are naive, invented on the fly and show a low level of communicative competence: “Grandma Zoya became very lonely. She grieved for a long time and could not share her sadness with anyone. Then her old dog came to her aid. Grandma Zoya immediately told him everything about how lonely she was, how she missed her grandfather. The dog listened to her very carefully and when he had listened, he came up to her and climbed on her. Then Grandma Zoya somehow felt better and felt that she was not as lonely as she thought” (the author’s text has been preserved). Examples given from my own experience sometimes raised doubts about their reality: “My grandfather went to the front in 1992 to defend his homeland from enemies, but never returned. I remember how my grandmother was waiting for a letter from the front.” There were attempts by some examinees to give examples from literary fairy tales (Pushkin’s “The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish”, but such examples were inappropriate; they demonstrated the low intellectual level of high school graduates. Those works in which only literary texts were used for argumentation significantly benefited ". There were several works where the examinees did not agree with the position of the author of the text on the possibility of a white lie. The authors of such works expressed the opinion that lying should not be allowed to any extent and under any circumstances. There were attempts to criticize Chekhov for his “callousness": " I agree with the author’s point of view, but partly, because it was possible to show a little pity for Ion "(the author's text has been preserved). And sometimes Chekhov was thanked: "The problem of loneliness is relevant at all times. But it is very good that there are such people like A.P. Chekhov, to whom I just want to express my gratitude.” There were papers where the examinees expressed their opinion on the problem, but did not give reasons for it. Analyzing the arguments presented, we can conditionally divide them into several types. Standard (universal) program arguments repeated from work to work. As a source of standard argumentation, the works of L. confidently lead. N. Tolstoy “War and Peace”, F.M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment”, M.A. Bulgakov “The Master and Margarita”, B. Vasilyev “And the dawns here are quiet.” Moreover, the episodes cited from these works as arguments are also standard: the episode with Natasha Rostova, who manifests herself as a true patriot, giving carts to the wounded; the mercy of Sonya Marmeladova, the sacrificial love of Margarita. Non-standard arguments from works that go beyond the school curriculum demonstrate the horizons and erudition of the author of the essay. Quite accurately, appropriately and correctly, graduates appeal in their examination papers to the works of V. Hugo, D. Salinger, R. Bradbury, P. Coelho and other authors whose creative heritage goes beyond the school curriculum minimum. The examinee’s own position is usually expressed through speech cliches: “one cannot but agree with Chekhov.” In very few cases, the graduate decides to formulate his opinion in his own words and phrases. In most of the works, the literary example given by the writers is consonant with the author’s position in the source text. However, sometimes this argument takes the author of the essay away from the thesis he is justifying by expanding it. This is a typical mistake in students’ work, caused by the inability to guide the development of thought. Instead of using examples to prove the idea of ​​human loneliness, posed by the graduate himself at the beginning of the work, the author of the essay moves on to thoughts about the indifference of others, illustrating this very different concept with a new example. This substitution took the author away from the problem under consideration.

I was struck by one of the works in which Raskolnikov is an example of a moral person who is not indifferent to the fate of other people: he gave money for Marmeladov’s funeral and stands up for Sonya. The argument is formatted correctly: thesis, rationale, conclusion, but in the author’s plan, Raskolnikov is a criminal! The given examples show that errors in the content of the essay are caused by a number of factors, the most important of which are the degree of moral maturity and development of the emotional sphere, the level of proficiency in operational skills and the general level of sociocultural knowledge of the graduate. Some works do not indicate the title of the work and/or the name of the author: “There are many literary works where women go to war, the same 5 anti-aircraft gunner girls who went to the front as volunteers”; the content of the work is incorrectly conveyed: “Natasha Rostova showed patriotism. She looked after the sick, bandaged the wounded, fed and watered Russian soldiers wounded after Borodino”; the arguments do not correspond to the problem: The problem is the role of women in war. “As an argument, I will give an example of the story “War and Peace” by Tolstoy. The main character is Pierre, from the very beginning he seeks Natasha Rostova and achieves his happiness.” Typical mistakes when arguing your own opinion are: lack of argument, substitution of argument with general judgments; the arguments do not correspond to the problem of the text; the arguments do not correspond to the thesis that the graduate substantiates; gross errors are made when quoting, the names of literary works, the names of writers and poets are distorted; the content of textbook literary texts is conveyed incorrectly. K5. Semantic integrity, speech coherence and consistency of presentation Criterion K5 tests the ability to construct a coherent statement. An analysis of the graduates’ essays showed that, in general, the examinees’ works are distinguished by their logic and semantic integrity. The most common errors in examinees' work are related to violations of logic within a sentence or at the junction of sentences and paragraphs, and violations when highlighting paragraphs. There are fewer and fewer essays in which there is no paragraph division. Sometimes schoolchildren forget that they are writing an essay, an argument, that there should be some kind of introduction, at least consisting of one sentence. A huge number of works begin with the words: “In this text, the author raises the problem...”