TA’LIM SIFATINI BAHOLASH MEZONLARINI SHAKLLANTIRISH USULLARI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18963956Keywords:
ta’lim sifati, baholash mezonlari, kompetensiyaviy yondashuv, KPI, learning analytics, akkreditatsiya, reyting tizimi, ta’lim samaradorligiAbstract
Mazkur maqolada ta’lim sifatini baholash mezonlarini shakllantirishning nazariy va metodologik asoslari tahlil
qilinadi. Global raqobat sharoitida ta’lim tizimi samaradorligini aniqlash, uning natijadorligini baholash hamda strategik
rivojlanishini ta’minlash muhim ilmiy va amaliy masalalardan biri hisoblanadi. Tadqiqot doirasida xalqaro tajriba, jumladan
OECD, PISA, TIMSS, QS va THE reyting tizimlari o‘rganilib, ta’lim sifatini baholashning indikatorli, kompetensiyaviy,
natijaviy va integral yondashuvlari tahlil qilindi. Maqolada “Input–Process–Output–Outcome–Impact” modeli asosida
ta’lim sifatini kompleks baholash imkonini beruvchi ko‘p darajali mezonlar tizimi taklif etiladi. Shuningdek, raqamli
transformatsiya sharoitida data-driven assessment, learning analytics hamda KPI asosidagi monitoring mexanizmlarining
ta’lim sifatini baholashdagi ahamiyati asoslab berilgan
References
1. Adilov, Z., Tajibaev, J., Rasul-Zade, L., Tursunov, M., Mamadiyarov, Z., & Abdullayev, D. (2025). Exploring virtual reality
and digital twin technologies for sustainable construction training in higher education. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol.
680, p. 00131). EDP Sciences.
2. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2010). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic
revolution. UNESCO.
3. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF00138871
4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
5. Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional
assessment and change. Open University Press.
6. Daniel, J. (2015). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive
Media in Education, 2015(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.al
7. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. MIT Press.
8. Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of learning. Sage Publications.
9. Harvey, L. (2004). The power of accreditation: Views of academics. Quality in Higher Education, 10(3), 207–223.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832042000299516
10. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102
11. Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in
Education, 11(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462047
12. Kettunen, J. (2008). A conceptual framework to help evaluate the quality of institutional performance. Quality Assurance
in Education, 16(4), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810906472
13. Makhmudov, S., Karlibaeva, G. H., Mamadiyarov, Z., Khamdamov, S. J., Yadgarov, A. A., Ibragimova, I. R. Q., &
Jumadullayeva, D. S. Q. (2024). Economic forecasting in higher education: ARIMA model application for financial
planning at Tashkent State University of Economics. In International Conference on WorldS4 (pp. 503–513). Springer
Nature Singapore.
14. Mamadiyarov, Z., Atajanova, A., Iskandarov, E., & Ahmad, M. (2026). Exploring the future of education: A review of VR,
AR, and XR applications. In Critical Ethical and Societal Implications of the Metaverse (pp. 75–108).
15. Marginson, S. (2016). The dream is over: The crisis of Clark Kerr’s California idea of higher education. University of
California Press.
16. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
17. OECD. (2022). Education at a glance 2022: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en
18. Ravikumar, R. N., Aarthi, S., Rai, P. K., & Mamadiyarov, Z. (2026). Intelligent code analysis and feedback generation:
A new paradigm in programming education. In AI Applications in Instructional Education Strategies (pp. 137–170). IGI
Global Scientific Publishing.
19. Ravikumar, R. N., Aarthi, S., Ruzimova, F., & Mamadiyarov, Z. (2026). Training and development in AI-driven education
scaling solutions: K-12 to workforce. In Transforming Education With Data Science in the AI Era (pp. 267–298). IGI
Global Scientific Publishing.
20. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. (2023). QS World University Rankings methodology. https://www.topuniversities.com
21. Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum.
22. Shattock, M. (2010). Managing successful universities. Open University Press.
23. Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5),
30–40.
24. Tam, M. (2001). Measuring quality and performance in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), 47–54.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320120045076
25. UNESCO. (2015). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action. UNESCO Publishing.
26. World Bank. (2020). The human capital index 2020 update: Human capital in the time of COVID-19. World Bank.
https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1552-2
27. Elov, B., Kholikov, A., Abdullayeva, I., Mamadiyarov, Z., & Ruzikulova, A. (2025). Effectiveness of AI chatbots in
promoting informal speaking proficiency and social pragmatic skills in Uzbekistan: A multi-analysis study. Computer-
Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 26(7), 137–161.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 GREEN ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.