The maximum score for the first part of the story. General USE figures. What skills should a graduate demonstrate?

Now, as compulsory subjects during the unified state exam, Russian schoolchildren take the Russian language and mathematics. History will be the third compulsory subject for graduates. The Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Olga Vasilyeva said during the lecture “The role and place of science and education in today's Russia. Challenges and Prospects”, that in 2020 the Unified State Examination in History will become mandatory for graduates of all Russian schools. “In 2020, the whole country will take history. Because without knowledge of history it is impossible to move on,” said Vasilyeva. So those who are going to take the exam in the history of 2019 need to approach the issue of preparation with all seriousness.

Why is the exam in history needed?

Every citizen of Russia should know the history of his country and the history of neighboring countries, since many different events are based on this.

1. This subject contains very interesting facts about the past of the entire living world.
2. Probably, without additional knowledge about the country it is difficult to solve some difficult tasks.
3. In addition, any story, even if it is the latest, will remain in the memory of every schoolchild.

In a word, the subject of history consists of different dates and events that still have to be studied and then remembered for a long period of time. This knowledge will be useful for admission to a higher educational institution.

General information about the exam

The exam in history is currently an optional subject, it is taken only by those who independently made such a choice. Successful completion of the Unified State Examination in History is required for admission to such popular specialties as:

• jurisprudence;
• linguistics;
• design;
• architecture and many others.

Before you start preparing, you need to familiarize yourself with the general information about the exam.

The 2019 KIM USE variant will undergo changes compared to the previous year’s variant. For the correct completion of tasks 3 and 8, they now give not 1, but 2 points each. At 25 tasks the wording and evaluation criteria have changed.

How to prepare for the exam in history?

Preparing for the Unified State Exam in history is considered to be perhaps the most difficult in the system of final exams, and this is primarily due to the large number of questions with a rather limited time for answers, as well as the large amount of material that must be repeated before the exam. Indeed, when compiling tests, FIPI used the questions of the curriculum for several classes.

You need to prepare for the test using school textbooks, the help of a teacher or tutor, as well as in the USE courses in history.

To prepare for exams, you can download demo assignments and take online tests. The presented tasks are identical in their complexity and structure to the real exams held in the corresponding years. Assignments that can be found in demos will most likely not be found on the exam, but there will be tasks similar to demos on the same topic.

The structure of KIM USE in history

In total, there are 25 tasks in KIM for the history. Part 1 contains 19 tasks with a short answer. In part 2 - 6 tasks with a detailed answer.

Part 1 includes the following tasks:

• on knowledge of chronology (you need to know in what year, in what century an important historical event took place);
• on knowledge of historical concepts and terms;
• on knowledge of historical facts;
• two tasks for the ability to work with historical sources;
• on knowledge of historical figures;
• to test the ability to work with information given in the form of a table;
• to work with a historical map;
• on knowledge of the facts of the history of culture;
• to work with illustrative material.

*Part 2 - these are 6 tasks that require a detailed answer, which must be written in your own words.
*3 tasks (No. 20, No. 21, No. 22) - tasks for working with a historical source.
* Task No. 20 involves the attribution of a historical source (attribution is the definition of * authorship, determining the time of creation of a historical source, determining the events that this historical text refers to).
* Task No. 21 is a task to search for information in a source.
*Task number 22 - checking contextual knowledge.
*Task No. 23 - a historical task or an analysis of a historical situation.
* Task No. 24 to test to argue historical points of view. This is the most difficult task in the whole job.
* Task number 25 - a historical essay.

In a historical essay, 11th grade students are required to write a consistent coherent text, that is, a mini-essay about one of the periods of history (a choice of three).
There are certain requirements for writing:

• must be presented in the work at least two processes, phenomena within the period chosen by the student;
• two personalities should be indicated, their roles in these events, processes, phenomena should be characterized;
• at least two causal relationships must be indicated;
• historical terminology should be used;
• no factual errors can be made.

The date of the exam in history will be known in January 2019.

You can find out about the results of the exam in history in 2019 in your general education organization or on the official website of the exam.

Here you can watch a video analysis of the demo version of the 2018 USE in history:

One of the elective subjects, which is indicated by the graduate in the application submitted before February 1, is the Unified State Examination in History 2018.

1. Specification (a description of the work, the necessary documents are listed, the structure of the Unified State Examination in history is reflected, a plan for the KIM variant is given).
2. Codifier (a list of skills and topics that are tested at the exam in history. The codifier has an appendix that lists all the events in the history of foreign countries that will be tested in tasks No. 1 and No. 11).
3. Demo version of the exam in history (one version of the exam in history), with which you need to start preparing for the state exam in history.