. Often in essays there is a violation of semantic integrity, arising from logical errors, often leading to absurd conclusions: “But we must not forget that we must lie for the benefit not only of ourselves, but also of those around us”; “When can you use the word “lie”? Every person in our world has lied at some point. After all, when a person lies, it doesn’t make him feel better”; “A lie represents a certain responsibility towards the person to whom it is directed. Many are afraid to bear this responsibility, thereby becoming criminals.” The main reason for lowering scores is the lack of thought through the communicative plan and the presence of logical errors. The transition from one thought to another is formalized using the words “you can also give another example...”. Some shortcomings in the composition of the examinees' works: the logic and coherence of the presentation are violated (both within the entire essay and within one paragraph); violation of the speech coherence of the compositional parts (in the introduction the theme of loneliness is stated, the arguments are selected to this problem, and in the conclusion the conclusion is made about the need to be responsive “to the challenges of the world”); the essay is written without paragraphs or the paragraph division of the text is broken: “Is the Russian word “feat” translated into all languages ​​of the world? What is the main task of a woman on earth?

Why did the woman go to war? The author answers these and other questions.” (All sentences are written on the red line.) K6. Accuracy and expressiveness of speech Many essays are written well, in a lively language, not monotonous. However, most of the examinees' works did not represent the best examples of proficiency in the Russian language: our children's vocabulary is quite poor, and they are not always precise in their formulations. Speech errors, which occur in sufficient numbers in children’s essays, do not make it possible to give the maximum score for this criterion, so the most common score is “one”. When evaluating an essay, not only the correctness of speech is taken into account, but also such qualities as accuracy and expressiveness. These characteristics of speech largely determine the quality of transmission of the content of the statement, since only a person who is fluent and fluent in speech can clearly, vividly and convincingly express his thoughts and feelings. Analysis of the essays clearly shows the graduates’ lack of understanding of the differences between oral and written forms of speech. There remains a high percentage of works in which speech clichés are used in an unreasonably large amount. A typical mistake is the mixing of styles and the widespread use of colloquial vocabulary and vernacular. For example: “Sonechka Marmeladova sacrifices herself by getting a job in a brothel”; “I rushed to fight for my Motherland”; “Unfortunately, now there are a lot of indifferent people who have simply given up on mercy,” “Many people are simply fed up with constant lies, especially our government.” Some of the examinees have a fairly poor vocabulary, monotonous, and the wording is not always precise. Many people do not feel the nuances of the meaning of words. There were works with poor speech, a limited volume of vocabulary, imprecise word usage, syntactic monotony (short sentences of the same type with a weakly expressed connection between them, short chopped phrases of a monotonous structure, lexical repetition as a means of connecting sentences, since the writer does not use synonyms or other means of communication does not speak; vocabulary is usually subject-specific, expressive means of language are usually absent). The grammatical structure of speech is poor, thoughts are expressed by graduates inaccurately. Many examinees abused or inappropriately used memorized clichés in their speech, which indicates the poverty of the lexical vocabulary, the inability to accurately and competently express oils. Of the figures of speech, only the question-answer form is found (when organizing reflections on the problems of the text). Tropes are not used at all in the graduates’ own speech. However, the syntax of most of the essays is complex, using participial constructions, participial phrases, and complex sentences. K7. Compliance with spelling standards There are traditionally fewer spelling errors in essays than punctuation errors. Many participants in the state final certification tried to use previously learned words in their essays. Errors can be explained by insufficient development of analytical skills; graduates do not have the skill to “see the spelling” in their own created text. There were words in which the schoolchildren made spelling errors, but at the same time these word forms were present in the correct spelling in the source text: all white, like a ghost, straining his throat, melancholy appears again. Typical errors: 1. In the spelling of the checked vowel in the root: tizhely, bring an example, helped the wounded, the elderly, proof, goat. 2. In the spelling of the unchecked vowel and consonant at the root: disaster, patriotism, overcome, prevail, colossal, gigantic, philosophical. 3. In the spelling of alternating vowels in the roots of words: grow, lay, attach, touch.

