L’évaluation des apprentissages occupe une place importante dans les dispositifs de formation. Les décisions évaluatives peuvent avoir un impact majeur sur l’avenir professionnel de l’apprenant. Les enjeux peuvent être également élevés pour toute la société. Par ailleurs, bien que l’enseignant soit le premier responsable de l’évaluation, d’autres acteurs internes et externes y participent : les évalués, les acteurs institutionnels, les décideurs du ministère, les organismes accréditeurs, etc. L’évaluation semble bien plus complexe qu’elle n’y paraît. Dans le contexte de l’enseignement supérieur tunisien, il y a un manque de recherche dans le champ de l’éducation et plus particulièrement en lien avec la question de l’évaluation des apprentissages. C’est pourquoi cette étude se propose de tenter de dissiper le flou qui entoure les pratiques évaluatives, qui, à notre connaissance, n’ont pas été traitées comme objet de recherche dans le contexte de l’université tunisienne. Dans la présente étude, le concept de « culture d’évaluation » est central. L’analyse culturelle réalisée s’appuie sur la forte ressemblance entre les concepts de culture et celui de pratique. Cela nous a conduit à adopter un cadre d’analyse inspiré de la théorie des architectures de la pratique (Kemmis, 2009; Kemmis et al., 2014b). Les objectifs spécifiques consistent d’abord à décrire en détail les pratiques d’évaluation des apprentissages des enseignants ciblés et, ensuite, à identifier les patrons culturels associés à ces pratiques. L’ethnographie est la méthodologie retenue pour cette recherche. Elle implique de mener une étude de terrain auprès d’un groupe social de « natifs ». Il s’agit d’un groupe d’enseignants appartenant aux disciplines de l’ingénierie œuvrant à l’université de Gafsa. Les données ont été recueillies à l’aide des méthodes de l’entrevue individuelle semi-dirigée, de l’observation participante et de l’étude de documents. L’analyse des pratiques évaluatives dans le cadre de cette étude a permis de dégager quelques constats généraux. D’abord, l’évaluation est avant tout un dispositif technique. Il s’agit en outre d’une activité plurielle où des pratiques singulières se développent. Néanmoins, les enseignants tendent à suivre un processus officiel générique. Un autre constat concerne le caractère solitaire de l’activité d’évaluation qui se manifeste dans le manque de collaboration et l’existence de pratiques de « bricolage ». Il apparaît aussi que les enseignants sont insatisfaits des pratiques évaluatives existantes et tentent par de multiples moyens de les améliorer, mais sans impact réel. Le système évaluatif officiel est trop rigide pour permettre de vrais changements dans les pratiques. Cela contribue à renforcer la logique du devoir qui consiste à répondre aux exigences administratives en matière d’évaluation. Paradoxalement, les prescriptions officielles ne sont pas toujours respectées. Les résultats montrent également l’existence de conflits dans les activités d’évaluation collaboratives. Tous ces éléments conduisent à un manque de transparence dans l’évaluation. Finalement, les résultats suggèrent une certaine prévalence de la tolérance dans la culture d’évaluation. À travers cette étude, nous présentons une ethnographie assez détaillée en tant que contribution importante pour la recherche en évaluation. Les acteurs du terrain pourraient s’y référer pour développer des dispositifs de formation plus efficaces en ingénierie. / Assessment of learning occupies a central position in training structures. Assessment decisions can have a major impact on the learner professional future. The stakes can be high for all the society as well. In addition, although the teacher has the lead responsibility for assessment, other internal and external actors are involved: the students, the institutional actors, the decision-makers at ministry level, accreditation bodies, etc. Assessment seems much more complex than it looks. In the context of Tunisian higher education, there is a lack of research in the field of education, especially regarding the issue of assessment of learning. Consequently, this study proposes to dispel the lack of clarity that surrounds assessment practices, which, to our knowledge, have not been considered as a research topic in the context of the Tunisian university. In this study, the concept of "culture of assessment" is central. The cultural analysis undertaken is based on the strong similarity between the concepts of culture and that of practice. This led us to adopt an analytical framework inspired by the theory of architectures of practice (Kemmis, 2009; Kemmis et al., 2014b). This research had two specific research objectives: first, to provide a detailed description of the targeted teachers assessment practices and, secondly, to identify the cultural patterns related to these practices. We have chosen ethnography as a research methodology in this study. It involves conducting field research with a social group of "natives". It’s a group of engineering teachers working at the University of Gafsa. Data were collected using the following methods: semi-structured individual interview, participant observation and documents. In this study, the analysis of assessment practices allowed us to form few overall observations. First of all, assessment is primarily a technical process. It is also a plural activity where unique practices develop. However, teachers tend to follow a generic formal process. Another conclusion concerns the solitary nature of the assessment activity which manifests itself in the lack of collaboration and the existence of improvisation practices. In addition, it appears that teachers express dissatisfaction with existing assessment practices and try in many ways to improve them but with no real impact. The official assessment system is too rigid to allow real changes in practices. This contributes in reinforcing the logic of duty which consists in trying to meet the administrative requirements for assessment. Paradoxically, official requirements are not always respected. The results also show the existence of conflicts in collaborative assessment activities. We also concluded that assessment lacks transparency. Finally, the results suggest a certain prevalence of tolerance in the assessment culture. In this study, we present a quite detailed ethnography as an important contribution to research on assessment. Actors in the field could use it as a reference in order to develop more effective training systems in the field of engineering.

What constitutes the best leadership is a topic of much debate, with differing opinions on various types of leadership styles and success factors among leaders and countries. Over time, we have observed both informal and formal leaders who have taken on the role of leading a group of people through both difficult and easy situations, which has led to attempts to understand what truly is the best leadership and what characteristics such a person possesses. Leading a group of employees can look different depending on the country one works in, given the different cultures that characterize each country. But what does leadership look like within a group that exists in two different countries? How does leadership appear within an organization that operates in a cross-cultural environment? To be able to motivate your employees, it is required that you as a leader have the same goals within your own role, that you pay attention to the individual in order to then develop the group you are responsible for in the best possible way. This study provides an insight into how to work with different leadership models and by using the identified key factors that are fundamental to being the best leader in the workplace, to be able to develop oneself and help others to develop to achieve a good working environment where everyone thrives, finds engagement, trust, understanding, and where communication functions well. The study also demonstrates an understanding of the cultures that exist within organizations, which allows for connecting them and extracting the most important aspects from each culture. This leads to the inclusion of all individuals and the development of autonomy. The study's results partly support what previous research has claimed about leadership. It is possible to see that many of the characteristics between the countries are found both in theory and in the results, such as communication styles, organizational structure, and decision-making. Seven key factors have been identified for each country that are required for successful leadership, where the majority of these are directly related to developmental leadership, which are role models, personal care, inspiration and motivation, demands and rewards, and control. In addition to these, balance, transparency, and competence are identified, which are not directly related to developmental leadership, with the latter two being unique to each country. The study also suggests that there are challenges to leading an organization within a cross-cultural environment, but there is feasibility and the possibility to adapt one's leadership to the prevailing situation by taking into account what is required from the leader. The results can be valuable for companies and organizations striving to improve their leadership and create a positive work environment for their employees as well as for companies operating within different cultures. / Vilket som är det bästa ledarskapet finns det många olika åsikter om, där synen på olika typer av ledarskapsstilar och framgångsfaktorer skiljer sig mellan ledare och länder. Genom tiden har vi kunnat följa både informella och formella ledare som tagit sig an rollen att leda en grupp människor genom både svåra och lätta situationer, vilket har lett till att försöka förstå sig på vad som egentligen är det bästa ledarskapet, och vilka egenskaper en sådan person innehar. Att leda en grupp medarbetare kan se olika ut beroende på vilket land man arbetar inom, givet de olika kulturerna som präglar länderna var för sig. Men hur ser det egentligen ut med ledarskapet som verkar i en grupp som finns i två olika länder? Hur ser ledarskapet ut inom en organisation som arbetar inom en tvärkulturell miljö? För att kunna motivera sina medarbetare krävs det att du som ledare själv har samma mål inom din egen roll, att du ser till individen för att sedan kunna utveckla den grupp du ansvarar över på bästa möjliga sätt. Genom denna studie ges en inblick i hur man kan arbeta med de olika ledarskapsmodellerna och genom att ta hjälp av de identifierade nyckelfaktorerna som ligger till grund för att vara den bästa ledaren på arbetsplatsen, för att kunna utveckla sig själv och hjälpa andra att utvecklas till att nå en bra arbetsmiljö där alla trivs, finner engagemang, tillit, förståelse och där kommunikationen fungerar på ett bra sätt. Studien visar också på förståelsen av de kulturer som existerar inom organisationer, vilket möjliggör att koppla samman dem och dra ut det viktigaste från varje kultur. Detta leder till att alla individer kan involveras och att autonomi kan utvecklas.  Studiens resultat visar delvis på vad tidigare forskning har påstått om ledarskap. Det går att se att många av karaktärsdragen mellan länderna återfinns både i teorin och resultatet, exempelvis kommunikationsstilar, organisationsstruktur och beslutsfattande. Det har identifierats 7 nyckelfaktorer för respektive land som krävs för ett framgångsrikt ledarskap där majoriteten av dessa är direkt relaterade till det utvecklande ledarskapet, vilka är föredöme, personlig omtanke, inspiration och motivation, +krav och belöning och +kontroll. Utöver dessa identifieras balans, transparens och kompetens som inte är direkt relaterade till det utvecklande ledarskapet där de två sistnämnda är unika för respektive land. Studien menar även att det finns hinder att leda en organisation inom en tvärkulturell miljö, men där det finns överkomlighet och möjlighet till att kunna anpassa sitt ledarskap till rådande situation genom att ta till beaktning vad det är som krävs utifrån ledaren. Resultaten kan vara värdefulla för företag och organisationer som strävar efter att förbättra sitt ledarskap och skapa en positiv arbetsmiljö för sina anställda samt för företag som verkar inom olika kulturer.

Following Snyderman and Rothman (1987, 1988), we surveyed expert opinions on the current state of intelligence research. This report examines expert opinions on causes of international differences in student assessment and psychometric IQ test results. Experts were surveyed about the importance of culture, genes, education (quantity and quality), wealth, health, geography, climate, politics, modernization, sampling error, test knowledge, discrimination, test bias, and migration. The importance of these factors was evaluated for diverse countries, regions, and groups including Finland, East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Southern Europe, the Arabian-Muslim world, Latin America, Israel, Jews in the West, Roma (gypsies), and Muslim immigrants. Education was rated by N = 71 experts as the most important cause of international ability differences. Genes were rated as the second most relevant factor but also had the highest variability in ratings. Culture, health, wealth, modernization, and politics were the next most important factors, whereas other factors such as geography, climate, test bias, and sampling error were less important. The paper concludes with a discussion of limitations of the survey (e.g., response rates and validity of expert opinions).