INGLIZ TILIDA GAPIRISH VA YOZISH JARAYONINI BAHOLASHDA PEDAGOGIK MEXANIZMLARNI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstrak:
Mazkur maqolada ingliz tilida gapirish va yozish ko‘nikmalarini baholashda pedagogik mexanizmlarni takomillashtirish masalasi yoritilgan. Tadqiqot O’Sullivan (2012) va Weigle (2012) tomonidan ilgari surilgan nazariy yondashuvlarga asoslanib, baholash jarayonining ishonchliligi, haqqoniyligi va amaliy samaradorligini oshirish yo’llarini tahlil qiladi. Og‘zaki nutqni baholashda topshiriq dizayni, suhbatdoshning ta’siri, test topshiruvchining shaxsiy xususiyatlari va baholovchining subyektiv yondashuvi muhim omillar sifatida ko‘rib chiqiladi. Shuningdek, topshiriqlar formatini diversifikatsiya qilish — suhbat, monolog, rolli o‘yin va guruhli muhokama shakllaridan foydalanish — nutq kompetensiyasini har tomonlama namoyon etishga xizmat qilishi ta’kidlanadi. Baholovchilarning tayyorgarligi va kalibrlash jarayonini yo‘lga qo‘yish baholashdagi izchillik va obyektivlikni kuchaytiradi. Yozma nutqni baholashda esa grammatika, so‘z boyligi va fikrni mantiqan tashkil etish o‘rtasidagi muvozanat muhim hisoblanadi. Analitik baholash shkalalari (FSI modeli) yordamida o‘quvchining individual kuchli va zaif tomonlarini aniqlash imkoniyati kengayadi. Shuningdek, baholash jarayonida adolatlilikni ta’minlash — suhbatdoshlar tarkibidagi jins va yosh balansi, sharoitlarning tengligi — testning validligi va ishonchliligini kafolatlaydi. Xulosa sifatida, og‘zaki va yozma nutqni baholashda zamonaviy pedagogik mexanizmlarni qo‘llash til o‘qitish tizimining sifatini oshirishda muhim omil sifatida e’tirof etiladi.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
##submission.howToCite##:
##submission.citations##:
Barkaoui, K. (2007) ‘Participants, text, and processes in ESL/EFL essay tests: A narrative review of the literature’, Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 99–134.
Crusan, D. (2010) Assessment in the Second Language Writing Classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Douglas, D. (2000) Specific Purpose Tests of Reading and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foster, P. va Skehan, P. (1999) ‘The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance’, Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215–247.
Hamp-Lyons, L. va Condon, W. (2000) Assessing the Portfolio: Principles for Practice, Theory, and Research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Kroll, B. va Reid, J. (1994) ‘Guidelines for designing writing prompts: Clarifications, caveats, and cautions’, Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 231–255.
McNamara, T. va Lumley, T. (1997) ‘The effect of interlocutor and assessment mode variables in overseas assessments of speaking skills’, Language Testing, 14(2), 140–156.
O’Sullivan, B. (2000) ‘Exploring gender and oral proficiency interview performance’, System, 28(3), 373–386.
O’Sullivan, B. (2002) ‘Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance’, Language Testing, 19(3), 277–295.
O’Sullivan, B. (2012) ‘Assessing Speaking’, in Coombe, C., Davidson, P., O’Sullivan, B. va Stoynoff, S. (eds.) The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 234–246.
Shaw, S. va Weir, C. (2007) Examining Writing: Research and Practice in Assessing Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S.C. (2002) Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S.C. (2012) ‘Assessing Writing’, in Coombe, C., Davidson, P., O’Sullivan, B. va Stoynoff, S. (eds.) The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 218–224.
Wilds, C.P. (1975) ‘The oral interview test’, in Jones, R.L. va Spolsky, B. (eds.) Testing Language Proficiency. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.