[etni] Reflections on the HOTS Course
- From: James Backer <drjamesbacker@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Greetings, all!
I just finished the HOTS course and I would like to post my reflections.
First of all, being a member of the Histadrut HaMorim, I had no union
requirements to boycott the course, although I definitely sympathize with the
boycott. Even though (or because) I have used HOTS in my literature lessons for
many years, I was curious to see how the MOE intended to institutionalize the
use of HOTS. Nevertheless, from previous ETNI discussions, I had some very
strong reservations about the HOTS program before the course. Despite this, I
really tried to learn about the HOTS program during the course. Unfortunately,
as the course progressed, my concerns grew considerably.
As a course, it was chaotic, poorly planned, and poorly presented. (I am not
referring to the instructors, who were as much victims of the circumstances as
were the participants.) For example, we were told at the beginning of the
course that the MOE had not considered the issue of 4-pointers and that it was
currently under discussion. A few sessions later, we were told that the MOE had
indeed decided to include the 4-pointers in the HOTS program and that it would
appear on Module D. Unfortunately, there were no instructions from the MOE
about how to prepare for this. The entire course was basically for the 5-point
level and we had no real preparation for using HOTS with 4-pointers. (I hope
that no one thinks that the answer is just dumbing-down the material.)
Part of the chaotic nature of the course stemmed from the creative nomenclature
for which the MOE is famous. We were told about “Personal Response” and
practiced writing it right after reading a poem, but then we were told that
“Personal Response” was to be done during the reading, not after it. (I’m not
sure how you can do this with a short Emily Dickinson poem, but that’s another
issue.) The instructor told us that the MOE had discussed the matter and had
chosen not to call it “Personal Response While Reading,” although that would
have avoided the confusion. Another interesting use of nomenclature was with
the term “Reflection.” Only after creating a number of exercises that were
indeed reflective of the message of the piece of the literature, were we told
that “Reflections” must be meta-cognitive, relating to the learning process
during the unit. Why not call it “Meta-cognitive Reflections” to help people
understand? I
guess it’s the same rationale for calling reading comprehension “access to
information from written texts,” etc.
For various reasons, our course turned out to be hybrid: mostly f2f, but
supported by online material found on the “HighLearn” platform. HighLearn, or
at least how it was used in this course, was a very poor LMS (Learning
Management System). The folders were generically named, Unit 1, Unit 2, etc.
That would have been bad enough, in terms of trying to find things, but the
online course was actually a mish-mash of two separate courses, each with its
own set of folders. The repetition and resulting waste of time was very
annoying. The forum section was even worse. There were “units,” “sessions,” and
also “S1,” “S2,” etc. There were different fora with the same names. In
addition, there was a “bulletin board” system, which functioned pretty much
like a forum, just adding to the confusion. In our class, some students had
one profile in HighLearn and other students had a different profile. The result
was that we could not all access
the same files. In addition, there were many times when the HighLearn platform
announced that we were not authorized to see material that the instructor had
assigned. I have taught with many LMSs over the years (Blackboard, Vista-4,
Jenzabar, First Class, NiceNet, Sachlav, Sulam, School-Life, and others), and
HighLearn is definitely the worse that I have ever seen – at least as it was
used in this course. If I ever prepared, or presented, a course like this at
one of the graduate schools where I currently teach, I would no longer be
teaching there.
Assuming the basic concepts of the HOTS program were valid (a major point that
I will deal with in a moment), there is no time for teachers to meet the maze
of requirements and use the various assessment rubrics:
Ten literature pieces, each with
Seven major components, containing
Five stages of the methodologies, chosen among
Three possible methodologies presenting
Three HOTS for a play or novel,
Two HOTS for a short story,
One HOTS for a poem, and using
Two or three different assessment rubrics
And a partridge in a pear tree
Make no mistake about it, the HOTS program will demand a great amount of time.
The extensive HOTS requirements will be in direct competition for our time with:
* The Bagrut Project, which requires considerable time in the classroom
and the computer room
* SSR (Sustained Silent Reading) because it’s theoretically good and
because the kids don’t read at home – even in their L1.
* Book tasks, which must be done in class because the kids copy, or
copy-and-paste tasks that are “done” outside of the classroom.
* Teaching grammar, because the level of grammar of incoming Yud
students has dropped to zero. Thanks to the misunderstanding of the not-so-New
Curriculum, elementary and middle school teachers have stopped teaching
grammar. How are the students supposed to compose a sentence, let alone a
paragraph in an essay without a basic knowledge of grammar?
* Enabling skills (other than grammar) because the kids aren’t ready
for the cognitive jump to the 5-point demands, and even the 4-point demands.
* Practicing Bagrut formats (unseens, listening comprehension, essays,
and the oral elements), and the strategies to maximize points
* Making tapes for students with an accommodation for a pre-recorded
version of the text
This competition for time is within a diminishing number of minutes we have
with the kids each week. When I started teaching for the English Bagrut, I had
five sessions of 45 minutes a week. Now because of budgetary considerations, I
have four sessions of 40 minutes a week. Inevitably, one session is at the end
of the day, so it has officially been cut to 30 minutes, but the kids are
watching the clock much earlier than that.
As I indicated before, using HOTS in teaching literature is almost always a
good thing, but I seriously question the rigid and illogical demands of the
HOTS program as presented in the course. Besides the silliness of nomenclature,
mentioned above, there are totally ridiculous rules to be followed. For
example, in a short story, which requires using two HOTS, we must use the same
methodology for both of the HOTS, even if using different methodologies would
fit better with each of the HOTS. For example, using prediction logically fits
into the “deductive #1” methodology. On the other hand, identifying conflicts
and dilemmas logically fits into the “deductive #2” methodology. Nevertheless,
according to the HOTS program, they must be forced into the same methodology in
a unit, despite the logic, or lack of logic. There are plenty of other silly
examples, but this is quite enough.
If you have been confused by the terminology, then welcome to the club. The
HOTS program is a massive cognitive overload for the teachers. (Instead of
bringing in SCABS from North America to teach English, the MOE should consider
cloning androids whose brains can function like multi-dimensional Excel
sheets.) Unless the program is streamlined, there is no way that teachers who
took the course will be able to follow the requirements. Moreover, the concepts
and requirements are so Byzantine, that without taking the course, a teacher
will become totally lost in the gobbly-gook of the program.
Considering the number of members of the Irgun HaMorim who boycotted the course
(with total justification, as it turns out), there will be a great number of
teachers and students stumbling through the dark towards Modules F and D. Rumor
has it that the MOE intends to post all the material from the course online.
Then the Irgun HaMorim teachers will have to sink or swim. We had better break
out a lot of life-rafts!
Finally, I must admit that I still don’t have the answer to a key question,
with which I started the course. Does the MOE want us to use HOTS in support of
teaching literature, or is literature the vehicle for teaching HOTS? The title
of the final PowerPoint presentation of the course highlights this dichotomy:
“Infusing HOTS with the Teaching of Literature.” (Why a duck?)
Jimmy
-----------------------------------------------
** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org
or - http://www.etni.org.il **
** for help - ask@xxxxxxxx **
** to post to this list - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **
-----------------------------------------------
Other related posts: