Keywords

Teachers’ Knowledge

The most challenging aspect in the success of implementing innovative pedagogies relates to teachers’ knowledge. In order to shift to new instructional methods, it is essential to support the construction of teachers’ professional capabilities and to provide school-based support. Educational policies aiming to foster students’ thinking and understanding present teachers with enormous challenges requiring careful preparations. This chapter examines wide-scale implementation of thinking-rich instruction from the perspective of teachers’ knowledge. The chapter’s main research question is what can we learn about the implementation of programs aiming to foster students’ higher-order thinking (HOT) by considering teachers’ knowledge and professional development (PD). Throughout this chapter, I use the term “teachers” to describe both pre-service and in-service teachers. When I refer to only one of the two groups, I will note it explicitly.

Teachers’ Knowledge in the Context of Teaching HOT

The first step toward answering this question is to understand what teachers need to know in order to teach their students to think. Like other reforms pertaining to deep elements of instruction, teaching HOT poses considerable challenges that require teachers to extend the limits of their knowledge and skills (Fishman et al., 2003). In order to be able to respond to the mass of unexpected events characterizing thinking-rich instruction, teachers must be able to apply flexible, intelligent, and creative methods. In order to do so, teachers need knowledge that extends beyond fixed skills and practices. Pre-prepared learning materials and set guidelines for instruction cannot possibly address the full scope of activities a teacher would need in order to teach HOT (Carpenter et al., 2004). For implementation processes to be successful, teachers must have deep knowledge of the principles of a good thinking lesson (Loef-Frank et al., 1998). When teachers fail to grasp the intentions embedded in the materials created for a particular reform, it is likely that the core of that reform will be lost in the implementation process (Spillane et al., 2002). Thus, implementing HOT in traditional classrooms requires far more than the adoption of new subject matter. It involves a deep pedagogical change that includes at least five elements of teachers’ knowledge. These elements are discussed in the following sections (see Fig. 4.1).

Fig. 4.1
A pie chart of five wedges, knowledge of higher-order thinking. epistemic knowledge, general knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and metacognitive and meta-strategic knowledge.

The knowledge teachers need for teaching higher-order thinking (HOT)

Full size image

Knowledge of HOT

Many studies have shown that a necessary precondition for effective teaching is familiarity with the subject being taught. This is often referred to as “content knowledge” (Cocharn & Jones, 1998; Shulman, 1986, 1987; Wilson et al., 1987). However, when the focus is on teaching thinking strategies rather than on teaching facts and concepts, the term “content knowledge” is not suitable due to the unique nature of thinking strategies.

To avoid confusion and to denote the unique nature of teaching HOT, I have suggested in this context substituting the term “content knowledge” with the term “knowledge of HOT.” This type of knowledge includes the ability to think while applying various thinking strategies (for more elaborations, please see Chap. 1). It is intuitively clear that teachers will be unable to teach HOT without such knowledge. Additionally, teachers need knowledge of other essential aspects of good thinking, such as knowledge regarding thinking dispositions and knowledge regarding the characteristics of a culture of thinking (Newton, 2015; Perkins et al., 1993; Swartz et al., 2008).

Metacognitive and Meta-strategic Knowledge of HOT

A second component of relevant teachers’ knowledge concerns metacognition. Multiple studies have shown that the use of metacognition in class improves learning in general (Veenman, 2015) and learning of HOT in particular (Zohar & Barzilai, 2015). Both metacognitive skills (i.e., planning, monitoring, and evaluating) and metacognitive knowledge are essential to achieving this goal. The most significant component of metacognitive knowledge in this context is meta-strategic knowledge (MSK). It consists of general knowledge about each thinking strategy: what strategy is being used (i.e., naming the strategy), as well as knowledge of when, why, and how to use it. Teachers need MSK not only to improve their own thinking but also in order to teach HOT. This point will be clarified in the next section.

Pedagogical Knowledge in the Context of Teaching Higher-Order Thinking

A third important component of teachers’ knowledge relates to the pedagogy of teaching HOT. Knowledge about how to teach a particular subject is termed “pedagogical content knowledge” (PCK, Shulman, 1986, 1987). However, I suggest to avoid this term in discussions of teaching HOT due to difficulty in understanding the term “content” in this context. The literature on the pedagogy of teaching HOT does not make a clear conceptual statement regarding whether it consists of PCK or general pedagogic knowledge (Zohar, 2004a, b, 2008). This lack of clarity stems, in part, from a debate among researchers about whether thinking strategies are general or content-dependent. The assumption is that teaching HOT takes place according to the infusion approach that integrates instruction of HOT with teaching specific content, such as segments of the curriculum. Accordingly, thinking strategies have both general and content-dependent components (Abrami et al., 2008, 2015; Perkins & Salomon, 1989; Swartz et al., 2008). Such an approach prevents us from addressing teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in this area either as pedagogical content knowledge (which tends to be related to specific content areas) or as general pedagogic knowledge (which tends to be independent of specific content areas). Therefore, the term PCK (which is content-dependent) is not suitable in this context. Instead, I suggest to adopt the term “pedagogical knowledge in the context of teaching HOT.” This term covers knowledge of a large number of instructional practices, some of which are general, some of which are specific to teaching HOT, and some of which are both (e.g., Swartz et al., 2008; Tishman et al., 1995).

Pedagogical knowledge for teaching HOT includes, among other things, knowledge of appropriate instructional strategies, knowledge of students’ intuitive (i.e., pre-instructional) thinking abilities, and common difficulties experienced by students engaged in HOT learning tasks. It also consists of believing that teaching HOT is an appropriate educational goal for the entire student population, low-achievers and high achievers alike (Resnick, 2010; Zohar et al., 2001). In addition, this knowledge includes ways of developing students’ thinking dispositions and creating a culture of thinking in the classroom (Perkins et al., 1993; Swartz et al., 2008).

Pedagogical knowledge related to teaching metacognition is also relevant. Meta-strategic knowledge enables teachers to think clearly about the thinking strategies embedded in their lessons, even when they teach rich and complex conceptual frameworks (Zohar & Barzilai, 2015). Awareness of the metacognitive knowledge and skills embedded in their teaching contributes to teachers’ ability to teach HOT in a deliberate and planned way, rather than relying on intuition. In addition, teachers need a wide range of relevant teaching practices, such as:

  • Using metacognitive cues

  • Modeling thinking strategies in a variety of topics

  • Providing students with opportunities to verbalize the thinking strategies they apply while learning

  • Applying the “language of thinking” in classroom discourse

  • Planning and teaching learning activities with explicit references to thinking goals

  • Leading metacognitive discussions

  • Leading activities of reflective writing

  • Long-term and systematic planning of integrating instruction of HOT into the curriculum

Epistemic Knowledge

The field of personal epistemology investigates how people think about knowledge and knowing (Hofer & Bendixen, 2012; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Kuhn, 2001). Researchers argue that models of personal epistemology have metacognitive components (Barzilai & Zohar, 2014; Bromme et al., 2010; Kuhn, 2001) and that personal epistemology has a large influence on thinking processes (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Kuhn, 1999). More specifically, studies show that personal epistemology influences how people think in areas such as argumentation (Duschl, 2007; Mason & Scirica, 2006; Nussbaum et al., 2008; Tabak & Weinstock, 2011), critical thinking, and inquiry-based learning (IBL) (Kuhn, 1999; Siegel, 1988; Stoddard, 2010; Ten Dam & Volman, 2004).

Studies of epistemic thinking among teachers generally make one of the following claims:

  1. (a)

    Teachers tend to be unaware of their own personal epistemology (Shulman, 1987).

  2. (b)

    Teachers tend not to have a unified epistemic perception (Ryder et al., 1999; Stoddard, 2010).

  3. (c)

    Teachers’ personal epistemology is shaped by the learning processes they experienced during their own education and professional development (Luft & Roehrig, 2007).

Research shows that teachers’ epistemic beliefs affect the decisions they make while teaching and interacting with students (Brickhouse, 1990; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Richardson, 1996). Teachers’ personal epistemology is related to their own critical thinking and to their instructional goals regarding their students’ critical thinking (Stoddard, 2010). Studies show that teachers’ personal epistemology affects the level at which they apply inquiry in their lessons (Wallace & Kang, 2004), the nature of the inquiry processes they choose to teach (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), and the depth of the HOT skills they address in their lessons and encourage their students to use during inquiry-based learning (IBL) (Maor & Taylor, 1995).

The way teachers interact with and relate to knowledge and knowledge acquisition processes serves as a model for their students (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Students who observe their teacher considering multiple possible answers to an open-ended question and reflecting on processes of knowledge construction may develop a different epistemology than students whose teacher expects one “correct” answer and presents authoritative perceptions of knowledge. Research also shows that teachers’ explicit and implicit epistemic beliefs determine how they assess their students’ learning (Tabak & Weinstock, 2011). All these factors affect how students utilize HOT strategies (Maor & Taylor, 1995). Therefore, epistemic knowledge is an essential element in the teaching of HOT.

General Knowledge Concerning Pedagogies of Knowledge Construction and Substantive Pedagogy

When teaching concepts, a pedagogy based on transmission of information may encourage rote learning and passive acquisition of meaningless facts. When teaching thinking, a transmission of information pedagogy has unique characteristics. Studies examining teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about teaching HOT show that those who hold a transmission of knowledge view about teaching generally believe that it means transmission of rules for thinking and algorithms for problem-solving (for more details, see Chap. 8). Presenting students with problems that require independent thinking is often viewed by teachers working according to this approach as an inappropriate method, because it may confuse or frustrate students. Teachers who hold these views therefore tend to lower the cognitive demands of thinking tasks by “spoon-feeding” students with correct answers, or by providing recipes for solving problems. Therefore, although teachers may use learning activities that were originally designed to teach students to think, such teaching practices actually prevent students from actively engaging in active and independent thinking. On the other hand, teachers who view instruction of HOT from the perspective of knowledge construction tend to preserve the high level of cognitive demands embedded in thinking tasks (Zohar, 2004a, b). Thus, pedagogical knowledge in the context of teaching HOT is closely related to teachers’ implicit theories of learning and instruction in general. Consequently, PD programs in this field cannot ignore general theories of instruction and must address them along with the other components of teachers’ knowledge mentioned earlier. The bottom of Fig. 4.1 presents this knowledge as “General knowledge concerning substantive pedagogy”.

In summary, this section explained that the knowledge teachers need to teach HOT is indeed complex and multifaceted. Therefore, a most pressing question in the current discussion is as follows: To what extent can we expect that teachers would possess this knowledge following participation in large-scale implementation processes for teaching HOT? The subsequent sections address this question and present empirical evidence from three areas of research. The first area relates to teachers’ relevant knowledge on an intuitive level and its development in small-scale interventions. The second area discusses the likelihood that the scope of PD programs that are part of large-scale implementations would address all, or at least most, of the knowledge that teachers need to teach HOT in a sound way. The third area is based on interviews with pedagogical leaders who describe challenges related to teachers’ PD in large-scale implementations of HOT.

Empirical Findings Regarding Teachers’ Intuitive Knowledge of HOT and Its Development Following PD

How sound is teachers’ initial, intuitive knowledge about teaching HOT, that is, their knowledge prior to participating in formal learning on this subject? According to previous research, many teachers’ intuitive knowledge of this subject is limited and is insufficient for supporting sound instruction in this field (Bransky et al., 1992; Jungwirth, 1994). For example, research shows that teachers have varying degrees of knowledge about different components of scientific thinking (Zohar, 2004a, b). Additionally, teachers are rarely able to explain clearly what is critical thinking, to explain key concepts related to thinking (such as assumption, conclusion, or argument), or to explain which critical thinking strategies are most important for their students (Paul et al., 1997). Further, teachers’ intuitive knowledge regarding the thinking strategies related to inquiry-based learning (IBL) is also limited (Crawford, 2014).

Since the research on teachers’ intuitive knowledge and PD in the field of HOT is too broad for a systematic review, I will focus here on one area of research that will demonstrate research findings in this area. I chose to focus on argumentation in science education because of the central role argumentation had played in recent policy documents and of its central role in IBL. Additionally, there is a relatively large body of recent research on teachers’ knowledge regarding teaching argumentation.

Studies examining teachers’ knowledge regarding the components of argumentation reveal a complex picture. For example, a study conducted by Zembal-Saul and her colleagues (2002) found that four teachers participating in a PD program consistently succeeded in offering evidence for their claims, but their arguments were limited by oversimplifications, using evidence-based or inappropriate sampling methods, hasty conclusions, overgeneralizations, and severe misunderstandings of what constitutes evidence. Similarly, in a case study by Beyer and Davis (2008), the observed teacher demonstrated inaccurate understanding of scientific explanations and of the role of evidence. This teacher’s self-reports about teaching argumentation to elementary school students indicate that she instructed students to support their claims by describing a variety of details rather than using research-based data. Similarly, Sampson and Blanchard (2012) interviewed 30 teachers and found that they struggled with various issues related to argumentation. In assessing the validity of a claim, they relied primarily on their previous knowledge of the subject, rather than on data. Most of the interviewed teachers formulated arguments that provided explanations, but they did not support them with evidence. In Crippen’s (2012) study, the surveyed teachers used evidence to support their claims, but seldom explained explicitly why the evidence supported these claims. They also demonstrated a lack of understanding of the very idea of justification. The teachers who participated in Sadler’s (2006) study were generally proficient in the construction and analysis of arguments but found it difficult to distinguish between data and justifications. Ozdem and his colleagues (2013) found that elementary school science teachers tend to base their claims on prior assumptions rather than on data collected through observation or from other reliable sources (Ozdem et al., 2013).

Overall, these studies point to teachers’ inconsistent knowledge of the components of argumentation. Teachers are able to construct simple arguments but often encounter difficulties in constructing and analyzing complex ones. These studies reveal that the greatest weakness in teachers’ thinking is their limited understanding of the nature of evidence and justification. This weakness refers to the element “knowledge of HOT” in Fig. 4.1.

Some of the studies on teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in the context of argumentation indicate that the primary barrier to the routine application of reasoning in science education is teachers’ lack of awareness of instructional strategies that can support students’ argumentative reasoning (Driver et al., 2000; Zeidler, 1997; Zembal-Saul et al., 2002). For example, Simon et al. (2006) assert that most science teachers lack the pedagogical knowledge necessary to plan lessons for developing students’ argumentative reasoning and have only limited resources to assist them in teaching argumentation. Additional findings related to limitations in teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in the context of argumentation are found in the studies of Beyer and Davis (2008) and Sampson and Blanchard (2012).

Studies also examined whether targeted interventions succeeded to improve teachers’ knowledge of the components of an argument and of their pedagogical knowledge pertaining to argumentation and if so in what ways (Crippen, 2012; Dawson & Venville, 2013; McNeill & Knight, 2013; Osana & Seymour, 2004; Venville & Dawson, 2010). For example, a year-long series of workshops conducted with 12 post-elementary teachers offered concrete strategies designed to help them improve students’ written and oral argumentation skills (Simon et al., 2006). The findings indicate that the teachers’ level of argumentation improved during the year, but this was inconsistent because the patterns of argumentation and the nature of the change process were unique to each individual teacher. In addition, not all teachers used metacognition while teaching argumentation.

Another study examined an intervention focusing on the development of teachers’ knowledge by assessing its effects on students’ thinking. The students in the experimental group (n = 133) improved their reasoning skills, ability to use informal rational thinking, and understanding of the content (genetics). However, only a few students demonstrated sophisticated forms of argumentation (Dawson & Venville, 2013; Venville & Dawson, 2010). The findings indicate that the teachers’ knowledge developed within this intervention was insufficient for improving complex argumentative thinking among their students. Findings from additional studies on developing the knowledge needed for teaching argumentation in pre-service teacher education also showed a certain level of improvement, but pre-service teachers continued to demonstrate limits in the relevant knowledge and had considerable difficulties in applying this knowledge during classroom teaching (Sadler, 2006; Zembal-Saul, 2009).

Taken together, these studies indicate that small-scale experimental programs for PD aiming to improve the knowledge teachers need to teach argumentation are able to improve that knowledge. At the same time, the course of knowledge development varied among individual teachers, and by the end of the intervention, many important components were still absent.

At this point, it is important to note that my emphasis on the need for more extensive PD is not intended to show any disrespect to teachers. On the contrary, confirming that teachers cannot be expected to teach in ways for which they were not properly prepared reflects respect for the teaching profession and for teachers’ professional integrity.

With respect to the more general discussion of teaching HOT, we need to remember that argumentation is only one of many aspects. The call for developing students’ HOT therefore requires the expansion of teachers’ knowledge in multiple areas of thinking. Such an expansion will obviously require teachers’ participation in PD on a significantly larger scale than that described in the studies reviewed earlier. It is difficult enough to achieve the desired results in PD in the field of argumentation. It becomes much more difficult when addressing the body of knowledge necessary to teach diverse aspects of thinking.

It is also important to remember that all the studies cited earlier were conducted under the optimal conditions characterizing small-scale interventions. The results of large-scale interventions in this field are likely to be more limited, due to the “ripple effect” (Fullan, 2007). Dede (2004, 2006) refers to this issue as throwing the components of a change process “out the window” and claims that this trend is typical of system-wide implementation efforts (for more elaboration, see Chap. 1).

One of the research teams cited earlier, who developed professional development methods proven to be effective on a small scale (Simon et al. (2006), confirmed this assertion in an empirical way. In a follow-up study, Osborne et al. (2013) examined the issue of scaling up assuming that in most real-life circumstances the available resources for this endeavor are less than optimal. They therefore investigated whether it is possible to succeed in implementing argumentation into the routine work of science teachers with a limited investment of resources for supporting this process. In this follow-up study, a relatively small number of hours (likely to represent the typical conditions of scaling up processes) had been dedicated to professional development, as compared with the initial study (which demonstrated the conditions of a small-scale intervention). Another difference between the two studies was that all the teachers who participated in the first study were volunteers who represented a self-selected sample likely to have a positive attitude toward the intervention. In the subsequent study, however, the research population consisted of the entire school staff. Thus, the second study examined the program’s impact under conditions that are more common to system-wide implementation of educational programs than the optimal conditions typical of small projects. The results of the second study indicated that when the educational intervention was carried out under these more common conditions, it had no effect. That is, the same principles underlying the successful small-scale intervention had no effect when the intervention was conducted under conditions that are similar to those of the real educational world.

These findings raise a crucial question regarding the feasibility of successful efforts geared toward large-scale PD in the area of teaching HOT: How reasonable is it to expect that such efforts will devote sufficient resources for teachers’ learning, so that they will be able to construct the complex knowledge teachers would need to teach HOT in a sound way? This question is explored in the following sections.

Large-Scale Implementation Programs and the Knowledge Teachers Need for Instruction of HOT

Researchers disagree as to whether teachers’ PD programs affect student learning, even when it takes place under the optimal conditions of small-scale interventions. The issue is even more controversial in the case of system-wide implementation. This is particularly true when considering a subject requiring complex teachers’ knowledge, such as instruction of HOT (Grigg et al., 2013; Lotter et al., 2007).

Research on large-scale PD programs in the field of teaching HOT is quite limited. One example of such a study, conducted among teachers in 15 European countries, is described in a report on the status of teaching argumentation (Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2010). According to this report, the subject of argumentation has recently been integrated into professional development programs for pre-service and in-service teachers in European countries. The study found that the number of hours allocated to argumentation has been very limited. For example, teacher education programs rarely address argumentation for more than 6 h. In addition, the study noted a large variety in the depth of discussion addressing this subject. In some countries, discussion of argumentation is an explicit goal of the PD program, while others address it only implicitly, as part of addressing other educational goals such as IBL.

Studies from other parts of the world also find that teachers’ learning about HOT is limited, in terms of both scope and outcomes. In the absence of systemic studies addressing large-scale implementation of PD in the area of teaching HOT, this conclusion is based on extrapolation from studies of PD programs in other fields. The data indicate that the number of hours dedicated to PD at large, is fairly limited and that the programs’ effectivity tends to be low. For example, in the international Talis study (OECD 2014), the vast majority of teachers (about 88%) reported participating in some form of PD during the 12 months preceding the survey. About 75% of these teachers reported that their PD addressed capabilities related to teaching content. Although it covers many topics unrelated to the development of HOT, teaching content was the survey category most relevant to the current discussion. Only 20% of these teachers reported that they felt the training had a major impact on their teaching (OECD, 2014).

According to the 2012 US National Science and Mathematics Education Survey, over 80% of secondary school teachers and over 50% of primary school teachers participated in PD on content areas relevant to their teaching during the 3 years preceding the study. Only about 30% of the secondary school teachers and 4% of the primary school teachers received more than 35 h of PD during this period (Banilower et al., 2013). Similarly, in Israel, the “New Horizon” agreement between the Ministry of Education and the national teachers’ union limits the number of hours a teacher can participate in PD to 30 h annually. Since this pertains to PD on a variety of subjects, we can conclude that the number of hours devoted specifically to teaching HOT across the school system is far lower.

In summary, the data from these studies confirm the claim that large systems in many countries support teachers’ PD in the field of teaching HOT in an extremely limited way.

Interviews with Pedagogical Leaders

The conclusion stated in the previous paragraph is also supported by a study based on interviews with 12 pedagogical leaders in Israel. Each of these leaders played an active role in system-wide change processes related to instruction of HOT. The interviewees were senior officials, including supervisors in the national education system, leaders of pedagogical change at the level of the local authority, heads of major centers for teachers’ PD, and leaders of educational programs in school networks. The semi-structured individual interviews lasted between 1 h and 2.5 hours. The interview protocol asked the leaders to describe the plan of the change process they were involved in and to identify the challenges they encountered in terms of PD, assessment, and development of learning materials (Zohar, 2013a; Zohar & Lustov, 2018). Interviews were analyzed using the pragmatic approach to qualitative data analysis (Savin-Baden & Howell-Major, 2013). Of the many topics that emerged from the interviews, two are relevant to this chapter. The first pertains to the gap between the breadth and complexity of the knowledge teachers need to teach higher-order thinking and the duration of PD programs included in large-scale change processes. The second relates to the lack of skilled instructors to lead high-quality programs for teachers’ PD.

The following sections provide excerpts from the interviews that illustrate how the theoretical issues discussed in the previous sections are reflected in the real-world conditions characterizing implementation of system-wide change processes. In order to preserve the anonymity of the interviewees, no personal details are provided.

Gaps Between the Scope and Complexity of the Knowledge Teachers Need to Teach HOT and the Duration of PD Programs in Large-Scale Change Processes

Participants view the knowledge teachers need to teach HOT as extremely complex. An example of this view was pronounced by one of the participants who had led a system-wide change process, aimed at implementing IBL learning and HOT in a central school subject in high schools across the whole county. This leader asserts that it is much more complex to integrate thinking and inquiry into routine learning and instruction than simply changing the list of topics in the curriculum:

The change itself is a highly complex task. It’s not that instead of teaching about ancient times, we will teach about the Middle Ages … in that case, there is a topic that we had not been teaching until now and now we need to start teaching it. Here, the change itself is extremely complex in terms of the level of skills that teachers need.

In another section of the interview, this participant explains precisely what new knowledge and skills teachers need to be able to support the change process. He covers most of the components of teachers’ knowledge that were mentioned in the previous sections of this chapter and in Fig. 4.1. For example, he speaks about the shift from a teacher-centered to a student-centered pedagogy and about the complexity of the thinking strategies teachers need to learn in order to support thinking-rich instruction.

Another interviewee, who had led system-wide PD programs for many years, also notes the need to develop teachers’ knowledge regarding all the components mentioned earlier: thinking strategies, meta-strategic knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge. She elaborates on the complexity of the necessary pedagogical knowledge, explaining that it is difficult to address all of it within the limited time allocated for PD. According to her, restricting teachers to 30 h of PD per year, as stipulated in the agreement signed between the teachers’ union and the Israeli Ministry of Education, impairs teachers’ PD in general and in the area of teaching HOT in particular:

There has been some damage to teachers’ PD. For example, science teachers receive 30 hours of training. In those 30 hours, according to the requirements set by their National Subject Superintendent, they must study astronomy, because this year astronomy is included in the state-wide schools’ official assessment. Teachers don’t know enough about astronomy, because they don’t teach astronomy in teachers’ colleges. So, what can we do? They must study astronomy. Thirty hours represent seven or eight meetings, tops. You cannot expect that any significant learning process will take place within 30 hours. Not in terms of knowledge construction and not in terms of constructing thinking skills.

Teachers’ learning is, for all intents and purposes, learning. Therefore, the three levels of pedagogy described in previous chapters may also apply to learning and instruction taking place in teachers’ PD. At the level of structural pedagogy, the interviewee noted a significant gap between the goals of the PD and the number of hours offered. In 30 h, distributed across seven or eight learning sessions, it is not possible to cover, in any significant way, both thinking goals and content goals (in this case, astronomy). Later, the interviewee focuses on aspects of substantive pedagogy. She explains how this gap becomes more acute when one examines the deep change processes that are taking place as part of teachers’ learning:

[Teaching] thinking skills does not mean delivering a lecture about skills. Teachers’ educators must model these skills. Teachers must first experience these skills themselves, as learners, including all the metacognitive processes involved. The PD must construct two types of knowledge… First, the knowledge of the thinking skill itself, which teachers are not familiar with, then the meta-level knowledge of how to teach it…the pedagogy… [pause] I often ask the teachers simple questions: How do we compare? Let’s make a comparison between A and B. [pause] They jump straight to the level of thinking about what is similar and what is different. They ignore the previous stages, such as: what is the purpose of the comparison? According to what criteria will I make the comparison? What conclusion can I draw from the comparison? The thinking maps we are talking about [i.e., meta-strategic knowledge about the skills] … they are not familiar with them, or at least, they don’t know them well… If a teacher is not familiar with the meta-strategic knowledge of a thinking map, it will also be very difficult for her to construct a teaching strategy, because the teaching strategy goes with knowing the thinking map.

These remarks address deep processes of teachers’ learning. They focus on the interrelationships between the deep instructional goals of the PD course, methods of learning and instruction used in the course, teachers’ knowledge prior to and after the course, and typical thinking difficulties that teachers experience prior to and after the course. In order to achieve teachers’ meaningful learning during PD, it is not enough to transmit information. Rather, instruction in the PD course must apply methods of knowledge construction that include experiences of active learning. Such experiences are essential for meaningful construction of the knowledge teachers need for teaching HOT. According to this interviewee, three kinds of knowledge need to be addressed for each thinking strategy: knowledge of the strategy (or “skill”); the thinking map, which is a visual means of representing MSK; and pedagogical knowledge. The interviewee’s example of teaching how to make a comparison demonstrates the gap between teachers’ initial knowledge and the knowledge they will need in the classroom. She explains that a teacher who lacks the MSK addressing general aspects of a thinking strategy will not be able to teach that strategy successfully. In other words, the pedagogical knowledge necessary for teaching purposes will also be lacking. This interviewee’s description demonstrates the extent of the gap between the needs of the PD in terms of deep, or substantive pedagogy, and the 30-h limitation established in the agreement with the Teacher Union. The terms of this agreement were determined by negotiating teachers’ labor rights rather than by discussing the pedagogical needs inherent to reforms. The gap between the desired and the actual, in terms of the resources of time allocated to PD, is exacerbated by the Israeli Ministry of Education’s frequently changing policies, which generate multiple competing goals:

We don’t have enough time. … It is impossible to do it in 30 hours. Because each time, there is some new policy . This year, the superintendent announced that we will need to teach IBL . But along with IBL, we will also need to teach the new topic of health. So they must leave the course with scientific knowledge about health. It is impossible to do everything … In many PD courses this year we have been working with teachers on how to conduct an entire inquiry process from start to finish. In other words, from first encountering a given phenomenon, to framing the questions to […]. This is a very, very difficult process … It is impossible to do it in 30 hours. Because each time, there is a new policy … They come to the workshops and they learn, but I don’t know exactly what they absorb. The fact that they smile at me and say how wonderful it was... I don’t know … What exactly did they get from it? There is a large gap here.

