In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat sich die Rolle nichtstaatlicher Akteure im öffentlichen Bildungssystem verändert. Während der Staat den Rahmen setzt, erbringen sie spezifische Dienstleistungen und versprechen dabei Innovationen und zusätzliche Ressourcen. Die Zusammenarbeit ist aber auch mit Risiken verbunden. Um dem öffentlichen Charakter der Volksschule zu entsprechen, braucht es deshalb eine Abwägung der Vor- und Nachteile beim Einsatz nichtstaatlicher Akteure. Dieser Artikel analysiert die Entwicklungen und aktuellen Formen dieser Zusammenarbeit und es werden die Chancen und Herausforderungen dieser Partnerschaften beleuchtet. Der konzeptionelle Beitrag basiert auf einer Literaturanalyse und wird durch empirische Beispiele ergänzt.
The role of teaching, learning, and assessment with digital technology has become increasingly prominent in mathematics education. This survey paper provides an overview of how technology has been transforming teaching, learning, and assessment in mathematics education in the digital age and suggests how the field will evolve in the coming years. Based on several decades of research and educational practices, we discuss and anticipate the multifaceted impact of technology on mathematics education, thus laying the groundwork for the other papers in this issue. After a brief introduction discussing the motivations for this issue, we focus our attention on three lines of research: teaching mathematics with technology, learning mathematics with technology, and assessment with technology. We point to new research orientations that address the issue of teaching with technology, specifically describing attempts to conceptualise teachers’ mathematical and digital competencies, perspectives that view teachers as designers of digital resources, and the design and evaluation of long-term initiatives to support teachers as they develop innovative teaching practices enhanced by digital technologies. Our examination shows that learning with technology is still marked by new conceptualizations raised by researchers that can further our understanding of this complex issue. These conceptualizations support the recognition that multiple resources, ranging from paper and pencil to augmented reality, participate in the learning process. Finally, assessment with technology, especially in the formative sense, offers new possibilities for offering individualised support for learners that can benefit from adaptive systems, though more tasks for conceptual understanding need to be developed.
In the current digital age, (mathematics) teachers are provided with a profusion of digital resources. Consequently, research in mathematics education has focused on teachers’ interactions with resources as the heart of their professional activity. The term Pedagogical Design Capacity (PDC) was introduced to designate teacher’s ability to perceive affordances of resources and to make decisions about how to use them efficiently. PDC has been further conceptualized to define teacher design capacity (TDC) as including a goal or points of reference for the design, a set of design principles, and reflection-in-action. This definition is illustrated with case studies involving teachers’ design of digital resources, yet it does not seem to consider the specificities of the latter. We therefore aim to further refine the concept of TDC by considering crucial components that designing technology-based tasks and their enactment in the classroom entail. We ask: What are the unique components of TDC specific to digital technology and resources? We elaborate a framework to suggest dimensions and components of mathematics teacher Digital Resource Design Capacity (DRDC) to emphasize the focus on design of digital resources. This framework is built on previous studies and on the concept of instrumental orchestration, and is refined taking into account findings from two case studies in France and Israel.
Basée sur une approche mixte, cette étude s’intéresse aux pratiques évaluatives en EPS dans trois cantons de Suisse romande où le programme scolaire est identique, mais où les modes de communication de l’évaluation sommative diffèrent : une note certificative dans le canton de Genève, une note non certificative dans le canton du Jura, un livret d’évaluation dans le canton de Vaud (pas de note). Au total, 214 enseignants ont été interrogés par questionnaires et 10 enseignants ont participé à deux entretiens réalisés avant et après des observations en classe. Des analyses statistiques et de contenu thématique ont été réalisées. Dans cette étude, les données qualitatives (importance accordée aux évaluations, visées prioritaires) ont permis de mieux comprendre les données chiffrées issues des questionnaires (fréquences des évaluations). Les résultats de l’étude montrent que les évaluations, qu’elles soient diagnostiques, formatives, et sommatives, sont plus fréquemment mises en place et plus formalisées dans le canton de Genève avec une note certificative. Les visées prioritaires diffèrent dans les trois cantons étudiés avec une priorisation des compétences motrices dans le contexte genevois. Des pistes explicatives et des propositions afin d’améliorer l’étude des pratiques évaluatives et la qualité de l’enseignement de l’EPS sont proposées.
