Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference MEDA 2020 - ISBN 978-3-9504630-5-7 117
Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference MEDA 2020 - ISBN 978-3-9504630-5-7 118
(p. 18). These definitions converge on that competence involves an ability to act in a particular context or situation. We thus consider competence as a means for acting in different professional situations, and put aside affective and other aspects because of space limitation.
We draw more particularly on the European framework for the digital competence for educators (DigCompEdu, Redecker, 2017). The framework describes educator-specific digital competences that are grouped in six areas: (1) professional engagement, (2) digital resources, (3) teaching and learning, (4) assessment, (5) empowering learners’ competences, and (6) facilitating learners’ digital competence. Areas 2-5 represent “the core of the DigCompEdu Framework” (p. 16).
Instrumental genesis
The instrumental approach (Rabardel, 2002) is used to understand processes by which a user transforms a digital tool - an artifact, into an instrument enabling her to achieve her goals. While the artifact (material or symbolic) is available to the user, the instrument is a personal construct created by the user during her activity with the artifact. This process is called instrumental genesis and comprises two interrelated processes: instrumentation leading to the development by the user of schemes of use of the artefact, and instrumentalisation during which the user adapts the artefact according to her knowledge and beliefs. The development of schemes of use manifests itself in a user’s invariant behaviour in a given class of situations.
Three frames of teachers’ professional use of digital technology
An important part of teacher’s activity occurs outside the classroom, e.g., preparing lessons, searching for resources or communicating with colleagues. Teachers also use different kind of technology: mathematical software for teaching, but also general technology such as Internet or text editor for preparing students’ worksheets. Abboud-Blanchard and Lagrange (2007) distinguish three frames of digital technology uses:
• Frame 1 is “the personal sphere of activity wherein the teacher uses ICT with no direct connection with his/her classroom activities” (e.g., communication with colleagues, or use of specific software not directly linked to students' learning).
• Frame 2 “refers to prep work, the teacher having in mind what knowledge and know-hows he/she wishes the students acquire. For instance, a teacher might be using general tools (Internet, spreadsheets) and more specific ones strongly connected with subject teaching”.
• Frame 3 is “in classroom, ICT use being intimately bound to subject teaching and being subservient to the students’ learning”.
One can expect that activities within different frames imply different teachers’
competencies. This leads us to specify teachers’ activities when defining their digital competence. We fine-tune these frames to the purposes of our research. In particular, we believe that instrumental genesis encompasses a reflectivity on professional actions
Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference MEDA 2020 - ISBN 978-3-9504630-5-7 119
taken, which the three frames do not capture. We adapt the delineation of the three frames as follows: first, we distinguish between teacher’s professional activity done outside the classroom (frames 1 and 2) and in the classroom (real or virtual) implying teacher’s interactions with learners (frame 3). We consider frame 1 including teacher’s professional activity not directly aimed at planning or implementing a lesson, whereas frame 2 referring to preparation activity, as well as reflection on the lesson implementation leading to the improvement of the lesson and possibly impacting the subsequent lesson preparation. Whereas frame 3 relates to the didactical use of technology, this may not be the case for frame 2: a teacher can prepare students’
worksheets using technology and implement them in a printed paper format in the classroom.
We investigate mathematics teachers’ digital competencies as they manifest themselves in their practices in the three frames. Our research question is: Are there differences in practicing teachers’ use of technology according to the three frames?
METHOD
Classes of situations where digital technology can be used
In line with the instrumental approach, to define classes of situations where teachers can use digital technology, we refer to the three frames of teachers’ professional use of digital technology and to the areas of the DigCompEdu Framework that define teachers’ digital competence, in particular the areas 2 and 3.
We suggest that searching for and selecting resources is a class of teachers’
professional situations belonging to frame 1, as the purpose of this activity may not be directly related to lesson preparation. Frame 2 encompasses activities related to lesson planning and reflecting after lesson implementation: creating and modifying digital resources and designing learning tasks, sessions or sequences of sessions. Frame 3 comprises activities involving teachers’ interactions with learners: implementing and managing digital learning activities, assessing students learning and performance, and monitoring the class and following the students. Note that the last two activities belong to the frame 2 as well.
Design of the questionnaire and data collection
We conducted a survey in France and in Israel involving mathematics teachers. For each class of situations, we listed items taken from the DigCompEdu Framework (Redecker, 2017), particularly from statements related to educator’s proficiency levels:
we consider stage A - educators assimilate new information and develop basic digital practices; stage B - they apply, further expand and structure their digital practices; and stage C - they pass on their knowledge, critique existing practice and develop new practices. After having tested the English version with a few practicing mathematics teachers in Israel and in France, we refined the items and translated them to Hebrew and French. The online questionnaire was distributed nationwide in both countries.
Participation to the survey was anonymous and voluntary.
Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference MEDA 2020 - ISBN 978-3-9504630-5-7 120
FINDINGS
Responses from 79 teachers in Israel and 434 teachers in France were collected. The participants are the teachers who are in contact with the teacher centres; hence we see them as the more proficient. We cannot claim that the data is representative of practicing mathematics teachers in either country; yet, this sample allows us getting some insight into teachers’ digital competences. Next, we present findings related to the first four classes of situations, as they are associated to one of the frames. Due to the space limitation, we only refer to part of the findings.
Searching for and selecting digital resources (frame 1)
Question: Which of the following items characterize your practice when you
search for and select digital resources? Please tick the corresponding cells. Israel France (A) I only rarely, if at all, use internet to find resources for teaching and
learning. 5 (6.9%) 34 (7.8%)
(A) I use simple internet search strategies (e.g., keywords) and common
educational platforms to identify digital content relevant for teaching. 33 (45.8%) 271 (62.4%) (B) I evaluate the quality of digital resources based on basic criteria, such as
e.g. place of publication, authorship, other users’ feedback. 29 (40.3%) 123 (28.3%) (B) I adapt my search strategies to identify resources, e.g. searching and
filtering by license, filename extension, date, user feedback etc. 10 (13.9%) 55 (12.7%) (C) I evaluate the reliability and suitability of content for my learner group
and specific learning objective based on a combination of criteria, verifying
also its accuracy and neutrality. 39 (54.2%) 161
(37.1%) (C) In addition to search engines, I use a variety of other sources, e.g.
collaborative platforms, official repositories, etc. 38 (52.9%) 229 (52.8%)
Table 1. Results related to searching for and selecting digital resources
We see this class of situations in frame 1 because searching for resources is not always linked with lesson planning. Interestingly, the responses in both countries are coherent:
the items appear in the same order according to percentages. A small percentage of the teachers (about 7% in Israel, 8% in France) declare rarely, if at all, use Internet to search for resources. Hence, Internet is a source of digital resources for the majority of teachers. Teachers rather use simple search strategies or search for resources on common educational platforms (around 46% in Israel, 62% in France). Only about 14%
Israeli and 13% French teachers adapt their search strategies to identify resources. Two hypotheses can explain this finding: either simple strategies provide satisfactory results or teachers complement these strategies with other ways of searching for resources.
The fact that about 53% of teachers in both countries declare using other sources, such as collaborative platforms or official repositories, corroborates the latter hypothesis.
Such platforms are created by the mathematics teacher education centre in Israel; in France several well-known repositories are frequently used, like those of the Institutes for Research on Teaching Mathematics. Some teachers use specialized search engines, e.g., Google Scholar or Publimath (French search engine dedicated to mathematics resources). Regarding resource selection based on quality evaluation, about 40% of Israeli and 28% of French teachers say using basic criteria, while 54% and 37%
Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference MEDA 2020 - ISBN 978-3-9504630-5-7 121
respectively evaluate resource reliability and suitability with respect to their educational goal and their students.
Creating and modifying digital resources (frame 2)
Question: Which of the following items characterize your practice when you
create and modify digital resources? Please tick the corresponding cells. Israel France (A) I may make use of digital resources, but I do not usually modify them or
create my own resources. 10 (13.9%) 38 (8.8%)
(A) I use office software to design and modify resources (e.g. worksheets
and quizzes) and presentations. 40 (55.6%) 374 (86.2%)
(B) When I create digital resources (e.g. presentations), I integrate some
animations, links, multimedia or interactive elements. 37 (51.4%) 154 (35.5%) (B) I modify and combine existing resources, including interactive elements,
to create learning activities that are tailored to a concrete learning context and objective, and to the characteristics of the learner group.
36 (50.0%) 205 (47.2%) (C) I employ design principles for increasing accessibility for the resources
and digital environments used in teaching, e.g. as concerns font, size, layout,
structure. 24 (33.3%) 129 (29.7%)
(C) I create my own apps or games to support my educational objectives. 29 (40.3%) 53 (12.2%)
Table 2. Results related to creating and modifying digital resources
The findings are again quite coherent between the countries. The first item received the least number of responses: these teachers usually do not modify digital resources, which suggests that they use them as they are. The highest percentage of teachers chose the second item (respectively about 56% and 86%), suggesting that the use of office software to modify resources or create worksheets or presentations is common. Half of the teachers declare modifying and combining existing resources to adapt them to their context and objective. When creating resources, respectively around 51% and 36% of teachers integrate multimedia. A third of teachers in both countries consider themselves sensitive to accessibility issues when creating resources. Surprisingly, quite a big number of Israeli teachers (40%) design their own apps or games, comparing to only 12% of French teachers. This can be explained by the use, in Israel, of platforms to which teachers can apply their own content (e.g., Kahoot).
Designing a learning activity, a session or a sequence of sessions (frame 2)
Question: Which of the following items characterize your practice when you design a learning activity, a session or a sequence of sessions? Please tick the
corresponding cells. Israel France
(A) I do not or only very rarely use digital devices or digital content in my
teaching. 6 (8.3%) 35 (8.1%)
(A) I choose mathematical digital technologies according to the learning
objective and context. 53
(73.6%) 308 (71%) (A) When designing learning activities, I consider the importance of ensuring
equal access, both physical (i.e., access to hardware and software) and intellectual (i.e., necessary technical knowledge) to the digital technologies used for all students
16 (22.2%)
102 (23.5%) (B) I choose the most appropriate tool for fostering learner active engagement
in a given learning context or for a specific learning objective. 41(56.9%) 198 (45.6%)
Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference MEDA 2020 - ISBN 978-3-9504630-5-7 122
(B) I select and use some learning activities, e.g. quizzes or games, that allow learners to proceed at different speeds, select different levels of difficulty and/or repeat activities previously not solved adequately.
28
(38.9%) 123 (28.3%) (B) I design learning sessions or other interactions with a mathematical digital
technology. 19
(26.4%) 134 (30.9%) (C) When I set up learning activities in digital environments, I let my students
choose digital technology. 3 (4.2%) 15 (3.5%)
(C) I continuously evaluate the effectiveness of digitally enhanced teaching
strategies and revise my strategies accordingly 19
(26.4%) 83 (19.1%) (C) I reflect on, discuss, re-design and innovate pedagogic strategies for
personalizing education through the use of digital technologies. 16
(22.2%) 121 (27.9%)
Table 3. Results related to lesson planning
Only about 8% of respondents confess not to use, or only very rarely, digital devices or content in their teaching. As regards the choice of digital technology while preparing their teaching, almost 3 teachers out of 4 claim choosing appropriate technology with respect to the learning goal and context. The percentage decreases when active learners’ engagement is at stake, which might imply that the remaining percentage of teachers adopt rather teacher-centred pedagogy. Even lesser part of the teachers pays attention to differentiation (around 40% and 28% respectively) when planning their teaching. Not surprisingly, only about 4% of the teachers in both countries plan to let their students choose digital technology to be used. Less than one third of teachers (around 26% and 31% respectively) design learning activities with mathematical digital technology, which contrasts with much higher percentage of teachers who claim choosing mathematical digital technologies according to the learning objective and context (around 74% and 71% respectively). This finding suggests again the prevalence of teacher-centred pedagogy. A quarter of teachers declares being sensitive to ensuring equal access to technologies. This amount of answers should however be nuanced as some teachers confess not to have understood the meaning of the item. Finally, regarding the reflectivity about own digital strategies, about 26% of Israeli and 19% of French teachers say continuously evaluating its effectiveness and 22% of Israeli and 28% of French teachers declare innovate their pedagogical strategies through the use of technology.
Implementing and managing digital learning activities (frame 3)
Question: Which of the following items characterize your practice when you
implement and manage digital learning activities? Israel France (A) I use available classroom technologies, e.g. digital whiteboards,
projectors. 47 (65.3%) 393 (90.6%)
(A) I use digital technologies to visualize and explain new concepts in a
motivating and engaging way, e.g. by employing animations or videos. 41 (56.9%) 287 (66.1%) (A) When implementing collaborative activities/projects, I encourage learners
to use digital technologies to support their work, e.g. internet search or
present results. 26 (36.1%) 108 (24.9%)
(B) Putting learners’ active use of digital technologies is important in my
instructional process. 27 (37.5%) 88 (20.3%)
Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference MEDA 2020 - ISBN 978-3-9504630-5-7 123 (B) I implement collaborative activities, in which digital technologies are used
by learners for their collaborative knowledge generation, e.g. for sourcing and
exchanging information. 13 (18.1%) 58 (13.4%)
(B) I require learners to document their collaborative efforts using digital
technologies, e.g. digital presentations, videos, blog posts. 6 (8.3%) 22 (5.1%) (B) I use a range of digital technologies to create a relevant, rich and effective
digital learning environment, e.g. by addressing different sensory channels,
learning styles, by varying activity types and group compositions. 15 (20.8%) 45 (10.4%) (B) When sequencing and implementing digital learning activities, I allow for
different learning pathways, levels and speeds and flexibly adapt my
strategies to changing circumstances or needs. 16 (22.2%) 85 (19.6%) (C) I implement learning sessions so that different (teacher-led and
learner-led) digital activities jointly re-inforce the learning objective. 13 (18.1%) 105 (24.2%) (C) I select, design, employ and orchestrate the use of digital technologies
within the learning process according to their potential for fostering learners’
active, creative and critical engagement with the subject matter. 23 (31.9%) 75 (17.3%)
Table 4. Results related to implementing and managing digital learning activities This class of situations gives insight into the declared use of technology in class.
Indeed, around 65% of the Israeli and 91% of the French teachers declare using available technology (projector, IWB, PC). Teacher-centred use of technology seems to be dominant in both countries, as was marked by about two thirds of teachers. In contrast, the percentage is much lower for items clearly indicating the use of technology in the hands of students; only around 38% and 20% of teachers declare paying attention to learners’ active engagement with technology. This percentage is even lower (32% and 17%) when students’ active, creative and critical engagement is at stake. When collaborative activities are implemented, around 36% and 25% of teachers declare encouraging students to use technology to support their work, whereas only 18% and 13% take profit of such activities for learning purposes. However, only about 8% and 5% of teachers require learners to document digitally their collaborative efforts. About a fifth of teachers declare exploiting technology for differentiation, which is less than regarding planning (40% and 28%), which might mean that when planning, more teachers might use technology for preparing differentiated paper-based worksheets. Only around 21% and 10% of teachers combine various digital technologies to create a rich learning environment. Finally, about 18% and 24% of teachers declare implementing sessions in which different digital activities reinforce learning goal.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The four classes of situations show similar pattern in responses between the two countries, however very different according to the three frames. The class of situations in frame 1 - searching for and selecting digital resources (Table 1) - shows increased percentage of teachers’ responses along proficiency levels. A plausible hypothesis explaining this finding is that nowadays searching on the internet is part of the digital literacy of any citizen; hence teachers are proficient in this competence. Classes of situations in frame 2 - creating and modifying digital resources and lesson planning
Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference MEDA 2020 - ISBN 978-3-9504630-5-7 124
(Tables 2 & 3) - show a pattern that resembles normal distribution, suggesting that most of the teachers are at intermediate proficiency level B regarding these competences.
Finally, the class of situations in frame 3 -implementing and managing digital activities (Table 4) - shows decreasing pattern along the proficiency levels. These findings suggest a gap in uses of technology in frames 1 & 2 and in frame 3, i.e., although teachers use it to search for resources and to prepare their teaching, they use it much less in the classroom. This finding is similar to what Abboud-Blanchard and Lagrange (2007) observed in student-teachers’ use of technology. We suggest that the difficulty with integrating technology in classrooms continues, as teachers fail to transform available technology into didactic instruments for their teaching. This may suggest avenues for teacher professional development.
REFERENCES
Abboud-Blanchard, M., & Lagrange, J.-B. (2007). Uses of ICT by pre-service mathematics teachers: towards a professional instrumentation? International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(4), 183-19.
Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding. JRC Technical Note. Luxembourg: European Union.
Hegedus, S., Laborde, C., Brady, C., Dalton, S., Siller, H. S., Tabach, M., Trgalova, J.,
& Moreno-Armella, L. (2016). Uses of technology in upper secondary mathematics education. Switzerland: Springer.
Klieme, E., Hartig, J., & Rauch, D. (2008). The concept of competence in educational contexts. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (pp. 3–22). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Kunter, M., Klusman, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Vos, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013).
Professional Competence of Teachers: Effects on Instructional Quality and Student Development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805–820.
Neubrand, M. (2018). Conceptualizations of professional knowledge for teachers of mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(4), 601–612.
Rabardel, P. (2002). People and technology — a cognitive approach to contemporary instruments. Université Paris 8.
Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu). Joint Research Centre Science for Policy Report. EU: Luxembourg Publications Office.
Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference MEDA 2020 - ISBN 978-3-9504630-5-7 125