Дифференцирования квази-филиформных алгебр

* GULISTON DAVLAT UNIVERSITETI AXBOROTNOMASI, 2014. 
№ 4 *
45 
think longer than choleric and sanguine ones. But neither TOEFL nor IELTS tests take it into account. 
Naturally, preparing for these tests a person starts working not on improving the language level in 
general, but on acquiring certain techniques for passing the test bearing in mind that the test is a pay 
test. To my mind, some requirements of TOEFL and IELTS should be reconsidered, because the main 
objective of any test is to measure the language abilities of candidates rather than their awareness of 
how to pass a test successfully being only supported by guessing the correct answer. 
The washback effect has a negative effect on teaching if the test fails to mirror the teaching 
because in this situation teachers are tempted to make their teaching fit the test, rather than the other 
way round. In designing tests teachers should not ask students to do things which are completely 
different from the activities they have taken part in during their lessons, as that would be clearly unfair. 
Now we are coming to the question of tests‘ evaluation. The greater the differences between 
one administration of a test and another, the greater the differences one can expect between a 
candidates‘s performance on the two occasions. It is apparent that the use of multiple choice items 
permits completely objective scoring. But good multiple choice items are rather difficult to write and 
they always require extensive pre-testing. What is more, they may be inappropriate in many 
circumstances.
An alternative to multiple choice is the open-ended item which has a unique, possibly one-
word, correct response which the candidates produce themselves. This too demands objective scoring, 
because no administrator can predict all possible answers issued by the testee.
Evaluation depends a lot on the type of test. If we deal with indirect or discrete items which 
focus on, say, the correct use of modal verbs or word collocations, and test one thing at a time, then 
evaluation is much easier and objective for administration. Unfortunately, such tests seldom reflect 
real things. Once, I knew a student who successfully did the most complicated grammar tests for 
entering University, but could hardly say a few words about himself. I also know some students who 
passed University entrance tests, but can neither write nor speak English at the level appropriate for 
studying at University. That is why, I think, it would be reasonable to introduce the speaking test in 
addition to the formal tests when entering a foreign language department in Universities. 
Another solution to the problem of objectivity is introducing direct or integrative test items 
which ask students to do something with language (to write a letter, to read and to reply to an article, to 
take part in a conversation). Direct test items are much more difficult to mark than indirect items. This 
is because our response to a piece of writing or speaking will almost certainly be very subjective. 
There are two ways of encountering the danger of marking subjectively. The first is to involve other 
people. When two or three people look at the same piece of writing, we can have more confidence in 
the evaluation of writing. The same can be said about speaking. Two or more people evaluating 
interview can give a more objective mark of a testee. The other way of marking more objectively is to 
use marking scales for a range of different items. For example, we can evaluate separately a s
tudent‘s 
grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation (if we test speaking), coherence, and fluency. Or we can evaluate 
content, organization, word choice, sentence fluency, and the personal voice of the writer or speaker. 
To make marking scales more objective it will be a good idea to write careful descriptions of what the 
different scores for each category actually represent and to make testees aware of such requirements 
beforehand. A student should know exactly what he has to do to score 5 for grammar or for 
organ
ization. Again, here arises the question of the tester. ―And pray who are the judges?‖ said 
Griboedov A. in his famous poem ―Wit works woe‖. The problem of testers‘ qualification remains 
always actual. 
Speaking about testing we can not but mention the issue of motivation. Firstly, students often 
work a lot harder than normal when there is a test in sight. Secondly, they can be greatly encouraged or 
demotivated by the results of tests. Learners who have succeeded in past tests will be more willing to 
engage with the next one, more confident in their chances of succeeding, and more likely to persevere 
in their efforts. The motivating power of tests appears clear: students who know they are going to be 

---