The article deals with the detailed information about Methods and tools for assessing student competencies. The accurate assessment of student competencies is crucial in modern education, as it allows educators to measure not only knowledge retention but also skills, attitudes, and critical thinking abilities. This paper explores various methods and tools used for assessing student competencies, including traditional assessments, performance-based assessments, and technology-enhanced assessments. Traditional methods, such as multiple-choice tests and written exams, remain popular but are often limited in their ability to evaluate higher-order thinking skills. In contrast, performance-based assessments—such as projects, presentations, and portfolios—offer a more comprehensive evaluation by focusing on the application of knowledge in real-world contexts. Technology-enhanced tools, such as digital simulations, e-portfolios, and automated feedback systems, provide innovative ways to measure competencies while increasing engagement and personalization. The paper also discusses the importance of aligning assessment tools with learning objectives and provides insights into the challenges associated with each method, including issues of reliability, validity, and scalability. By combining multiple assessment methods, educators can obtain a holistic view of student competencies, enabling targeted support and improved learning outcomes.

Assessment, projects, presentations

Daniyeva M.Dj. Teacher’s Speech Culture. – Karshi: Nasaf, 2020. – 80 p.

O’Neill, G. (2015). Curriculum Design in Higher Education: Theory to Practice. Dublin: UCD Teaching & Learning. ISBN 9781905254989

Boud, D., Sadler, R., Joughin, G., James, R., Freeman, M., Kift, S., & Webb, G. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Sydney, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

Nottingham Trent University (2013). CADQ Guide: Formative assessment and feedback. Centre for Academic Development and Quality, Nottingham Trent University. Retrieved

Boud, D., & Dochy, F. (2010). Assessment 2020. Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education.

Suskie, L. (2010). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. John Wiley & Sons.

Kift, S. (2009). Articulating a transition pedagogy to scaffold and to enhance the first year student learning experience in Australian higher education: Final report. Retrieved from Sydney:http://transitionpedagogy.com/

Sieber, V. (2009). Diagnostic online assessment of basic IT skills in 1st-year undergraduates in the Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40: 215–226.

Almond, R.G. and Mislevy, R.J. (1998), Graphical Models and Computerized Adaptive Testing, TOEFL Technical Report No. 14, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, March.

Baker, L. (1991), “Metacognition, reading and science education”, in C.M. Santa and D.E. Alvermann (eds.), Science Learning: Processes and Applications, International Reading Association, Newark, DE, pp. 2-13.

Bennett, R.E. (1993), “On the meanings of constructed response”, in R.E. Bennett (ed.), Construction vs. Choice in Cognitive Measurement: Issues in Constructed Response, Performance Testing, and Portfolio Assessment, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 1-27.