Keywords

Distinguishing Between Types of Pedagogy: Administrative Pedagogy, Structural Pedagogy, and Substantive Pedagogy

The root of the word pedagogy comes from ancient Greek. Its literal meaning is to “lead and escort a child.” In ancient Greece, it was customary for the pedagogue (who was usually a slave) to lead his master’s son to school, escort him, take care of him, and carry his supplies (Sergiovanni, 1998). Today, pedagogy is used as a general term for various aspects of education, some of which are more closely related to the emotional and ethical aspects of education, while others are more closely related to the cognitive aspects of teaching. In the Israeli educational system, the term is used to refer to vastly different things. For example, one central unit in the Israeli Ministry of Education is the Division of Pedagogical Administration (that deals with teachers’ salaries, school budget, etc.), and another central unit is the Division of Pedagogical Affairs (that deals with K–12 curriculum across the school subjects). Schools have “pedagogical coordinators” and “pedagogical meetings.” In order to distinguish between various uses of the term pedagogy, I shall refer to them as administrative pedagogy, structural pedagogy, and substantive pedagogy.

Administrative pedagogy deals with systemic managerial issues related to teaching and learning, such as organizing the schedule of vacation days, placement of teachers, budgeting ongoing instruction and special programs, or monitoring curriculum implementation.

Structural pedagogy refers to activities that organize classroom learning and instruction. These activities include the use of worksheets, students’ independent work, group work, writing papers, and use of technology. Although activities at these two levels may facilitate deep changes in the cognitive processes that affect students’ thinking and understanding, simply enacting them does not necessarily bring about the desired changes.

Substantive pedagogy, on the other hand, deals with fundamental patterns of learning and instruction. It addresses issues such as teaching for understanding; achieving change in the way students understand concepts and processes; integrating higher-order thinking (HOT) into the teaching of content; integrating discussions of social, moral, and ethical issues in the teaching of content; using metacognition; and adopting assessment processes that examine students’ abilities to think critically and transfer ideas to new contexts. Serious work addressing such issues has a potential to improve students’ deep understanding and thinking. Therefore, substantive pedagogy can facilitate a profound change in the quality of teaching and learning and in the profile of school graduates.

Although Elmore (2004) did not use the term substantive pedagogy, his writings on educational change processes (discussed in Chap. 2) reflect a similar idea. Elmore argues that the heart of educational practice consists of teachers’ perceptions of the nature of knowledge, of students’ role in learning, and of how teaching and learning processes are expressed in the classroom. He notes that education includes many additional valuable aspects. Yet, according to Elmore (as noted in Chap. 1), if an educational process does not involve classroom interactions between teacher and students in the presence of content, it will not touch upon anything substantive (Elmore, 2004). Elmore’s ideas are close to the ideas involved in the concept of substantive pedagogy defined here. Similarly, Spillane (2000) does not use the specific terms defined in this chapter, yet expresses a similar idea using the terms “form” and “function” (see more details on page 59–60).

Is it necessarily a change in substantive pedagogy that will bring about the desired improvement in an individual school or in the overall quality of the educational system as a whole? I will try to answer this question in a number of ways. First, on an intuitive level, it is reasonable to argue that if most reforms focus on peripheral issues rather than on the substantive nature of instruction, then it is no wonder that the essence/substance does not change. If we aim to influence the quality of learning and instruction, we need to invest direct effort in this particular dimension of education rather than in dimensions that are only indirectly related to it.

Second, a series of diverse studies indicates that the greatest impact on student achievement is produced by educational interventions at the level of substantive pedagogy. The most comprehensive data on this subject are found in Hattie (2009), which consists of a synthesis of more than 800 meta-analytic studies related to student achievement. In one of the most interesting analyses in his book (Table 11.2, p. 244), Hattie calculates the average effect size of two types of educational interventions: interventions that can be classified under the definition of substantive pedagogy versus interventions that can be classified under the definitions of administrative or structural pedagogy. The first category includes interventions pertaining to aspects such as the quality of teaching, feedback to students, or the adoption of metacognitive teaching strategies. The second category includes interventions pertaining to aspects such as increasing the budget, reducing the number of students in each classroom, grouping students by ability, or expanding summer studies. Calculation of the average effect sizes of interventions in both categories indicates that the first category is significantly more effective than the second (average effect size of 0.68 vs. 0.08 respectively). In other words, these findings suggest that interventions directly related to substantive pedagogy have a far greater impact on student achievement than interventions related to other types of pedagogy. These figures are quite surprising in light of the widespread belief that increasing budgets or reducing the number of students in the classroom has a significant positive impact on the quality of learning.

What is required to succeed in bringing about a real change in substantive pedagogy? The answer seems simple. One necessary (although insufficient) condition for such a change is focused, well-planned, and intensive engagement with various components of substantive pedagogy. Although this statement sounds almost trivial, it is surprising to see how rarely this condition is met. This statement is true for change processes of all scales, namely, for efforts to bring about systemic change in a single school as well as for efforts to improve large educational systems.

The next sections of this chapter examine challenges related to substantive pedagogy at the individual school level by delving into the concept of instructional (or pedagogical) leadership. The final parts of the chapter examine the challenges involved in substantive pedagogy at the level of the whole school system.

Educational Challenges in Substantive Pedagogy at the Individual School Level: The Search for School-Based Instructional (Pedagogical) Leadership

In many educational reform processes, substantive pedagogy is “transparent”: it is not seen as a factor, and it is not considered in planning or in implementing educational change processes. In order to bring about change in substantive pedagogy, it is essential to make it a visible component of discussions and planning of educational change processes. What is needed to fulfill this purpose is instructional (or pedagogical) leadership (see definition below).

To explain the roots of pedagogical leadership, Sergiovanni (1998) draws on philosophical discussions of human nature and on the two narratives on this subject. According to Sergiovanni, the constrained narrative, based on the theory of Hobbes (1950), relates to the selfish side of human nature and its roots in the interest in satisfying one’s own physical and emotional needs. According to this narrative, people are self-centered, competitive, cunning, and addicted to pleasure and strive to maximize their own profit without regard for the general welfare. This narrative includes the tendency to put self-interest first, to compete with the goal of winning, and to strive to accumulate and increase personal benefits such as wealth, power, pleasure, and status. Therefore, according to conceptions of leadership that are based on this narrative, principals, teachers, and students must be constrained in order to overcome their natural selfish and violent impulses. Without such constraints, they will not tend to do the right thing. Educational approaches based on this perspective on human nature emphasize accountability, close supervision by principals and teachers, and high-stakes testing. According to this approach, the only way to regulate interpersonal relationships in a school or an educational system is through a strict contract. Only a contract that clarifies the rights and obligations of each individual in the system, including detailed descriptions of the penalties to be enforced if the obligations are not fulfilled, will give people the motivation to work diligently and collaboratively.

In contrast, the “unconstrained narrative” relates to the altruistic aspects of human nature and its roots in moral perceptions of the good. It emphasizes people’s ability to act based on moral considerations and to collaborate with the aim of increasing the general good, even if it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice one’s own personal benefit. Instead of seeing humans as driven exclusively by self-interest, the unconstrained narrative considers the establishment of interpersonal relationships as a significant component of human motivation. Policy-makers and school leaders who believe in this narrative think that principals and teachers can be trusted to behave morally and can be given the freedom and autonomy to do the right thing. For example, when trying to promote issues in which they believe, principals and teachers are seen as having the desire and ability to sacrifice their own personal interests for the benefit of the public. As professionals, they will willingly take responsibility for their educational work and commit themselves, first and foremost, to their students’ educational needs. The same applies to students. According to this approach, the correct strategy is to allow greater freedom and autonomy at all levels of the educational system and to avoid accountability, tight supervision, and high-stakes testing. This narrative supports the creation of a community based on a voluntary covenant among its members, rather than on a contract (see Zohar, 2013, Chapter 2).

A community whose members have a covenant among them is a key concept in Sergiovanni’s theory of pedagogical leadership. Sergiovanni (1998) raises the central question that guides the current discussion and concerns educational policy-makers and school leaders around the world: Why are educational systems unable to improve in ways that make significant changes for prospective school graduates? Sergiovanni suggests that the reason lies in unsatisfactory educational leadership styles. According to him, commonly accepted educational leadership styles, such as bureaucratic leadership or entrepreneurial leadership, are based on the constrained narrative and therefore require social contracts. The only way to improve education, Sergiovanni asserts, is by changing the educational leadership style to that of pedagogical leadership based on a model of covenant. In schools based on this leadership style, human nature is understood through the unconstrained narrative, and interpersonal relationships are structured as a social covenant. Only under such conditions can a school develop intellectual capital and become a learning community. Pedagogical leaders understand that there is a direct connection between the experiences of teachers and those of their students. They know that inquiry and critical thinking cannot thrive in classrooms if the school culture does not approve of, and support, inquiry and questioning among teachers. It is difficult to cultivate commitment to a culture of problem-solving among students whose teachers rarely solve problems. When dialogue among teachers is limited, dialogue among students becomes difficult as well. The aspiration to transform classrooms into learning communities for students will remain a cliché until schools become learning communities for teachers.

This argument applies also to the relationship between principals and officials in the Ministry of Education or the District: if the relationship between principals and the system in which they work is based on the constrained narrative and on the model of contract, it will be difficult for the principals to create a school culture based on a model of covenant and a community of learning among teachers.

Having clearly delineated the two extremes, that is, leadership based on a model of covenant versus one based on contract, Sergiovanni concludes that the approach to be adopted in educational systems lies somewhere between these two extremes. However, it is clear from his critique that he believes that the prevalent situation in most educational systems today is too close to the pole of the contract model. According to him, developing a model of pedagogical leadership based on a covenant and greater autonomy for principals and teachers is a necessary condition for the improvement of the school system.

Relevant Aspects of Pedagogical Leadership According to Additional Researchers

Cuban (1990) too illustrates his model of pedagogical leadership by using two contrasting images: the technician and the artist. He argues that people’s image of their role greatly influences how they fulfill it. The image of a technician invokes obedience to instructions from higher authorities, establishing binding rules and procedures, and using technical expertise to efficiently and effectively communicate knowledge to students. Since the early days of public education, this image has guided teachers and principals, leading them to promote order, routine tasks, and pedagogies that require minimal investment.

However, during the same period, some leaders have held a radically different image of their role: that of an artist. Although this image also requires some technical professional expertise, it calls for far more: it requires diverse knowledge and skills that enable independent judgment, autonomy, creativity, and imagination. Principals acting according to the artist image emphasize the creation and maintenance of conditions that would improve the curriculum and the pedagogy. The image of the technician promotes bureaucratic management, while the image of the artist facilitates instructional (or pedagogical) leadership. Principals working according to the artist image lead and improve the school curriculum and the improvement of teachers’ instructional processes.

Cuban summarizes research findings spanning seven decades, from the 1920s to the 1990s. The studies he reviewed cover various types of professional activities carried out by principals. He divides these activities into two main categories: directing and guiding. The “directing” category consists of activities related to maintenance of organizational stability, such as writing reports, developing timetables, solving problems not directly related to learning and instruction, dealing with discipline problems, meeting with parents, budgeting, and decision-making regarding human resources and maintenance of the school buildings. The “guiding” category consists of activities that focus on improving processes of learning and instruction: monitoring the quality of instruction through classroom observations and teacher evaluation, coordinating and evaluating the curriculum, analyzing test results, reviewing students’ report cards, modeling instruction, and guiding workshops for teachers.

The studies Cuban reviewed include data collected from over 8300 school principals. When asked how they would have liked to spend their time, many principals said they would prefer to devote most of it to activities related to leading learning and instruction processes. However, when asked how they actually spend their time, the majority said that most of their time was devoted to administrative tasks and that leading learning and instruction processes in their school takes second place. Nevertheless, the findings also reveal a great deal of variation among principals, so that some did say they devoted much of their time to pedagogical leadership.

More recent studies suggest that principals who function as instructional leaders are more likely to influence students’ achievements. For example, a comprehensive review of studies concludes that the influence of instructional leadership on students’ achievement is three to four times larger than that of transformational leadership (Robinson, 2010). Elmore (2004) finds that principals can improve learning and instruction by concentrating on instructional issues and harnessing many of the managerial resources at their disposal toward this goal. Researchers present a clear and practical picture of the main dimensions and activities that principals who function as pedagogical or instructional leaders address. These activities may be divided into two main categories:

  • Leadership activities that improve learning and instruction (Elmore, 2004; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Marzano, 2009, Murphy et al., 2006; Robinson, 2010):

    • Being familiar with multiple teaching approaches and practices, principals give priority to understanding prevalent classroom practices.

    • Assessing the pedagogical state of their school at the whole school (macro) and classroom (micro) levels.

