The Point-Rating System as a Tool for Managing the Quality of Teacher Education

Original article

DOI: 10.15293/1812-9463.2603.03

Denis E. Palatnikov
Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky, Yaroslavl, Russia

Ekaterina N. Shipkova
Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky, Yaroslavl, Russia

Vladimir V. Yudin
Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky, Yaroslavl, Russia

 

 

Abstract. The article is devoted to the problem of introducing a point-rating system into the educational process of a pedagogical university. The use of the point-rating system is considered as a factor that ensures meaningful education, which is relevant today. An analysis of scientific literature and international experience shows that the quality of education is directly proportional to the effectiveness of the rating system. The purpose of this article is to identify the problems that hinder the introduction of the point-rating system into the educational process of a pedagogical university and to provide recommendations for the effective use of this assessment method. The object of this study is the process of organizing intermediate certification of students using the point-rating system. The research base is the Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky. The research methodology is a selective questionnaire survey of respondents among students, professors, and administrative staff of the university; analysis of the educational organization’s activities to ensure the quality of education. A total of 386 people were included in the sample, including 112 university professors and department and dean staff, and 274 full-time undergraduate students. The size of the sample population allows us to speak about the representativeness and reliability of the data obtained. According to the results of the study, two key blocks of problems have been identified that prevent the full-fledged application of point-rating system in the educational process: pedagogical and technical. The conditions that ensure the application of point-rating system as a tool for improving the quality of education have been identified: a subject-oriented approach, timely and constant feedback, unification of point-rating system, and a convenient technical solution. Recommendations for implementing the point-rating system in the educational process of a pedagogical university have been formulated: organizing training for teachers on how to use the point-rating system and how to provide feedback; ensuring the variability of students’ educational trajectories within the framework of disciplines; creating conditions for students to develop their own educational paths; organizing tutoring support for students; and improving the technical features of the system.

Keywords: quality of education; point-rating system; formative assessment methods; student self-assessment; teacher training; educational standards.

For Citation: Palatnikov D. E., Shipkova E. N., Yudin V. V. The Point-Rating System as a Tool for Managing the Quality of Teacher Education. Journal of Pedagogical Innovations, 2026, no. 3 (83), pp. 35–46. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/1812-9463.2603.03

 

 

