INDICATORS FOR EVALUATING AND MONITORING THE QUALITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN GENERAL SECONDARY SCHOOLS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23032012Аннотация
Foreign language teaching in Uzbekistan’s general secondary schools has expanded considerably since the 2012 reform of the language-learning system, but school leaders still lack practical tools for judging whether the quality of instruction is actually improving. This article synthesises international theory on language education and quality assurance - the CEFR, constructive alignment, formative assessment, instructional leadership, school-effectiveness research, and the structure - process - outcome model - together with Uzbek methodological literature, to propose a Foreign Language Education Quality Monitoring Framework (FLEQMF). The framework organises quality into six dimensions: learning outcomes, classroom process, teacher competence, assessment and feedback, learning environment, and school leadership. For each dimension, it specifies indicators, evidence sources, and responsibilities, combined into a practical annual monitoring cycle. The article is conceptual, drawing only on published theory rather than original empirical data. Its novelty lies in combining recognised international quality models with locally grounded literature into a single instrument designed for use by school leadership in the general secondary school context.Ключевые слова
foreign language education, quality assurance, monitoring indicators, CEFR, instructional leadership, general secondary schoolБиблиографические ссылки
1. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.
2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
4. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment - Companion Volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
6. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness: A Contribution to Policy, Practice and Theory in Contemporary Schools. London: Routledge. AKTABGACHA VA AKTABGACHA VA AKTAB TA’LIMI AKTAB TA’LIMI
7. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
8. Donabedian, A. (1966). Evaluating the quality of medical care. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 44(3), 166–206. (Originally developed for health care; used in this article only as a conceptual analogy.)
9. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34.
10. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.
11. Jalolov, J. J. (2012). Chet til o‘qitish metodikasi [Foreign Language Teaching Methodology]. Tashkent: O‘qituvchi.
12. Kulmatov, B. G. (2018). Aspects of the formation and development of professional competence of EFL teachers in Uzbekistan. Foreign Languages in Uzbekistan (O‘zbekistonda xorijiy tillar), 2(21).
13. Nazirova, S. O., Jalolova, S. M., Agzamova, D. B., Mamatova, F. M., & Yusupova, S. B. (2023). The problems faced by teachers in teaching English as a foreign language in Uzbekistan. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(12), e2698. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i12.2698
14. OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. Paris: OECD Publishing.
15. President of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2012). Resolution No. PQ-1875, “On Measures for the Further Improvement of the System of Learning Foreign Languages,” 10 December 2012.
16. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.
17. Scheerens, J. (1990). School effectiveness research and the development of process indicators of school functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(1), 61–80.
18. UNESCO. (2005). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: Education for All - The Quality Imperative. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. AKTABGACHA VA AKTABGACHA VA AKTAB TA’LIMI AKTAB TA’LIMI 13.00.00 Pedagogika fanlari 13.00.01 Pedagogika nazariyasi. Pedagogik ta’limotlar tarixi 13.00.02 Ta’lim va tarbiya nazariyasi va metodikasi (sohalar bo‘yicha) 13.00.03 Maxsus pedagogika 13.00.04 Jismoniy tarbiya va sport mashg‘ulotlari nazariyasi va metodikasi 13.00.05 Kasb-hunar ta’limi nazariyasi va metodikasi 13.00.06 Elektron ta’lim nazariyasi va metodikasi (ta’lim sohalari va bosqichlari bo‘yicha) 13.00.07 Ta’limda menejment 13.00.08 Maktabgacha ta’lim va tarbiya nazariyasi va metodikasi 13.00.09 Ijtimoiy pedagogika 07.00.00 Tarix fanlari 19.00.00 Psixologiya fanlari 01.00.00 Fizika-matematika fanlari 02.00.00 Kimyo fanlari 03.00.00 Biologiya fanlari 09.00.00 Falsafa fanlari 10.00.00 Filologiya fanlari 11.00.00 Geografiya fanlari AKTABGACHA VA AKTABGACHA VA AKTAB TA’LIMI AKTAB TA’LIMI Mas’ul muharrir: Ramzidin Ashurov
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Copyright (c) 2026 «Maktabgacha va maktab ta’limi» jurnali
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
Как цитировать
Страницы
Цитирование