The interviewee then continues to elaborate the difficulties of implementation. She explains that in order to make the transition to a thinking-rich instruction, teachers must not only teach thinking strategies but also make a comprehensive change in the classroom culture. Accordingly, the content of the teachers’ PD must be expanded to many new areas:

We need a paradigm shift. [In addition to developing thinking strategies] … the issue here is the culture of teaching, and thinking as part of the culture of teaching. We encounter this everywhere. This issue… of the culture of thinking, the language of thinking, classroom discourse… implementing a culture of thinking means working on thinking habits and thinking dispositions, so that they become part of the classroom culture. This is essential.

Other interviewees also raised similar concerns related to the limit of 30 annual hours of PD and to the large number of goals competing for these hours. For example:

This is a problem […] The PD course is 30 hours long. Very few things can be achieved. And there is so much you have to teach in order to be able to do this process … I am saying again that the PD is not long enough.

The idea of an insufficient number of hours allocated for PD is also evident in the words of the next interviewee who was responsible for implementing a nationwide reform in a mandatory school subject taught in all schools. She clearly understands the tension between “depth” and “breadth” in PD. She notes the difference between a change process at the organizational level and a change at the level of teachers’ knowledge. She explicitly notes that the learning processes in which teachers must participate are extremely complex and therefore take time. She explains that in order to bring about a profound change in teachers’ knowledge, it is not enough for teachers to take part in a PD course, but it is also necessary to support them in their classroom practice. According to her, a profound change is possible only through working with teachers at the micro-level, including precise feedback to teachers regarding specific classroom interactions, such as how to formulate questions to be asked during instruction. She expresses concern that the current conditions consisting of a brief PD with no support for classroom instruction, will inevitably lead to instruction of HOT as a purely mechanical activity that will not be worth the effort:

Changing a teacher’s mind is extremely difficult, even if he really wants to make the change. And I am talking about people who seriously want this. The ability to make a deep change is very, very slow. It’s not just an organizational matter, it’s a matter of awareness…First of all, awareness, and second, a matter of support. Teachers should be provided with mentors in the field. It is not enough for a teacher to listen to an excellent lecture and attend a wonderful workshop about teaching thinking. If no one observes him in class and then says, ‘You asked this question – how could you ask it differently?’ then it is hard to believe that we will succeed in reaching that teacher… I’m afraid the teacher will only half-understand, and then will teach it in a mechanical way. And to teach thinking in a mechanical way…it is better not to teach thinking at all. Don’t say you are teaching thinking if it becomes [here the interviewee drops her strong, clear voice and imitates a tired teacher repeating a memorized text in a nasal voice] ‘Now wait a minute, at this point I am supposed to ask you a thought-provoking question. Open your notebooks, here comes a thought-provoking question.’ It’s terrible! And it happens all the time in this system, whenever you try to introduce new ideas.

In sum, this section shows a severe gap between elements of the reform related to the levels of substantive and administrative pedagogy addressing teachers’ knowledge and PD.

Lack of Skilled Instructors to Lead PD Programs

The interviews with the pedagogical leaders also reveal a second gap between the feasibility of addressing the substantive and structural levels of implementing a reform. The interviews highlight the role of PD and particularly the role of instructors and leading teachers who can escort teachers through the change process. Instructors, who in effect act as teacher educators, are an important link in the chain of transferring professional knowledge in a reliable way from the policy documents that define a reform to the teachers who will execute it. The interviewees describe a wide variety of roles carried out by instructors in reform processes: teaching PD workshops; participating in teams that develop educational and assessment materials; and visiting schools to meet teachers, observe lessons, and provide teachers with constructive feedback. Thus, the quality of instructors’ knowledge about teaching HOT is essential for the reliability of the implementation process (Spillane, 2000).

The interviewees confirmed that they indeed view instructors as a crucial link in the wide-scale implementation of the reform but emphasized that the issue of teacher educators raises distinct challenges. One of these challenges concerns PD for instructors. For example, one interviewee who strongly believes in the role of instructors in the implementation of educational programs for teaching HOT, stresses that to succeed, they must undergo a comprehensive PD process. Instructors and leading teachers tend to be outstanding “star” teachers, because they are chosen on the basis of their strong pedagogical capabilities. Nevertheless, because teaching HOT requires specific and complex knowledge, the PD needed for their job requires considerable resources and usually takes several years:

In order to implement this policy document [on teaching HOT] in the field, we must first train instructors. We had a series of PD sessions … We trained a whole group of instructors to teach HOT.

Another interviewee further elaborates this point:

Some groups of instructors met regularly for six or seven years, other groups met for three or four years … We also had a number of courses for leading teachers. We saw positive development. It is not true that you can’t help teachers make progress in this area. But we learned that it is very difficult to do this on a large scale.

Many interviewees note that the programs they lead face a severe shortage of instructors who have the necessary relevant knowledge. As seen earlier in the quotes pertaining to teachers, the interviewees repeatedly emphasize the depth and complexity of the knowledge that instructors need in order to work with teachers on instruction of HOT:

We do not have enough pedagogical experts who do not only talk on the level of declarations and slogans, but who can actually follow this path to the level of the specific questions to be asked [in the classroom] and who can analyze, critique, improve the work, and make it reflect HOT in the best possible way. We don’t have these people.

Another interviewee says there is a lack of instructors with sufficient pedagogical expertise across the school system. The problem, in her opinion, is that the role of instructors requires extensive experience in the field, in addition to theoretical knowledge. Too often, instructors without such experience speak theoretically about teaching HOT but are unable to move beyond the declarative level:

You should understand that there are not enough pedagogues in the Ministry [of Education] … When they talk “about” things [i.e., on the declarative level], but nothing happens- it is useless … For example, the Ministry is promoting the issue of inquiry- based learning. But how many teachers know how to guide their students in asking a proper research question?