The structure of KIM USE in history

Total 25 tasks

Part 1 Part 2

19 short answer tasks 6 long answer tasks

Part 1 includes the following tasks:

• on knowledge of chronology (you need to know in what year, in what century an important historical event took place);
• on knowledge of historical concepts and terms;
• on knowledge of historical facts;
• two tasks for the ability to work with historical sources;
• on knowledge of historical figures;
• to test the ability to work with information given in the form of a table;
• to work with a historical map;
• on knowledge of the facts of the history of culture;
• to work with illustrative material.

Part 2 is 6 tasks that require a detailed answer, which must be written in your own words.

3 tasks (No. 20, No. 21, No. 22) - tasks for working with a historical source.

Task No. 20 involves the attribution of a historical source (attribution is the definition of authorship, determining the time of creation of a historical source, determining the events that this historical text refers to).
Task No. 21 is a task to search for information in a source.
Task number 22 - checking contextual knowledge.
Task No. 23 - a historical task or an analysis of the historical situation.
Task No. 24 to test to argue historical points of view. This is the most difficult task in the whole job.
Task number 25 - a historical essay.
The tasks of the first part can be considered tasks of the basic level, but the skills demonstrated by students in the second part belong to an increased level of complexity.

What skills should the graduate demonstrate?

Examiners expect the following skills from a graduate who takes the exam in history:

In the first part:

• ability to work with historical sources, texts;
• work with a historical map;
• ability to work with illustrative material.

In the second part:

• ability to argue in a historical essay;
• solve historical problems.

History is the science of facts

History is a subject that requires knowledge. You can do a lot, but it is almost impossible to pass history well without knowing the facts. Need to know:

1. dates, years of certain events;
2. facts, events, processes and phenomena;
3. historical figures;
4. facts of the history of culture;
5. it is necessary to navigate in cause-and-effect relationships.

More about tasks with a detailed answer

It is clear that eleventh-graders still have little life experience, it is difficult for them to analyze or compare some things. But in tasks with a detailed answer, knowledge of the facts that are studied in the course of the school subject is checked. The age of students, of course, affects the understanding of these facts. Also, the guys do not always have the desire to delve into historical sources, to understand the cause-and-effect relationships of events.

There were no changes in the structure of work in 2017. There is only one change in task number 25 (this is a historical essay). The requirements have been specified and the evaluation criteria have changed slightly.

In a historical essay, it is required to write a consistent coherent text, that is, a mini-essay about one of the periods of history (a choice of three).

There are certain requirements for writing:

• must be presented in the work at least two processes, phenomena within the period chosen by the student;
• two personalities should be indicated, their roles in these events, processes, phenomena should be characterized;
• at least two causal relationships must be indicated;
• historical terminology should be used;
• no factual errors can be made.

The time to complete the work is 3 hours 55 minutes (235 minutes).

The maximum initial score that can be scored for completing the entire work is 55 points. These 55 points are converted into test points on a special scale.

What difficulties do those who pass the exam in history have?

As a rule, the following tasks in the first part are difficult:

• dedicated to the history of the Great Patriotic War (No. 8);
• on knowledge of historical personalities, historical figures (No. 9);
• on knowledge of the facts of the history of culture (No. 17);
• for the analysis of illustrative material (No. 18 and No. 19).

In the second part with a detailed answer, there is also a task that turns out to be difficult for 11th grade students. This is an argument assignment (No. 24), which presents a certain debatable point of view that exists in historical science, and graduates need to give 2 arguments from the point of view of supporters of this position and 2 arguments from the point of view of opponents.

The USE model in history is mobile; it has been improving over the course of several years. This is due to the response of public opinion - with the opinion of applicants, teachers, educators, and the expert community. Particular attention is paid to changes in the USE and politics, since the life of society is constantly changing, which should also be reflected in the tasks of the state exam in history.

The date of the exam in history will be known in January 2018.

You can find out about the results of the exam in history in 2018 in your general education organization or on the official website of the exam.

Tips for preparing for the exam in history can be found here:

Everyone knows that the tasks of Part 2 of the USE in history are checked by specially trained people - experts. In the process of work, they rely not only on the criteria and explanations given in the demo. This would not be enough to ensure a uniform and adequate understanding by all experts of the criteria for assessing tasks of increased complexity.

