Keywords

Introduction

In my work as a consultant in the field of change processes in learning and instruction, I encounter the same phenomenon over and over again. The people I work with (change leaders) are passionate and motivated about educational reform. They are confident they will be the ones to change the world. They declare that they intend to produce pedagogical change. However, during our conversations, it becomes clear that they are actually referring to changes in pedagogical administration or changes in the pedagogy of the structure of teaching. I tell them something is missing. I explain that past experience suggests that, without well-planned and meticulous work on substantive pedagogy (although I do not use this term explicitly), the chances they will succeed in bringing about real and positive change in the quality of education are slim. “We leave those aspects to the principals and teachers in the classrooms” is the answer I often get from the people sitting across the table from me, who often have no personal experience with working in classrooms or schools. They do not understand substantive pedagogy. In fact, they do not see it at all. As if it is transparent to them.

I already know how the conversation will end. I can anticipate how, in all likelihood, the change process in which they are going to invest a significant amount of time and public money is going to end. I expect yet another reform replete with all the bells and whistles, but ultimately one that will not touch the core of teaching and learning processes. It will make no real change. My heart aches. It is, however, hard for me to explain what I see as critical for a successful change process: a systematic, meticulous planning of the implementation of substantive pedagogy. This book is an effort to explain this critical issue.

Focusing on Deep Systemic Change of a Particular Instructional Goal

The theoretical literature discusses how to bridge the gap between educational policy on teaching and learning and the teaching and learning that actually take place in classrooms. Scholars state that this is an important and complex issue that has not yet been adequately addressed in educational theory or practice (Coburn, 2003; Elmore 2004; Lee & Krajcik, 2012; McDonald et al., 2006; Raudenbush, 2007; Zohar, 2013a, b). The literature emphasizes the pressing need for further research, conceptualization, and maintenance of an appropriate level of intellectual discussion of the subject.

The present book aimed to bridge this gap by examining the deep components of a broad and system-wide change in teaching and learning. It is based on Raudenbush’s (2007) definition of teaching as classroom interactions between teachers and students that are taking place around educational content. Following Coburn (2003), the current book addresses the significant challenges inherent in trying to reach a large number of schools while focusing on those aspects of deep educational change that are necessary for a coherent and sustainable reform. Some previous researchers have also focused on the depth of the desired changes in learning and instruction. For example, Cohen and Barnes (1993a, b) discuss the slow and inconsistent progress characterizing efforts toward deep changes in educational systems. They assert that many reformers, whose goal is to distance themselves from traditional teaching models, aspire for high-quality teaching. Implementing such high-quality teaching on a large scale, however, involves considerable difficulties. Cohen and Barnes explain that in order to find ways to improve implementation, it is necessary to delve into the depths of teaching and learning processes, to examine how their various aspects are integrated in the implementation, how they influence various implementation processes, and how they are influenced by them. Other previous studies (e.g., Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2007a; Zohar, 2013b; Cohen & Mehta, 2017) argue that educational reforms seldom generate the desired change in the quality of teaching and learning because they tend to focus on shallow rather than on deep elements. They feverishly make changes in various aspects of the organizational, economic, and administrative structures of the education system, but do not address the actual processes of teaching and learning, or at least do not address them in a serious and well-planned manner. It is therefore hardly surprising that they do not succeed in improving these processes.

The present book takes the discussion a step further, focusing on two main perspectives. First, from the perspective of those interested in educational change, it investigates aspects of systemic change in teaching and learning regarding a specific instructional goal—teaching higher-order thinking (HOT)). In most research on pedagogical reform, the unit under study is a reform in one organizational unit: a nation, province, regional/district educational system, school network, a single school, and so forth (Cohen et al., 2013; Cohen & Mehta, 2017; Levin, 2008). In contrast, this book investigates change processes regarding one instructional goal, across different organizational units. By using this methodology, the book can analyze in a new way the distinctive issues that arise from large-scale implementation of a reform in a particular type of instructional innovation. Consequently, it deals with specific issues in implementation related to the specific nature of the proposed instructional goal: the challenges it poses and the specific interactions it requires between policy-making and strategic planning at organizational and instructional levels. The specific case of analyzing large-scale implementation in the field of teaching HOT may serve as a general model for future work dealing with the theory of educational change processes in other specific instructional areas (e.g., improving literacy in writing, reading, or mathematics).

The second main perspective is for those engaged in fostering HOT. The particular goal of instruction chosen for this study is the transition toward education for thinking. As seen in the first chapter, this is currently a policy focus in many educational systems around the world. Therefore, the broad perspective that examines a variety of aspects related to the introduction of systemic changes in the field of teaching thinking, beyond a specific reform, is particularly valuable for those working in this field. It may help to draw generalizations about implementing the teaching of thinking in complex educational systems that cannot be made when we study a single change process taking place in one organizational unit. Teaching for thinking therefore serves in this book a double purpose: as an example, illustrating a more general argument regarding the methodology of studying large-scale implementation processes, as well as a vehicle of educational innovation in the area of teaching HOT that is an end to itself.

The book chapters examined and integrated four main sources of knowledge: (1) theoretical literature in the area of teaching and learning in general and teaching HOT in particular; (2) theoretical literature on wide-scale implementation of change processes; (3) research and analysis of diverse processes of wide-scale implementation that took place in the Israeli educational system in the area of developing students’ HOT; and (4) reflections on the author’s personal experiences with implementing HOT on a wide, national scale.

Substantive Pedagogy and Its Role in Change Processes

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, I have participated in numerous discussions on educational change processes in which my colleagues used the phrase “pedagogical change” to describe changes in aspects as varied as budgeting, planning the number of hours allocated to each school subject, leadership style, integration of students with learning disabilities, establishing a network of schools, supporting new teachers, and more. Optimal functioning in all these aspects is important and may even be crucial, for generating deep changes in major processes pertaining to learning and instruction. However, simply engaging with these issues does not necessarily affect teaching and learning on a deep level. In most cases, it fails to bring about even the slightest change of this level.