    • Building a comprehensive pedagogical program to promote the school’s vision, based on empirical evidence.

    • Developing mechanisms to monitor learning, instruction, and classroom activities.

    • Observing lessons and providing feedback to teachers.

    • Conducting teachers’ evaluation to improve learning and instruction.

  • Leadership activities related to guidance and professional development (PD) of teachers (Hallinger & Heck, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2004; Robinson, 2010; Southworth, 2002):

    • Verifying that the learning goals of the PD are clear and directed toward improving teachers’ instructional capabilities

    • Focusing teachers’ learning processes on practices of learning and instruction

    • Focusing PD on analyzing examples of students’ work

    • Creating an atmosphere of trust and collegiality for teachers’ PD

    • Leading school-based PD processes and taking an active part in them by planning, facilitating, and guiding teachers’ learning

The literature offers various definitions of the terms “instructional leadership” or “pedagogical leadership,” which are sometimes used to delineate the same thing. For example, Hallinger et al. (2020) defined instructional leadership as ‘school leadership intended to influence school and classroom teaching and learning processes with the goal of improving learning for all students’. Shaked et al. (2019) summarize five core dimensions of instructional leadership activities:

  1. (a)

    Building and sustaining a school vision that includes clear learning goals

  2. (b)

    Sharing the school leadership with experienced leading teachers to improve school effectiveness

  3. (c)

    Creating a community of learners that provides meaningful PD

  4. (d)

    Collecting data to guide instructional decision-making

  5. (e)

    Spending time in classrooms to monitor curriculum and instruction and to support their high quality

It is important to emphasize that the instructional leader in a school is not necessarily the principal. The key point is that this person actively engages in leadership and focuses on substantive pedagogy. This leader, who perceives instructional leadership as a top personal priority, may be another figure within the school to whom the principal delegates authority (Cuban, 1990). Thus, pedagogical leaders may be vice-principals, directors of pedagogy, coordinators or chairs for a subject area or grade level, or even teachers who hold no official leadership position in the school. Instructional leaders can also be people from outside the school such as mentors, teacher educators, superintendents, or other officials in a school network or local education councils. Neumerski (2013) notes that research in this field is still at its infancy and has not yet recognized that instructional leadership is a distinct phenomenon that we need to study across standard organizational positions. The fact that researchers have not yet looked at instructional leadership as a function performed by people holding diverse roles hinders our ability to fully understand it and to apply relevant research findings to improve practice. In order to improve theory and practice in this field, Neumerski calls for integrating the research on instructional leadership across different organizational levels.

Pedagogical Leadership in the Israeli Educational System

In 2008, the Israeli Institute for the Development of School Principals (Avney Rosha), initiated a survey of principals in primary and secondary schools (Katz et al., 2008). The survey provided vital demographic data on principals, described their positions and preferences regarding several key issues, and outlined the major leadership patterns emerging from their work.

One survey item gave the principals a list of potential goals for their school and asked them to select the one that they considered the most important. The most frequently selected goal (although indicated as a priority by only 20% of the principals) was to improve students’ achievements. Improving students’ learning and thinking abilities was chosen by 13.8% of the principals. Only 3% selected teachers’ PD as their primary goal. From this, we can conclude that goals focusing on substantive pedagogy are not the top priority of the principals who participated in the survey.

Another item asked the principals to rate different images of an ideal principal on a 6-point scale (with 6 as the highest rating). The highest-rated image (with an average rating of 4.18) was being a leader and decision-maker. The image of the principal as a pedagogical leader was ranked fourth (average score of 3.58). The image of being an organizational leader was ranked even lower, in fifth place (average rating of 2.61).

The findings also indicate diversity among principals according to school level. For example, high school principals indicated less engagement with developing students’ learning and thinking skills than did their peers in primary schools (7% of high school principals versus 13.8%, respectively). This finding is supported by a more recent study on gender differences in pedagogical leadership (Shaked et al., 2019). The study found that males constitute a majority of principals in Israeli secondary schools (61% of the sample), and females constitute the majority of principals in the primary schools (92%). The data show that female principals relied in the course of their work more heavily on teaching experience and pedagogical knowledge and were more involved with improving teaching and learning in their school, as compared with male principals. Male principals had, on average, less teaching experience and were more likely to delegate tasks related to improving learning and instruction to others (Shaked et al., 2019).

Since the 2008 Avney Rosha survey, there has been an increasing emphasis on pedagogical leadership, both in research and in the practice of developing school leadership in Israel. In 2009, Avney Rosha announced its first “call for proposals” for Israeli academic institutions to offer PD courses for school principals. Evaluation of the first two cohorts of these programs indicated a need for an increased emphasis on instructional leadership and on the knowledge it involves. As a result, in 2012, Avney Rosha announced a subsequent call for a second round of PD courses for principals, emphasizing instructional leadership. In particular, the call for proposals noted the need to provide up-to-date and practical knowledge in areas of learning and instruction in order to improve student achievements (Israel Institute for School Leadership, 2012). In fact, instructional leadership and school improvement were the main focus for the new programs. The text of the second call for proposals clarified that the next round of PD courses for principals would need to provide prospective principals with up-to-date and practical knowledge in the area of substantive pedagogy. Nevertheless, it is important to ask critically whether this second round of PD programs indeed provided principals with the relevant practical knowledge required to implement advanced pedagogies, such as teaching HOT. In addition, it should be noted that because of a severe shortage of school principals, many individuals who recently took positions as school principals did not take part in Avney Rosha’s PD program for prospective principals (Detel, 2018). These individuals thus clearly did not have the opportunity to enjoy the new curriculum of the principal development program, making it less likely that they will center on instructional leadership as an important part of their job.

A View from the Field: M.’s Search for Substantive Pedagogy

When I met M., she was about to begin her term as the principal of a new elementary school just built in a new middle-class suburb. She had recently taken a study leave, following successful completion of her first position as the principal of an elementary school in a high-risk neighborhood, at which she had earned a prestigious educational award. M. requested an informal consultation with me to discuss the educational policy she would like to implement at her new school. A core aspect of her educational vision related to implementing innovative pedagogies, focused on inquiry learning and HOT. During our conversation, she described her work plan in detail. The entire school would devote time to studying one common subject, which would change each semester. Working in multiage groups, students would explore this subject according to their individual interests. At the peak of the program, the normal class schedules would be suspended for one week, and the entire school would be involved in inquiry-based learning and in working on the final products of their projects that would later be presented to the parents.

M. was concerned that this process would result in gimmicks or, as she put it, “a lot of bells and whistles.” M. noted that she believes in the potential of such programs to promote inquiry, thinking, and learning but had already seen how all too often they become superficial and detached from what she called “real learning.” According to M., such activities tend to emphasize creative products, such as student performances or works of art (exhibits, videos, etc.) that receive praise, but she wondered to what extent they are related to deep cognitive processes that would significantly develop students’ knowledge and skills. It is easy to understand M.’s concern in light of the picture I portrayed at the beginning of Chap. 2. She did not want to find herself in a similar situation.

I asked her to explain the specific learning goals for students within the framework she described and what PD the teachers would receive to guide their students toward these goals. She replied honestly that she had not yet thought about these questions and did not know how to develop a detailed and structured work plan to address them. Additionally, she did not know what to do so that the desired inquiry-based approach to learning would affect the whole school. Particularly, she did not know how the desired approach could be integrated with routine learning of the “regular” school subjects, rather than remain limited to the one special week.

In light of the conceptual framework presented at the beginning of this chapter, M. was undoubtedly a pedagogical leader because her vision addressed the improvement of learning and instruction at her school. However, she lacked the practical knowledge necessary to lead this change. Although she aspired for a profound change in learning, the plan she developed for her first year at the new school operated at the level of structural pedagogy (e.g., devoting a whole week to inquiry-based learning, or having a public event in which students will present the products of their work). She explained the lack of planning at the level of substantive pedagogy, primarily by saying she did not feel she had the necessary knowledge and tools. She approached me for advice because she was justifiably worried that changes made at the level of structural pedagogy would not impact learning and instruction processes in a deep way and would therefore fail to bring about the desired pedagogical change.

The advice she received consisted of three stages:

  1. (1)

    To initiate a long-term, collaborative learning process for herself and a group of leading teachers, led by pedagogical experts. This would help identify the core elements necessary for deep and meaningful inquiry-based learning and to construct teachers’ knowledge of pertinent teaching strategies.

  2. (2)

    To call upon this group of leading teachers to collaboratively design a detailed pedagogical plan for learning and instruction in the school.

  3. (3)

    To gradually extend the PD processes to growing numbers of teachers.

Thus, by developing the capabilities of the principal and a gradually expanding group of teachers, it would be possible to plan and implement a profound change in the substantive pedagogy of a school.

Challenges in Addressing Substantive Pedagogy at the School Level

PD is a necessary condition for principals to be able to lead change in substantive pedagogy. However, PD alone is not sufficient to make such a change in a successful way. In order for principals to be able to focus on deep improvements in learning and instruction in their schools, they need a supportive environment. One relevant question is the extent to which the Ministry of Education provides such an environment.

In the summer of 2015, a comprehensive survey of school principals in Israel was commissioned by the Principals’ Union in cooperation with the Association of Secondary School Teachers (Kashti, 2016). The survey population included about 300 out of a total of 700 principals of secondary schools in Israel. The findings reveal deep mistrust between high school principals and officials at all levels of the Israeli Ministry of Education. According to the principals, the senior officials are unfamiliar with the reality in the schools and preoccupied with rolling out reforms, while the direct supervisors and representatives of units in the Ministry are mainly concerned with shunning responsibility. According to a veteran principal from Israel’s northern region, “The role of the principal is one of the most lonely and isolated within the educational system. The principal has to deal with the sometimes-conflicting demands of students, parents, teachers, the local authority, and the Ministry of Education. Unfortunately, I do not feel that the Ministry of Education is helping me with this complex task.”

According to the survey, the vast majority of principals—between 80% and 90%—feel the Ministry is imposing on them ever-increasing responsibility. A similar percentage of principals feel that they spend too much time on mundane, mandatory bureaucratic tasks. The principals note that the Ministry has two main types of responses to problems. The first is delegating growing responsibility to the principals for a long list of issues, from students with learning disabilities to problems generated by the socioeconomic gaps in Israeli society. The second is a growing demand for writing reports, filling out forms, and other bureaucratic tasks. The principals feel that the Ministry officials distrust them and do not appreciate them. Moreover, 75% of the principals said that at Ministry-sponsored conferences, they are reluctant to express their true opinions and therefore the Ministry officials think everyone is happy. The principals’ responses contradict recent statements by officials in the Israeli Ministry of Education, who proclaim their trust and faith in teachers and principals. According to one principal, the Ministry cannot claim to trust principals and at the same time closely monitor everything they do. Having to constantly protect themselves against potential complains from the Ministry prevents principals from developing their leadership capabilities.

The principals’ views regarding the pedagogical component of their work are similarly discouraging. As a principal from a school in Israel’s central region explained, “The pedagogical component of the principal‘s work is steadily eroding. No one cares anymore about the school’s vision, let alone about how it can be achieved and realized. All the emphasis is on mechanical management. There are principals who are interested in and committed to pedagogy, but they are few” (Kashti, 2016). In other words, this survey indicates that most principals of secondary schools in Israel feel that their relationship with the educational authorities is built on the contract model rather than the covenant model. It is hard to believe that in such a work environment, many high school principals would be able to focus on substantive pedagogy, even if they learn about it in PD processes.

It should be noted that the Ministry’s most recent official policy is to increase principal’s autonomy. It is therefore interesting to see whether and to what extent this policy will indeed result in changes in principals’ attitudes.

In summary, principals’ engagement with substantive pedagogy is crucial for their ability to lead change processes that deeply affect learning and instruction at their school. Only a minority of principals see this as their main role. Even these principals, however, often work at the level of structural pedagogy, because they often lack the knowledge needed to lead changes at the level of substantive pedagogy and lack the supportive work environment that must be provided by the Ministry of Education.

Challenges in Addressing Substantive Pedagogy at the Level of Large Educational Systems

The challenges involved in implementing changes in substantive pedagogy with regards to the individual school, are intensified at the level of larger systems. To illustrate this, I draw on analyses of two cases. The first is based on a fascinating article exploring the knowledge of change leaders as part of a reform in mathematics instruction in the United States. The second is based on analysis of an information and communications technology (ICT) program implemented in Israel beginning in 2009.

US Mathematics Instruction Reform Circumvents Substantive Pedagogy

In the first study, Spillane (2000) employs a cognitive lens to explore perceptions held by district leaders following a reform in learning and instruction initiated by the US National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The goal of the reform was to move instruction away from a focus on procedural knowledge, computation, memorization and following algorithmic steps for solving problems. Instead, instruction would be geared toward constructing knowledge of mathematical principles by emphasizing ideas, concepts, and mathematical thinking. That is, the goal of the reform was to change substantive pedagogy.

Spillane’s main goal was to investigate district leaders’ understanding of the mathematics reform, that is, the ideas and perceptions they constructed following their involvement in the reform’s implementation. According to Spillane, these leaders understood that the reform represented a change in policies and curricula for mathematics instruction, but their understanding was partial and tended to overlook the full significance of the reform.

In analyzing his findings, Spillane draws on concepts that parallel those of substantive pedagogy and structural pedagogy, as defined earlier in this chapter. He cites previous research that differentiates between form-focused and function-focused understandings in mathematics instruction (Gearhart et al., 1997; Saxe et al., 1999). Form-focused understandings refer to learning activities, educational materials, and various arrangements for individual and group student work. Function-focused understandings refer to activities such as collaborative learning, problem-solving, and visualization, which enable students to develop understandings of mathematical functions, principles, concepts, and patterns of thought. The concept of form-focused understandings parallels that of structural pedagogy, while the concept of function-focused understandings parallels substantive pedagogy. Therefore, from here on, I will use these latter terms to describe the findings of Spillane’s research.

Through a series of in-depth interviews, Spillane shows that 62 of the 82 change leaders participating in the study perceived the reform they led as related to structural rather than substantive pedagogy. In their view, the reform focused on using demonstrations, changing the structure of group work in mathematics classes, and more frequent use of examples of mathematical problems relevant to daily life. But these strategies preserved old conceptions of mathematics instruction, such as transmitting procedural knowledge, rather than bringing about a new type of learning focused on deep understanding of mathematical principles. Many of these leaders drew on their own initial knowledge and concepts regarding the goals of mathematics instruction as an interpretative framework through which they understood the reform. Innovations in structural pedagogy (such as changes in group work, demonstrations, or increasing the role of everyday problems in the teaching of mathematics) were perceived as ends in themselves rather than as vehicles designed to create a fundamental change in substantive pedagogy (such as changes in class discourse and engaging with new ideas designed to deepen the understandings of mathematical principles). This study demonstrates that although changes in structural pedagogy do have the potential to influence substantive pedagogy, this potential was not realized in the case of most of the leaders who participated in the study. Consequently, the reform missed the opportunity to implement deep changes in substantive pedagogy.

Lost Substantive Pedagogy in the Initial Stages of a National ICT Program

Implementation of a new national information communications technologies (ICT) program was one of the goals for the Israeli educational system in the years 2009–2013. As explained previously, the use of ICT in schools can bring about a change in substantive pedagogy. For example, computerized animations and simulations may help improve understanding. Interactive software can increase students’ motivation and support them in active construction of knowledge. Real-time tracking of each student’s progress and providing immediate feedback can facilitate personalized instruction. Searching the Internet calls for establishing connections with the real world outside school, which can make learning more relevant.

Substantive changes, however, do not occur incidentally, as by-products of technological changes at the administrative and structural levels. To achieve substantive changes, we need to define them as central and explicit goals and to focus much of our implementation efforts and attention on making them happen. The use of ICT is neither a sufficient nor even a necessary condition for accomplishing a change in substantive pedagogy. Indeed, previous experience from similar ICT programs in Israel and other countries has shown that new technologies alone are insufficient to improve learning and instruction. To achieve such improvement, it is necessary that teachers will be able to fulfill the pedagogical potential embedded in the new technologies. There is little value in upgrading the technology unless there is a corresponding upgrading of the pedagogy (Salomon, 2000). The success of an ICT program should not be measured mainly by the number of teachers and students using it (a change in structural pedagogy), but more importantly by the quality of learning and instruction it produces (changes in substantive pedagogy). In a study examining these issues, I asked the following research question: In the early years of its implementation, did this national ICT program address aspects of substantive pedagogy?

In order to answer this question, I analyzed public documents published 2 years after the launch of the program and uploaded on the Internet. The analysis revealed that, in terms of its vision, the program went beyond administrative and structural goals, offering an educational vision that recognizes the challenges and needs of twenty-first-century school graduates (Israel Ministry of Education, 2012). The section entitled Vision and Perception noted that in preparing future school graduates for life in the twenty-first century, it must be recognized that the skills they need differ from those needed in previous times. The document continued by saying that the school system must adapt itself to these demands, clarifying that in a rapidly changing world, which requires innovation, critical thinking, and analysis, students must be taught to be creative entrepreneurs, to draw on multiple sources of information, use ICT tools, information literacy, communication skills, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. The document also states that students must be able to recognize and understand the connections between concepts and to identify various strategies for accomplishing tasks. Students must be aware of differing attitudes and opinions, capable of making predictions, be intuitive, be skeptical, and be able to think critically, know how to do research, make decisions, and have metacognitive thinking skills (Israel Ministry of Education, 2012).

Thus, the stated objectives of this national ICT program do address deep learning goals whose development is related to substantive pedagogy. But is substantive pedagogy also reflected in the practical applications of the program, as described in the detailed instructions for implementation and in the indices for assessing outputs? Analysis of the ICT program documents indicates that the implementation was planned carefully, especially in terms of indices measuring performance and outputs. However, while multiple sections refer to structural or administrative pedagogy, there is little reference to substantive pedagogy. The program implementation documents deal with strict technical specifications and detailed work plans. These cover the main activities that the schools must perform. There are explicit statements regarding the expected outputs at the level of administrative pedagogy, such as reporting on attendance, disciplinary events, the subjects of lessons, and homework.

There are also many statements that address the level of structural pedagogy. For example, in each of five core school subjects, there must be one weekly ICT lesson during the first semester and two weekly ICT lessons during the second semester of the first year of implementing the program. However, the long list of outputs does not include any relating to substantive pedagogy. The published documents include numerous forms for reporting on various details of the implementation, but most of these relate to administrative or structural pedagogy. An individual work plan for teachers includes one limited reference to substantive pedagogy, found in a small section on twenty-first-century skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving (pp. 22–23). However, this reference gets lost among the long list of bureaucratic items on which the teacher is required to report.

It therefore seems that the national ICT program did not devote adequate attention, at least in its early stages, to innovative instruction of HOT thinking and deep understanding in a digital learning environment. It should be noted, however, that some of the schools that implemented this ICT program did an impressive job and did improve various aspects of substantive pedagogy. These schools are “islands” of pedagogical excellence, led by determined principals who acted as pedagogical leaders. They confirm that it is indeed possible to change the substantive pedagogy of a school by implementing an ICT program in an appropriate way. Unfortunately, they are exceptions to the rule.

In summary, the goal related to substantive pedagogy is indeed detailed on the declarative level in the policy documents stating the program’s master plan. Unfortunately, it is then lost among countless sections addressing administrative and structural pedagogy. Consequently, the national ICT program exhibits a gap between the stated goal addressing substantive pedagogy (developing understanding, thinking, creativity, entrepreneurship, etc.) and the implementation of this goal. There is no detailed and organized work plan concerning substantive changes in learning and instruction. Therefore, even if the program succeeded in implementing its administrative and structural goals, it was unlikely to succeed in making a deep change in the core of learning and instruction.

Discussion and Conclusions

In this chapter, I defined the concepts of administrative, structural, and substantive pedagogy. Further, I outlined one of the main arguments of the book: in order to achieve optimal outcomes in connecting the isolated islands of pedagogical excellence into a continent, changes must be made in substantive pedagogy, rather than only in administrative and structural pedagogy. Instructional leadership is a necessary condition for such changes. It can enable educational change leaders to tackle the essence of instruction, rather than deal only with the external structures that surround it. Because this challenge is nested in various educational levels (Elmore, 2004), this statement is relevant to leaders across all the administrative levels of the educational system: from subject coordinators or chairs, department coordinators, pedagogical coordinators, school principals, and teacher educators up through change leaders at the level of the whole school system. The only way to enable pedagogical leaders to make the necessary changes that would facilitate teaching for deep learning is by fostering their personal professional development and deep commitment, and this in turn requires a culture of covenant rather than of contract.

It may seem obvious that in order to bring about a profound change in the quality of learning and instruction, educational processes must focus on substantive pedagogy. However, this basic insight is far from simple to apply. The studies described in this chapter discuss various attempts to implement system-wide changes which failed to address substantive pedagogy, thereby limiting the possibility of achieving the desired profound improvement in processes of learning and instruction.