That is why every year methodological recommendations for experts in all subjects are published on the FIPI website. The author and compiler of these materials on history is traditionally I.A. Artasov, Deputy Head of the Federal Commission for the Development of KIM Unified State Examination in History.

If you're looking to get a high score on the Part 2 questions, check out the Expert Guidelines. Both curious and helpful. This is an 84 page document that includes the following blocks:

1) Task performance assessment system(p.8-27). Here are given general recommendations for checking tasks, formulated the main approaches to assessment. Nos. 20-23 are discussed briefly, but a lot of attention is paid to the arguments and the historical essay. In particular, in 2018, for these tasks, the “Question-Answer” column appeared. It has a lot of important and interesting things, so below I will duplicate its content.

2) Examples of tasks with comments for experts. A scan of the student's work, the score and the rationale for the assessment are given. Us. 59-77 you can see seven real historical writings for the following periods:

• 945 - 972
• September 1689 - December 1725
• November 1796 - March 1801
• October 1894 - July 1914 (2 compositions)
• October 1964 - March 1985 (2 compositions)

3) Memo for experts(New in 2018!). This is a document provided to the examiner along with the evaluation criteria during the inspection. In terms of content, these instructions largely repeat block 1, only there are fewer examples and details.

If you do not plan to read all 84 pages of guidelines, but still want to capture the key points, I recommend that you pay attention to this memo for experts, as well as to the “Question and Answer” section for tasks 24 and 25.

I will give the main part of the text for these sections below - read here or withdownload pdf files.

This document is officially published on the FIPI website: main page - section "USE and GVE-11" - subsection "For subject commissions of subjects of the Russian Federation" - file "History" (or just follow the link). There you can also download the 2018 methodological recommendations for other school subjects, as well as all materials for 2005-2017.

FAQ on the assignment for arguments (№24)

Question. If the graduate did not write, which of the arguments he named are given in support, and which ones are in refutation, how to evaluate the answer?

Answer. If the graduate has not written which of the arguments are given in refutation, and which ones are in support, the expert still checks the assignment, trying to understand the belonging of the arguments according to their content. If the answer contains full arguments that contain both facts and explanations that make it possible to understand why the given facts confirm (refute) this point of view, then the expert will easily determine the purpose of the arguments and accept them. If the expert has doubts about the purpose of the arguments, then such arguments are not accepted.

Question. If in task 24 the child writes like this: “ Supporting Arguments:…» ... but, according to the expert, an attempt is made to bring arguments in refutation. " Arguments in rebuttal:…"... and here is an attempt to give arguments in support (apparently, the graduate got it mixed up), is it possible to consider this as a typo and evaluate the task on the merits of the arguments given?

Answer: No, in this case, the expert does not consider this a typo, since the expert cannot know for sure whether this is a typo or a graduate's conscious choice. In this case, the graduate wrote his opinion and we are guided by this when checking.

Question. Can facts be counted as arguments without explaining how they are related to the argued point of view?

Answer. In some, few, cases, they can. These are the cases when the cited fact clearly confirms (refutes) this point of view (there is enough information in it to confirm or refute) and it cannot be used “on the contrary” (that is, if it is cited in support, then it cannot be used to refute ). For example:

1) An argument for the point of view " The Soviet-Finnish war had negative consequences for the USSR", will be a fact: " in three and a half months of the war, the USSR lost more than 126 thousand soldiers and officers killed". A connection of this fact with the point of view being argued is not needed, since the fact itself clearly testifies in favor of this point of view.

2) An argument for the point of view " The measures taken by the Russian government in the late 19th - early 20th centuries improved the socio-economic and legal status of the working class", will be a fact: " the previously unrestricted working day for industrial workers was limited to 11.5 hours during this period". This fact is sufficient to justify this point, since it contains enough to confirm this point of view and cannot be used in refutation.

3) An argument for the point of view " The foreign policy of Alexander I was successful", will be a fact: " as a result of the foreign policy of Alexander IFinland was annexed". This fact cannot be used to refute this point of view: the expansion of the territory of the state is always considered a criterion for the success of foreign policy. But in this case, it is necessary to clarify: if the point of view were formulated somewhat differently, for example: “ The results of the foreign policy of Alexander I contributed to the successful socio-economic development of Russia”, then the fact of joining Finland would not be enough, it would be necessary to explain how this joining contributed to the socio-economic development of the country.

However, in most cases, only a fact is not enough for argumentation; it is necessary to connect this fact with the argued point of view.

