or assertions in a text, to evaluate texts, but also how to create their own with confidence and

creative flair.
Instead we should be investing in more teachers to work with the children who need more
intensive support. Our public schools should be appropriately funded to provide rich authentic
resources and ongoing teacher professional learning. These are the things that will make a
difference.
All in all, the good results can to a part be explained by the technology used, to a part by the
social arrangements, but in particular by the two together. Clearly the technology has helped as
motor skills do not make so much of a difference when using a keyboard as compared to writing
letters with a pencil. On a computer screen, everybody's letters are just as good looking and
therefore more easily to be read by other students. Alsothe students who yet not were able to read
could participate completely in all kind of communication between the classmates by using the
speech technology to read the different texts and be able to write feedback to their classmates. We
believe that the fact that all the students, regardless of their different level of development
concerning reading and writing, due to technology have published their texts, commented on each
other texts, and made improvements subsequently have made an important difference.

References

1. ACER (2005). Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading: Comprehension and vocabulary

(3rd edition)./Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research. Рp. 95-103.
2. Alton-Lee A. (2007). The Iterative Best Evidence Synthesis Programme, New Zealand. In
CERI, Evidence in Education: Linking research and policy. Рp. 71-79.
3. [Electronic Resource]. URL:
http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/publications/curriculum/bes-qua-tea-diverse.html/
(date of access: 30.03.2021).

OBSERVATION AS DATA COLLECTING TOOL

Khojikulov Sh.K.
Khojikulov Sh.K. OBSERVATION AS DATA COLLECTING TOOL

Khojikulov Shukrulla Kodirovitch – Teacher,

DEPARTMENT OF METHODOLOGY OF TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE,
ENGLISH LANGUAGES FACULTY 2,
UZBEK STATE WORLD LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY,
TASHKENT, REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

Abstract: direct observation of classrooms is the best methodology available for studying how
teachers teach — the central focus of this inquiry. Moreover, teachers may report that they engage
in instructional practices thought to be desirable more than they actually do. For both reasons,
teacher self-reports (for example, teacher surveys and interviews) are unlikely to represent teacher
behavior accurately.
Keywords: observation, interview, observers, data collecting tools, questionnaire.

Observation overcomes one of the key disadvantages of interviews and questionnaires, i.e. that
the responses provided may not be accurate. Student surveys may capture students’ attitudes
toward what teachers do but are unlikely to provide a complete and accurate picture of teachers’
actual behavior. Such inaccuracies occur due to the respondents:
o Lack of an accurate memory of what they did
o Deliberate lies to make them appear better than they are
o Desire to tell the researcher what they think the researcher wants to hear.

86
 Observation can be used where it is not possible to collect data using interviews or
questionnaires, such as when the study participants are animals, babies, young children, persons
who do not share a common language, or persons with some forms of disability.
Observation of behaviour may affect the behaviour the researcher wants to observe, e.g.
children in a classroom may behave differently if there is an observer present than when there is no
observer in the classroom.
Many events are not open to observation.
o Behaviour that is private, e.g. activities that take place within private homes.
o Events that are unpredictable, so the researcher does not know when and where to be present,
e.g. mob riots.
o Events that are unsafe for the researcher to attend, e.g. tsunamis, bush fires.
As noted above, observations were conducted in English/language arts classes and in math
classes. Teachers were assured that the observations were being conducted solely for the purpose
of research, that the observers were not there to evaluate them, and that the observations would not
be shared with school or district personnel.
Essentially, observers were simply asked to observe as many classes as possible. Although initially
they were instructed to observe each math and language arts teacher two to three times, the limited time
available for observations made this infeasible, and the large majority of teachers were observed only
once. No effort was made to observe equal numbers of English and math classes.
Neither was an attempt made to select classes at random for observation. Even if this had been
done, it is likely that the researchers would have confronted problems actually conducting such
observations. Even when they set up advance appointments or sent memos informing teachers and
principals that observations would be conducted during a certain time frame, some teachers
claimed to be unaware that an observation had been scheduled and asked that it be rescheduled.
Some observers opined that they encountered resistance especially from teachers who were hostile
to the First Things First reform. The observers also suspected that teachers did not want them to visit
classes in which students often misbehaved or for which lesson plans were poorly prepared.
The observers reported that it became easier to conduct the classroom observations over time.
Initially, it was hard for observers to concentrate, since classrooms were active places in which
many things were happening simultaneously; gradually they learned to filter out extraneous
subject matter. Observers also figured out how better to deal with the volume of information to be
recorded. One observer found that she was writing so much that she developed hand cramps and
ended up buying a laptop computer.
Also, during later rounds of data collection, observers came to school with several classrooms
in mind, so that if one class was not suitable, another could be observed. In such circumstances,
the observers were likely to choose a nearby classroom, since they had only limited time to get to
the next class and prepare for the observation. Thus, their task also became easier as they got to
know the physical layout of the schools better.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the behavior of both students and teachers was somewhat
altered by the observers’ presence. There were several instances of teachers remarking that
students were better behaved because a visitor was there; the observers felt, too, that students
sometimes “acted out” more because they were being watched. At least one observer suspected
that teachers acted in a friendlier way toward their students than was normally the case.

References

1. O’Malley M. & Valdez Pierce L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners.
New York: Addison-Wesley.
2. Perkins D. (1992). Smart schools: from training memories to using minds. New York: The
Free Press.
3. Plavin S. (1998). Questions you always wanted to ask about portfolio but were afraid to ask.
ETAI Forum, IX(3): 44-46.

87