MATN QIYINCHILIGINI BAHOLASHNING TARIXIY ASOSLARI VA ILK MODELLARI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67227/hgczh890Kalit so‘zlar:
matnning murakkabligi, o'qish formulalari, savodxonlikni rivojlantirish, ta'lim asoslari, sifat bahosi, miqdoriy chora-tadbirlar, tabaqalashtirilgan ta'lim, raqamli savodxonlik, kollej va kasbga tayyorlik standartlari (CCRS), tarixiy evolyutsiya.Abstrak
Ushbu tadqiqotda nazariya va amaliyotdagi asosiy o'zgarishlarni ko'rsatish uchun matn murakkabligini baholashning tarixiy evolyutsiyasi tasvirlanadi. Pestalozzi va Dyui nazariyalaridan boshlab, tadqiqot o'n yillar o'tib paydo bo'lgan murakkablikning miqdoriy o'lchovlari orqali Flesch-Kincaid va Lexile kabi formulalar orqali davom etadi. Kollej va kasbga tayyorlik standartlarida (CCRS) aks ettirilgan matnning murakkabligi haqidagi hozirgi fikrlarni muhokama qilish, shuningdek, ushbu doiraga kiritilgan sifat va o'quvchiga qaratilgan xususiyatlarni ta'kidlash kerak.Umumta’lim va maxsus ta’lim sinflaridagi misollardan foydalangan holda, tadqiqot o‘qituvchilarning o‘quv rejasini rejalashtirishda, o‘qitish strategiyalarida va savodxonlikni o‘rganishda matnning murakkabligi haqidagi yangi tushunchalarni qanday moslashtirganligi haqida so‘z yuritadi. Bugungi axborot asrida samarali pedagogikaning ahamiyati ta’kidlanadi va multimodal matnlarni baholash matn(lar)ni baholashga yana bir murakkablik qatlamini qo'shganini ko'rib chiqish bilan yakunlanadi. Umum ta’lim va maxsus ta’lim sinflaridagi misollardan foydalangan holda, tadqiqot o‘qituvchilarning o‘quv rejasini rejalashtirishda, o‘qitish strategiyalarida va savodxonlikni o‘rganishda matnning murakkabligi haqidagi yangi tushunchalarni qanday moslashtirganligi haqida so‘z yuritadi. Bugungi axborot asrida samarali pedagogikaning ahamiyati ta’kidlanadi.
Yuklashlar
Havolalar
1. Pearson P. D., Hiebert E. H. The state of the field: qualitative analyses of text complexity // The Elementary School Journal. — 2014. — Vol. 115, No. 2. — P. 161–183. — URL: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/678297
2. Rodrigo T. V., Jonathan V. M., Jhon A. C. Analyzing readability indices in scholarly and non-scholarly texts: assessing easability and difficulty // Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação. — 2024. — No. E73. — P. 644–660. — URL: https://search.proquest.com/openview/f24ff4368788dc7700981ef1f9080a7d/1
3. Monahan J. L., Lombardi A., Madaus J., Carlson S. R., Freeman J., Gelbar N. A systematic literature review of college and career readiness frameworks for students with disabilities // Journal of Disability Policy Studies. — 2020. — Vol. 31, No. 3. — P. 131–140. — URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1044207320906816
4. Nagro S. A., Fraser D. W., Hooks S. D. Lesson planning with engagement in mind: proactive classroom management strategies for curriculum instruction // Intervention in School and Clinic. — 2019. — Vol. 54, No. 3. — P. 131–140. — URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1053451218767905
5. Schreier M. Qualitative methods in studying text reception // The psychology and sociology of literature. In honor of Elrud Ibsch. — 2001. — P. 35–56. — URL: https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=5015381
6. Dascalu M. Analyzing discourse and text complexity for learning and collaborating. — Studies in Computational Intelligence. — 2014. — Vol. 534. — URL: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-03419-5.pdf
7. Reisman A., Wineburg S. Text complexity in the history classroom: teaching to and beyond the common core // Social Studies Review. — 2012. — Vol. 51. — P. 24–30. — URL: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA371285342