1) For the point of view " The reign of Nicholas I contributed to the strengthening of the state system and the stabilization of the situation in the country", fact " Nicholas I brutally cracked down on the Decembrists' will not be an argument. This fact does not clearly prove that the reign contributed to the stabilization of the situation in the country. The fact is that, on the one hand, the brutal reprisal contributed to the fact that for some time, due to fear of the authorities, the social movement began to decline, but on the other hand, the reprisal against the Decembrists contributed to the intensification of the process of creating illegal societies and circles that introduced an element of destabilization into public life.

2) For the point of view " The foreign policy of the USSR, during the leadership of the country M.S. Gorbachev, corresponded to the interests of the USSR»; fact " Soviet troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan” will not be an argument either in confirmation or in refutation. The fact is that, on the one hand, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan improved the image of the USSR in the eyes of the democratic world community, allowed saving the lives of Soviet citizens and significant material resources, but on the other hand, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan contributed to the loss of Soviet influence in this region, which led to the strengthening of the influence of forces hostile to the USSR there; many politicians regarded the withdrawal of troops as a manifestation of the weakness of the USSR, which contributed to increased external pressure on the country. If a graduate writes these explanations, then the fact of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, of course, can be used to argue both in support and in refutation of this point of view, but a statement of the fact of the withdrawal of troops is not accepted as an argument.

Question. Can statements that do not contain facts explicitly be accepted as arguments?

Answer. They can, in the case when the provisions are based on facts, that is, without understanding what these facts were, the argument could not be deduced. For example:

1) For the point of view " » position « the problem of the budget deficit was solved by cruel and painful methods for the peasants due to the merciless "extortion" of payments and arrears, a sharp increase in indirect taxes on basic necessities, which caused protests that weakened the country” will be an argument in rebuttal. The above provision does not contain small specifics (it does not say who exactly, where and when ordered to extort taxes (orders, decrees, etc.), who extorted them, the places of protests are not named). In the school curriculum, this material is studied at the level of naming processes, without specifying specific facts, so it is not necessary to require graduates to name the numbers and dates of issuance of tax extortion orders. But, if the argument in support is formulated as follows: under Alexander III people took money from banks, bought land and grew rich”, then it is not true, since it does not talk about the policy of Alexander III, and also contains a general estimated (and controversial) provision that “the people grew rich”.

2) For the point of view " ." position " an important element of the industrialization policy was the creation of a system of constant monitoring of the labor discipline of workers, which contributed to an increase in labor productivity' will be taken as an argument. There are no small specifics in this provision, but the provision is based on facts that relate to the period of industrialization in the USSR. But the position workers at that time worked well and built many factories” will not be accepted, since the argument is not related to the policy of industrialization, is expressed in an overly general formulation and is therefore controversial from a historical point of view.

3) For the point of view " The transition to political fragmentation in the second quarter of the XII century. can be considered progress in the development of medieval Russia, its heyday» position « different lands developed their own political structure, their own traditions and styles - in literature, architecture, painting. Increasing diversity, the emergence of new forms - phenomena that testified to progress” is an argument in support. There are no specific examples in the above provision (for example, the land with a republican form of government, the monarchy, the distinctive features of Vladimir, Novgorod architecture, etc. are not named), but the argument is based on an understanding of this specificity. But it is not accepted as a correct argument in support of the position " during the period of political fragmentation, diversity appeared in the life of individual principalities, and this is a sign of progress". In this case, there is no reliance on facts, the expert cannot know what diversity the graduate had in mind (perhaps he meant, for example, the diversity of the animal world).

Question. Are arguments with factual errors accepted?

Answer. If the error is related to facts that are directly used for argumentation, then they are not accepted. For example, when arguing the point of view " The industrial and financial policy of Alexander III contributed to the successful development of Russia”, argument “ the Merchant's Loan Bank, which opened during the reign of Alexander III, issued loans for the purchase of land for personal ownership, which contributed to solving the problem of peasant land shortage”We do not accept, since the bank mentioned in the answer was created back in the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna.

Question. If a graduate wrote two statements that refer to different arguments in the criteria, but combined them into one argument (indicating with a number, for example, “1”), should they be taken as two different arguments?

Answer. If the child designated the position as one argument, then the expert considers it, in accordance with the decision of the graduate, as one argument. For example, when arguing the point of view " Industrialization policy contributed to the progressive development of the Soviet economy in the second half of the 1920-1930s." The graduate formulated the following argument: Hundreds of enterprises producing products for the needs of the national economy were built, large-scale electrification of the national economy was carried out, which increased the economic and resource potential of the development of the national economy". Although the provisions on the construction of enterprises and electrification are indicated in the criteria as different arguments, but since the graduate wrote them in one, then we consider them as one.

However, if the same thought is conveyed in two different arguments (only in different words), then we combine and take it as one. For example, when arguing the point of view " The state policy of the USSR during the leadership of the country N.S. Khrushchev had a pronounced social orientation” the graduate wrote arguments in support of: “ 1) during this period, the Law on Pensions for Workers and Employees was adopted, according to which the amount of pensions was doubled, and the retirement age was reduced, as a result of which the material well-being of the country's citizens increased; 2) as a result of the policy pursued by N.S. Khrushchev, the retirement age of citizens became the lowest in the world, which contributed to an increase in life expectancy". Both of these arguments are built on the same facts and, in fact, repeat each other. When evaluating, it is counted as one correct argument.

FAQ according to a historical essay (No. 25)

Question . What essay should be evaluated if the graduate wrote essays not for one, but for two or three periods?

Answer. The first essay is evaluated. You can't choose the best.

Question. In what part of the essay should there be events (processes, phenomena) that can be counted according to K1?

Answer. They can be in any part of the essay. The essay does not have to begin with an indication of two events (processes, phenomena).

Question. Is it possible to count events (processes, phenomena) as two events (processes, phenomena) when one is a part of the other (for example, the “Decembrist movement” and the creation of the Southern Society)?

Answer. Yes, you can.

Question. Did we understand correctly that the role of the individual in task 25 can be indicated in any correct events (processes, phenomena) named in the text of the essay, and not only in those that the graduate indicates exactly as events (when children list two events at the beginning of the essay and focus on the fact that these are events, and not something else)?

Answer. Yes, the role can be indicated in any events (processes, phenomena) named in the essay. But it is necessary that these events (processes, phenomena) be present in the composition at all. Once again, we note that it is not at all necessary that an essay should begin with an indication of events. Events (processes, phenomena) from the selected period of history should be counted according to the K1 criterion, in whatever part of the essay they are located.

Question. Is it possible to consider as a specific action the accession to the throne ... (succeeded to the throne ...) or abdication from the throne.

Answer.« Ascension to the throne". Action always means meaningful volitional effort. The accession of a tsar (emperor) to the throne is a necessary act of state under the conditions of a monarchical form of government (just like the election of the highest authorities in a republic) and it (in this formulation) does not depend on the volitional efforts (actions) of the one who ascends to the throne. throne. We do not consider the wording "ascended to the throne" as a specific action. But, for example, in order to ascend the throne, Nicholas I had to sign a manifesto on accession to the throne, appoint an extraordinary meeting of the State Council, appoint a second oath, etc. All these are concrete actions aimed at assuming the throne. They need to be counted.

« Abdication". This is a completely different situation. Abdication of the throne is not a necessary state act under the conditions of a monarchy, it is always a specific (occurring at the same time) meaningful volitional effort. Therefore, "Nicholas II abdicated the throne" is a specific action, in fact, synonymous with the signing of the abdication manifesto.

Question. led an uprising».

Answer. No, this is not a specific action. Such a wording cannot be considered a one-time volitional act. To lead the uprising E.I. Pugachev had to escape from prison, identify himself at a meeting with the Cossacks as Peter III, explain, hiding his illiteracy, that he could not sign papers until he reached St. Petersburg, etc. All of these are specific actions that made up the process in which he led the uprising.

Question. Can it be considered a specific action? Arakcheev, at first spoke out against the introduction of military settlements, however, having received instructions, he began to clearly and unquestioningly execute them.».

Answer. Yes, it is accepted. In this case, the action of A.A. Arakcheeva (decision, act of will): “ opposed", but became" strictly execute". It is obvious that the volitional decision of the historical figure, which was directly expressed in his activity, is named.

Question. « V.M. Molotov and Ribbentrop signed the Non-Aggression Pact between the USSR and Germany…”, “M . Egorov and M. Kantaria hoisted the Banner of Victory over the Reichstag...» Is it the actions of one or two persons?

Answer. These are concrete actions of two personalities. Note that these are actions, not roles. In order to characterize the roles, it is necessary not only to name specific actions, but also to indicate in which events (processes, phenomena) the named historical figures played a role, carrying out these actions.

Question. Is it possible to go beyond the period when indicating causal relationships?