PDF: download

References

  1. Baeva I. A. Psychological safety of the educational environment: problems and prospects. Psychological Science and Education, 2021, vol. 26, issue 1, pp. 5–16. (In Russian)
  2. Bakhmatova M. I. Quality of education: main approaches to definition and assessment. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 20. Pedagogical Education, 2022, no. 2, pp. 13–24. (In Russian)
  3. Bondarevskaya E. V. Personality-oriented education: the experience of developing a paradigm. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing House of the Rostov-on-Don State Pedagogical University, 1997, 28 p. (In Russian)
  4. Borkovskaya V. G., Kovalev A. S. The point-rating system for assessing students as a tool for improving the quality of higher education. Construction: science and education, 2020, vol. 10, issue 1. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.22227/2305-5502.2020.1.7
  5. Gumennikova Yu. V., Kaidalova L. V., Zolkin A. L. Point-rating system for assessing university students’ knowledge in mathematics. Izvestiya of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Social, Humanitarian, and Medical-Biological Sciences, 2022, vol. 24, issue 4, pp. 29–34. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.37313/2413-9645-2022-24-85-29-34
  6. Ekshikeev T. K., Obukhova I. A. The use of a point-rating system in assessing students’ knowledge formed in an electronic information and educational environment. Information systems and technologies: theory and practice: scientific and technical conference of the Institute of Forest and Nature Management (St. Petersburg, February 25, 2022). Issue 14. Saint Petersburg, 2022, pp. 136–141. (In Russian)
  7. Kadashnikova I. V. Teacher competence as a key factor in the quality of modern education. The World of Science, Culture, and Education, 2023, no. 4 (101), pp. 135–137. (In Russian)
  8. Maltseva N. N., Penkov V. E. Point-rating system: advantages and disadvantages. Higher Education in Russia, 2021, vol. 30, issue 4, pp. 139–145. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-4-139-145
  9. Nikolaeva M. V. “Automat”: to be or not to be. The World of Science, Culture, Education, 2021, no. 6 (91), pp. 96–100. (In Russian) DOI https://doi.org/10.24412/1991-5497-2021-691-96-100
  10. Serikov V. V. Personality-oriented education. Pedagogy, 1994, no. 5, pp. 16–21. (In Russian)
  11. Sidakova N. V. Point-rating system of knowledge control and assessment as a dynamic factor of information openness and stimulation of learning activities. Azimut of Scientific Research: Pedagogy and Psychology, 2018, vol. 7, no. 2 (23), pp. 261–264. (In Russian)
  12. Sazonov B. A. Point-rating systems for assessing knowledge and ensuring the quality of the educational process. Higher Education in Russia, 2012, no. 6, pp. 28–40. (In Russian)
  13. Tarasenko O. V., Dimidenok Zh. A. Point-rating system for assessing students’ knowledge in an agricultural university. Young Scientist, 2014, no. 1, pp. 579–581. (In Russian)
  14. Education Quality Management: a collection of methodological materials. Compiled by O. E. Lebedev. Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN) Publ., 2002, 128 p. (In Russian)
  15. Shipkova E. N. The reasons for the emergence of a special educational demand among students. Pedagogical Journal, 2022, vol. 12, issue 4-1, pp. 483–491. (In Russian)
  16. Shchegoleva T. M., Diyanova Z. V. Point-rating system for monitoring knowledge as a means of developing the learning motivation of bachelor’s students. Izvestiya of Irkutsk State University. Series: Psychology, 2017, no. 20, pp. 103–110. (In Russian)
  17. Yudin V. V. Technological design of the pedagogical process: a monograph. Moscow: University book, 2008, 300 p. (In Russian)
  18. Yakimanskaya I. S. Personality-oriented education in a modern school. Moscow: September Publ., 1996, 128 p. (In Russian)
  19. Bouckaert M. The assessment of students’ creative and critical thinking skills in higher education across OECD countries: A review of policies and related practices. Paris, 2023. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/35dbd439-en
  20. Duckworth A. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2022, 333 p.
  21. Fadel C., Bialik M., Trilling B. Four-Dimensional Education: The Competencies Learners Need to Succeed. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform, 2015, 192 p.
  22. Feszterová M. Teacher education: the key to quality education for future generations. R&E-SOURCE, 2024, pp. 69–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53349/resource.2024.is1.a1242
  23. Granberg C., Palm T., Palmberg B. A case study of a formative assessment practice and the effects on students’ self-regulated learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2021, vol. 68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100955
  24. Häkkinen P., Hämäläinen R. The role of feedback in modern higher education: A study at the University of Helsinki. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2020, vol. 112, issue 5, pp. 927–940.
  25. Huang Y., Deng Z. Chinese higher education evaluation: theoretical analysis and method construction—Based on CIPP theory. Frontiers in Education, 2025, vol. 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1676842
  26. Irons, A., Elkington, S. Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback. Routledge, 2022, 248 p.
  27. Johnson M. Personalized learning and assessment: The role of the grading system in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2020, vol. 45, issue 7, pp. 1038–1050.
  28. Kruiper S. M. A., Leenknecht M. J. M., Slof B. Using scaffolding strategies to improve formative assessment practice in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2022, vol. 47, issue 3, pp. 458–476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1927981
  29. Leenknecht M., Wijnia L., Köhlen M., Fryer L., Rikers R., Loyens S. Formative Assessment as Practice: The Role of Students’ Motivation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2021, vol. 46, issue 2, pp. 236–255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1765228
  30. Müller H. Challenges of the grading system in higher education: Comparative analysis and solutions. International Journal of Educational Research, 2021, vol. 109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101825
  31. Schildkamp K., van der Kleij F. M., Heitink M. C., Kippers W. B., Veldkamp B. P. Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 2020, vol. 103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602

Information about the Authors

Denis E. Palatnikov – Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Vice-Rector for Academic Affairs, Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky, Yaroslavl, Russia, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3374-1473, denipa-1@rambler.ru

Ekaterina N. Shipkova – Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Head of the Educational and Methodological Department, Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky, Yaroslavl, Russia, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9788-1339, kat2006-7@mail.ru

Vladimir V. Yudin – Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Pedagogical Technologies, Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky, Yaroslavl, Russia, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7831-4734, vvyudin2020@yandex.ru

Authors’ contribution: Authors have all made an equivalent contribution to preparing the article for publication.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Received: 17.06.2026; approved after peer review: 10.07.2026; accepted for publication: 18.08.2026.