To sharpen the distinction between pedagogical changes that are at the heart of teaching and learning processes and changes that are more peripheral, I distinguish between three types of using the word “pedagogy”: administrative pedagogy, structural pedagogy, and substantive pedagogy. In the present discussion, the substantive pedagogy is the most vital. This concept deals with substantive patterns of teaching and learning. It addresses issues such as teaching for understanding; achieving change in the way students understand concepts and processes; integrating HOT into the teaching of content; integrating discussion of social, moral, and ethical issues in teaching of content; improving reading comprehension; using metacognition; fostering students’ epistemic thinking; and assessing students’ HOT and their ability to apply learning to new contexts. Acting seriously to improve these issues makes it necessary to deal directly with improving ways of thinking and understanding. Therefore, it involves a deep change in the quality of teaching and learning processes. Other researchers have expressed similar ideas, even without necessarily using the specific set of concepts embedded here (Elmore, 2004; Spillane, 2000). This book argues that, in order to bring about the desired improvement in the quality of educational systems, it is crucial to introduce change not only in pedagogical administration or in the pedagogy of the structure of teaching but also in substantive pedagogy. This argument is relevant to pedagogical changes of various scopes: reforms in the education system as a whole and reforms in smaller systems, such as a school network, a single school, one academic subject within one school, or even a certain cohort within a school.

What is required, then, to succeed in bringing about real change in substantive pedagogy? The answer seems simple. One necessary (even if insufficient) condition for such a reform is that the change process will engage in a focused, planned, and intensive manner with substantive pedagogy. While this statement may sound self-evident, it is surprising to discover how rarely this condition is met in systemic change processes, whether within a single school or in large-scale changes pertaining to entire educational systems. The problem is that many reforms described as “pedagogical changes” are concerned with improving pedagogical or structural administration, while the substantive pedagogy remains invisible. Although learning and instruction are supposedly at the core of education (Elmore, 2004), many people do not see them as a factor that must be considered in planning and implementing educational reform processes.

Following previous researchers who expressed a similar idea (e.g., Fullan, 2007a; Elmore, 2004) and following the definition of “substantive pedagogy,” one of the main arguments of this book is that, in order to bring about a deep educational change, the often-ignored substantive pedagogy must be a salient component in the planning and implementation of an educational reform.

This idea was the common denominator for the issues discussed in the various chapters of this book (see Fig. 9.1). An effort was made to portray various aspects of substantive pedagogy intrinsic to teaching HOT. The various chapters demonstrated how specific aspects related to substantive pedagogy interact with multiple issues connected to wide-scale implementation. Ideas related to substantive pedagogy were weaved into the various chapters in multiple ways:

  1. (a)

    The need for combining detailed planning at the three levels of substantive pedagogy with planning at the organizational level was demonstrated in Chaps. 6 and 7 through the analysis of two large-scale change processes: the “meaningful learning” reform and the reform in citizenship education.

  2. (b)

    Chapter 2 highlights current challenges related to the status of knowledge in today’s schools. It shows how—in addition to philosophical and normative considerations—bad substantive pedagogy may influence people’s beliefs about what schools should be teaching. It also demonstrates educators’ contradicting views regarding this issue and explains the interrelationships that exists between “how” to teach (i.e., instructional methods or pedagogy) and “what” to teach (knowledge goals).

    The complexity of the aims of education in the twenty-first century explained the extent of the difficulty in enacting the desired deep changes in substantive pedagogy. The desired changes consist of instruction that merges content, thinking strategies, and an advanced epistemic approach. Chapter 2 illustrated the challenges involved in implementing such complex aims by analyzing challenges related to the status of knowledge in the school system. Many teachers have left behind instruction that assumes a deterministic epistemic conception of knowledge, yet have not yet adopted an evaluative epistemic conception. It therefore seems that the education system is “stuck” at a stage of pedagogies that assume a multiplist perception of knowledge, i.e., that no knowledge claim is more valid than another, so that “anything goes.” Such pedagogies make it difficult to attend to deep knowledge and generally impair teachers’ abilities to engage in deep intellectual activity. Under these conditions (in which teachers lack advanced epistemic perceptions), teaching HOT may involve a collection of isolated strategies. It cannot however be expressed in its stronger sense, that is, as influencing knowledge construction through critical examination and evaluation of knowledge statements. Chapter 2 raised the urgent necessity for designing criteria for evaluating the quality of knowledge taught in school and for creating relevant learning and assessment materials for the use of teachers and students. In planning system-wide implementation, there is therefore a pressing need to allocate resources for these purposes. Such resources could include funding teams of experts and developing learning and assessment materials.

  3. (c)

    Chapter 5 discussed inquiry-based learning (IBL), whose successful enactment is another feature of improving substantive pedagogy. The chapter illustrated the complexity of IBL, noting that it could be taught in a modular rather than in an “all or nothing” way. The design of system-wide implementation of IBL was described as a complex process of decision-making regarding the scope and nature of students’ inquiry. This process involves questions and considerations relating to the policy objectives of introducing IBL and to strategic, long-term planning of its implementation. For example, assuming that we do not give up on the goal of deep learning, is it appropriate for policy documents to state ambitious goals of IBL despite all the challenges involved, or perhaps it may be preferable to settle for more modest goals? Ambitious goals may consist of students of diverse populations carrying out independent, long-term inquiry projects in diverse school subjects. Less ambitious goals may consist of working on shorter-term inquiry projects, in only a few selected school subjects, and with only part of the student population. Another way to practice less ambitious inquiry goals might be to have students critique work conducted by others (for instance, by critiquing research articles), rather than conducting their own independent research projects. Similar considerations for less ambitious goals may also influence the long-term strategic planning of policy implementation by dictating timetables and stages for achieving a range of partial IBL objectives. These considerations demonstrate how sound strategic planning of large-scale inquiry learning requires thorough understanding of the details of the substantive pedagogy related to inquiry.

  4. (d)

    Chapter 8 addressed the relationships between substantive pedagogy and assessment. The chapter showed that adding HOT items to standardized, high-stakes tests does not necessarily lead to deep learning of HOT. Within the climate of high-stakes testing described throughout the chapter, instructional goals designed to teach students to think were compromised in terms of their effects on classroom practice. Data from teachers’ interviews indicated that it is often possible to teach students to memorize replies to test items designed to test HOT. Under the regime of high-stakes testing, instruction of HOT seemed to take the form of “mechanical instruction,” implying rote learning and drilling students in answering HOT items. Such circumstances prevented active, deep thinking on the part of the students. The data reinforce the argument, discussed extensively in the literature, regarding the impact of a policy of high-stakes testing on the essence of teaching and learning. The findings indicate that it is not sufficient to improve tests by including items designed to measure students’ thinking. It is also necessary to reduce the degree of individual stakes experienced by principals, teachers, and students, while they interact with standardized testing. Otherwise, even hard work on improving substantive pedagogy through the implementation of IBL and HOT becomes useless. The implication of this finding is that if policy-makers are serious about the goal of improving substantive pedagogy through teaching for thinking, they must implement this policy in an educational climate that will allow a considerable degree of freedom and teachers’ autonomy rather than press them for immediate results.

  5. (e)

    Another significant issue is whether the large-scale implementation of thinking-rich teaching should adopt the general or the infusion approach to teaching HOT (Zohar, 1996). Decisions regarding this issue, which are inherently related to substantive pedagogy, will have a profound impact on the structural and administrative infrastructure of the implementation process. More specifically, they will affect the design of learning materials, assessment, and professional development (PD) programs (whether they should be school based and thus inter-disciplinary, or disciplinary, across many schools). Therefore, this issue provides another example of how substantive pedagogy is interwoven in a tight way to issues pertaining to pedagogical administration.

  6. (f)

    A final point concerns teachers’ knowledge and the knowledge of other education professionals. Chapter 4 detailed the knowledge teachers need in order to be able to support their students in learning to think, clarifying the enormity of the task involved in PD in this field. In order for the implementation process not to be merely technical and superficial, it is vital to support teachers even in the smallest details of instruction. That is, it is necessary for PD to work with teachers all the way down to the level of how precisely they might interact with students when giving them feedback on a particular thinking task. Therefore, the outcomes of an implementation process may succeed or fail based on the quality of the PD processes at the level of substantive pedagogy. Large-scale implementation processes, however, do not usually provide the pedagogical and organizational infrastructure necessary for such PD. This raises two issues. The first is the need for detailed planning of PD. The planning should focus on the details of how to address elements of substantive pedagogy during the PD, as well as on the details of the organizational and budgetary infrastructure.

    The second issue is the need to coordinate between the stated goals of the proposed change, the scope and pace of the implementation, and teachers’ knowledge. The proposed planning will need to take into consideration not only teachers’ initial knowledge but also the scope of the PD that will be part of the implementation and, consequently, the level of teachers’ knowledge that may be achieved at the end of the PD. This idea is both important and complex, and I will therefore elaborate it in the next section.

Fig. 9.1
An illustrated chart presents six problems that require to be reformed, in order to enable a pertinent change in the field of education.

Issues pertaining to substantive pedagogy that must be a salient component in the planning and implementation of an instructional reform (and the chapters in which they are discussed)

Full size image

In conclusion, all the examples of wide-scale implementation discussed throughout this book highlight the role of substantive pedagogy. All the examples support the idea that, unless we want an outcome that is merely mechanical and/or superficial, a deep knowledge of substantive pedagogy is necessary for the planning and implementation of wide-scale changes. Moreover, one of the main arguments rejects the common state of affairs according to which instruction needs to “make do” with organizational and administrative structures that are designed for other purposes. In contrast, the claim is that it is necessary to purposefully design the administrative and organizational structures to support the objectives at the level of substantive pedagogy.

Developing Professionals’ Knowledge

Following the conclusions of other scholars (Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2007a, b; Levin, 2008; Darling-Hammond, 2010), this book too recognizes the significance of thorough and meticulous development of human capacity for the enactment of changes in learning and instruction. Deep knowledge to be targeted in the change process (e.g., diverse aspects of HOT) and the pertinent specific pedagogical knowledge are necessary preconditions for teachers to be able to implement a deep change in classroom learning and instruction. Saying it differently, such knowledge is a necessary condition for a change that touches on substantive pedagogy. While researchers agree on this point, educators still struggle with the question of how to help teachers construct the relevant capabilities. The task is particularly challenging when it comes to working on a system-wide scale. Luft and Hewson (2014) formulate this by saying that “while the idea of scaling up is alluring and promising, its reality is unknown. The impact of context and the nature of teacher learning suggest that scaling up may be an elusive construct” (emphasis added by present author). Loft and Hewson assert that this is a “wicked” problem with a great deal of complexity and no easy solution.

The various chapters of the book discussed this “wicked” problem from different angles. Teachers’ learning was discussed in the context of instructional leadership, in the context of planning and executing PD processes, in the context of preparing teachers to support students in IBL, in the context of the detailed description of the changes in civic education, and in the context of the meaningful learning reform. In addition, Chap. 5 focused entirely on teachers’ knowledge and PD, offering the following insights (see Fig. 9.2):

  1. (a)

    The knowledge that teachers require needs a clear definition. Educators’ deep knowledge regarding the instructional goals they are trying to change constitutes a critical point. The possibility of generating a deep change in substantive pedagogy hinges upon this point. It is impossible to plan and execute sound PD processes without an explicit, clear, and detailed definition of that knowledge. Chapter 4 presented an example of such a definition of teachers’ knowledge pertaining to the instructional goal of developing students’ HOT.

  2. (b)

    Strategic planning for PD needs to take place at the three levels of pedagogy: Naturally, strategic planning must take place at the level of administrative pedagogy (allocation of budgets, time, space resources, decisions regarding which teachers will participate in the PD, etc.). Strategic planning must obviously also address structural pedagogy (decisions regarding use of educational technology during PD courses, whether teachers will study individually or in small groups, etc.). However, all this may be useless if there is a lack of strategic planning on the level of substantive pedagogy. In order to make a breakthrough in changing deep elements of learning and instruction, it is necessary to plan carefully what and how teachers will learn. Explicit definitions of the knowledge teachers need make it possible to design the PD’s curriculum, learning materials and activities. It also makes it possible to prioritize teachers’ learning goals across time. For example, defining the knowledge that teachers will need in order to integrate HOT into content-based teaching indicates the need to work with teachers on the development of tools for teaching thinking in a variety of specific content-rich lessons. Chapter 4 mentioned multiple examples of such tools that supports teachers in activities such as:

    • Helping students construct and analyze complex evidence-based arguments

    • Guiding students in the construction of a fruitful research question

    • Building together with students criteria for analysis, evaluation, and subsequent improvement of HOT tasks

    The theoretical analysis and the research data presented throughout the book indicate that working on such tools, which tap on the smallest details of student-teacher interaction or of teachers’ construction of learning materials, is a vital component in the implementation process. Without these tools, the implementation will be mechanical and superficial. Therefore, the results of the entire implementation process may succeed or fail based on the quality of the PD processes that take place on the level of substantive pedagogy.

    In order to create a comprehensive and coherent implementation, the training processes for structuring teachers’ knowledge at the level of substantive pedagogy must, of course, be integrated and coordinated with the strategic planning at the levels of pedagogical administration and the pedagogy of the structure of teaching. Take, for example, the decision to change the matriculation exams so that a percentage of the grade will be based on an inquiry-based project. This requires work on aspects such as scheduling the implementation of this change, allocating human resources to it, scheduling class hours, and running a public relations campaign aimed at preparing those working in the field to cooperate with the change. At the same time, it also requires work on the level of substantive pedagogy, including aspects such as understanding what new knowledge various groups of professionals (teachers, instructors, principals, etc.; see next section for more details) need and planning how this knowledge will be fostered among the various groups. Strategic planning at the level of substantive pedagogy includes decisions such as:

    • What aspects of the teachers’ knowledge need to be addressed in the first stage of PD

    • What aspects need to be addressed in later stages

    • How to design learning materials to be used at various stages of PD

    • How to design activities and educational experiences most appropriate for developing teachers’ knowledge

    The various chapters demonstrated how considerations at the level of substantive pedagogy are integrated into the planning and implementation of changes at the other levels (pedagogical administration and pedagogy of the structure of teaching).

  3. (c)

    There is also a need to attend to the PD of instructional leaders and teachers’ educators (school principals, instructors, leading teachers, consultants, etc.). The importance and need for pedagogical leadership in various circles of leadership and guidance indicate that PD for teachers alone is not sufficient. There must also be serious and systematic professional education for pedagogical experts, change leaders, instructors (who lead PD workshops and support teachers in classrooms), leading teachers, department heads, and consultants. The analysis presented throughout the book points to a shortage of leaders with deep pedagogical knowledge who can connect theory and practice. There is a need for instructional leaders who can work with teachers all the way to the micro level, in order to support them in the specific challenges involved in instruction and assessment of HOT. Running PD for such leaders is not simple because teaching in such leaders’ PD requires a combination of sophisticated theoretical and practical knowledge and it must be ongoing. There is evidence that part of the problem lies in the absence of an appropriate administrative infrastructure for middle-level leaders. This leads to rapid turnover of people in critical pedagogic roles, such as instructors and other teachers’ educators (Zohar, 2013b). At the same time, we need to remember that people in leadership positions tend to have busy schedules, leaving little time for PD. Yet, without the necessary professional knowledge among those who are leading the system-wide change, the entire investment made in the organizational infrastructure for implementing a pedagogical reform may be compromised (Spillane, 2000). Many resources are typically invested in planning and budgeting an organizational infrastructure. This may include activities such as recruiting and financing instructors, creating and financing PD programs, and recruiting teachers to participate in those programs. But the organizational infrastructure cannot bring about the desired change if there is a shortage in experts who can facilitate the flow of knowledge from change leaders through instructors and leading teachers to a large number of teachers. For this purpose, it is necessary to also plan and implement systematic learning processes for leaders.

  4. (d)

    Adjusting the scope and pace of change according to teachers’ level of knowledge. The magnitude of the challenge in the implementation of a deep pedagogical change (such as infusing HOT into content teaching) needs to be recognized. As noted, a large portion of this challenge comes from issues related to knowledge and PD of educators at all levels. It raises a question regarding incompatibility between goals and performance. Is it possible that policy statements define goals that require educators to do too much too fast? If we are to take seriously the idea that an understanding of substantive pedagogy is necessary to bring about profound change, then, as shown in this book, the depth of change cannot possibly exceed the depth of teachers’ knowledge. It also cannot exceed the depth of knowledge that PD can support in a reliable way. The present discussion assumes that superficial and “mechanical” change is something to be avoided at all costs. It follows that decision-making regarding the scope of an educational change presented in a new policy or curriculum needs to consider seriously whether the pedagogical knowledge of the educators involved in its implementation processes is adequate. Their level of knowledge must be considered as a central factor in the strategic planning of the implementation. At the same time, the data presented here indicate that large educational systems tend to give only limited support to PD of educators in the field of teaching HOT. In light of this, Chap. 4 emphasized that serious consideration of the knowledge needed to support profound change processes, combined with a realistic assessment of the likelihood that appropriate PD will be offered on a system-wide scale, may indicate a need to adjust expectations of what change is realistic. Perhaps the issue of teachers’ knowledge must force us to make compromises regarding the scope of our reform goals.

