Jalolova nigora jalilovna methods of developing communicative competence of the english language in the

IV. Experimental results and discussions
In educational establishments, including universities, teacher candidates seem to be confronted with the issues because of constantly contacting with methods for improving Communicative Competence of the 1^st year students, too. The findings in this study provide important information that can be applied to all levels of language students and teachers. According to the hypothesis of investigation we try to focus methods and activities which is a viable way for EFL students to improve communicative competence. In order to realize this aim we provide statistic exploration, while believing that teaching communication is necessary for students and believing that CC should include language accuracy. Teaching speaking and communication is necessary, because students need materials to communicate on.
At the beginning of the practicum, the researcher took a pre-test from the


Figure 1
students in order to detect their level. The students were asked to choose a proper cue card to speak on the given cue cards, in fifteen minutes they should have a look at them and give their oral response. The assignment was intended for intermediate level+. According to the results majority of students from both groups stood at pre-intermediate level. While checking the pre-test results, the researcher took notes about each learner and wrote comments. Then she announced their results and gave some advice on how to correct their mistakes.

Experiment Group	Name	Score	Level
1	Mohira	56	Pre-intermediate
2	Jamshid	59	Pre- int.
3	Azizxon	58	Pre-int.
4	Kamola	57	Pre-int.
5	Nodira	59	Pre-int.
6	Sevara	56	Pre-int.
7	Saidxon	56	Pre-int.
8	Madina	55	Pre-int.
9	Guzal	57	Pre-int.
10	Ma’ruf	58	Pre-int.
11	Nafosat	59	Pre-int.
12	Shukur	58	Pre-int.
13	Nargiza	59	Pre-int.
14	Odil	57	Pre--int.
15	Adxam	56	Pre-int.
16	Jalol	55	Pre--int.

Figure 2
Control group members pre-results were almost the same with experiment group, notably; they had only pre-intermediate language ability, except one participant with intermediate level.
Because almost all the students in control group got over than 54 up to 62% from the total amount.

Control group B	Score	Level
Saida	57	Pre-intermediate
Nodira	55	Pre-intermediate
Nargiza	55	Pre-intermediate
Samira	57	Pre-intermediate
Anora	58	Pre-intermediate
Ozoda	59	Pre-intermediate
Bekzod	57	Pre-intermediate
Yulduz	56	Pre-intermediate
Ulugbek	58	Pre-intermediate
Bahodir	59	Pre-intermediate
Shukur	58	Pre-intermediate
Zuxra	59	Pre-intermediate
Fotix	59	Pre-intermediate
Nigmat	58	Pre-intermediate
Saodat	59	Pre-intermediate
Shavkat	61	Intermediate
Oygul	58	Pre-intermediate

The data on progress-test is generally arranged in the Table 3. Scores ranged between ‘0-55%’ consider failing from the test, amounts between ‘60-100%’ consider passing. Each correct answer receives 1 point. In a statistical study a researcher should focus on the behavior/performance.

Experiment Group	Name	Score	Frequency
1	Mohira	78	1
2	Jamshid	80	1
3	Azizxon	82	1
4	Kamola	85	1
5	Nodira	86	1
6	Sevara	70	1
7	Saidxon	74	2
8	Madina	68	1
9	Guzal	72	1
10	Ma’ruf	77	1
11	Nafosat	87	1
12	Shukur	74	-
13	Nargiza	75	1
14	Odil	81	1
15	Adxam	76	1
16	Jalol	71	1

From the set scores it is clear that two members in a group Sevara and Madina
w ere deserved for weakness because of their regularly missing the lessons. They did not engage in direct grammar


Figure 3

instruction despite their strong beliefs about its importance in L2 learning. These two participants perceived that consequences for violating curriculum and policy prohibitions were too serious to ignore.

According to the statistical comparison of initial and progress-tests it is undoubtedly clear that experiment group members had an opportunity to raise their level from pre-intermediate up to upper-intermediate. From the graph depicted above their results reached almost the higher peak 90%. Upward trend was noticed in almost the whole participants, except of two Azizxon and Komola. The other four learners who dwelled at the end in group record Odil, Adham and Jalol contributed to the gradual progress of the group with their highest achievements.
In studying group behavior and performance, the researcher will focus on the statistical analysis of progress-test through central tendency and dispersion. In statistical study, when measurements of subjects’ behavior/performance are taken and represented numerically, there tends to be a central numerical point around which most of the scores are clustered. This phenomenon is known as the central tendency. Central tendency is commonly known in three ways- a mean, mode and median.
The mean is calculated by adding up all of the values in the set and then dividing the sum by the number of values in the set. It seems as follows in our research: Mean= 78+80+82+85+86+70+74+68+72+77+87+74+75+81+76+71=
=1236/16=77,3=77.
The next step will belong to mode. To derive the mode we count the number of times that each value in the set occurs. It should also be noted that a set of scores can have more than one frequently occurring score, in which case the set would be described as being bimodal or even trimodal. The mode in our research is 74, because it occurs twice, frequently than other scores.
In a set of numerical values, the median is the value at the center of the range of the set. But in our set of scores there are equalized numbers in a set. To count it we have to add two middle scores and divide them by two. In this case the median will be 68+72/2=140/2=70.
There are two indicators of individual behavior/performance: range and standard deviation. The range is the number of points between the highest and lowest scores in the set, plus 1. Hence, we should subtract the lowest score from the highest score and add 1. The range in our case will be 87-68+1=19+1=20.
The standard deviation is the average of the differences of all of the scores from the mean, it works with such a formula: SD=√ (score-mean)/number of students.

Name	Score	Mean	Difference	Difference Squared
Mohira	78	77	1	1
Jamshid	80	77	3	9
Azizxon	82	77	5	25
Kamola	85	77	8	64
Nodira	86	77	9	81
Sevara	70	-77	-7	49
Saidxon	74	-77	-3	9
Madina	68	-77	-9	81
Guzal	72	-77	-5	25
Ma’ruf	77	77	0	0
Nafosat	87	77	10	100
Shukur	74	-77	-3	9
Nargiza	75	-77	-2	4
Odil	81	77	4	16
Adxam	76	-77	-1	1
Jalol	71	-77	-6	36

So, we will add up all of values in the last column and divide the sum by the number of values in the set. SD=√1+9+25+64+81+49+9+81+25+0+100+9+4+16+
+1+36/16=√510/16=√31,8=√32=5,7 (experimental group).
In this turn the researcher decided to compare the developmental tendency between two assignments implemented for the control group. There is also slight upward trend in the results of CG, but not steep. The developmental trend was persisted between 60 up to 70 percentages. But only Saodat and Shavkat with their higher results managed to develop the level of the group. This group stood approximately at the same level, but only few students were unable to gain the higher intermediate level.
In detailed analysis of progress-test results, the same calculation should be carried on with control group, too.