DOI
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol3-iss2-pp146-151Kalit so‘zlar
yozma muloqot ko‘nikmalari , bo‘lajak ingliz tili o‘qituvchilari , rubrikalar , CEFR , o‘qitish , baholash , pedagogik vosita , fikr-mulohaza , talabaning faolligi , akademik muvaffaqiyat.Annotasiya
Bo‘lajak ingliz tili o‘qituvchilarida yozma muloqot ko‘nikmalarini rivojlantirish muhim ahamiyatga ega. Bu nafaqat ularning akademik muvaffaqiyatiga zamin yaratadi, balki kelajakdagi darslarida yozishni samarali o‘rgatish va baholash uchun zarur bo‘lgan ko‘nikmalarni ham shakllantiradi. Ushbu maqolada yozuvni o‘qitishda yordam beruvchi pedagogik va texnologik vosita sifatida rubrikalarning, ayniqsa, Tillar uchun Umumiy Yevropa Me’yoriy Ramkasi (CEFR) bilan moslashtirilgan rubrikalarning qo‘llanilishi tahlil qilinadi. Maqolada rubrikalar o‘z-o‘zini boshqarishni mustahkamlashi, adolatni ta’minlashi va samarali fikr bildirish imkonini berishi, shuningdek, o‘quv natijalarini xalqaro darajadagi til bilish standartlari bilan uyg‘unlashtirishi ko‘rsatib o‘tilgan. Zamonaviy tadqiqotlarga tayangan holda, maqola til o‘qituvchilari tayyorlov dasturlarida rubrikalardan foydalanishning afzalliklarini bayon qiladi va rubrikalarni ishlab chiqish, joriy etish va talabalarni jalb qilishda duch kelinadigan muammolarni yoritadi. Yozuvni baholash amaliyotlarini samaraliroq qilish hamda fikrlovchi va malakali o‘qituvchilarni shakllantirish uchun o‘qituvchilarni tayyorlash dasturlari uchun amaliy tavsiyalar va ularning ta’siri muhokama qilinadi.
Bibliografik manbalar
Andrade, H. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-30
Arter, J. & Chappuis, J. (2007). Creating and recognizing quality rubrics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
Broad, B. (2000). Pulling your hair out: Crises of standardization in communal writing assessment. Research in the Teaching of
English, 35, 213-260.
Broad, B. (2003). What we really value: Beyond rubrics in teaching and assessing writing. Logan, Utah: Utah State University
Press.
Covill, A. E. (2012). College students' use of a writing rubric: effect on quality of writing, self-efficacy, and writing practices. Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1).
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
North, B. (2014). The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales. Council of Europe.
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
Panadero, E., & Andrade, H. (2018). A review of self-assessment: Past achievements and a way forward. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(4), 584–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1303582
Popham, W. J. (1997). What's wrong--and what's right--with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55, 72-75.
Quinlan, A. M. (2006). A complete guide to rubrics: Assessment made easy for teachers, K-college. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862859
Turley, E. D., & Gallagher, C. W. (2008). On the “uses” of rubrics: Reframing the great rubric debate. English Journal, 97(4), 87–92.
Yuklashlar
40 14Nashr qilingan
Qanday qilib iqtibos keltirish kerak
Nashr
Bo'lim
Litsenziya
Mualliflik huquqi (c) 2025 Гузал Тураева

Ushbu ish Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Worldwide.