Fig. 9.2
Four illustrated points of the understanding of P D and knowledge of teachers. It includes a clear outline, strategic plans, need for P D and adaptation to change.

Summary of insights regarding teachers’ knowledge and PD in large-scale implementation processes

Full size image

This last conclusion has important implications for the field of teaching HOT and particularly for thoughts about how to scale it up. First, we need to view with suspicion the grandiose and sweeping statements that often appear in policy documents and curricula about intentions to make radical changes in learning and instruction, quickly adapting them to the vision for twenty-first-century education. Taking into accounts the limitations of teachers’ knowledge, such statements are often too ambitious to be implemented in a meaningful way. This is especially true when changes are intended to be implemented within a short period of time.

In order to avoid superficial and mechanical implementation, such statements should be phrased in a more modest manner, appropriate to teachers’ existing knowledge and to the scope of PD processes we can expect in a realistic way. Alternatively, it is possible to retain an ambitious vision of the desired change as a long-term goal, but to supplement it with a strategic plan that distinguishes between the long-term vision and more realistic short-term goals and actions.

These ideas suggest a new model for deep change processes that pertain to substantial pedagogy (see Fig. 9.3). The prevalent model of change processes imply that the initial goals of the change (usually stated in its policy documents) dictate its design, including any design that would pertain to PD. As shown in many of the previous chapters, the outcome of this sequence of affairs is often superficial and mechanical implementation (see left column of Fig. 9.3). To avoid this unfortunate outcome, a new model of change processes assumes that it is futile to ignore the considerations regarding teachers’ initial knowledge and the realistic expected scope of PD. The new model therefore suggests that in addition to the initial goals of the change, considerations regarding teachers’ initial knowledge and expected scope of PD will also affect the reform’s design. In effect, rather than being ignored, the question of teachers’ knowledge will be seen as a bottleneck to the possible pace and scope of change and will therefore have a decisive role in generating updated goals and design of any change process (including a design for an adapted PD). According to the model, the outcome of an implementation process working under such conditions can be deep change (see right column of Fig. 9.3).

Fig. 9.3
Two models compare the current and suggested change processes in 3 steps. The former results in superficial, mechanical change. The latter results in a deep change.

Current and suggested models of change processes pertaining to deep pedagogical issues

Full size image

Change Agents as Pedagogical Leaders

Change agents at multiple levels within educational systems often know how to lead changes that address the levels of pedagogical administration or structural pedagogy. However, as emphasized in Chap. 3, to lead a successful change in substantive pedagogy, there is a need for change agents who are also instructional leaders. Instructional leadership (at all levels of the system) is a necessary condition for addressing the essence of teaching, rather than addressing only the structures and conditions under which instruction is carried out. In addition to general leadership skills, instructional leadership requires deep knowledge of the specific field in which the educational change takes place. There must be sufficient professional personnel to support the teachers in making the expected changes in their practice. Thus, expanding the circles of leaders who have relevant theoretical and practical pedagogical knowledge is a necessary condition for the success of systemic change (Krainer et al., 2019). Investment in developing the instructional knowledge of ever-expanding circles of leaders in all levels is a requirement for a reliable transmission of a message through a “top-down” transformation process. It can also, however, contribute to “bottom-up” processes. Participants in the change process need deep knowledge of desired learning and teaching practices, so they will be able to use their own experiences and creative thinking to generate increased relevant changes from the bottom up (Hargreaves, 2004). All this can occur only within a culture of covenant rather than contract and when educators feel they are working in an environment that grants them personal dignity and autonomy (Sergiovanni, 1998).

Knowledge for Wide-Scale Implementation of Substantive Pedagogy: Combining Generic and Content Dependent Aspects (SUSIG)

Previous researchers have discussed the types of pedagogical knowledge necessary for high-quality teaching (Shulman, 1986, 1987), highlighting the role of pedagogical content knowledge that is an amalgamation of general and specific knowledge. Using an analogy to their conclusions, the knowledge needed for broad implementation of a pedagogical innovation also includes both generic and content-dependent aspects, but in a different sense than the in classic PCK. In processes of systemic change, we need both general knowledge related to change theories about scaling up instructional innovations and more specific pedagogical knowledge regarding the specific instructional goals of the innovation we aim to implement. The model of teachers’ thinking described in Chap. 4 provided an example of the latter, indicating a number of knowledge components specifically associated with teaching HOT. Some of these knowledge components were elaborated in other chapters. Other goals of pedagogical change, such as the development of reading and writing literacy (Levin, 2008) or implementing an “assessment for learning” approach (Birenbaum, 2016), will, of course, also require different specific components of pedagogical knowledge.

In what follows, the knowledge necessary for scaling up the implementation of a specific instructional goal is termed knowledge for “Scaling Up Specific Instructional Goal” (SUSIG).

The chapters of the book described many examples of SUSIG knowledge. For example, Chap. 4 explored how we can structure PD so that it includes important aspects of substantive pedagogy in the context of teaching HOT while also taking into consideration the conditions that typically limit the scaling up of instructional innovations. Examples of such typical limitations consist of the short time allocated to PD and the lack of support for teachers in the field. In cases of small-scale projects, the question leaders ask is: How to design a PD program so that it achieves the greatest effect under optimal conditions? In cases of broad, wide-scale implementation, leaders face a more complex challenge. Large-scale implementation processes are prone to a “dilution” of the original ideas behind the reform (Fullan, 2007a) or, as described by Dede (2004), to “throwing things out the window.” This means that in the course of the implementation, we often remain with a “thin” version of the initial intent. Leaders of wide-scale implementation thus need to consider a different question: Which of the components shown to be successful on a small-scale will be resistant to the “dilution” processes that are typical in large-scale implementation? In order to answer this question in a sensible way, one needs to understand the general issue of dilution of instructional goals in scaling up processes, but also to understand the specific pedagogy of teaching thinking. Otherwise, planning what to include in the strategic plan of the implementation and what to leave out, and how to schedule different instructional goals across time, may make no sense.

Chapter 6 referred to this question by exploring issues related to school-based assessment. More specifically, the chapter analyzed the criteria included in rubrics intended to assess the civics performance assessment task. Rather than choosing the optimal criteria according to theoretical and empirical considerations, the criteria were determined in a way that would be more resistant to “dilution” and thus more suitable to the real world. The criteria were based on their suitability both for the major program goals and for the teachers’ level of knowledge regarding these goals. Teachers’ knowledge is a crucial factor here. The important thing is to ask what level of qualitative assessment we can expect in a realistic way, taking into consideration teachers’ prior knowledge and the scope of PD.

The field of IBL provides another example. Chapter 5 discussed diverse pedagogical and organizational issues that should be considered when designing IBL. Here too, the key is to think about what level of implementation we can expect in a realistic way, as we make decisions regarding the scope and depth of students’ inquiry processes.

Highlighting the need for considering SUSIG knowledge is one of the innovations of this book. Prevalent considerations in scaling up processes have been including issues such as the scope of political support, budget, organizational infrastructure, and so forth. SUSIG considerations also need to be integrated into decision-making processes regarding the strategic planning of a pedagogic change. Assuming we want to avoid mechanical and superficial implementation at all cost, these considerations are crucial for determining in an accurate way which objectives can be achieved during the first years of the implementation process, which can be achieved during later years, and which objectives need to be discarded.

Because of the specificity of the SUSIG knowledge for any field of instructional innovation, the knowledge in question cannot be generic. We need to develop it separately for each significant instructional objective. The practical work and the research required to develop our knowledge of SUSIG requires close collaboration between people whose field of expertise is administration in general and pedagogical administration in particular and experts in the specific field of the instructional innovation. As seen in the literature review, the study of large-scale implementation of instructional innovations is still in its infancy. Recognizing that expertise in a specific field of an instructional innovation is necessary for deep and large-scale implementation processes implies that both research and practical developments cannot be done in a generic way. Instead, future research and development need to take place in multiple specific fields of instructional innovations. This conclusion has significant implications for future practice and research. It means that to enable more accurate and useful generalizations and conceptualizations than those currently available about policy-making and strategic planning of change processes of specific instructional innovations, we need more research findings on large-scale implementation of diverse, specific instructional innovations.

Autonomy and Control Regarding the Knowledge of Substantive Pedagogy

As explained earlier, a thorough knowledge of the educational context in which the implementation takes place is a necessary condition for making significant adjustments. Only the practitioners themselves are the ones who are intimately familiar with the specific educational environment in which they operate. Consequently, it is essential that they are the ones who make the adjustments of an innovation to a particular context. The implementation of the “meaningful learning” reform in chemistry and biology (see Chap. 7) proved to be counterproductive when no consideration was given to tailoring the change to the specific circumstances of these school subjects. When no one listened to the “wisdom of the field” which practitioners had gained from their previous experiences, change processes associated with the reform had serious negative consequences.

In addition, the change theory presented in Chap. 6 (based on Fullan, 2007a; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006) emphasized the need to find the balance between autonomy and control and between top-down and bottom-up change processes. In order to harness the motivation, energy, and creativity of practitioners, it is essential to enable them to feel that the change process encompasses their own professional goals and needs (Hargreaves, 2004). Accordingly, practitioners cannot simply be “technicians” of a change process dictated to them from above. They must have a high level of autonomy that will allow them to be reflective practitioners who act upon their knowledge. Pedagogical autonomy is crucial to achieve the required balance.

Chapter 7 analyzed an extreme example of a reform in which there was no such balance. Indeed, the data presented throughout the book support previous studies in emphasizing the significance of finding the delicate balance between autonomy and control and between top-down and bottom-up change processes in substantive pedagogy. The case presented shows how important it is that policymakers speak in a clear voice about the reform’s educational goals and provide means for achieving that goal. Yet, the data also highlight the fact that a considerable degree of imagination and creativity of the people in the field is necessary to generate the “bottom-up” initiatives that are crucial in achieving a deep change in learning and instruction. Such imagination and creativity can only flourish with a sense of autonomy. The case of the reform in civic education presented in Chap. 6 also demonstrates the delicate relationships between autonomy and control. Finding a balance is always complex, and here, too, there is no simple recipe for miraculous success.

It is important to explore the connection between structured top-down PD courses and teachers’ level of autonomy. People sometime wonder how a top-down policy, that results in a strategic plan for structured, system-wide PD programs, can go hand in hand with increased teachers’ pedagogical autonomy. But a structured development of professional capabilities should not be confused with lack of autonomy! In fact, the lack of pedagogical knowledge regarding the subject of the change is what limits teachers’ autonomy, because they are not free to choose to implement the change in a deep way. On the other hand, if the PD supports the development of teachers’ knowledge, without dictating whether and how to apply this knowledge, they are free to choose whether and how to apply this knowledge in their practice. Under these circumstances they do have pedagogical autonomy.

In Finland, for example, a great deal is invested in the human capital of teachers. This investment begins with teacher training institutions selecting the most outstanding candidates as teaching students, since the ratio of applicants for education studies to those accepted is 10:1. Subsequently, Finland invests heavily in the process of teacher training. All teachers have a master’s degree in their field and acquire comprehensive and deep pedagogical knowledge during their studies. Accordingly, the system trusts them and treats them as highly skilled professionals. It sets goals for them, but does not mandate how to achieve these goals. Instead, the system encourages teachers and students to try out new ideas and approaches. In other words, it encourages them to put curiosity, creativity, and imagination at the heart of teaching and learning processes. All of this guarantees that teachers and principals are good at what they do in their classrooms and schools and that they have deep understanding of how to improve learning and instruction. Under such conditions, it is sufficient that the central administration establishes general goals for schools and teachers and then leaves them with complete autonomy to develop and design, as they see fit, the ways in which they will meet these objectives. The success of the Finnish education system has been well-known for many years and is evidence that this change strategy works (Sahlberg, 2011).

Nevertheless, it seems that even under optimal conditions, achieving a deep change in substantive pedagogy requires extensive PD focused on the specific pedagogical knowledge needed to support the relevant change process. That is, even in a country with good teachers and strong achievements on international tests, it is unreasonable to assume that practitioners will succeed in building the knowledge they would need to make a deep change without a guiding hand and a “top-down” effort. There is evidence of this, for example, from implementation of the New Zealand curriculum focusing (among other goals) on developing capabilities for the twenty-first century. Lack of teachers’ specific pedagogical knowledge has created considerable difficulties in the implementation. The curriculum in New Zealand is a rather loose framework of goals, allowing schools the autonomy to weave their own curriculum around it. This should enable schools to create a curriculum that would meet the needs of their local community and student population. An integrative reading of the curriculum indicates that the main capabilities or skills (such as thinking capabilities) are supposed to change how students construct the knowledge entailed in traditional school subjects and the epistemic thinking involved in learning (Hipkins et al., 2014). The curriculum includes a section with advice on effective pedagogy. However, when the curriculum was first introduced, the schools did not receive enough guiding materials demonstrating how to teach differently, and the teachers did not participate in systematic PD processes that would give them the necessary knowledge to do so (Gallagher et al., 2012). Recently, educational researchers in New Zealand have warned that the implementation of the curriculum was too loose at the pedagogical level. They noted that absence of clear epistemic criteria for teaching, for PD, and for evaluation, and the lack of adequate professional development, led to difficulties in implementing the desired progressive pedagogy. As a result, these researchers point to the need to tighten up the implementation processes. They particularly note the need to improve various aspects of PD, in order to provide better guidance, and to support teachers in constructing the necessary level of pedagogical knowledge (Zohar & Hipkins, 2018).

My own frequent visits to schools and conversations with educators confirm the disadvantages of strong “top-down” implementation processes of pedagogical innovations noted in the literature. The two primary disadvantages I encounter are low motivation of the participants and decontextualized changes that are not tailored to the needs of any specific pedagogical circumstances. Yet, field observations also show that pedagogical change processes that are limited to “bottom-up” processes often suffer from two other significant difficulties. First, when the main sources of knowledge for the change are the ones that had been in the school all along, the staff often disregards important relevant information from external sources. Too often, each school “reinvents the wheel” rather than builds on instructional methods and learning materials developed elsewhere or on research-based evidence for what works. Starting from scratch rather than taking expertise and prior efforts as a beginning point for each particular school’s efforts is inefficient, to say the least. Second (and related point), devoted staff members in schools that are involved in deep pedagogical changes often experience an overwhelming feeling of burnout because the need for developing new teaching and learning resources requires lots of time and energy. An important pedagogical role of “top-down” implementation processes is therefore to provide efficient and research-based support, guidance, and materials to assist (rather than to command) the practitioners working in the field.

In sum, the classic understanding of regulation and autonomy generally focuses on the organizational and managerial aspects of change processes. The discussions in the previous sections suggest that there should be a similar, but not identical, meaning of regulation and autonomy, focused on substantive pedagogy: the managing entity provides “top-down” guidelines for the implementation process, in the sense of setting clear pedagogical goals. To fulfill these goals, educational leaders choose (ideally by consultation with professional experts) what bodies of knowledge may support teachers and teacher educators in facilitating successful implementation. Then, a central administration can invest in fostering educators’ knowledge by providing PD and field guidance, building a cadre of teachers’ educators, and constructing models of exemplary learning materials. In an ideal world, SUSIG will play an important role in designing these processes. At the same time, people in the field (teachers, principals, instructors, etc.) are given autonomy and resources to adapt the new instructional goals to the educational context in which they work; tailor them according to their personal tastes, needs, and educational goals; and generate new exciting innovations and changes. One of the most crucial factors determining the optimal balance between the degree of centralization and the degree of autonomy in these processes is the level of the professionals’ relevant knowledge. The deeper their knowledge, the more autonomy they can use in a fruitful way. This reveals an important insight: PD as outlined above provides teachers with professional tools and enables them to teach differently, but it does not dictate how and when to apply these tools in their classrooms. Therefore, a centrally controlled PD does not reduce autonomy, but rather, increases it. The blending of bottom-up and top-down change processes regarding substantive pedagogy is presented in Fig. 9.4.

Fig. 9.4
A model has top-down and bottom-up processes, connected by flow arrows. They have 2 and 3 processes, respectively, on the right and left sides.

Balancing control and autonomy and bottom-up and top-down processes in scaling up changes in substantive pedagogy

Full size image

Can Reforms in Substantive Pedagogy Succeed?

In conclusion, I return to the main challenge and question posed in the first chapter: in light of all the issues discussed throughout this book, is it possible for reforms in substantive pedagogy to accomplish what they set out to do? Can the islands of small-scale, successful instructional innovations be connected to form a continent? Is there room for optimism that the much-needed, profound instructional change in the very nature of learning and instruction will be successful on a wide scale? These are all different formulations of the same main question. The answers provided throughout this book involve both bad news and good news.

In order to answer these questions, we need to reexamine what we mean when we talk about the success of a change or about the nature of the change itself. Careful examination of the necessary conditions for implementing a reform in substantive pedagogy indicates that there cannot be rapid revolutionary change. The bottleneck is the learning and development of human beings. Making a profound change requires a change in the knowledge and beliefs that comprise human capital. This takes time, especially in large systems. In this sense, the findings in the book are bad news: if the expectation is to achieve a drastic and rapid change that will create a revolution in the quality of teaching and learning, the findings described in this book indicate this is impossible.

In another sense, however, the findings of this book are actually good news. If we moderate our expectations and have patience, there is room for optimism. The findings indicate that such a change is possible, if the expectation is for a gradual process over the course of years, during which a slow but steady improvement in the quality of teaching and learning will take place. In fact, this change has already begun. We are in the midst of it. As pointed out by Cohen (1988), processes that promote advances in teaching are slow by nature. Therefore, despite years of progress, this process is still in its infancy and needs many more years to reach completion. Cohen writes that, at this stage in the history of education, it is impossible to know whether we are at the beginning of a lengthy process that will eventually bring about the desired change or whether we are in a midst a long romantic dream that is doomed to fail (for more on this, see Zohar, 2013b). The findings of this book respond to Cohen’s doubts, offering hope.

However, the findings also stress that there are no shortcuts. One cannot believe the promises of politicians or others who claim there is a quick fix for education. Yet, this book indicates that a combination of detailed planning at the level of substantive pedagogy, strategic planning at the other levels, and ongoing implementation of plans over time may lead to progress. While the very nature of this progress indicates that it will be slow, there is a reasonable possibility that it will lead schools in the desired direction. In a general way, as noted by Cuban (1990) almost 30 years ago, one reform follows another, again, again, and again, but education does not improve. However, this vicious cycle may be broken if we understand that an important part of the problem lies in the superficiality of the pedagogical implementation prevalent in most reforms. The key to success lies in serious and systematic work on substantive pedagogy. As noted by the education researchers quoted in the first chapter, in this sense we are still only at the beginning of our journey. Obviously, this direction does not render irrelevant or redundant the extensive research and numerous projects regarding other aspects of reform, especially on the administrative, political, and organizational levels. To succeed, all these aspects are necessary and need to mutually support and be supported by one another. However, the very idea of a new direction that has not yet been fully explored is exiting because it provides a new horizon for future work and room for hope.

Is Substantive Pedagogy Important in the Information Age?

One possible criticism of the idea presented in the previous section relates to the gap between the slow schedule required for deep change and the rapid pace of changes in our era. Another criticism, related to the first, holds that the changes we are witnessing in the areas of technology, generation of new knowledge, and the labor market are changing the rules of the game so radically that everything written here will soon be irrelevant because the goals of education, too, are likely to shift in a fundamental way. Some claim that the institution of the school itself is about to be abolished because children will be able to learn everything on their own, via technology, without the need for teachers. As noted in Chap. 2, even among those who think that schools are still viable institutions, some believe that knowledge acquisition should no longer be one of the central goals of education—because all the information is available out there at our fingertips (through the Internet). Chapter 2 discussed this issue at length, agreeing that today’s world indeed calls for a change in the basic goals of education and methods of teaching. However, that chapter also makes the claim that teachers still need to purposefully and skillfully support students in constructing their knowledge, HOT skills, and meaningful epistemic knowledge. Such teaching continues to be a central and necessary goal for schools and will remain so in the future. The new challenges to learning and instruction in our rapidly changing world do not make education simpler, but rather, more complex.

The fact that so much information is available at students’ fingertips does not mean that their intuitive conceptual framework and thinking skills enable them to internalize and utilize this information in the best possible way. One of the main and most important findings of educational research in the last several decades is the significance of prior knowledge and appropriate thinking skills for the construction of new knowledge. There are indeed many current changes in the accessibility and structure of knowledge (e.g., that it is dynamic and net-like rather than hierarchical and linear). Yet, the need for prior knowledge, thinking skills, and basic language and learning skills, for acquisition of new knowledge, will remain significant. Clearly, there are young people who did not receive a formal education, but are still amazingly successful in professions and segments of the job market that the school system does not even begin to recognize that it should be teaching. Nevertheless, these examples should not confuse our discussion of the issues. There have always been individuals able to express their talents in a variety of fields even without formal education. The system needs to provide for the whole population, not a small segment of it.

Prophecy is indeed given to fools. However, in light of the matters discussed in this book, I believe that the transformation we are witnessing does not make the schools redundant, but rather challenges them. Indeed, the role of teachers is likely to continue to change, even more than it has changed thus far. The trend of teachers who do not simply transmit information, but rather mediate the construction of knowledge, will continue to grow stronger. This trend is not going to make teachers unnecessary. On the contrary, their role in mediating and developing dynamic knowledge, in helping students to develop thinking skills, and in acquiring independent learning tools will be more complex than ever. Accordingly, teachers’ role will require an even higher level of personal and professional skills. Therefore, the need for PD in innovative teaching methods will only increase. Such PD would enable teachers to lead the building of students’ deep knowledge, independent thinking, and ability to learn. Consequently, there is room to believe that the search for ways to implement, in a meaningful and systematic way, innovative teaching methods while addressing substantive pedagogy will become an even more important goal than it was in the past.