Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing Guiding Principles for Twenty-First Century Curricula: Navigating Knowledge, Thinking Skills, and Pedagogical Autonomy in the Israeli Curriculum

  • Published:
Interchange Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article discusses challenges posed to the design and enactment of twenty-first century school curricula by examining three core issues: pedagogical autonomy, the balance and integration of knowledge and thinking skills, and curricular flexibility. It focuses on how a committee of experts commissioned by the Israeli ministry of education to advise it on reforming the state curriculum responded to these challenges. The discussion highlights two fundamental questions in curriculum design: how to integrate global research finding with local conditions? and how to respond to a changing and unpredictable reality? To deal with the challenges, the article offers a model that aims to enhance the flexibility of the curriculum, and a list of criteria to assist educators on all levels in making informed curricular decisions. Although the analysis is situated within a particular cultural and national context the issues addressed have general and global implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Hebrew Sources

  • Hadar, L. and Zviran, L. (2018). Designing curricula for the 21st century: An international comparative review. Jerusalem: Center for Knowledge and Research in Education, The Israel Academy of Science

  • Inbar, D. (1990). Is autonomy possible in a centralized education system? In I. Friedman (Ed.), Autonomy in Education: Conceptual Frameworks and Work Processes (pp. 58–78). Jerusalem: Henrietta Szold Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel Ministry of Education (2019). Transparency in Education. Retrieved November 2021, from https://shkifut.education.gov.il/national

  • Nir, A. (2006). The empowerment of schools and the dangers of a centralized system. In D. Inbar (ed.), Toward an Educational Revolution? (Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz HaMeuhad).

  • National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education (2018). Measurement of School Growth and Efficiency (MSGE) report: Climate and pedagogical environment data. Jerusalem:Author. http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Rama/School_Evaluation/Aklim_2019.htm (Hebrew)

English Sources

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archbald, D. A., & Porter, A. C. (1994). Curriculum control and teachers’ perceptions of autonomy and satisfaction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 180–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boote, D. N. (2006). Teachers’ professional discretion and the curricula. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 461–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn. National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., & Johnson, M. (2004). Contextual prerequisites for understanding some investigations of comprehension and recall. Cognitive Psychology: Key Readings in Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang, N. C., & Ting, Y. K. (2021). School-based professional learning communities as a means for curriculum development: A case study from Taiwan. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(4), 1184–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colander, D., & Kupers, R. (2016). Complexity and the Art of Public Policy: Solving Society’s Problems from the Bottom Up. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dishon, G., & Gilead, T. (2021). Adaptability and its discontents: 21st-century skills and the preparation for an unpredictable future. British Journal of Educational Studies, 69(4), 393–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, C., Hipkins, R., & Zohar, A. (2012). Positioning thinking within national curriculum and assessment systems: Perspectives from Israel, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 134–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, R. (1990). The Introduction of School-Based Curriculum Development in a Centralised Education System: A Possible Tactic. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glatthorn, A. A. (1987). Teacher autonomy vs. curricular anarchy. NASSP Bulletin, 71(498), 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R., Chi, M. T., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The Nature of Expertise. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleeson, J., Klenowski, V., & Looney, A. (2020). Curriculum change in Australia and Ireland: A comparative study of recent reforms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(4), 478–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Project READI. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist., 51(2), 219–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, W. P., & Youngs, P. (2016). “Why are teachers afraid of curricular autonomy? Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C., & Kominsky, J. F. (2013). Missing links in middle school: Developing use of disciplinary relatedness in evaluating internet search results. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e67777.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, K. J. (1992). School-based curriculum development as a policy option for the 1990s: An Australian perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(2), 180–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcpeck, J. E. (1981). Critical Thinking and Education. Martin Robertson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molander, A., Grimen, H., & Eriksen, E. O. (2012). Professional discretion and accountability in the welfare state. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(3), 214–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, K. (2008). Educational philosophy and the challenge of complexity theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulenga, I. M., & Mwanza, C. (2019). Teacher’s voices crying in the school wilderness: Involvement of secondary school teachers in curriculum development in Zambia. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 8(1), 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council .2012a. Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.

  • Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. School Field, 7(2), 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nir, A., Ben David, A., Bogler, R., Inbar, D., & Zohar, A. (2016). School autonomy and 21st century skills in the Israeli educational system: Discrepancies between the declarative and operational levels. The International Journal of Educational Management, 30(7), 1231–1246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018a). The Future of Education and Skills Education. OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018b). Education at a Glance. OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2019). OECD Strategy 2019: Skills to Shape a Better Future. OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. (1992). Smart Schools—From Training Memories to Training Minds. The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (1991). Educating for insight. Educational Leadership, 49, 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priestley, M., & Sinnema, C. (2014). Downgraded curriculum? An analysis of knowledge in new curricula in Scotland and New Zealand. Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 50–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, M. (2008). Prediction, control and the challenge to complexity. Oxford Review of Education, 34(5), 505–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (2010). Nested learning systems for the thinking curriculum. Educational Researcher, 39(3), 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, J. (2022). Concept-driven Chinese school-based curriculum development based on Wukong Chinese school as an example. International Journal of Social Science and Education Research, 5(3), 131–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, R. J., Costa, A. L., Beyer, B. K., Reagan, R., & Kallick, B. (2008). Thinking-based learning. New York and London: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The Aims of Education. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2013). It’s not all about test scores: Reviving Pedagogical Discourse. Bnei Brak: Poalim - Hakibutz Hameuchad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2023). Scaling up higher order thinking: Demonstrating a paradigm for deep educational change. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Hipkins, R. (2018). How tight/loose curriculum dynamics impact the treatment of knowledge in two national contexts. Curriculum Matters, 14, 48–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Seymour Fox School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, 9765418, Jerusalem, Israel

    Anat Zohar & Tal Gilead

  2. Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Abba Husi 199, 3498838, Haifa, Israel

    Sarit Barzilai

  3. Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, 76100, Rehovot, Israel

    Abraham Arcavi

Authors
  1. Anat Zohar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tal Gilead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarit Barzilai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abraham Arcavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tal Gilead.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zohar, A., Gilead, T., Barzilai, S. et al. Designing Guiding Principles for Twenty-First Century Curricula: Navigating Knowledge, Thinking Skills, and Pedagogical Autonomy in the Israeli Curriculum. Interchange 55, 93–113 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-024-09515-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-024-09515-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation