A sample of filling out the minutes of the meeting of the GEK. Samples of filling in minutes of meetings
(to point 56 of the calendar plan)
PROTOCOL #1
meetings of the state examination commission
h.m. to h.m.
on consideration of the defense of the graduation project (work) of the student Kozich Ivan Sergeevich
Faculty of Information Technology and Management, specialty "Information Technology and Management in Technical Systems"
on the topic "Automated Control System for Vacuum Spraying Plant"
In attendance: Chairman Kuzmitsky Iosif Felitsianovich
members: Kuznetsov A. P., Rodin A. Ya., Markov A. V.,
Pavlova A. V., Soroka N. I., Chumakov O. A.,
Stolbanov N. A., Krupskaya M. A., Lukyanets S. V.,
Naganova T. E., Zatsepin E. N.
The project (work) was carried out under the supervision of Suprunyuk A.S., software engineer
Izovac LLC
Consultants: Pavlova A. V. Naganova T. E., Dunaeva G. M.
The following materials are submitted to the State Examination Commission:
1. Settlement and explanatory note on the graduation project (or the text of the thesis) on 107 sheets.
2. Drawings (tables) for the project (work) on 8 sheets.
3. Review of the head of the graduation project (work) positive.
4. Reviewer of the project (work) Mukha V.S., Doctor of Engineering. Sciences, Professor of the Department of ITAS BSUIR; the project (work) is evaluated (a) by nine points.
After the student reported on the completed project within 15 he was asked the following questions:
1. Explain how a vacuum sensor works
Stolbanov N. A.
2. Explain the method of synthesis of control algorithms. How is pseudo-parallel operation of the program implemented? Markov A.V.
(last name of the person asking the question)
3. What determines the choice of the program's serial interface?
Chumakov O. A.
(last name of the person asking the question)
4. What guided you when choosing a particular model of vacuum sensor?
Soroka N.I.
(last name of the person asking the question)
5. Explain the measures that ensure labor safety when setting up the control system of the spraying installation Zatsepin E.N.
(last name of the person asking the question)
General characteristics of the student's answers to the questions asked and the comments of the reviewer excellent
answers showed a high professional level of knowledge of the graduate
What training did he find in general scientific, general technical, special
disciplines
excellent
Recognize that the student completed and defended the thesis with a mark ten points
Assign Kozich M.S. qualification information technology engineer
and management
Mark, that the work is practical
Dissenting opinions of members of the commission missing (recorded when there is a discrepancy
in the assessment of the graduation project)
Issue a diploma With Honours, no difference)
Chairman of the State
Members of the state
examination board signature
Visa of the person who made the protocol
M. A. Krupskaya
Appendix 18. Example of registration of information on the results of the defense of graduation projects (works) for graduation
(to point 57 of the calendar plan)
defense of diploma projects (works)
by specialty 1-53 01 07 "Information technology and management
(name of specialty)
in technical systems"
HEC No. 12
Chairman of the SEC Kuzmitsky I.F.
| No. p / p | Surname, name, patronymic of the student | Form of study | Security Protocol No. | The mark received on the defense | Issue a diploma |
| Alfeev Nikolai Konstantinovich * | daytime | eight | no difference | ||
| Voronov Alexander Ivanovich | daytime | six | no difference | ||
| Gladky Ivan Tikhonovich | daytime | nine | With Honours | ||
| Ermolovich Denis Olegovich | correspondence | nine | no difference | ||
| · | · | · | · | · | |
| · | · | · | · | · | |
| · | · | · | · | · | |
| · | · | · | · | · | |
| · | · | · | · | · | |
| · | · | · | · | · | |
| · | · | · | · | · | |
| Maksimenko Alexander Igorevich | evening | five | no difference |
Secretary of the SEC M. A. Krupskaya
Protocol #1
meetings of the state attestation and state examination commissions of the faculty ... ... FSBEI HPE "Shadrinsk State Pedagogical Institute"
from ……………….. 20….. years.
Present: list all members and examiners of the state attestation and examination commissions in accordance with the order of the rector.
Listened: about readiness of faculty …. to the state (final) certification.
Speakers:
Dean of the Faculty– introduces the members and examiners of the commissions with the Regulations on the state (final) certification of university graduates.
Heads of departments– report on the readiness of the department for the state (final) certification.
Decided: to recognize that the faculty ... .. is ready for the state (final) certification of students of 4.5, (6) courses.
Signatures with transcript: Chairman of the SAC
Deputy chairman
Members of commissions and examiners
Secretary
Signatures are affixed after each protocol.
Protocol No. ....
meetings of the state examination
from ………………20… year.
Attendance: list all members of the commission and examiners who were present at this meeting.
Heard: about passing the state exam in ……
Exam student(s)___ f. and about.____
Ticket number …..
1….… the content of the questions is being rewritten
Members of the commission and examiners asked the following questions: list
General characteristics of the answer:
Recognize that the student(s)____ f. and about._________ passed the state exam with a score of _______________.
Signatures with decryption.
Protocol No. ....
meetings of the state attestation faculty commissions ...... FSBEI HPE "Shadrinsk State Pedagogical Institute"
from ……………….20…. of the year
Listened: about the defense of graduation qualification works.
Student(s)____ f. and about._______ WRC theme:…………………………
The following documents are presented in the SAC: list
After the student reported on the work done, the following questions were asked:
General characteristics of the defense of the final qualifying work.
Recognize that the student(s)________ f. and about._______ completed and defended the WRC with an assessment of ___________.