3. In spelling n, nn in different parts of speech: affairs postponed, bag placed under head, public, vital, wounded. 4. In spelling, not with different parts of speech: unfair, invincible force, at ease, not worried, will not be, cannot. 5. Spelling of derived prepositions: in the course of, as a consequence, despite... 6. Continuous, separate and hyphenated spelling of adverbs: in the first, in my opinion, on an equal footing, in return. 7. Spelling of prefixes in Z and S: story teller, reveals, examine. 8. Spelling of derivative prepositions: in conclusion, I would like to say. 9. Spelling of negative and indefinite pronouns and adverbs: not from, not with, nor from. 10. Vocabulary words: play, problem. K8. Compliance with punctuation standards This year there were many mistakes in the use of punctuation marks in double conjunctions (but, when...,...): But when Ada tells the truth to the girl, Sonya thanks her; ...but when we were crossing the bridge over the river, my friend’s wheel fell through and pinned his leg. The most common errors are in the placement of punctuation marks in a complex sentence, in participial and participial phrases, and in introductory words. The most common errors are related to punctuation with participial phrases (closing commas), with participial phrases (do next to the conjunction I), in a complex sentence with the conjunction AND, when one of the simple sentences is impersonal. In general, many graduates write essays in large sentences, rich in different types of connections, but they cannot correctly place punctuation marks in them and do not try to divide large sentences into smaller ones in order to avoid unnecessary punctuation errors. Punctuation marks are often placed when the writer pauses: “The writer tells us that the soldier, Pyotr Parfenov, was killed on the first day of fighting without having time to do anything heroic,” “In everyday life, we often encounter loneliness,” “Chekhov , in its text, raises the problem of loneliness." Typical errors: 1. In sentences with introductory words: For example, I can say... Let's take for example... In my opinion, a white lie is... In many works, the adverbs “sometimes”, “sometimes” and conjunctions “but”, “also” are highlighted as introductory words ", "after all". 2. In sentences of complex syntactic construction (with coordinating, subordinating and non-conjunctive connections). 3. In complex sentences: “And what is important for one means nothing for another”, “they show us that this is a tragedy”, “He does not know why he should live further”, “. ..there will be at least one soldier whom no one is waiting for...” 4. In sentences with separate definitions and circumstances: “the person who wrote it is grieving...”. 5. Punctuation marks when quoting (students, when quoting, do not put words, phrases, or even entire sentences in quotation marks). K9. Compliance with language norms The most common grammatical errors in the speech of graduates include: 1. The use of participial phrases in impersonal non-infinitive sentences and in sentences in which the participle does not explain the actions of the subject: “... but having deigned to come to the village to visit his mother, it was already it’s too late,” “…by knowing how to lie competently, many doors open for you.” 2. Problems are caused by the coordination of the subject, which includes the words “a little”, “a lot” with the predicate: “A few lies make a person completely different.” 3. Mismanagement: “In confirmation of my words, I would like to cite the book of Andrei Belyanin,” “... an article dedicated to the ninth of May...”.

4. Violation of the order of words in a sentence, the order of the parts of the sentence: “The main character, after lying for the sake of an overnight stay, which deceived the feelings of strangers, is faced with a choice...”. 5. Erroneous word formation: world creation, underline, temperament. 6. Erroneous formation of the verb form: they thirst for victory. 7. There are often errors in coordinating parts of a complex sentence: The author talks about a man that no one understands. Chekhov writes how difficult it is for her. 8. Violation of the type-temporal correlation of verb forms: helps to cope and share Raskolnikov’s loneliness. 9. Errors in the construction of sentences with participial phrases (“Saburov responds to letters received by the dead”, “after all, every day spent with them” is a defined word inside a participial phrase). 10. Error in agreement between subject and predicate: “a group of friends decided to joke,” “some of the prisoners agreed.” 11. Species-temporal correlation of verb forms (“They could see the first steps of their children, rejoice at their victories, watch a lot of films, read several books...”, “If at that moment we communicated better, and I had been a little more humane , I could talk him out of this activity”). 12. In the formation of the plural form of nouns: all sisters and mother, saved the soldiers. K10. Compliance with speech standards There are fewer speech errors this year. Most common: pleonasms: very severe; tautology: readers read, in conclusion of the above I want to say, the military fights, the heroes commit heroism; the use of the word in a meaning unusual for it: “feeds bread to dispossessed stray dogs”, “having worked as a maid of honor for a long time, Sonechka gets a job in a brothel.” In several essays there was the idea that Saburov wrote not letters, but funerals, which suggests that children do not know what a “funeral” is; violation of lexical compatibility (“raises the problem of compassion”, “it is this problem that Simonov touches on”, “a lie, in my opinion, is not the best quality”, “in T. Tolstoy’s story “Sonya” you can find the theme of sympathy”, “Simonov shows a complex moral question”, “I managed to prove the correctness of this problem”, “convey deplorable information to people”); errors in the use of set phrases: a young girl with the wind in her head; setting off with full sail behind enemy lines; She was always muttering something under her nose. K11. Compliance with ethical standards In the works of 2016, ethical errors were very rare and were associated with: an expression of disrespect towards the personality of the author of the text (instead of the author’s first, patronymic and last name, only his first name was used). For example: “Svetlana is thinking...” (about S.A. Alexievich, the author of the text, var. 435); with misunderstanding: “Under the Germans, we might have lived better.” K12. Maintaining factual accuracy in background material In most of the checked essays, factual accuracy was not compromised. Only in some essays is it revealed that children: do not know history well: they confuse the events of the War of 1812 and the Civil War. in some cases, the authors are credited with the works of others: Turgenev was credited with the authorship of the novel “Crime and Punishment”, the authorship of “The Garnet Bracelet” was attributed to I. Bunin; the authorship of “The Fate of Man” was attributed to V. Shukshin; A. Fadeev's novel was named

“The White Guard”, Kuprin “The Station Agent”; “Goncharov’s work “The Master and Margarita”, “Bykov’s novel “The Dawns Here Are Quiet”; the titles of works are confused; make mistakes in names and surnames: Shelokhov, the famous writer Shorokhov, Andrei Sokolovsky instead of Andrei Sokolov (M. Sholokhov “The Fate of a Man”); author of the novel “Quiet Don” Maxim Sholokhov; distort the genre nature of works of art: the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" was called a story; novel "Garnet Bracelet"; the story “Sotnikov”, the poem “War and Peace”; the content of the work “Woe from Wit” was confused with the content of M. Gorky’s play “At the Depths” (“Let us remember the work of A. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”, when a stranger came to a hotel for the poor and began to assure everyone that he would help improve the lives of the poor and everything it will be good” the sentence was saved in the author’s version); speaking about B. Vasiliev’s work “The Dawns Here Are Quiet,” they wrote that not all the girls died, one remained alive; another student, speaking about the same work, wrote that “the fate of the girls is unknown.” CONCLUSIONS: The experience of conducting the Unified State Exam and analysis of the results of the examination work in the Russian language in 2016 allow us to draw some conclusions: 1. The assimilation of the following content elements can be considered sufficient: Information processing of written texts of various styles and genres; Means of communication of sentences in the text; Lexical meaning of the word; Orthoepic norms; Morphological norms; Spelling of roots; Spelling of prefixes; Spelling of suffixes of various parts of speech (except N/NN); Spelling personal endings of verbs and participle suffixes; Punctuation marks in complex sentences. 2. The assimilation of the following content elements cannot be considered sufficient: Lexical norms (the use of a word in accordance with the exact lexical meaning and the requirement of lexical compatibility); Spelling NOT and NOR; Integrated, hyphenated, separate spelling of words; Spelling N and NN in various parts of speech; Punctuation marks in a simple complicated sentence (with homogeneous members). Punctuation in complex sentences and simple sentences with homogeneous members; Punctuation marks in sentences with isolated members (definitions, circumstances, applications, additions); Punctuation marks in sentences with words and constructions that are grammatically unrelated to the members of the sentence; Punctuation marks in a complex sentence with different types of connections; Text as a speech work. Semantic and compositional integrity of the text; Lexical meaning of the word. Synonyms. Antonyms. Homonyms. Phraseological phrases. Groups of words by origin and use; Means of connecting sentences in the text. 3. The mastery of the following content elements is unsatisfactory: Syntactic norms. Approval standards. Governance standards; Functional semantic types of speech;

