Problems experienced by teachers when implementing the HOTS programme

This section concerns a very important part of the process of implementing the HOTS programme, as it highlights the factors that, according to teachers’ reports, were considered stumbling blocks in their work on intervention.

112

a) Considering time constraints a serious obstacle in the programme implementation

Teachers unanimously expressed the view that time constraints was one of the major factors that impeded the implementation of the intervention. They argued that due to the pressures they experienced in covering the curriculum and preparing students for exams, they had less time and energy for employing the HOT-based instructional methods. The following extract shows the complaints voiced regarding the insufficient time to provide formative assessment for all students and increasing student motivation for the subjects they are not good in.

All learning activities have strict time constraints. The matriculation examinations are pressing us and so are the superiors’ demands to deliver good results. We simply don’t have enough time to let our students struggle with complex tasks and involve them in divergent thinking (Focus group interview).

Developing motivation’ is not simply a slogan. It is an energy-draining task that requires a lot of time. We work under the pressure of curriculum coverage and examinations. If some students are not gifted in math and science, but are good in sport or music, why should we motivate them to learn mathematics? We simply don’t have time for this. Let's focus on their talents! (Focus group interview).

b) Expressing the belief that the curriculum reform is slow and inconsistent

Most of the teachers voiced the opinion that the Education Ministry’s policies with regard to restructuring the curriculum are slow and at times inconsistent. It was noted, for instance, by some teachers that the new Minister of Education raised test scores on national and international tests, which generated considerable pressures to ‘teach for the test’ across the school system and comes at odds with teaching on HOT. Teachers acknowledged, however, that the Education Ministry’s work on adapting the testing system towards HOT is still in the development stage, particularly with regard to combining elements of on-going school-based assessment with the scores of external examinations. There were general guidelines on formative assessment during the in-service course, but teachers claimed that the Education Ministry had not yet set forth clear regulations concerning the use of the formative assessment results, particularly incorporating the

113

results of individual projects into final tests in vocational subjects. This can be seen in the extracts below.

In fact, instruction is still geared for the average student and teaching students to pass the standardised tests (Interview with the English teacher).

There are no guidelines on how to use the products of inquiry learning or students’ individual projects in the assessment of the final examination results (Interview with the social work teacher).

Teachers noted that notwithstanding the requirement that students should have more opportunities of making comprehensive use of their mathematical knowledge and skills, the district-adopted mathematics and science textbooks mostly contain closed, well-structured exercises and very few open-ended problems. It was also noted that word problems in mathematics textbooks often have little relevance to the real life contexts.

c) Problems concerned with teaching social disciplines

Another problem concerned developing students’ ability to apply HOTS in social subjects. Teachers of social disciplines have argued that some aspects of the history, culture and identity of the Palestinian Arabs are ignored or inappropriately addressed, as it is demonstrated in the extract below.

The history curriculum authorized by the Israeli Ministry of Education is based on the Zionist narrative and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. We have our own history which is of little importance for the Ministry of Education (Interview with the teacher of history).

It has been also noted by teachers that during the in-service course, more attention was paid to improving the performance of students in mathematics, natural sciences and ICT. The programme guidelines on studying social disciplines were of a more general character and were set in line with the state-approved history and civics curricula. However, it became clear from teachers’ responses that they did not comment on or criticize the Education Ministry policies during and after the in-

114

service course. As it is seen in the following extract, teachers preferred to comply with the official ideology rather than get the reputation of a politically disloyal teacher.

We do not discuss these issues. Students just learn what is described in their textbooks (Focus group interview).

d) Having disagreements over the role of a teacher in creating the HOT-based curriculum

The views of teachers split over the level of the teacher’s role in creating the HOTS-oriented curriculum. Four of the ten teachers interviewed believed that the Education Ministry should describe in detail the ways of implementing and assessing the HOTS-related learning activities in each curriculum area, including connections between different areas of learning. These teachers were aware that curriculum reform is aimed at increasing the diversity of instructional strategies and teacher involvement in the decision-making process, but they insisted that the Education Ministry should set clear standards for the HOTS-based curriculum and provide good examples of lesson plans and activities that model HOTS.