Signatures with decryption.
Protocol No. ....
meetings of the state attestation faculty commissions...
FSBEI HPE "Shadrinsky State Pedagogical Institute"
from ……………….. 20….years.
Attended: list all members of the attestation commission who were present at this meeting.
Listened to: about the results of the state (final) attestation and the award of qualifications to students of the 4th, 5th, (6th) courses of the faculty …….
Resolved:
The following students of the 4th, 5th, (6th) course of the faculty ..... shall be considered as having passed the state (final) certification, assign them a qualification ...……….., issue diplomas with honors:
all students are listed (full full name, in alphabetical order), who passed the state exams and defended the VKR with excellent marks, indicating the date of each certification and the grade.
The following students of the 4th, 5th, (6th) year of the faculty ….. shall be considered as having passed the state (final) certification, to assign them the qualification ………………. , issue diplomas without distinction:
all students are listed (full full name, in alphabetical order), who passed the state exams and defended the WQR, indicating the date of each certification and the grade.
The following students of the 4th, 5th, (6th) course of the faculty ... .. who have not passed the state (final) certification, be expelled from the institute and issue an academic certificate:
all students are listed (full full name, alphabetically) who have not passed the state (final) certification.
Signatures with decryption.
Date of this protocol must match:
- with the date of the last meeting on the defense of the WRC of this specialty;
- with the date of the order on the graduation of students of this specialty;
- with the date of issue of the diploma.
All minutes of meetings for a given academic year must be printed (without errors and corrections) on a computer, filed in a folder (in 3 holes, the first and last sheets are blank, the sheets should be numbered in the upper right corner with a simple pencil) and handed over to the educational department up to 5 July (for full-time department) and until December 15 (for part-time department) of the current year.
Folder front layout: sheet does not need to be glued, the following inscription is made directly on the folder with a ballpoint pen:
The minutes of the meetings of the state attestation and state examination commissions are kept in the archives of the institute.
In accordance with the Procedure for conducting a unified state exam, approved by order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of October 11, 2011 N 2451, I order:
1. Approve:
1.1. Regulations on the State Examination Commission of the City of Moscow (Appendix 1);
1.2. Regulations on the State Conflict Commission of the City of Moscow (Appendix 2);
1.3. Regulations on the state subject commissions of the city of Moscow (Appendix 3).
2. Recognize as invalid:
2.1. Order of the Department of Education of the City of Moscow of January 19, 2010 N 187 "On Approval of the Regulations on the State Examination Commission of the City of Moscow for the Unified State Examination".
2.2. Order of the Department of Education of the City of Moscow of January 12, 2011 N 37 "On Amendments to the Order of the Department of Education of the City of Moscow of January 19, 2010 N 187".
2.3. Order of the Department of Education of the City of Moscow dated March 17, 2010 N 689 "On approval of the regulation on subject commissions (subcommittees) of the state examination commission of the city of Moscow for conducting a unified state exam."
3. I reserve control over the implementation of this order.
Appendix 1
to the order of the Department
education in Moscow
February 17, 2012 No. 62
Position
on the State Examination Commission of the city of Moscow
1. This Regulation determines the procedure for the formation and operation of the State Examination Commission of the city of Moscow (hereinafter referred to as the SEC).
2. The Commission is created by the Department of Education of the city of Moscow (hereinafter referred to as the Department) in order to organize and conduct a unified state exam (hereinafter referred to as the Unified State Examination) in the territory of the city of Moscow.
3. When forming commissions, the possibility of participation of representatives of general educational institutions, educational institutions of vocational education, as well as public associations and organizations should be provided.
4. The composition of the SEC is approved by the order of the Department.
5. The Commission in its activities is guided by the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of education, international treaties of the Russian Federation, the legislation of the city of Moscow in the field of education, these Regulations, organizational and administrative acts and methodological documents of Rosobrnadzor and the Department.
6. As part of the organization and conduct of the exam in the city of Moscow, the SEC:
1) organizes and coordinates the work on the preparation and conduct of the exam, including:
coordinates the proposals of the Department on the personnel composition of the heads of the points for conducting the USE (hereinafter - the heads of the USE) and the organizers of the USE of the USE for each general education subject (hereinafter - the organizers);
coordinates the proposals of the Department on the composition of subject commissions;
determines the personal composition of authorized representatives of the SEC;
coordinates the number and places of registration for passing the exam, the location of the points for conducting the exam, including for graduates of educational institutions located in hard-to-reach and remote areas, as well as points for primary information processing;
coordinates the work of subject commissions;
2) ensures compliance with the established procedure for conducting the exam on the territory of the city of Moscow, including:
sends its authorized representatives to the PES and the regional information processing center to monitor the progress of the USE and compliance with the information security regime during the USE;
interacts with public observers on issues of compliance with the established procedure for conducting the exam, receives from them information about violations found in the organization and conduct of the exam at the exam site, in which he was present as a public observer;
3) approves at its meeting the results of the USE in the city of Moscow;
4) makes decisions on the cancellation of the USE results of individual USE participants in the following cases:
if the conflict commission satisfied the appeal of the USE participant about the violation of the established procedure for conducting the USE in the relevant general education subject;
5) the decision to cancel the results of the USE is made within two working days from the moment the conflict commission decides to satisfy the appeal about the violation of the established procedure for conducting the USE or from the moment of documentary confirmation of the fact that the participant of the USE violated the established procedure for conducting the USE.
