Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 5.1 Results of knowledge evaluation of trainees during a semester
Subject
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Linear algebra, CGT
5
7
2
8
9
3
6
0
1
9
Linear algebra, T
6
7
1
7
8
4
7
2
1
10
Analytical geometry, CGT
7
8
4
0
9
7
6
4
1
9
Analytical geometry, T
6
7
6
8
8
8
7
5
1
10
Limits, CGT
5
6
6
9
9
7
7
6
0
9
Limits, T
6
6
7
9
9
8
8
6
1
9
Derivatives, CGT
7
7
7
8
9
8
7
7
1
9
Derivatives, T
9
9
10
9
9
9
10
10
1
9
Indefinite integral, CGT
2
3
4
3
5
5
8
8
1
10
Indefinite integral, T
4
4
5
4
6
6
9
9
0
10
Independent work
6
6
7
6
8
9
10
10
1
10
Classwork
7
8
4
4
5
8
9
9
1
9
Table 5.2 Rating points of knowledge and traditional marks of knowledge evaluation of
trainees in higher mathematics
Number of the
trainee
Traditional marks of knowledge
evaluation
E
n
1
0,506
“C”
2
0,611
“C”
3
0,475
“C”
4
0,672
“C”
5
0,744
“B”
6
0,661
“C”
7
0,735
“B”
8
0,568
“C”
9
0
“F”
10
1
“A”
Using the method described in this paragraph, we obtain the results summarized in
Table 5.2.
Example 5.2. Obtaining of experts rating points. Let us consider an issue of staff
structure [176—179] which consists in obtaining rating points of employees and
assigning one of four qualification levels X , X , X , X to each employee. Lev-
els are arranged in ascending order of their relevant ratings. The questionnaire of-
fered to employees consists of five sections related to educational level, scientific
degree, age, and work experience and language qualifications.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search