In other words, the shortage in pedagogical knowledge enables instructors and leading teachers to teach thinking and inquiry according to fixed patterns they had acquired during Pd. However, when they need to move beyond the surface toward a deeper level of pedagogy, it becomes clear that their knowledge is insufficient. Here, too, there is a connection to substantive pedagogy. The problem, in this interviewee’s opinion, is that teachers often lack the knowledge they need to guide their students through the detailed micro-level of thinking processes, such as framing a proper research question. Such gaps in teachers’ knowledge make inquiry teaching merely mechanical. How is it possible—asks one of the interviewees—to lead a meaningful process of IBL if teachers do not know what is a proper research question, or how to guide their students in framing one? She cynically recounts a time when the Ministry of Education suddenly increased the budget for recruiting instructors to support the implementation of HOT. Due to the chronic shortage of instructors with adequate pedagogical knowledge, instead of being glad about getting more instructors, she describes this decision as “a minor disaster”. She explains this attitude by referring to her frustration at not being able to find personnel who has the necessary pedagogical knowledge:

Last summer, they announced … that because of the Meaningful Learning reform they would provide more resources for PD. Usually when they increase the PD, it is a minor disaster. It is a great joy, but also a minor disaster … because we don’t have qualified people who can do this job.

Another interviewee serves as the pedagogical director of an initiative to develop inquiry-based learning (IBL) and HOT in a particular school district. She reports that a major barrier to the development of that initiative is the serious shortage of qualified instructors capable of carrying out the deep and profound work that needs to be done with teachers. In her opinion, this shortage is particularly severe in her region, because of its remoteness. After describing the good work being done with teachers via the regional center for teachers’ PD, she adds:

There is a serious shortage of teachers’ educators who are experts in instruction. If we would have had more experts who understand what we mean when we talk about HOT and how to prepare teachers for it, things would have been much easier for us. There is a real shortage, especially here, because of the geographic remoteness. Because we are in the periphery. Something I see as really problematic is that most experts on this subject don’t live in our region. Inviting them to a single event is not what we are looking for. That might be nice, but it’s not what we need… We must have enough people who can do the training…people whose academic specialization is in the area of developing students’ HOT.

Unless we would have people with strong pedagogical abilities within our region, we would never be able to really make the changes we are talking about. These are topics that constantly change and must be updated. You always have to be on top of them. There is a need to create a high-profile pedagogical forum that will create concentric circles of impact, gradually reaching further out into the field. We started to create these circles… but they need to be led by a strong core of seven or eight people. We don’t have them. We only have two or three…I am well aware of this shortage…I look at learning tasks that teachers write, tasks that relate to HOT, and I see their level. We have so few instructors that can really analyze such tasks in depth [in order to give teachers constructive feedback]… Until I would have a broad forum of people who know how to do this, it won’t be possible to raise this whole business to a higher level…That will always be our glass ceiling.

This interviewee is speaking on the level of substantive pedagogy. She notes the lack of qualified people for working at this level as a primary reason for the inability to break through the glass ceiling and achieve system-wide implementation of HOT. She recognizes the need for a minimum number of people with adequate knowledge for leading an implementation process and for imparting this knowledge to expanding circles of educators. The absence of such knowledgeable people hinders a system-wide implementation.

Interviewees from more central regions also mention similar difficulties. The lack of high-quality instructors is therefore not unique to remote areas. An interviewee who leads a reform in one of the mandatory school subjects expresses similar feelings. She uses the terms “bottleneck” to explain how this shortage impairs the implementation of the program for which she is responsible:

I feel that… there is a bottleneck. When there is a desire and a need in the field, we don’t have anybody to send to them.

The quotes presented in this section illustrate how various aspects of substantive pedagogy are integrated with various aspects of structural pedagogy. The lack of skilled instructors, which was similarly highlighted in previous research (Zohar, 2013a), is a recurring theme. First, the frequent shifts in the Ministry’s policy cause frequent changes in the nature of the tasks assigned to instructors. Thus, after considerable investment in developing instructors’ knowledge about teaching HOT, the instructors were often sent to perform other tasks, such as working with teachers on the integration of digital technology or implementing various content-related goals.

Second, there is rapid turnover among instructors. They tend to leave their positions after a short time, mainly due to the significant difficulties they encounter in working with teachers and because of poor financial compensation. These findings demonstrate how in the context of the instructors’ work, administrative and organizational problems interfere with implementation of HOT on the level of substantive pedagogy, because these problems inhibit the flow of knowledge that needs to reach the teachers.

It should be noted that the State Comptroller also sharply criticized the Israeli Ministry of Education about the way it took care of training instructors and its potential damage to the implementation of the Meaningful Learning reform (for further elaboration, see Chap. 7). The comptroller cites a 2016 evaluation report issued by the Planning and Strategy Division of the Ministry of Education, according to which the lack of professional guidance for schools is one of the main obstacles to implementing the reform. The report also notes the difficulty in recruiting qualified instructors and the rapid turnover among instructors, which interferes with continuity. The report emphasizes that these difficulties are also apparent in the most central districts. The State Comptroller’s Office informed the Ministry of Education that implementation of the Meaningful Learning reform is extremely complex. It therefore requires effective and systematic PD addressing the needs of professionals working with all age levels, in all subject areas, and in all sectors of the population. In the first year of implementing the reform, the Ministry of Education did increase the resources made available to national subjects’ supervisors for hiring additional instructors. In subsequent years, however, these resources were gradually reduced until they returned to their original level prior to the launching of the reform. This is despite the fact that, according to the work schedule presented by the Ministry’s own planning, preparations for implementing the Meaningful Learning reform are still in the early stages and far from conclusion. The comptrollers’ comments support the findings presented here regarding the importance of instructors in processes of system-wide implementation, as well as the challenges involved in strengthening this crucial link.

