TALABALARDA ILMIY-OMMABOP MATN YARATISH KOʻNIKMASINI RIVOJLANTIRISHNING LINGVODIDAKTIK MODELI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66345/stj.6491Keywords:
ilmiy-ommabop matn, lingvodidaktika, ilm-fan kommunikatsiyasi, akademik yozuv, havoza texnologiyasi, matn kompetensiyasiAbstract
Mazkur maqolada oliy ta’lim muassasalarida tahsil oluvchi talabalarda ilmiyommabop matn yaratish koʻnikmasini rivojlantirishning lingvodidaktik asoslari tadqiq etilgan. Oliy ta’limning dastlabki bosqichlarida tahsil olayotgan talabalardan ilmiy uslubda yozishni talab qilish ularning ijodiy va intellektual faolligini susaytiradi. Mazkur muammoning yechimi sifatida talabaning kundalik nutqiy koʻnikmalari va tafakkurini ilmiy muloqot tizimiga bogʻlovchi oraliq didaktik koʻprik — ilmiy-ommabop matn ustida ishlashning bosqichma-bosqich modeli taklif etilgan. Maqolada Avstraliyaning Kvinslend universiteti olimlari tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan “Ilm-fan kommunikatsiyasining 12 ta asosiy koʻnikmasi” loyihasi oʻzbek tili ta’limining lingvistik va milliymetodik xususiyatlari kontekstida moslashtirish qilinib, amaliy mashqlar tizimi asoslab berilgan.
Downloads
References
1. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2013). An instrument for assessing scientists' written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35(1), 56-85.
2. Barrie, S., Hughes, C., Smith, C., & Thomson, K. (2009). Key issues to consider in the renewal of learning and teaching experiences to foster Graduate Attributes. National GAP Issues Papers. 1105 4 5/1
3. Besley, J. C., & Tanner, A. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239-263.
4. Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6-E10.
5. Doniyorov, S. (2012). Matn lingvistikasi va uning didaktik imkoniyatlari. Toshkent: Fan.
6. Fog, K., Budtz, C., Munch, P., & Blanchette, S. (2010). hikoyaviy bayon: Branding in practice. Frederiksberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
7. Gray, F. E., Emerson, L., & MacKay, B. (2005). Meeting the demands of the workplace: Science students and written skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(4), 425-435.
8. Gʻulomov, A., & Ne’matov, H. (1995). Ona tili ta’limi metodikasi. Toshkent: Oʻqituvchi.
9. Herok, G., Chuck, J., & Millar, T. (2013). Teaching and evaluating graduate attributes in science based disciplines. Creative Education, 4(7), 42-49.
10. Knight, P. T. (2001). Complexity and curriculum: A process approach to curriculum-making. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 369-381.
11. Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Kuchel, L. (2015). Core Skills for Effective Science Communication: A Teaching Resource for Undergraduate Science Education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 5(4), 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573.
12. Murray, R. (2013). Writing for Academic Journals. Open University Press.
13. Pope-Ruark, R. (2011). Know thy audience: Helping students engage a threshold concept using audience-based pedagogy. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 6.
14. van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Meijman, F. J. (2008). Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 89-103.
