The Relationship of Goal-Setting in the Teaching of Mathematics with its Technological Support

Abstract

Technological support of teaching mathematics depends on what methodological and pedagogical goals are put for learning. Achieving or failing to achieve these goals is connected with the used type of feedback or in other words, the method of assessing the educational activities of students. In this work, two types of assessment are contrasted: a test form of knowledge testing (implemented by a system of mid-term and final exams) and a formative assessment (determined by the teacher’s informal reaction to the student’s productive activities and the way these activities are organized). It is shown that the first type of assessment corresponds to the consideration of the curriculum as a learning goal, the second — as a learning tool. In the first case, the purpose of training is the acquisition of specific knowledge and skills, and in the second, the mastery of the general mechanisms of educational activity inherent in a given subject area (mathematics). For the first goal, it is effective to use template tasks including generated exercises and simulators, for the second — to use various tools that support constructive and research activities. The article shows how “non-invasive monitoring” is used to achieve the second goal, when the teacher and the student are not on opposite sides of the academic barrier (the student answers — the teacher sets a mark), but on the same side and jointly perform actions to create conditions for the most effective mastery of the course material by each student. The basis of non-invasive monitoring is modeling the presentation of the results of this activities to the scientific community, including all intermediate stages of such activities. Instead of testing knowledge and issuing formal marks, feedback is used, various approaches and ways to solve the problem are discussed together, and monitoring is limited to students’ self-esteem, which is not necessarily communicated to the teacher. At the same time, the discussion process itself is open, and the teacher can always evaluate the problems of students, without turning them into an instrument of formal pressure on the student by third parties.