6) re-admits USE participants to the exam in the relevant general education subject in the following cases:
if a graduate of the current year received an unsatisfactory result in the Russian language or mathematics at the state (final) certification in the form of the Unified State Examination;
if the USE participant did not take the USE for good reasons (illness or other documented circumstances);
if the USE participant did not complete the examination work for good reasons (illness or other documented circumstances);
the USE results of which were canceled by the SEC when the conflict commission satisfied the appeal of the USE participant about the violation of the established procedure for conducting the USE.
In cases where the USE participant was removed from the exam, then the decision on the possibility of admitting him to retake the USE in the corresponding general education subject is made based on the results of checking the fact of removing him from the exam.
7) in order to increase the objectivity of checking the examination papers of the USE participants, according to the agreed decision of the SEC of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, it is possible to organize the exchange of examination papers of the USE participants between the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
8) considers the applications of the USE participants on changing the list of general education subjects for which the USE participant plans to take the USE and the reasons for changing the previously declared list.
Decisions of the SEC are documented in protocols.
7. The composition of the SEC includes the chairman of the SEC, the deputy chairman of the SEC, the executive secretary and other members of the SEC.
8. Chairman of the SEC:
carries out general management of the work of the SEC;
determines the work plan of the SEC;
distributes responsibilities among the members of the SEC;
determines the schedule of meetings of the SEC;
conducts meetings of the SEC;
controls the implementation of decisions of the SEC.
9. Deputy Chairman of the SEC:
coordinates the work of the SEC members;
prepares draft documents submitted for consideration by the SEC;
monitors the implementation of the work plan of the SEC;
in the absence of the chairman of the SEC, performs his duties.
10. Executive secretary of the SEC:
keeps minutes of meetings of the SEC;
organizes office work of the SEC;
exercises control over the timely submission of materials for consideration at the meetings of the SEC;
is responsible for the safety of documents and other materials considered at the meetings of the SEC.
11. A member of the SEC has the right to:
be present during the exam at the exam site;
in case of disagreement with the decision of the SEC, demand that a dissenting opinion be included in the minutes or state it in writing in a statement addressed to the chairman of the SEC;
make proposals to the management of the SEC on improving the organization of the work of the SEC and the conditions for conducting the exam.
12. A member of the SEC is obliged:
participate in the meetings of the SEC;
perform the functions assigned to it in accordance with these Regulations and decisions of the SEC;
13. Meetings of the SEC are held in accordance with the schedule of meetings determined by the chairman of the SEC. By decision of the chairman of the SEC, an extraordinary meeting of the SEC may be held.
14. Decisions of the SEC are made by a majority vote of the members of the SEC participating in the meeting. In the event of an equality in the number of votes cast "for" and "against", the vote of the Chairman of the SEC is decisive.
15. Decisions of the SEC are formalized in protocols, which are signed by the chairman of the SEC and the executive secretary of the SEC.
16. The SEC protocols on the approval of the results of the USE are sent to the Department for organizing the execution and issuance of certificates of the results of the USE.
17. After approval, the USE results are transferred to educational institutions to familiarize the USE participants with the USE results they received.
18. In the event of a threat of an emergency situation, the Department, in agreement with the SEC, decides to postpone the USE to another PES or to another day, provided for by the unified exam schedule.
19. In case of rechecking the examination papers of the USE participants, the SEC decides on the need to revise the results of the USE participants based on the results of the recheck.
Appendix 2
to the order of the Department
education in Moscow
February 17, 2012 No. 62
Position
on the state conflict commission of the city of Moscow
1. This Regulation determines the procedure for the formation and activities of the state conflict commission of the city of Moscow (hereinafter referred to as the Commission).
2. The commission is created by the Department of Education of the city of Moscow (hereinafter referred to as the Department) in order to consider appeals from participants in the unified state exam (hereinafter referred to as the USE) who take the USE in the city of Moscow.
3. The Commission in its activities is guided by the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of education, international treaties of the Russian Federation, the legislation of the city of Moscow in the field of education, these Regulations, organizational and administrative acts and methodological documents of Rosobrnadzor and the Department.
4. The main functions of the Commission are:
acceptance and consideration of appeals of USE participants about violation of the established procedure for conducting the USE and disagreement with the points given;
making decisions based on the results of consideration of appeals on the satisfaction or rejection of the appeals of the USE participant;
informing the USE participant who filed the appeal, and (or) his parents (legal representatives) and the state examination commission of the city of Moscow about the decisions taken by the Commission.
5. The Commission does not consider appeals on the content and structure of control measuring materials in general education subjects and on issues related to the violation by the USE participant of the established requirements for the examination work.
6. When forming commissions, the possibility of participation of representatives of general educational institutions, educational institutions of vocational education, as well as public associations and organizations should be provided.
7. Members of the State Examination Commission of the City of Moscow and State Subject Commissions of the City of Moscow cannot be included in the Commission.
8. The personal composition of the Commission is approved by the order of the Department.
9. The Commission includes the Chairman of the Commission, Deputy Chairman of the Commission, Executive Secretary and other members of the Commission.
10. Chairman of the Commission:
conducts meetings of the Commission;
supervises the implementation of the decisions of the Commission.
11. Deputy Chairman of the Commission:
coordinates the work of the members of the Commission;
prepares documents submitted for consideration by the Commission;
12. Executive secretary of the Commission:
13. Member of the Commission has the right:
in case of disagreement with the decision of the Commission, demand that a dissenting opinion be included in the minutes or state it in writing in a statement addressed to the Chairman of the Commission;
make proposals to the leadership of the Commission on improving the organization of the work of the Commission.
