The following article investigates the achievement
test, which was designed by Uzbekistan Teachers of
English Association (UZTEA) administrations for Year
2 students of lyceums. The target of this research is to
discuss the test constructions and suggest more reliable
version of them if the reason of unsatisfactory results
depends on principles of assessment. The importance
of the Test Modifcation Project for English language
teachers is that the result of tests tends to be under the
impact of test quality. In order to make it clear, the
differences between ready given tests and modifed
versions will be discussed according to test specifcations
through following steps
The following article investigates the achievement
test, which was designed by Uzbekistan Teachers of
English Association (UZTEA) administrations for Year
2 students of lyceums. The target of this research is to
discuss the test constructions and suggest more reliable
version of them if the reason of unsatisfactory results
depends on principles of assessment. The importance
of the Test Modifcation Project for English language
teachers is that the result of tests tends to be under the
impact of test quality. In order to make it clear, the
differences between ready given tests and modifed
versions will be discussed according to test specifcations
through following steps
| № | Author name | position | Name of organisation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Khasanova D.K. | EFL teacher of the department classical oriental literature and source study. | International Islamic Academy оf Uzbekistan |
| № | Name of reference |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1. Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing language profciency: The interface between learning and Assessment. London Press. 2. Eshboyeva D. A. Effective ways in teaching English language //Актуальные проблемы гуманитарных и естественных наук. – 2014. – №. 8-1. – С. 312-313. 3. Шамсематова Б. Р. МЕТОД ПРОЕКТОВ НА УРОКАХ АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА //Актуальные проблемы гуманитарных и естественных наук. – 2019. – №. 2. – С. 96-99. 4. 4. Джумаева Н. Э., Сохибов А. Р. Педагогические термины и понятия //КАРШИ: Каршинский государственный университет. – 2014. – Т. 70. 5. 5. Eshboeva D. A. THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY // Modern Science. – 2016. – №. 6. – С. 77-79. 6. Bachman, L., & Plamer , A.S (1996). Language testing in practice. New York: Oxford University Press 7. Brown, H. D (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.) White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. 8. Brown, J. D. (1998). New ways of classroom assessment. Alexandra, VA: Teachers of Englis To Speakers of other languages. 9. Chun , C. (2005). An analysis of a language test for employment: The authenticity of the Phone Pass test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3, 295-308 10. Hughes A. (1981). Conversational cloze as a measure of oral ability. English Language Teaching Journal35:161-8 11. Swain, M. (1990). The language of French immersion students: Implications for theory and practice. In J.E. Alatis (Ed.) Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics (pp.401-412). Washington. DC: Georgetown University Press. 12. Resolution № 272 of Cabinet of Ministry of Republic of Uzbekistan on 1996, July 31 “On the Establishment of Banking College” 13. Resolution №143 of Cabinet of Ministry № “On measures to accelerate equipping classes Foreign languages of educational institutions in the Republic with the modern information- communication equipment, technical means of teaching in 2013-2016”. May 23,2013 |