Answer. Yes, in accordance with the wording given in the task, it is possible to go beyond the lower boundary of the period. For example, when choosing the period January 1725 - July 1762, one can write that the reason for the beginning of the era of palace coups was the publication by Peter I of the decree on succession to the throne, despite the fact that the decree was issued in 1722. investigative links can not go out.

Question. The situation when, other things being true, there is an incorrect / inaccurate / incorrect statement (separated by commas, in the enumeration), from which the general consequence follows. Can an expert count only the correct part, and display an incorrect one in an error?

Answer. For an accurate answer to this question, you need to see the specific essay from which the described situation is taken. As a general rule, a consequence deduced from erroneous causes is not a consequence. But, if it is obvious that in addition to the wrong reasons for the named consequence, the correct ones are also indicated, and the incorrectness of one of the indicated reasons does not affect the correctness of the others, then the correct causal relationship is counted, and the incorrect position is taken into account when scoring points for factual errors.

Question. How to evaluate the answer according to the K3 criterion, if the graduate names several reasons for the same event? For example: " Causes of the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774. were Russia's desire to gain access to the Black Sea and Turkey's opposition to the strengthening of Russian influence in Poland". Are we counting two causal relationships or one relationship in such an answer?

Answer. In the above example, the expert counts two causal relationships.

Question. « During the reign of Alexander I military settlements were created that lasted until 1857 .". Is it enough to give one point according to the K4 criterion?

Answer. In this example, there is no assessment of the impact of events (phenomena, processes) of this period on the further history of Russia. The fact of existence does not indicate influence. The expert would give 1 point according to the K4 criterion if the graduate wrote, for example, like this: “ The creation of military settlements led to uprisings of military settlers, which also took place in subsequent reigns (for example, a revolt of military settlers in the Novgorod province in 1831)».

Question. If a graduate writes task 25 in the form of a plan, rather than a coherent text, can a mere mention of the correct term related to the selected period, which is given the correct definition in the answer, be given 1 point? That is, the term is not woven into the fabric of the narrative, but the child knows its meaning.

Answer. Yes, in this case we set 1 point for K5.

Question. Is it possible to evaluate the essay on K3 first, and then on K2?

Answer. No, the essay must be evaluated sequentially according to all criteria. Failure to comply with this rule will inevitably lead to a discrepancy between the scores of the first and second experts.

Instructions for evaluating the detailed answers of USE participants
for an expert checking answers
for tasks with a detailed answer 20-25 in the history of 2018

When assessing tasks 20 it is recommended to pay attention to the indications given in some cases about the required degree of detail of the answer, the possibility of different formulations of the answer. For example, if the assignment is about a decree on uniform inheritance, and the assignment is formulated as follows: “Name, within a decade, the time of issuance of this decree,” then the correct answer is "1710s", as well as those answers in which graduates named years that fit into this decade, for example: "1714", "1715", "1719" etc. But the answer "First quarter of the 18thin." will be incorrect.

When assessing tasks 21 it should be taken into account that the criteria for assessing task 21 are, as a rule, “closed” and cannot be “expanded” by new provisions that differ in meaning from those given in the criteria.

At completing task 21, the graduate is not required to accurately rewrite the relevant fragments of the text, so the answers of the graduate who stated the answer in his own words may not coincide with the positions given in the criteria. In such cases, each wording given by the graduate needs to be carefully reviewed to determine whether it is appropriate for the assignment.

AT task 22 the criteria are "open": the semantic discrepancy between the answers of graduates and the approximate answers given in the criteria is allowed. In this case, the expert must critically analyze the answer of the examinee and determine whether the answer is a possible "extension" of the criteria, whether it corresponds to the conditions of the task.

When assessing tasks 23 it should be borne in mind that the criteria cannot contain all possible correct formulations of the graduates' answers and may not take into account some areas of graduates' thoughts that are potentially possible during the assignment and formally meet the requirements for a correct answer to this question. Therefore, the criteria for checking and evaluating the performance of task 23 contain an explanation that directs the expert to analyze all the answers of graduates, including those that absolutely do not match the answers given in the evaluation criteria. For example: “other reasons may be given, other explanations may be given”, “other names, other differences may be given”, etc. We recommend paying special attention to the historical accuracy of the provisions cited in the answer. Provisions based on facts that do not correspond to historical reality cannot be accepted.