Speech. Language means of expression. In general, graduates of 2016 successfully completed task 25 of the Unified State Exam in the Russian language. Recommendations for improving the organization and methods of teaching schoolchildren: 1. It is necessary to develop the ability of high school students to analyze trends, patterns, problems of social life, improve logical analytical and speech skills associated with the creation of their own speech utterance: the ability to reason, compare, evaluate, argue, draw conclusions . 2. It is necessary to more consistently implement in school the consciously communicative principle of teaching the native language, the main idea of ​​which is to recognize the importance of theoretical (linguistic) knowledge for the successful formation of practical speech skills. Particular attention should be paid to the formation of analytical skills. 3. Systematically repeat spelling and punctuation using enlarged blocks of rules, tables, diagrams, algorithms, reference tables and signals. When studying the Russian language in high school, it is necessary to generalize and systematize knowledge on the use of figurative and expressive means of the language. 4. Plan independent work with texts of various styles and types of speech, develop the need of students to master the skills of analyzing information presented in various forms. 5. Particular attention should be paid to the principle of targeted development of all types of speech activity. The text, on the one hand, should become an incentive for discussion of various problems, on the other hand, it should provide the necessary factual and linguistic material for an independent written analysis of the proposed text (semantic information, structure and set of linguistic means). 6. Improve the key competencies of students in the Russian language, develop the analytical abilities of high school students, improve speech skills in creating their own speech statements (both oral and written). 7. Unify approaches to what a commentary on a problem should be. 8. Develop a system of lessons and tasks that require the ability to use reading experience to prove statements. 9. When preparing for the Unified State Exam, you should diversify the didactic material, including non-adapted texts of different speech styles in the lesson work. 10. More consistently implement at school the consciously communicative principle of teaching the native language, the main idea of ​​which is for students to understand the importance of theoretical (linguistic) knowledge for the successful formation of practical speech skills. 11. Work on the texts of essays, and you should improve the methodology for working on this type of essay, such as an essay based on a read text. It is necessary to more intensively introduce personality-oriented methods of language teaching into school practice, which will make it possible to implement a multi-level approach to teaching the Russian language. Implement an integrated approach to training. Continue special preparation of students for the exam (conduct a cycle of independent testing in order to prepare for the Unified State Exam). 12. For discussion at methodological associations of subject teachers, the topic “Text Analysis” is recommended. 2. Analysis of the 2016 Unified State Examination in literature.

Listened to: Analysis of the 2016 Unified State Examination in literature. Reported by: Bryukhovskikh L.V., literature teacher. In 2016, the following students took the literature exam: 11 B grade Alexandra Olegovna Kislitsina. 1. The exam results are as follows: Subject Class Number of students Passed Avg. point Literature Total 11 B 11a,b 25 44 1 1 100 100 Min. score (standard) 32 32 Min. Unified State Exam score 100 100 Failed Teacher Max. score on the Unified State Exam 100 Bryukhovskikh L.V. 100 The maximum score in literature is 100 for Kislitsyna A., grade 11b, average score is 100 (teacher Bryukhovskikh L.V.), last year – 65.5. 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Comparison of average scores for five years 100 63 60.5 64.3 65.5 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Results of the unified state exam in literature on completing parts B and C Passed Number of participants who received 0 points for Number of completers who received 0 points for completing tasks in part 2 (B) completing tasks in part 3 (C) Average score % of graduates who scored 75 points or more 1 0 0 100 100 Minimum and maximum points scored by graduates Minimum score Maximum score 0 1 0 42 0 100 Number Primary score Percentage Score 0 100 School graduates who received 75 points or more in literature Last name, first name, patronymic of the graduate A. O. Kislitsyn Score 100

Characteristics of the structure and content of control and measurement materials When developing KIM, a competency-based approach to identifying the level of general educational training of examinees in literature is taken into account: the examination model is based on the reading, literary and communication skills of students as key competencies that form a qualified reader. Features of the structure of the examination paper in 2016 The examination paper on literature consists of 2 parts. It takes 4 hours (235 minutes) to complete. Part 1 includes an analysis of a literary text (a fragment of an epic or dramatic work) and a lyrical work. Analysis of the text of an epic (or dramatic) work has the following structure: 7 short-answer tasks (B), requiring writing a word or combination of words, and 2 long-answer tasks (8, 9), requiring writing an answer in the amount of 510 sentences. The analysis of a lyric work includes 5 tasks with a short answer (B) and 2 tasks with a detailed answer (15, 16) in the amount of 510 sentences. Part 2 assignment involves choosing one of three proposed problematic questions and writing a detailed, reasoned answer in the essay genre (at least 200 words). By correctly completing short answer tasks aimed at text analysis, a graduate could receive 31% of the maximum score. Tasks of this type are considered tasks of a basic level of complexity. For successful completion of tasks with a detailed answer (8, 9, 15, 16, 17), the examinee could receive 69% of the maximum score. Tasks of this type are tasks of increased (8, 9, 15, 16) and high (17) difficulty levels. The maximum score for the examination paper as a whole was 42 points. Analysis of the results of completing individual tasks or groups of tasks The total number of participants in the Unified State Examination in literature in the Kurgan region in 2016 was 195 people. Three USE participants scored the maximum number of points in 2016. Task number in Average percentage of completion for Verified Verifiable work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 content elements 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 2.5, 2.6 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 2.5, 2.6 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 2.5 , 2.6 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 2.5, 2.6 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 2.5, 2.6 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 2.5, 2.6 skills Block 1 – epic, lyre-epic, dramatic works: 2.1, 3.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5. 7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5, 7.13, 7.14, 7.15.A, 7.15.B, 7.17, 7.19, 7.20, 7.21, 7.22, 8.1, 8.3 Level task difficulty Basic region 1 point 2 points 3 points 4 points 70.92% 92.86% 91.84% 25.51% 81.63% 44.39% 80.10%

1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3.1 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3.1 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 2.5, 2.6 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.8, 2.9, 3.1 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3.1 1.1–1.6, 2.1–2.10, 3.1, 3 .2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17.117.3 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 Increased 26.02% 41.33% 31.63% 70.92% Increased 5.61% 22.96% 25.00% 17.86% Block 2 – lyrical works: 3.2, 4.1, 4.4, 4.8, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 7.4, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11, 7.12, 7.16, 7.18, 8.2 Basic 83.67% 90.31% 93, 37% 52.55% 78.57% Increased 22.96% 41.33% 31.12% 69.90% Increased 8.16% 21.94% 25.00% 18.88% High 2 points 1 point 23 .47% 38.27% 54.08% 33.16% 22.45% 32.14% 16.33% 39.80% 22.96% 46.43% 3 points 27.55% 27.04% 33 .16% 13.78% 93.37% of the examinees completed task B12 (“What type of rhyme (ABAB) does the poet use in this poem?” in option 513). The greatest difficulties for examinees are caused by tasks B4 (percentage of completion - 25.51%). Task B4 requires establishing a correspondence between the proposed content elements based on knowledge of the text of a literary work (for example, between the characters appearing in the fragment and the facts of their future life, their inherent personality traits, their type of activity or their statements). For example, in option 513 it was necessary to establish a correspondence between the characters appearing and mentioned in the fragment of the novel by F.M. proposed for analysis. Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment", and their further fate. This type of task is primarily aimed at testing the examinee’s knowledge of the text of a work of art, so difficulties in completing it should be considered as evidence of the student’s insufficient mastery of the content of the work included in the codifier. The table displays the percentage of completion of tasks that require writing a coherent text (8, 9, 15, 16, 17): 1 point 26.02% 70.92% 5.61% C1 C2 C3 2 points 41.33% 22.96% 3 points 31.63% 25.00% 4 points 17.86%

C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 22.96% 69.90% 8.16% 23.47% 54.08% 22.45% 16.33% 22.96% 41.33% 21.94% 38, 27% 33.16% 32.14% 39.80% 46.43% 31.12% 25.00% 27.55% 27.04% 33.16% 13.78% 18.88% based on examination results works of graduates in literature Analytical report in 2016 Tasks 8 and 15 of option 513 The depth of the judgments given and the persuasiveness of the arguments Experts note a satisfactory level of analysis of a fragment of an epic work. Answering the question “How is Raskolnikov’s internal struggle with himself manifested in the given fragment?”, examinees, as a rule, correctly identify the reasons for Raskolnikov’s internal struggle, but find it difficult to name the forms of its manifestation in the given episode. Most works give a direct answer to the question, but the arguments do not present an analysis of the episode, but a story about the main character: “In this fragment, Dostoevsky tells who Raskolnikov is, describes his character.” There are very few works where the author’s position is taken into account when answering and the forms of its expression are considered. Task 15. “How do the first and second stanzas of D. Samoilov’s poem meaningfully relate to each other?” In many works, the analysis of a specific lyrical work was reduced to a retelling. Difficulties were caused by the content and form of D. Samoilov’s poem “Mikhailovskoe” (there was not a single work rated three points according to the first criterion). Traditionally, the analysis of lyrical works causes much more difficulties than epic and dramatic ones. Analyzing the implementation of work with a limited scope, experts noted that a number of answers were superficial, the theses were weakly or not at all reasoned. Following the norms of speech In the works there are a large number of speech errors of a lexical nature, stylistic errors: “Passionate passion”; “Playing on the strings of the soul of heroes is a popular hobby among the classics of Russian literature. Such masters as M.Yu. often indulged in this. Lermontov, A.S. Pushkin, I.S. Turgenev." Results of tasks 9 and 16 Inclusion of a work in a literary context and persuasiveness of arguments Answers to questions in tasks 9 and 16 require the involvement of a literary context. The examinee answers the question based on the author’s position, indicates the names of two works and their authors, and convincingly substantiates the choice of each work. Task 9: “In what works of Russian literature do the heroes find themselves captive to internal contradictions, and in what ways can these heroes be compared with Raskolnikov? “When answering the question, the examinees correctly justified the choice of works similar in theme to the text proposed for analysis, but did not always provide a comparison, or it was poorly motivated. Task 16: “In which works of Russian lyricism does the theme of poetic inspiration sound and in what ways can these works be compared with the poem by D.S. Samoilov? Experts note the graduates’ good knowledge of Russian poetry of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The examinees indicated poems by A.S. Pushkina, M.Yu. Lermontova, S.A. Yesenina, V.V. Mayakovsky, A.A. Akhmatova. However, quite often, when justifying their choice, examinees do not rely on the author’s position and deviate from the topic, so the problem of comparing works in a given direction of analysis remains unresolved. Analyzing the performance of tasks 9 and 16, experts note that, as a rule, examinees indicate the names of two works and their authors, but do not provide a justification for the choice of works and their comparison with the proposed text, or offer an incorrect justification. The main remark of the experts: the examinees are not confident enough in the literary process, therefore they provide an incomplete justification for the comparison. Results of task 17 Among the five positions by which the completion of task part 2 is assessed, the first position (substantive aspect) is the main one. If, when checking an examination paper, an expert gives “0” points on the first (substantive) aspect of assessing the answer, the task of part 3 is considered unfulfilled. The volume of the written essay is taken into account (at least 200 words). If the essay contains less than 150 words, then such work is considered incomplete and is scored zero points. The depth of disclosure of the topic of the essay and the persuasiveness of judgments Examinees reveal the topic of the essay, relying on the author’s position, but not all theses are convincingly substantiated. More often they choose tasks on the analysis and interpretation of dramatic and epic works of Russian writers of the 19th century (17.1, 17.2): comedies by N.V. Gogol “The Inspector General” and the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov". The topic “Why Olga Ilyinskaya and Andrei Stolts failed to change Ilya Oblomov’s life views?” the examinees disclosed fully, relying on the author’s position. The question “Why did Khlestakov so easily assume the role of auditor?” in a number of works it was not fully disclosed. In justifying the thesis, the examinees limited themselves to their own point of view: “Khlestakov is a talented actor,” “All the officials were dishonest, they were waiting for the auditor, and then he appeared.” And only in a few works did graduates, based on the author’s position, give a direct, coherent answer to the question. As a rule, students revealed the topic of the essay, but many works were a set of theses without reference to the literary text; in a number of works, the literary text was presented as a retelling. There were few in-depth analytical works. The topic “What is the meaning of A. Blok in the image of a “terrible world”?” not a single Unified State Exam participant chose, although Blok’s work is studied in the 11th grade. Over the past three years, examinees have not chosen topics on the history of Russian poetry of the 1920s, because they do not know the poems by heart and do not have the skills to holistically analyze a lyric work. In addition, it is quite difficult to analyze a poem without having the text before your eyes. Experts note that graduates do not always carefully read the instructions for completing assignments. In particular, there were works in which, instead of analyzing the proposed work, other works and an example from one’s life experience were used as arguments, as in the Unified State Exam essay in the Russian language. The literature exam is chosen by motivated and prepared students, so in 2016 fewer factual errors were made than in previous years: ignorance of historical and biographical facts; overly simplified or incorrect interpretation of ideological and artistic content. For example, the comic role of the auditor is explained by the character of Khlestakov, but the social problems of the play are not considered. Level of knowledge of theoretical and literary knowledge In general, there is a satisfactory level of knowledge of literary knowledge. Experts note that the level of proficiency in theoretical and literary concepts when analyzing epic and drama has become higher. Literary concepts are used quite reasonably. Works in which terms were mentioned but not used in text analysis were rare. The most common literary concepts associated with

