**6. Discussion**

Most of the level of development of prognostic competence depends on the formation of its activity component. This is consistent with Selivanov's statement [12]

the main means of education is the activity of the one being educated. The nature of dependence on each component is non-linear. We conditionally accepted that the formal level of development of predictive competence is less than 60%, but also more than 20%. This is due to the fact that for all students, the ability to predict is formed to one degree or another, but it cannot be stated that a student has a sufficient level of competence for engineering activity with a forecast accuracy of less than 60%. But each of the components formed at a sufficiently high level with the underdevelopment of other components of the competence is not a reason to assume that the prognostic competence is developed at least at the reproductive level. The same can be said about the situation when one of the components is not developed absolutely. In this case, the general level of development of predictive competence is not zero.

At a number of intervals in **Figures 7**–**10** various factors have virtually no effect on the formation of prognostic competence. We can influence only pedagogical factors, and the teacher cannot influence other factors directly, only indirectly. The greatest tangent of the angle of inclination of the dependence of the formation of prognostic competence on pedagogical factors is observed in the interval of the effectiveness of their use, which corresponds to the "above average" estimate.

The level of development of prognostic competence depends both on the frequency of application of prognostic activity and on the applied teaching methods, but nonlinearly. If you do not engage in prediction skills with students, prognostic competence will not be formed. With a very frequent prediction exercise, but without system lessons using pedagogical technologies, only a reproductive level of competence can be achieved. At a number of intervals, both the frequency of application of prognostic activities and the change in the effectiveness of the methodology have practically no effect on the formation of competence.