14. A member of the Commission is obliged:
participate in meetings of the Commission;
perform the functions assigned to it in accordance with these Regulations and decisions of the Commission;
comply with the requirements of legislative and other regulatory legal acts regulating the procedure for conducting the exam;
observe the confidentiality of personal data of persons who passed the exam, personal data on the results of the exam before they are approved in the prescribed manner, information and intermediate statistical data on the results of the exam, as well as the established information security regime during the exam.
15. The procedure, deadlines and places for receiving appeals are brought to the attention of the participants of the exam, their parents (legal representatives), heads of educational institutions no later than 2 weeks before the start of the exam
16. In order to perform its functions, the Commission has the right:
request and receive from authorized persons and organizations the necessary documents and information, including the USE forms, information about the persons present during the USE, on compliance with the USE procedure;
involve in the consideration of appeals of USE participants about disagreement with the points given by members of the state subject commissions of the city of Moscow in the relevant general education subjects in the event of disputes regarding the assessment of assignments with a detailed answer of the examination paper;
apply to the State Subject Commission of the city of Moscow with a request for additional clarifications on the content of the tasks of the examination work of the USE participant and the criteria for their evaluation when considering an appeal of disagreement with the points given.
17. The Commission takes decisions by a simple majority of votes of the members of the Commission participating in the meeting. In the event of an equality in the number of votes cast "for" and "against", the vote of the Chairman of the Commission is decisive.
18. Decisions of the Commission are documented in minutes, which are signed by the chairman of the Commission and the executive secretary of the Commission.
19. Minutes of the meetings of the Commission are sent by the Commission to the State Examination Commission of the city of Moscow.
Appendix 3
to the order of the Department
education in Moscow
February 17, 2012 No. 62
Position
on state subject commissions of the city of Moscow
1. This Regulation determines the procedure for the formation and activities of the state subject commissions of the city of Moscow (hereinafter referred to as the Commission).
2. For each general education subject for which a unified state exam (hereinafter referred to as the USE) is held, the Department of Education of the city of Moscow (hereinafter referred to as the Department) creates a subject commission.
3. The Commission in its activities is guided by the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of education, international treaties of the Russian Federation, the legislation of the city of Moscow in the field of education, these Regulations, organizational and administrative acts and methodological documents of Rosobrnadzor and the Department.
4. The main functions of the Commissions are:
acceptance for consideration of copies of forms on which the answers of the USE participants to the tasks of the examination work with a detailed answer are drawn up, with the registration fields of the USE participants deleted;
checking the answers of the USE participants to the tasks of the examination paper with a detailed answer and evaluating them in accordance with the assessment criteria for the relevant subjects.
registration of the results of evaluating the answers of the USE participants to the tasks of the examination work with a detailed answer with protocols for checking the detailed answers of the USE participants and sending them to the Regional Information Processing Center determined by the Department.
5. Commissions are formed from among persons who have undergone appropriate training.
6. The composition of each Commission includes the chairman of the Commission, the deputy chairman of the Commission, the executive secretary and other members of the Commission (hereinafter also referred to as experts).
7. Chairman of the Commission:
carries out general management of the work of the Commission;
determines the work plan of the Commission;
distributes duties among the members of the Commission;
conducts meetings of the Commission;
ensures timely verification of the answers of USE participants to tasks with a detailed answer in accordance with the assessment criteria;
approves the protocols for checking the detailed answers of USE participants;
provides an information security mode when checking the answers of USE participants to tasks with a detailed answer and transferring protocols for checking detailed answers of USE participants to the Regional Information Processing Center determined by the Department.
8. Deputy Chairman of the Commission:
organizes and coordinates the work of members of the Commission;
exercises control over the implementation of the work plan of the Commission;
in the absence of the chairman of the Commission, performs his duties.
9. Executive secretary of the Commission:
provides organizational and technical preparation for the work of the Commission;
organizes the office work of the Commission;
keeps minutes of the meetings of the Commission;
exercises control over the timely submission of materials for consideration at the meetings of the Commission;
is responsible for the safety of documents and other materials considered at the meetings of the Commission.
10. A member of the Commission has the right to make proposals to the leadership of the Commission on improving the organization of the work of the Commission.
11. A member of the Commission is obliged:
check the answers of USE participants to tasks with a detailed answer in accordance with the assessment criteria;
form protocols for checking the detailed answers of USE participants with entering the results of assessment for each examination paper into them, sign these protocols and submit them for approval to the chairman of the Commission;
comply with the requirements of legislative and other regulatory legal acts regulating the procedure for conducting the exam;
observe the confidentiality of information received in connection with the performance of assigned duties, and the established information security regime when checking examination papers of USE participants;
participate in the meetings of the Commission.
12. The distribution of work among experts, the determination of the final scores for the answers of the USE participants to the tasks of the examination work with a detailed answer, as well as the determination of the need for verification by a third expert, are carried out automatically, using specialized hardware and software of the Regional Information Processing Center, determined by the Department.
13. The answers of the USE participants to the tasks of the examination paper with a detailed answer are checked by two members of the subject commission (experts).
14. According to the results of the check, the experts independently assign points for each answer to the tasks of the examination paper with a detailed answer (or for each part of the task, if the answer to the task is evaluated separately for each part) according to the evaluation criteria. The results of each assessment are entered into the protocol of verification by the subject commissions of the detailed answers of the USE participants, which, after filling out, are transferred to the Regional Information Processing Center, determined by the Department for further processing.
15. The points for the answers of the USE participant to the tasks of the examination work with a detailed answer are determined based on the following provisions:
if the scores of two experts matched, then the score obtained is final;
if there is an insignificant discrepancy in the scores given by two experts, then the final score is determined as the arithmetic mean of the scores of the two experts rounded up;
if a significant discrepancy in the scores given by two experts is established, then a third expert checks the answer of the USE participant, for which a significant discrepancy in scores is established.
16. A significant discrepancy for each general education subject is determined in the assessment criteria for the corresponding general education subject.
17. The third expert is appointed by the chairman of the subject committee from among the members of the subject committee who have not previously checked this examination paper.
18. The third expert checks and assigns points only for those answers to the tasks (parts of the task) in which a significant discrepancy in the scores of the two experts was found. The third expert is provided with information about the scores given by the experts who previously checked the examination work of the USE participant. The scores of the third expert are final.
19. It is not allowed to transfer materials considered at meetings of the Commissions to persons who are not members of the Commissions without the permission of the chairman (deputy chairman) of the SEC.
20. The commissions recheck individual examination papers of USE participants who have passed exams on the territory of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, on behalf of the Department.
21. Commissions conduct their work in premises specially allocated and equipped for these purposes, which allow restricting access by unauthorized persons and ensuring compliance with the information security regime and proper conditions for storing documents.
Order of the Department of Education of Moscow dated February 17, 2012 N 62 “On approval of the regulations on the state examination commission, conflict commission, subject commissions of the city of Moscow”
Document overview
In order to organize and conduct the Unified State Examination, the Department of Education creates a state examination commission. The Commission organizes and coordinates work on the preparation and conduct of the Unified State Exam, ensures compliance with the procedure for conducting the Unified State Examination, approves the results of the exam, decides to cancel its results, re-admits to pass the Unified State Examination, considers applications for changing the list of subjects for which the participant plans to take the Unified State Examination.
To consider the appeals of USE participants, the Department creates a state commission. The Commission accepts and considers appeals about violations of the procedure for conducting the Unified State Examination and about disagreement with the points set, makes decisions based on the results of consideration of appeals, informs the participants of the Unified State Examination who filed an appeal, or parents (legal representatives) and the State Examination Commission about the decisions taken.
For each general education subject in which the USE is conducted, a subject commission is created. Its functions include accepting for consideration copies of the forms on which the answers of the USE participants are drawn up, checking the answers of the USE participants and their evaluation, processing the results of evaluating the answers of the USE participants and sending them to the Regional Information Processing Center.
PROTOCOL №________
meetings of the state examination commission
(to be completed at each state exam)
_________ ____20___ from _______ hour. ______min. until ___________ hour.
Present:
Chairman of the State Examination Commission _____________________________________________________________________________
(Last name, first name, patronymic in full)
Members of the State Examination Commission (Surname, name, patronymic in full):
3.______________________________________________________________________________
4.______________________________________________________________________________
On passing the state exam in the direction of preparation 44.04.01 "Pedagogical education"
master's program "Literary education in classes with in-depth study of the subject"
Exam student ____________________________________________________________
(Last name, first name, patronymic in full in accordance with the order)
Exam ticket number _____
1.______________________________________________________________________________
2.______________________________________________________________________________
1.______________________________________________________________________________
2.______________________________________________________________________________
General characteristics of the student's answers to the questions asked
1. Recognize that the student passed the state exam with a grade
2. Note that _________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
3. Dissenting opinion of the members of the state commission __________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Chairman (signature, full name) ______________________
Members of the State Examination Commission:
(signature, full name) ________________________________________________
Signature of the person who drew up the protocol (signature, full name) ______________
EXPERT OPINION
on the program of the state final certification of graduates in the direction of preparation 44.04.01 "Pedagogical education" of the master's program "Literary education in classes with in-depth study of the subject"
Evaluation criteria and indicators
| Criteria | Indicators | Expert rating +/-/? |
| 1. The quality of the design of the GIA program | 1.1. The title page of the GIA program is designed in accordance with the requirements of the instructions "Procedure for the development of the GIA program for graduates in the educational programs of bachelor's, specialist's and master's programs" (clause 5, appendix 1-2) | |
| 1.2. The GIA program includes: | ||
| - general provisions | ||
| - requirements for the graduate, checked during the state exam | ||
| - information about the procedure for conducting the state exam | ||
| - a list of disciplines / modules of the educational program submitted for verification at the state exam | ||
| - list of examination questions and tasks of the state exam | ||
| - general recommendations for preparing for the state exam | ||
| - requirements for the graduate, checked during the preparation and defense of the WRC | ||
| - characteristics of the type of WRC | ||
| - WRC structure and requirements for its content | ||
| - exemplary topics of WRC | ||
| - requirements for registration of WRC | ||
| - requirements for the organization of the implementation of the WRC | ||
| - the procedure for submitting the WRC for defense | ||
| - WRC defense procedure | ||
| - fund of appraisal funds for GIA | ||
| - change registration sheet | ||
| 1.3. The structural elements of the GIA program are designed in accordance with the requirements established in the instruction "Procedure for the development of the GIA program for graduates in educational programs of bachelor's, specialist's and master's programs" | ||
| 2. The quality of the content of the GIA program | 2.1. In the section "General Provisions" the purpose of the GIA is formulated, the code and name of the direction of training / specialty and types of state tests are indicated; the types of professional activity and professional tasks of the graduate are determined in the logic of their compliance with the Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education and taking into account the profile of the program; a complete list of requirements for the results of mastering the educational program in the format of competencies is presented | |
| 2.2. The section "Requirements for the graduate, checked during the state exam" indicates the code and name of each competence submitted to the state exam | ||
| 2.3. The section "Procedure for conducting the state exam" provides information on the form of the state exam (written, oral, or a combination of these forms), the duration of the exam for the student (indicating the time allotted for preparing for the answer and the response time), a list of visual aids, reference materials nature, regulatory documents and samples of equipment permitted for use in the exam, a list of recommended literature for preparing for the exam | ||
| 2.4. The section "List of disciplines / modules of the educational program submitted for testing at the state exam" contains a list of disciplines / modules of the educational program that ensured the formation of the competencies specified in clause 2.1. GIA programs and are submitted for verification at the state exam | ||
| 2.5. The section "List of examination questions and tasks of the state exam" presents the topics of theoretical questions and practical tasks submitted for the state exam. The number for each position is a multiple of the number of examination tickets (20 - 30 pieces), each of which includes 1 complex professionally oriented practical task and 1-2 questions of the theory of professional activity | ||
| 2.6. The section "General recommendations for preparing for the state exam" provides a list of recommended basic and additional literature | ||
| 2.7. The section "Requirements for the graduate, checked during the preparation and defense of the WRC" indicates the code and name of each competence tested during the preparation and defense of the WRC | ||
| 2.8. In the section "Type of WRC" the type of WRC is defined and characterized in accordance with the Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education: bachelor's work/thesis/master's thesis | ||
| 2.9. The section "The structure of the WRC and the requirements for its content" presents the general structure of the WRC and the requirements for what each structural element of the WRC should contain | ||
| 2.10. The section "Exemplary topics of the WRC" presents the topics of the WRC, taking into account the orientation to the profile of the educational program and the types of professional activities of the graduate | ||
| 2.11. The section "Requirements for the design of the WQR" indicates the total volume of the WQR, the requirements for the design of its text, tables, figures, list of references, etc. multilevel education FGBOU VPO "VGSPU" | ||
| 2.12. The content of the sections "Requirements for the organization of the implementation of the WQR", "The procedure for the implementation and submission of the WQR for defense", "The procedure for the defense of the WQR" was developed on the basis of the order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation dated June 29, 2015 No. 636 "On approval of the procedure for conducting the state final certification on educational programs of higher education - bachelor's degree programs, specialist's programs and master's programs "and in accordance with the internal document QMS 01.07.OP03.02 / P03" Regulations on final qualifying works of bachelor, specialist and master in the system of multilevel education of FGBOU VPO "VGSPU" | ||
| 2.13. In the section "Fund of assessment tools for the State Examination" developed: - a matrix of competencies presented in the assessment tools of the state exam; - evaluation tools for the state exam (theoretical questions and practical tasks); - exam tickets for the state exam; - indicators for assessing the level of formation of competencies tested at the state exam; - Criteria for setting final grades in the state exam; - the form of the expert sheet used by the members of the state examination committee in the state exam; - indicators for assessing the level of formation of competencies, tested on the defense of the final qualification work; - Criteria for setting final grades for the defense of the final qualifying work; - a form of an expert sheet for a member of the state examination committee for the defense of the final qualification work |
| indicator number | Nonconformity characteristic |
Expert committee composed of:
1. _________________________________________________
2. _________________________________________________
(academic degree, position, full name)
3. ________________________________________________ concluded:
(academic degree, position, full name)
The program of the state final certification of graduates
meets/partly meets/does not meet the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard
(Underline whatever applicable)
Date of examination: "____" ____________________20___
Expert signatures: ____________ ______________ _____________
APPROVE
Head of the OPOP
________________________
(position)
____________________________________
"___" _____________ 20__
CHANGES REGISTRATION SHEET No. ____
in the program of the state final certification of graduates in the direction of preparation 44.04.01 "Pedagogical education" of the master's program "Literary education in classes with in-depth study of the subject"
changes made:
In the column "assessment of experts" for each indicator, a mark is made +/?/-
+ meets the requirements of the indicator in full;
? partly meets the requirements of the indicator
- does not meet the requirements of the indicator
A positive conclusion (corresponds / partially corresponds) is given only if all indicators are rated +/?
Change #1RI 4.2.4-1 Rules and procedure for registration
protocols of state
examination boards
___ APPROVED AND PUT INTO EFFECT by order of the Rector of the University No. 33-O dated 01/28/2016
Date of introduction 29.01.2016
1Section 2, clause 3.1.Replace: " STP 7.5-2 Final examination. Position » on the "STO 7.5-2 Final certification of students. Position » .
2 Clause 5.2
"5.2 Order of filling ( Appendix A):
1) the first line indicates the number of the minutes of the SEC meeting;
2) the numbering of the protocols in each book is affixed with Arabic numerals;
3) in the line “On passing the state exam in the direction / specialty”, the code of the direction / specialty, name, focus are indicated;
4) in the line "Student" the full name, first name, patronymic of the student is written in the genitive case. FULL NAME. the student must strictly comply with the last name, first name, patronymic specified in the order for admission to the state final certification;
5) in the “Attended” section, information is provided on the composition of the SEC (surname, initials of those present: chairman of the SEC, members of the commission);
6) in the column "Questions":
the ticket number and the full content of each question of the ticket are indicated, with each question numbered in order;
in the case when the exam is taken in the form of tests, the numbers of options are indicated;
when the exam is taken in writing, either the ticket number and the list of disciplines for which the examinee gives a written answer are indicated, or the ticket number and the content of the questions;
when a complex qualification task is given, the number of the option is indicated;
8) in the column “1. Recognize that the student passed the state exam with an assessment in words, the student's knowledge is assessed: "excellent", "good", "satisfactory", "unsatisfactory". Abbreviated writing of grades is not allowed;
9) in the column "Note that" the general characteristic of the student's answer is indicated (for example: complete answers to the questions posed were given, fluency in educational or scientific material was demonstrated, exhaustive answers to additional questions were received etc.).
For example:
"Great"
exhaustive answers to all questions of the ticket and additional questions of the SEC members were received;
the graduate demonstrates deep basic knowledge;
is able to show the cause-and-effect relationships of phenomena;
draws conclusions on each question of the examination ticket;
convincingly argues his own position, deeply and fully reveals the theoretical and practical aspects of the issue;
shows a creative approach to its presentation and demonstrates the debatability of this issue, as well as deeply and fully reveals additional issues, etc.;
shows basic knowledge, but not in full;
the student demonstrates the ability to analyze the material, but not all conclusions are sufficiently reasoned;
there is no answer to one of the questions of the ticket;
there is no complete answer to two additional questions;
the sequence of presentation of the material is violated, etc.;
When testing, the general characteristic of students' answers is indicated as a percentage, for example:
"excellent" - more than 80%;
"good" - 55-80%;
"satisfactory" - 34-54%;
"unsatisfactory" - less than 34%;
10) in the column "Dissenting opinion of the members of the state examination committee" the student's answer is analyzed and the conclusion of the committee is given. for example :
11) the following lines indicate the date, start and end time of the state exam ( not less than 15 and not more than 30 minutes per student).
3 Clause 6.1 amend and state in a new edition:
“6.1 By the beginning of the work of the state examination commissions, the secretaries of the SEC receive a book of minutes of the meetings of the SEC at the UMU. When defending final qualification works, a separate protocol of the SEC meeting for the consideration of the WRC is drawn up for each student.
The minutes of the meeting of the SEC on the protection of the WRC are filled in as follows ( Appendix B):
the first line indicates the number of the minutes of the SEC meeting;
the next line indicates the date of the SEC meeting;
in the line “On review of the final qualification
in the line "Student" the surname, name, patronymic of the student is written in the genitive case;
in the line "On the topic" the topic of the WRC is indicated in accordance with the order of the rector of the university "On the approval of the topics of graduation qualification works and the appointment of scientific supervisors";
the section "Attended" provides information on the composition of the SEC (surname, initials of those present: the chairman of the SEC, members of the commission);
in the section “Graduate qualification work performed under the supervision” the academic degree, title, surname, initials of the supervisor of the student are indicated in the genitive case;
in the line "during consultation" the academic degree, title, surname, initials (if the consultant is appointed) are indicated in the genitive case;
Below is information about the materials presented in the SEC, namely:
examinations and tests and on the fulfillment of the requirements of the curriculum (number, date, full name of the student);
2) the number of pages of the WRC is affixed as a number;
3) the total number of sheets of the application to the work is affixed with a number;
4) tables, diagrams, drawings;
5) the presence of a recall of the head of the WRC is confirmed;
6) the presence of a review of the work is confirmed;
the time is indicated by a number (as a rule, no more than 15 minutes), during which the students are informed about the work performed;
on a separate line with a serial number it is indicated by whom and what questions were asked to the student ( question content);
in the "General characteristics" section, the characteristics of the received answers are indicated (for example: complete answers to the questions posed are given, fluency in the research material is demonstrated, examples from practice are given, etc..);
in the line “Recognize that the student completed and defended the final qualifying work with an assessment”, the grade for which the student defended the WRC is written in words: “excellent”, “good”, “satisfactory”, “unsatisfactory” ( abbreviated writing of grades is not allowed);
in the line "assign qualification (degree)" the degree (qualification) to be awarded is indicated;
in the line "Mark what", for example, you can specify: WRC as a whole was carried out at a technically high level in accordance with the design assignment with clear graphics and a good explanatory note;
in the line “Dissenting opinion” the conclusion of the commission is given (in the case of a positive defense, a conclusion may be given that “ the student is recommended for admission to the magistracy (postgraduate study)" or " the results of the WRC studies are implemented at the enterprise (the act of implementation is available)", or " continue working on the topic of the WRC for writing a dissertation»; in case of unsatisfactory protection - " it is necessary to refine the theme of the WRC" or " need to develop a new theme» etc.).
the following lines indicate the date, time of the beginning and end of the WRC defense.
APPENDIX A
(reference)
An example of filling out the SEC protocol on passing the state exam
_
P O T O C O L No. _ 1
_
12
_»__
May
__
2016
G.
