Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers’ Learning Communities for Developing High Order Thinking Skills—A Case Study of a School Pedagogical Change

  • Published:
Interchange Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study deals with an elementary school that is undergoing a process of pedagogical change. The teachers understood that their weak point was excessive use of teaching based on memorization rather than developing high-order thinking (HOT) skills. The school therefore established teachers’ learning communities for peer learning and designing learning tasks that encourage the development of HOT skills. Quantitative and qualitative research tools were used in this study as a formative assessment. The data included learning tasks and interviews with teachers. The findings indicate an increase in the expression of critical thinking and the cognitive levels of application, analysis, and synthesis. The national test scores indicate an increase in students’ performance in most subjects. It appears that educators recognize the need for a transition from teaching that emphasize memorizing information to methods that develop students’ thinking skills and independent learning and initiated a successful pedagogical change.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akiba, M., & Liang, G. (2016). Effect of teacher professional learning activities on student achievement growth. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athanassiou, N., & McNett, C. H. (2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom’s taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education, 27(5), 533–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment. In M. Seger, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 13–36). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals Handbook 1. Cognitive domain. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York, John Wiley & Son.

  • Bonwell, C. C., & Sutherland, T. E. (1996). The active learning continuum: choosing activities to engage students in the classroom. New Direction for Teaching & Learning, 67, 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caniglia, J. C., & Meadows, M. (2018). An application of the Solo taxonomy to classify strategies used by pre-service teachers to solve ’one question problems’. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n9.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlgren, T. (2013). Communication, critical thinking, problem solving: a suggested course for all high school students in the 21st century. Interchange, 44, 63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in Bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance students learning in biology. CBE life Science Education, 7, 368–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlin, B., & Watkins, D. (2000). The role of repetition in the processes of memorising and understanding: A comparison of the views of German and Chinese secondary school students in Hong Kong. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. L., & Buckendhal, C. W. (2011). Incorporating cognitive demand in credentialing examinations. In G. Schraw & D. R. Robinson (Eds.), Assessment of higher order skills (pp. 327–359). North Carolina: IAP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 411–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco: Josse-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (2008). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gipps, C., & Stobart, G. (2003). Alternative assessment. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation (pp. 549–576). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (2010). Change from without: Lessons from other countries, systems and sectors. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 105–118). London New York: Springer, Dordrecht Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (2016). Autonomy and transparency: Two good ideas gone bad. In J. Evers & R. Kneyber (Eds.), Flip the System: Changing Education from the Ground Up (pp. 120–133). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. (2000). The school improvement journey: Perspectives on leadership. School Leadership & Management, 20, 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L., Stall, G., & Yarbrough, D. (2013). The importance of professional learning communities for school improvement. Creative Education, 4(5), 357–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building unsing the design principles database. International Journal of Computer-supported collaborative learning, 1(2), 187–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (2003). Thomas Kuhn’s impact on science education: what lessons can be learned? Science Education, 88, 90–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miedijensky, S., & Abramovich, A. (2019). Implementation of education for sustainability in three elementary schools: what can we learn about a change process? EURASIA Journal of Mathematcis, Science and Technology Education, 15(10). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/109145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miedijensky, S., & Tal, T. (2016). Reflection and assessment for learning in science enrichment courses for the gifted. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 50, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, C. (1999). Building learning communities in schools: the next generation or the impossible dream? Interchange, 30(3), 283–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Momsen, J. L., Long, T. N., Wyse, S. A., & Ebert-May, D. (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE-Life Science Education, 9, 435–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagowah, L., & Nagowah, S. (2009). A Reflection on the Dominant Learning Theories: Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Constructivism. The International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 279–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age the conceptual age. New York: Riverhead Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: identifying what works and why. Best evidence synthesis: The university of Auckland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasson, I. (2019). Pedagogical characteristics of classroom learning tasks: a three-dimensional methodological framework. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 27(2), 163–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasson, I., Yehuda, I., & Malkinson, N. (2018). Fostering the skills of critical thinking and question-posing in a project-based learning environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 203–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tal, Dori, & Lazarowitz, R. (2000). A project-based alternative assessment system. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 171–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C.-C., & Kuo, P.-C. (2008). Cram school students’ conceptions of learning and learning science in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 30(3), 353–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). “Together we are better”: Professional learning networks for teachers. Computers & Education, 102, 15–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education (pp. 3–15). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education, Washington, DC, Council of Chief State Officers and National Institute for Science Education Research Monograph.

  • West, M. A. (2012). Effective teamwork: practical lessons from organizational research. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, and the British Psychological Society.

  • Whittle, R. J., Benson, A. C., Ullah, S., & Telford, A. (2018). Investigating the influence of question type and conitive process on academic performance in VCE Physical Education: a secondary data analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8(24), 504–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yujing, N., De-Hui, R. Z., Jinfa, C., Xiaoqing, L., Qiong, L., & Iris, X. S. (2018). Improving cognitive and affective learning outcomes of students through mathematics instructional tasks of high cognitive demand. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(6), 704–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2004). Higher Order Thinking in Science Classrooms: Students’ Learning and Teacher’ Professional Development. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2013). It’s Not All About Test Scores: Reviving Pedagogical Discourse. Bnei Brak: Poalim - Hakibutz Hameuchad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Agmon, V. A. (2018). Raising test scores vs. teaching higher order thinking HOT senior science teachers’ views on how several concurrent policies affect classroom practices. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(2), 243–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Cohen, A. (2016). Large scale implementation of higher order thinking (HOT) in civic education: The interplay of policy, politics, pedagogical leadership and detailed pedagogical planning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher thinking skills and low achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 12, 145–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Lustov, E. (2018). Challenges in addressing metacognition in professional development programs in the context of instruction of HOT. In Weinberger, Y. (Ed.). Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development (pp. 87–100), London: IntechOpen. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76592.

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering Students’ Knowledge and Argumentation Skills through Dilemmas in Human Genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oranim Academic College, Tivon, Israel

    Shirley Miedijensky

  2. Shamir Research Institute, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Shirley Miedijensky, Irit Sasson & Itamar Yehuda

  3. Tel-Hai Academic College, Qiryat Shemona, Israel

    Irit Sasson & Itamar Yehuda

Authors
  1. Shirley Miedijensky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irit Sasson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Itamar Yehuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shirley Miedijensky.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendices

Appendix

Appendix A An example of a learning task, sixth grade

Then, each group should prepare for a "debate", and represent a different character, such as:

Dear students, you are asked to urgently prepare for the committee's deliberations and to convince (against the members of the other groups who were given to represent another official) why the General Committee must keep the priest in his duty and why he is essential to the nation leadership in a way that cannot be waived.

Dear students, you are asked to urgently prepare for the committee's deliberations and to convince (against the members of the other groups who were given to represent another official) why the General Committee must keep the prophet in his duty and why he is essential to the nation leadership in a way that cannot be waived.

Dear students, you are asked to urgently prepare for the committee's deliberations and to convince (against the members of the other groups who were given to represent another official) why the General Committee must keep the king in his duty and why he is essential to the nation leadership in a way that cannot be waived.

  • The teacher will prepare the committee discussion (honor table / cards, etc.), conduct the discussion and summarize the decisions.

  • The teacher will prepare guidance points for the students on how to prepare the points in advance in their arguments in order to convince the committee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miedijensky, S., Sasson, I. & Yehuda, I. Teachers’ Learning Communities for Developing High Order Thinking Skills—A Case Study of a School Pedagogical Change. Interchange 52, 577–598 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-021-09423-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-021-09423-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation