The design and use of online materials for blended learning have been in the spotlight of educational development over the last decade. With respect to didactical courses, however, the potential of online and blended learning seems to be underexplored; little is known about its affordances for teacher education, and for domain specific didactical courses in particular. To investigate this potential, as well as the ways to organize the co-design of such learning units, we carried out a small and short-term research project in which teacher educators in the Netherlands engaged in a co-design process of developing and field-testing open online learning units for mathematics and science didactics. We focused on the features of the designed online learning units, on the organization of the co-design process, and on the experiences with the learning units in teacher education practice. A first conclusion was that it was most fruitful to design building blocks rather than ready-to-use courses, and that students should have play a role in the materials. With respect to the co-design process, intensive meetings of small design teams seemed an efficient approach. The experiences in the field tests revealed that the learning units were inspiring, but needed finalization, and educators needed time to prepare the incorporation in their existing educational practices. In the future, the resulting learning units will be maintained and extended, and are expected to contribute to a community of practice of mathematics and science educators.
Nowadays, digital tools for mathematics education are sophisticated and widely available. These tools offer important opportunities, but also come with constraints. Some tools are hard to tailor by teachers, educational designers and researchers; their functionality has to be taken for granted. Other tools offer many possible educational applications, which require didactical choices. In both cases, one may experience a tension between a teacher’s didactical goals and the tool’s affordances. From the perspective of Realistic Mathematics Education (RME), this challenge concerns both guided reinvention and didactical phenomenology. In this chapter, this dialectic relationship will be addressed through the description of two particular cases of using digital tools in Dutch mathematics education: the introduction of the graphing calculator (GC), and the evolution of the online Digital Mathematics Environment (DME). From these two case descriptions, my conclusion is that students need to develop new techniques for using digital tools; techniques that interact with conceptual understanding. For teachers, it is important to be able to tailor the digital tool to their didactical intentions. From the perspective of RME, I conclude that its match with using digital technology is not self-evident. Guided reinvention may be challenged by the rigid character of the tools, and the phenomena that form the point of departure of the learning of mathematics may change in a technology-rich classroom.
LINK
In this chapter, we discuss the education of secondary school mathematics teachers in the Netherlands. There are different routes for qualifying as a secondary school mathematics teacher. These routes target different student teacher populations, ranging from those who have just graduated from high school to those who have already pursued a career outside education or working teachers who want to qualify for teaching in higher grades. After discussing the complex structure this leads to, we focus on the aspects that these different routes have in common. We point out typical characteristics of Dutch school mathematics and discuss the aims and challenges in teacher education that result from this. We give examples of different approaches used in Dutch teacher education, which we link to a particular model for designing vocational and professional learning environments.We end the chapter with a reflection on the current situation.
LINK