genre of the work, theme, characteristics of the hero (image, character), plot, composition. Analysis of the language of a work of art is much less common. Validity of using the text of a work Often the text is used as a retelling of what is depicted. Quotations are rare; there are cases of using text outside of direct connection with the thesis put forward. Many essays were written without relying on the text, which is associated with poor knowledge of the text or the inability to include the text of a work of art in reasoning, which led to a retelling of the plot line of the entire work, which is not directly related to the answer to the question posed. Poor knowledge of the text leads to factual errors, for example: “Peter Oblomov”, “Molchalin is the hero of the work by F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". Compositional integrity and consistency of presentation In general, a compositional design is observed in the works, and the structure of the essay is used. Compositionally, the essays are, as a rule, structured, students clearly distinguish three parts in their works, and there are few logical violations in the works. However, in a number of works, the absence of a thesis leads to a violation of the sequence within the semantic parts of the statement, to deviations from the topic, and to unreasonable repetitions. Following speech norms During the testing of tasks 17.1, 17.2, 17.3, experts identified the main causes of speech errors: misunderstanding the meaning of a word, using a word in a meaning that is unusual for it. Speech errors occur in many works. Most often, they are associated with the desire of the examinee to express his thoughts beautifully and originally, but without taking into account the style of work: “It would not be right to neglect the sources of his inspiration.” A large number of speech errors are associated with a violation of the lexical compatibility of words, with the incorrect and unsuccessful use of words: “The desire to expose everything around us in poetry”; “Tvardovsky wrote an entertaining poem”; “Andrey wanted fame and awards. Throughout the novel, Bolkonsky seeks spiritual quests.” The use of colloquial vocabulary is also quite frequent: “So the kids lived in peace until war appeared on the horizon.” Incorrect or unsuccessful use of words and phraseological units characterizes the level of literacy of graduates and affects the understanding of the meaning of the statement: “Come into harmony with yourself”; “made my dream come true.” The works often contain speech cliches used in essays on the Russian language: “I agree with the author’s opinion”; “We will present a number of arguments in defense of this statement,” “In conclusion, I would like to once again draw attention to...” CONCLUSIONS: Checking works on literature in the Unified State Exam format revealed the main problems of studying literature at school: knowledge of the text of the work; “contextual” consideration of literary phenomena and facts; analysis of the work taking into account genre specifics; mastery of theoretical and literary concepts; the ability to create a written statement on a literary topic of a problem-analytical nature; mastery of the norms of the modern Russian literary language. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LITERATURE TRAINING Literature teachers: systematically include in practice small-volume written assignments that require accuracy of thought, solid knowledge of historical and literary facts and theoretical literary information;

pay special attention to developing in students the skill of “contextual” consideration of literary phenomena; organize a repetition of the material covered, especially during the basic school course, allocating special time for this in the educational process (when considering new works, it is important to attract knowledge on already studied topics of the course, paying attention to repeating what has been learned at a new problem level), for which purpose provide in the work program a special section "Repetition"; apply the technique of “slow” reading of a literary text; improve techniques for analyzing an episode or scene of a work based on the plot-compositional features of the fragment under consideration, develop in students the ability to determine the place or role of a fragment in the work; to develop in students the skills of a holistic analysis of a lyrical work in the unity of its content and form (particular attention should be paid to the students’ ability to characterize the emotional tone of a poem, identify the features of a lyrical hero, and determine poetic meters); organize special preparation of students for the exam in the Unified State Exam format (for example, develop the ability to work with various types of test tasks and fill out answer forms, plan time for working on various parts of the exam, taking into account the features of the exam work and the assessment system); Along with traditional methods and forms of testing knowledge in the subject, introduce more widely into the practice of organizing ongoing monitoring a system for assessing the educational achievements of students, tested within the framework of the Unified State Exam. Solution: 1. The teacher who will prepare 11th grade students for the Unified State Exam (Vekshina L.N.) use the analysis of the Unified State Exam 2016 in their work, study in detail the documents on the analysis of the Unified State Exam. 2. Conduct trial Unified State Exams during the 2016–2017 academic year in accordance with the in-school control plan and the Unified State Exam preparation plan. 3. Study the methodological recommendations on the FIPI website. The protocol was drawn up by Mekhontseva M.G.

The publication is being processed. Check back later.