The nature of the school system requires uniformity and consensus on educational goals and outcomes. Various political concerns and pressure for accountability will not disappear with the implementation of the new educational standards. To hold accountable, we need to know exactly what and how to achieve our goals (Focus group interview).

The other group of teachers criticized the intention of placing a priority on the “top-down” approach in building the HOT curriculum.

We were told during the course that grassroots initiatives are encouraged by the curriculum developers. Teachers can offer ideas on the types of materials and activities that need to be included (Focus group interview).

Those who advocated a greater teacher’s participation in creating the HOTS-based curriculum emphasised that educational standards do not prescribe the instructional practices and materials. They allow teachers to be flexible and to insert personalized components in the curriculum and

115

select learning activities. Seven working groups were formed, with each teacher group dealing with a particular subject area: Hebrew language and literature (five teachers), English (two), history (two), mathematics (two), natural sciences (four), social sciences (two), technical education and computer sciences (three). Working group members periodically met to talk about their experiences and develop consolidated instruction strategies, but there was an uncertainty among some teachers as to what should be centralized or decentralized curriculum decisions, both at the district and school levels.

d) Increasing the amount of extra-classroom activities to provide additional help

All the teachers reported that due to time constraints and curriculum load, a significant amount of the work related to implementing the new teaching methods was done beyond the classroom hours. This concerned a variety of activities: assistance in conducting collaborative projects, developing instruction plans, preparing learning materials, and helping low-achieving students. Working long hours was not new for teachers who had to prepare for classes, grade papers, and communicate with students’ parents. Teachers reported that due to the implementation of the new educational policies, they needed additional time to model learning tasks, such as critical text analysis, solving complex problems, modelling discussion and brainstorming skills, and other activities. Additional time was needed to provide formative assessment of student performance. An increase in the extra- classroom work was also attributed to the necessity of investing more time to help weaker students.

There was simply not enough time to help all the students who were challenged with using reading organizers. We scheduled to meet once a week on the day when I had less classes (Interview with the teacher of English).

Unlike during classes, we had more time at these meetings to talk about what went well and what was challenging (Computer science teacher’s report).

e) Having a challenge in developing HOTS in students with diverse educational attainment The HOTS programme contained no separate section on developing thinking skills in low- achieving students. Comments on this task were provided across different aspects of instruction. Following the programme recommendations, teachers used intensive scaffolding techniques across

116

different content areas. Teachers reported that they faced many problems, working in oversized classes and having to deliver instruction responsive to the needs of a diverse student population. Teachers of mathematics, science and English pointed out that due to the fact that many students had not obtained the required prerequisite knowledge, teachers needed to deliver the curriculum and cover the prerequisite material as well.

Our superiors require us to show good results. There are students who are moved from grade to grade, having received a minimum passing mark and having learned about half of what they should (Interview with the mathematics teacher).

Teachers emphasised that school must be a place where each student is respected. They supported the idea that weak learners were able to deal with tasks requiring HOTS. They held, however, that the development of HOTS in low achieving students was a very time-consuming process. It was argued that given such factors as overcrowded classrooms, time constraints and curriculum pressure, sound results would not be achieved over the period of the intervention.

We are recommended to help weak students by breaking critical thinking tasks into smaller, more manageable steps. This means that we have to proceed slowly and gradually (Interview with the mathematics teacher).

The intervention requires being responsive to the needs of different students. We have to enhance the abilities of talented students and not to kill the motivation of those who are less gifted, but strive to achieve good results (Interview with a Hebrew teacher).

It can be summed up that section 4.1.15 highlights a wide range of the problems that teachers have faced during the implementation of intervention. These problems include ones that concern the Education Ministry’s policies and conditions existing in schools and ones related to teachers’ personal standpoints about the role of the teacher in creating the constructivist, HOTS-based environment. The problems were identified of the necessity to deliver curriculum and cover the prerequisite material, when working with low-achieving students, and increasing the amount of

117

extra-classroom activities. Many curriculum decisions had been made by teachers collaboratively, through working groups in different disciplines.