Pedagogical practice-test results assessment criteria, quantity and quality multiplier analysis

As a result of the experimental work carried out in the research area, training on the subjects of oral speech was organized based on the effective educational technology and methodology. As a result, it was found that the level of knowledge of the student on the main subject has increased. For the academic year of Hap Bip, a number of oral language subjects have been compiled.

A questionnaire-questionnaire, an automated multivariate graded test, and an intellectual computer game were used to conduct the experimental work.

Four higher educational institutions mentioned above in order to improve students' basic understanding of oral speech, creative thinking, imagination and thinking in English, and improve their knowledge and skills are Termiz State University, Uzbekistan State University of World Languages, Bukhara State University. Pedagogical experiment was conducted among students of opposite state universities. The results of the conducted research are presented in the attachment.

Experimental work was carried out in higher educational institutions of our Republic. 202 students from Surkhandarya region, 194 students from Tashkent region, 195 students from Bukhara region, and 209 students from Kashkadarya region participated. Respondents-students from experimental areas were attached to the trial work (Table 1).

1-table

Institutions of higher education where the experiment was conducted

№	The name of the university	Number of respondents
		Experimental group	Control group
1	Surkhandarya region	102	100
2	Тashkent region	96	98
3	Bukhara region	99	96
4	Kashkadarya region	105	104
Total:		402	398

Concept mind, mind mapping was mainly used, and the questionnaire was evaluated on the basis of automated graded multivariate test. The obtained results were analyzed and compared between the test and patient groups (Table 3.3.2).

The final distribution on the development of oral competence of future English language teachers (in numbers and percentages)

2-table

	Groups	Number of students	Levels of mastery
			Excelle nt	Good	Satisfactory	Not satisfied
Before experiment	Experimen tal group	402	103	102	102	95
	Control group	398	102	101	99	96
After experiment	Experimen tal group	402	167	128	78	29
	Control group	398	107	104	100	97

The obtained results were analyzed and compared between experimental and patient groups. In order to compare the information in the table above, we create the following diagram.

The graph of the graph suggests that the hypothesis that the statistical table is derived from a population with a non-normal distribution can be advanced. It was found out from diagramm that the high and high multipliers in the experiment group are higher than the multipliers in the control group. Now we will analyze the data of 1 mathematically and statistically.

When comparing the grade multiplier and the number of students in the experimental group, Xi, ni, and similarly, the grade multiplier and Yi, mi, when matching the number of students in the experimental group, we get the following statistically grouped variational curve, as well as an excellent grade with 4 points, good the grade is determined by 3 points, a satisfactory grade by 2 points, and an unsatisfactory grade by 1 point.

coefficient and probability based on the appropriate statistical probability formula.

	Mastery      indicators      in      the      experimental      group:
'X i . n i	4;          3;          2;         1:       4 / P, = 1 0,42     0,32      0,19    0,07   77 i Mastery        rates        in        the        control        group:
'Y i	4;          3;          2;        1:       4 X 4i = 1
. m i	0,27     0,26      0,25    0,22  t1 i We start the statistical analysis by calculating and comparing the absorption

Mastery

indicators

in

the

experimental

group:

X

. n i

<

4;

3;

2;

1:

n = ^ n_; = 402

i=1

<

. m i

Mastery

rates

in

the

control

group:

4;

3;

2;

1:

m = ^ m_; = 398

i=1

In order to facilitate the

statistical analysis, we calculate the

distribution

rate of each of the two groups. The whole sale acquisition multiplier yielded the following results:

x = ^ p. X. = 0.42 • 4 + 0.32 • 3 + 0.19 • 2 + 0.07 • 1 = 3.08

i = i

3 08

X % = — ^100% = 77% y =^T q£ Y. = 0.27 • 4 + 0.26 • 3 + 0.25 • 2 + 0.22 • 1 = 2.58 i=i y % = — • 100% = 64.5%

So, the average learning of students in the experimental group is 10% higher than the average learning of students in the control group (77 -64.5% = 12.5%). This, in turn, shows that the average achievement of the students in the experimental group is higher than

77%

64.5%

= 1.19

the average achievement of the

students in the control group.

Now let's move on to the evaluation of the error rate of the trial and error. First, we calculate the dyspepsia of the selected sample: S_x 2 = S p.X 2 - ( x )² = 0.42 • 4² + 0.32 • 3² + 0.19 • 2² + 0.07 - 1² - 3.08² = 0,94 .

i = 1

Standard error: S_x = 7 0,94 ® 0,96 .

Sy^: = S qY ² - ( y )² = 0-27 • 4² + 0.26 • 3² + 0.25 • 2² + 0.22 • 1² - 2.58² = 1,22 . i = 1

Standard error: S у = 71.22 » 1.1 .

"Экономика и социум" №8(99) 2022