Alumni response to task 24 should consist of two parts: argumentation in support of this point of view and argumentation in its refutation. When evaluating, the quality of the argumentation and the number of arguments presented are taken into account. The number of correctly given arguments does not mean automatic assignment of the same number of points for task 24. If a graduate gave only one correct argument to confirm or refute this point of view, then he will receive 0 points for the task. If the graduate gave only two arguments to support this point of view or only two arguments to refute it, then he will receive 1 point. If he managed to give one argument in support and one in refutation of this point of view, then for these two arguments he will receive 2 points, since in the second case he was able to look at the problem from different angles, demonstrating the appropriate skill, and his answer should be rated higher than in the first case. The graduate will receive 3 points for the task if he correctly gives two arguments in support and one in refutation, or one argument in confirmation and two in refutation. For two correctly specified arguments in support and two in refutation, the graduate will receive
4 points.

It is impossible to present all possible arguments for each of the two points of view in the evaluation criteria, so the expert must understand whether the content of the argumentation proposed by the graduate corresponds to the point of view given in the assignment.

To complete the task, it is not enough for the graduate to give only the facts - it is necessary to formulate full arguments. This means that the examinee must explain how, with the help of the given fact, this theoretical position can be argued, unless, of course, the connection between the fact and the position is obvious. If the answer contains only facts (it does not say why these facts confirm / refute the argued point of view), then it is necessary to analyze these facts and conclude whether they really clearly confirm / refute the proposed point of view, or with the help of the given facts it is possible to make arguments both in support and in refutation of this point of view. In the second case, the given facts should not be counted as the correct answer. If the answer does not contain specific facts, but generalizing provisions, then the expert must analyze these provisions in terms of the connection of these provisions with specific content (facts) and their sufficiency in order to accept them as arguments.

It must be remembered that arguments based on erroneous historical facts do not count.

Graduates are given an algorithm for completing assignments. However, if the graduate did not fill out the answer in accordance with this algorithm and did not write which of arguments are given in support, and which -
in rebuttal, the expert doesn't care checks the execution of the task, trying to understand the ownership of the arguments by their content.

When assessing tasks 20-24 admitted historical inaccuracies do not lead to a special reduction of the score. However, in case of a significant distortion of the meaning of the answer, the erroneous position is not counted. For example, an error in the initials of a historical figure, provided that the surname is correctly indicated, as a general rule, does not affect the score, but if an error in the initials does not allow you to accurately determine the historical figure that the graduate wanted to name (for example, when indicating D.A. Milyutin instead of N .A. Milyutina), then it will affect the score.

When setting a score for completing tasks 20-24, the expert counts the correct elements of the answer. At the same time, the presence of erroneously specified elements in the answer does not lead to a decrease in the score. For example, when completing task 24, the graduate correctly indicated two arguments in support and two arguments in refutation of the point of view given in the task, and incorrectly indicated one more argument in support and refutation. In this situation, the expert will set the maximum score for the task 24.

When evaluating performance tasks 25 it is necessary to consistently assess the fulfillment of the requirements of each of the criteria K1-K7.

According to the first criterion (K1) points are given for the correct indication of events (processes, phenomena) related to the period of Russian history chosen by the graduate. For the correct indication of two events (processes, phenomena), the expert must give 2 points, for the correct indication of one event (process, phenomenon) - 1 point. When evaluating according to the K1 criterion, only the indication of events (processes, phenomena) is evaluated, but their connection with each other, the sequence of presentation, etc. are not taken into account.

According to K2 criterion the indication of historical figures whose activities are associated with the named events (phenomena, processes), and the characteristics of the role of these personalities in the named events (phenomena, processes) are evaluated. The role of a historical personality should be understood as its specific actions that largely influenced the course and (or) the result of the events (processes, phenomena) indicated in the essay. Concrete actions are meaningful volitional efforts, which are always of a single nature and are expressed in the direct manifestation of personal activity by a historical figure. Moreover, by actions in history we mean social actions, and not biological processes.

Events (processes, phenomena) in which the person played the role described in the essay must be named.

To set the maximum score according to the K2 criterion, the answer must name two historical figures and the roles (specific actions) of both in the events (phenomena, processes) named in the essay.

An indication of the role of a person in an event should not be replaced by an indication of other characteristics (for example, position held, title, etc.).

Correctly indicated figures in the history of foreign countries and the characteristics of their role in the events (phenomena, processes) named in the essay are accepted as the correct answer.