on passing the state exam in the direction / specialty
_____________01.03.02
___Applied Mathematics and Computer Science
____________
_____________________________________
student __________ Ivanov Andrey Alexandrovich __________________________
(full name of the student)
Present:
Sapchenko I.G., Doctor of Engineering Sci., Deputy Director of IMiM FEB RAS
Bormotin K.S., Doctor of Phys.-Math. Sciences, Associate Professor ________________
Zarubin M.M., Ph.D. Phys.-Math. Sciences, Associate Professor _______________
Khromov A.I., Dr. Phys.-Math. sciences, professor __ _____________
Loshmanov A.Yu., Ph.D. Phys.-Math. Sciences, Associate Professor _____________
Kozlova O.V., Ph.D. Phys.-Math. Sciences, Associate Professor ___ _____________
QuestionsTicket number 8
1 First order differential equations ___________________________
___________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
2 Fundamentals of Gender Algebra ___
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
3 Find and display all prime numbers not exceeding №=1000 ____
(use the "sieve of Eratosthenes" method) ________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Loshmanov A.Yu. _______________________________________________________
1 What are first order differential equations? _________________
2 Explain Bernouli equation ? __________________________________________
Kozlova O.V. __________________________________________________________
1 What is the difference between a tensor and a general object? ________________________
2 What is method "sieve of Eratosthenes")? _______________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Recognize that the student passed the state exam with a score of __ Great
__
2. Note that complete answers to the questions posed were given, fluency in educational and scientific material was demonstrated, exhaustive answers to additional questions were received
________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
3. Dissenting opinion of the members of the state examination committee
A high level of professional competence was demonstrated. Recommend for admission to graduate school ___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Time of the state exam «_ 12 _»__ May __ 20 16 G.
c_ 10 _h_ 00 _ min to _ 10 _h_ 20 _ min.
Chairman of the State Examination Commission
_Sapchenko I.G. ___________________________________
(full name, signature)
Bormotin K.S. ______________________________________
(full name, signature)
Zarubin M.M. . _______________________________________
(full name, signature)
_Khromov A.I. ________________________________________
(full name, signature)
_Loshmanov A.Yu. _____________________________________
(full name, signature)
. _____________________________________________________
(full name, signature)
Secretary of the SEC Kozlova O.V. ________________________
(full name, signature)
APPENDIX B
(reference)
An example of filling out the SEC protocol for the defense of the WRC
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Federal state budget educational
institution of higher professional education
"Komsomolsk-on-Amur State Technical University"
________________________________________________________________________
P O T O C O L No. __ 3
__
meetings of the State Examination Commission from "_ 17
__»_ June
__ 20_16
G.
on consideration of the final qualifying work in the direction / specialty
_________________21.03.02 Land management and cadastres ____________________
(code of direction / specialty, name, focus)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
student ___________ Baranov Vyacheslav Sergeevich
_____________________________
(full name of the student)
on the topic_ Management of the reconstruction process of the rehabilitation center _____
for children and adolescents with disabilities
_____________________________
Present:
Chairman of the State Examination Commission
Kulikov I.M., Deputy heads of administration _________________
Members of the State Examination Commission
_Tsvetkov O.Yu., Ph.D. geogr. Sciences, Associate Professor __________________
Antsigin O.I., Ph.D. tech. Sciences, Associate Professor ___________________
_Gagul I.A., head of administration department _________________
_Grinkrug N.V., Ph.D. tech. Sciences, Associate Professor ___________________
_Borzova O.N., associate professor __________________________________
The final qualifying work was carried out under the guidance of
____________ Antsigina Oleg Ivanovich, Ph.D. tech. Sciences ____________________
in consultation __ Grinkrug N.V., Ph.D. tech. Sciences. __________________________
The following materials are submitted to the State Examination Commission:
1. Certificate of the dean's office of the faculty/institute __ №
_88
____ from "_ 16
_»__ June
____ 2016
G.
about handed over to students ____ Baranov Vyacheslav Sergeevich
_______________
(full name of the student)
exams and tests and on the fulfillment of the requirements of the curriculum.
2. Settlement and explanatory note on _ 130 __ pages
3. Appendix to the settlement and explanatory note on _ 10 _ pages
4. Drawings for WRC on _ 14 __ sheets
5. Review of the head
6. Review of _ WRC _________________________________________________________
After the announcement of the completed final qualifying work (within _ 8 _ min) the student was asked the following questions:
Tsvetkov O.Yu.________________________________________________________
(Full name of the person who asked the question and wording of the question)
1 Relevance of the building? ________________________________________________
2 Who is operating this facility? ____________________________________
Borzova O.N. __________________________________________________________
1 How does investment attractiveness increase when moving to an open joint stock company?
2 Where does the laying depth of 4.22 m come from? _____________________________________
Grinkrug N.V. _________________________________________________________
1 What is the rationale for choosing the location of the object? _________________________
2
What is on the master plan?
_________________________________________
General characteristics of the student's answers to the questions asked to him
Demonstrated fluency in research material __________
Complete answers to the questions posed
____________________________
1 Recognize that the student completed and defended the final qualifying work
rated ___ Great
______________________________________________________
2 Assign qualifications __ bachelor ________________________________________
3 Note that __ WRC as a whole was carried out at a technically high level ______
in accordance with the design task with visual graphics _________
and with an excellent explanatory note _______________________________________
Dissenting opinion of the members of the State Examination Commission_________________
The time of the WRC defense " 17 » June _2016 G.
c__ 9 __ h _ 30 _ min to _ 10 _h_ 00 _ min.
Chairman of the State Examination Commission
Kulikov I.M. _______________________________
(full name, signature)
Members of the State Examination Commission:
Tsvetkov O.Yu. ._______________________________________
(full name, signature)
Greenkrug N.V . ________________________________________
(full name, signature)
Antsigin O.I. _________________________________________
(full name, signature)
Gagul I.A. ___________________________________________
(full name, signature)
_____________________________________________________
(full name, signature)
Secretary of the SEC Borzova O.N. . ___________________________
Information material "young reader's corner"
Doctor who are far to destroy
Where to buy sulfuric acid?