Summary and Conclusions

Educational researchers agree on the importance of thorough and meticulous development of the human capacity of those involved in change processes in the area of learning and instruction (Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2007; Levin, 2008). Nevertheless, educators are still struggling with the question of how to develop such capacities, especially on a system-wide scale. Luft and Hewson (2014) assert that while the idea of scaling up is tempting and sounds promising, it is not clear how to realize it or if it is even possible to do so. They suggest that due to the nature of teacher PD, scaling up may be an elusive construct (Luft & Hewson, 2014). They conclude by arguing that there will never be simple solutions to this complex problem.

This chapter focuses on teachers’ learning processes. By analyzing the specific case of teachers’ learning in the context of teaching HOT, I emphasize the necessity for intensive work with both teachers and instructors on all the knowledge components teachers need, as described in Fig. 4.1. The chapter emphasizes that an important part of scaling up is to construct a pedagogical toolbox that will attend to the smallest details of the pertinent substantive pedagogy. This includes tools addressing issues such as how to teach students to construct and analyze complex arguments based on reliable evidence, how to guide students in constructing a fruitful research question, and how to help teachers develop criteria for analyzing and evaluating thinking tasks so that they would be able to reflect upon them, improve them, and adapt them to the specific educational context they work in.

The interviews with change leaders indicate that making such efforts on the micro-level of substantive pedagogy is an essential component of any successful scaling up process. Without detailed work on issues such as the specific details of classroom discourse or the development of appropriate learning materials and evaluation tools, any implementation will be mechanical and superficial. Therefore, the literature review and the interviews with change leaders both indicate that the implementation process may succeed or fail based on the quality of the PD for teachers and instructors, especially at the level of substantive pedagogy.

This indicates the need for a close correlation between administrative pedagogy and substantive pedagogy in the context of teachers’ PD. Even when an organizational structure enables and provides budget for PD, the learning processes may prove useless if they do not address substantive pedagogy at a detailed and practical level. The interview data show that a lack of mid-level leaders (whose role is to guide leading teachers and instructors) who have the deep pedagogical knowledge necessary to put theory into practice is a serious bottleneck, hindering successful implementation. There is a need for more instructors who can work at the micro-level required for operating successfully on the level of substantive pedagogy, addressing even the smallest details of teaching HOT in the classroom. Spillane (2000) notes that this knowledge is essential in order to convey reliably the fundamental purpose of a system-wide reform, and not dilute the message during the transition between organizational levels. Preparing change leaders to operate on this level poses a difficult challenge. It requires a combination of theoretical and practical knowledge and ongoing teachers’ learning.

In the absence of such knowledge, any organizational infrastructure designed to scale up a pedagogical reform may become devoid of content. The leaders of the reform may invest vast resources in planning, budgeting, and building the organizational infrastructure that may include recruiting instructors and allocating times and places for PD courses. Yet, such organizational structures cannot bring about the desired changes without explicit planning at the level of substantive pedagogy. Indeed, the required planning must consist of a detailed design of exactly what will be taught in the PD course, by whom it will be taught, and what learning materials and curriculum will be used. Neumerski (2013) also indicates the need for closer coordination between various levels of pedagogical leadership within the system. She claims that a lack of such coordination limits the ability to utilize the pedagogical leadership resources that do exist in a system for improving instruction.

The analysis presented in this chapter provides further insights about scaling up from the point of view of teachers’ knowledge and its impact on strategic planning of large-scale implementation. The history of education is full of failures regarding the implementation of large-scale progressive pedagogical reforms. Although there is still no solution to the “elusive problem” described by Luft and Hewson (2014), many current policy papers, curricula, and standards around the world strongly affirm the importance of teaching HOT to the entire student population, across all age groups, and for all subjects of study. Recognizing the scope of the challenge involved in meaningful implementation of this idea as it pertains to the development of teachers’ knowledge raises an important question: Do policy documents often set goals that require educators to do too much too quickly? I will address this general question in detail in Chap. 9, but the next paragraphs discuss the more specific implications of this question within the case of wide-scale implementations of teaching HOT.

One of the most widely quoted comments in the field of education comes from the McKinsey report: “The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers” (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). The findings presented in this chapter offer a paraphrase extending this statement. If we are indeed interested in making a major change in the field of teaching HOT, the depth of this change cannot exceed the depth of the knowledge provided to teachers via PD. Therefore, the main conclusion of this chapter is that if we want to avoid making merely superficial and mechanical changes, then we must seriously consider teachers’ knowledge and view it as a central factor in planning the scope of the educational reform. A realistic assessment of the knowledge that teachers will need to support a meaningful change, along with a critical assessment of the scope of the PD courses to be offered, may indicate a need to compromise on the scope of the planned change.

The implication of this conclusion for the field of teaching HOT is that the sweeping and broad statements that appear in multiple policy and curriculum documents should be viewed with some suspicion. Often, such statements are too ambitious to be applied in a reliable way, given the limitations of teachers’ knowledge, especially when the goal is quick changes. Often, politicians’ intentions stem, in part, from their desire to make their mark rapidly, during their brief terms in office. One of the problems is the lag between rapid political changes and the slow schedule required to enact deep pedagogical changes. This difference in schedule exacerbates the problem described above. In order to avoid superficial and mechanical implementation, policymakers and politicians need to rephrase their statements in a more modest and realistic manner that reflects teachers’ initial knowledge and the scope of the PD processes that can be reasonably expected. In order to discourage false promises about “quick fixes”, the public should be particularly critical of politicians’ statements regarding the scope of promised educational reforms. Yet, it is possible to retain an ambitious vision as a long-term final goal while maintaining a strategic plan with realistic goals that distinguishes between this “big” long-term dream and short-term, more realistic goals and actions that support high-quality learning.