According to K3 criterion the indication in the essay of causal relationships is evaluated. A causal relationship should be understood as a relationship between historical events (processes, phenomena), in which one event (process, phenomenon), called a cause, under certain historical conditions, gives rise to another event (process, phenomenon), called a consequence. When indicating cause-and-effect relationships, not only causes, but also prerequisites for events (phenomena, processes) can be used. These cause-and-effect relationships should characterize the causes of events (phenomena, processes) occurring in the given period. It means that they can go beyond the lower boundary of the period. Cause-and-effect relationships indicated by a graduate within a given period should not be confused with an assessment of the significance of a given period, which, although it has certain characteristics of causal relationships, always goes beyond the upper limit of a given period of history. According to the K3 criterion, indications of the role of the individual in the events (processes, phenomena) of a given period (already taken into account by the K2 criterion) are not taken into account, even if these role indications contain elements of cause-and-effect relationships.

According to K4 criterion a graduate can get one point for the correct indication of the assessment of the impact of events (phenomena, processes) of a given period on the further history of Russia. An assessment is a conclusion about the impact of events (phenomena, processes) of a given period on subsequent eras. This means that the graduate must necessarily go beyond the upper limit of the period. According to the criteria, an assessment can be given based on historical facts and (or) the opinions of historians. This means that it is not necessary to indicate the opinions of historians in the work; a graduate can only use knowledge of the facts to assess the period. A general wording devoid of specific content cannot be counted.

According to K5 criterion the use of historical terminology is evaluated. Under the historical term follows understand a word or phrase denoting a historical concept associated with a specific historical event, characteristic of a specific historical period (epoch) or the historical process as a whole. To get 1 point according to the K5 criterion, it is enough for a graduate to correctly use one historical term in a historical essay. The term must be inscribed in the context of the essay, naming the term outside the context of the essay cannot be recognized as its correct use.

According to K6 criterion the presence/absence of factual errors in the essay is assessed. According to this criterion, the work is evaluated only if, according to the criteria K1-K4, the graduate scored at least 4 points. Criterion K6 is "reverse", i.e. the graduate, as it were, initially receives 2 points, but on the condition that he does not make factual errors in the essay. When evaluating the work according to this criterion, factual errors of any nature made in any part of the essay are taken into account: incorrect indication of events (phenomena, processes); incorrect indication of historical figures; errors in the facts of their biographies; incorrectly indicated cause-and-effect relationships, estimates of the significance of the period; errors in indicating the opinions of historians (for example, the assessment of the significance of the Horde dominion given by L.N. Gumilyov is attributed to B.A. Rybakov), etc. It should be noted that we are talking about factual errors; stylistic, grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors made by the graduate are not taken into account.

According to K7 criterion the form of presentation is evaluated. According to this criterion, as well as according to the K6 criterion, the work is evaluated only if the graduate scored at least 4 points according to the K1-K4 criteria. The graduate's answer can be either a consistent, coherent presentation of the material (historical essay), or separate fragmentary provisions (for example, in the form of a plan (simple, complex, thesis), tables, diagrams). In the first case, the graduate will receive 1 point according to the K7 criterion, in the second - 0 points.

When evaluating task 25, it should be taken into account that in the case when historical events (phenomena, processes) are not indicated or all specified historical events (phenomena, processes) do not belong to the selected period, the answer is rated 0 points (for each of the criteria K1-K7, 0 points).

If a graduate wrote an essay not for one, but for two or three periods, then the expert checks the first of the essays written by the graduate.

Subscribe and follow the release of new publications in my Vkontakte community "History of the Unified State Examination and Stepan the Cat"

The dynamics of the USE results in the history of 2018 in relation to the results of 2017 and 2016 is shown in the table below.

The table shows that the results of the exam in 2018 are comparable to the results of the USE in 2017. Apparently, this is due to the stabilization after 2016 of the USE exam model in history.

More detailed analytical and methodological materials of the USE 2018 are available at the link.

Our website contains about 3500 assignments for preparing for the exam in history in 2018. The general plan of the examination paper is presented below.

PLAN OF THE EXAMINATION WORK OF THE USE IN HISTORY OF 2019

Designation of the level of difficulty of the task: B - basic, P - advanced, C - high.

Correspondence between the minimum primary scores and the minimum test scores of 2018. Order on amendments to Appendix No. 2 to the order of the Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science. .

OFFICIAL SCALE 2019

THRESHOLD SCORE
By order of Rosobrnadzor, a minimum number of points is established, confirming the mastering of the main general educational programs of secondary (complete) general education by the participants in the exams in accordance with the requirements of the federal state educational standard of secondary (complete) general education. HISTORY THRESHOLD: 9 primary points (32 test points).

EXAM FORMS
You can download high quality forms from