Teachers and Teaching

ISSN: 1354-0602 (Print) 1470-1278 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Fostering higherorder thinking in science class:

teachers reflections

Moshe Barak & Larisa Shakhman

To cite this article: Moshe Barak & Larisa Shakhman (2008) Fostering higherorder thinking in
science class: teachers reflections, Teachers and Teaching, 14:3, 191-208

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600802006079

Published online: 22 May 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1094

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctat20

Download by: [Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris UPSI] Date: 02 April 2017, At: 23:59
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2008, 191208

Fostering higher-order thinking in science class: teachers reflections

Moshe Barak* and Larisa Shakhman

Department of Science and Technology Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
(Received 22 April 2007; final version received 17 November 2007)
Taylor and Francis

The study reported in this article aimed at exploring what teachers know and do about fostering
Teachers
10.1080/13540600802006079
CTAT_A_300773.sgm
1354-0602
Original
Taylor
302008
14
Dr
mbarak@bgu.ac.il
000002008
MosheBarak
&Article
and
Francis
(print)/1470-1278
Teaching: theory(online)
and practice

higher-order thinking skills in teaching science, and how they see themselves involved in
achieving this end. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 11 teachers
experienced in teaching high school physics, which is considered a relatively difficult but well-
established discipline. The findings highlighted a diversity among the teachers in four areas:
meta-strategic knowledge of the concept of higher-order thinking; practical utilization of
instructional strategies related to fostering higher-order thinking in the classroom; beliefs
about students abilities to acquire higher-order thinking skills; and self-perception regarding
teaching towards higher-order thinking. Regarding the second area, for example, some of the
teachers reported using teaching strategies in class that could impede the development of
students as autonomous thinkers; others occasionally try to foster higher-order thinking among
their students but regard this as a way of conveying subject content better; only a minority of
the teachers see the fostering of higher-order thinking as an important objective of teaching
physics. In summary, teachers are frequently puzzled or uncertain about the entire issue of
fostering higher-order thinking in school. Introducing elements of constructivist pedagogy
combined with the specific steps aimed at fostering higher-order thinking into the science class
is required to make the development of higher-order thinking a regular ingredient in science
teaching within the current schooling.
Keywords: teachers; higher-order thinking; meta-strategic knowledge; instructional
strategies; beliefs

Introduction
Fostering students thinking skills in school has always been an important aim of education.
Terms such as critical thinking, creative thinking and higher-order thinking have been discussed
increasingly in the educational literature over the past few decades (Beyer, 1988; Costa, 1985;
Glaser, 1984; Pogrow, 1988; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996; Zohar, 1999, 2006; Zohar & Dori, 2003).
These concepts, however, are difficult to define and no universal agreement exists as to their exact
meaning, as will be explained later in this article. The transition from a content-oriented instruc-
tion to a process-oriented instruction depends critically on teachers pedagogical knowledge and
beliefs about teaching and learning, as numerous studies have shown (Aguirre & Speer, 1999;
Brickhouse, 1990; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992; Prawat, 1992; Richardson, 1996, 2003; Zohar,
2006). To foster students higher-level thinking, teachers must possess not only in-depth subject-
matter knowledge in the field they are specializing in, such as mathematics, physics or biology,
but also good pedagogical knowledge on how to develop students higher-order thinking both
in the context of the subject matter they are dealing with and as a general skill. Zohar (2006,
p. 332) stresses that in order to support students learning in reforms that highlight inquiry and

*Corresponding author. Email: mbarak@bgu.ac.il

ISSN 1354-0602 print/ISSN 1470-1278 online

2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13540600802006079
http://www.informaworld.com
192 M. Barak and L. Shakhman

thinking, teachers require sophisticated knowledge that cannot be embedded in curriculum

materials or scripted into instructional routines. Teachers, as well as students, do not simply
assimilate knowledge about teaching but rather construct new knowledge on the basis of their
initial (or intuitive) conceptions. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000, chap. 8) in their book
How People Learn contend that teachers learn from monitoring and the adjustment of good prac-
tice, from understanding their students, schools, curriculum and instructional methods, and by
living the practical experiments that occur as a part of professional practice. Therefore, the
present study was guided by the following questions: What do teachers know about fostering
higher-order thinking skills in the context of teaching science? How do teachers see themselves
involved in reaching this end? The significance of the study lies in its potential to contribute to
the literature and to educational practice related to teacher education, with special focus on
instruction aimed at promoting higher cognitive processes in the classroom.

Theoretical framework
What is higher-order thinking?
Despite the extensive material written on issues such as critical thinking, creativity and problem-
solving, these issues have remained rather vague. One approach mentioned in the literature is to
identify core dimensions of thinking, as Marzano et al. (1988) suggested. These researchers
pointed towards the following eight types of thinking skills used to gain knowledge and apply it
in our daily lives: focusing skills (defining problems, setting goals); information gathering skills
(observing, formulating questions); remembering skills (encoding, recalling); organizing skills
(comparing, classifying, ordering, representing); analyzing skills (identifying attributes and
components, identifying relationships and patterns, identifying main ideas, identifying errors);
generating skills (inferring, predicting, elaborating); integrating skills (summarizing, restructur-
ing); and evaluating skills (establishing criteria, verifying).
Another viewpoint regards thinking as a complex process that cannot be atomized into
specific routines. From this perspective, Resnick (1987) put forward the concept of higher-order
thinking, which avoids a precise definition of thinking but instead suggests some general
characteristics of higher-level thinking, as follows: higher-order thinking is non-algorithmic,
complex, yields multiple solutions, requires the application of multiple criteria, self-regulation,
and often involves uncertainty. The National Science Teachers Association relates specifically to
the point discussed below:

The ability to engage in effective inquiry using scientifically defensible methods is considered a
hallmark of scientific literacy. True inquiry requires the use of non-algorithmic and complex higher-
order thinking skills to address open-ended problems (Resnick, 1987). Multiple solutions may be
possible, and the inquirer must use multiple, sometimes conflicting, criteria to evaluate his or her
actions and findings. Inquiry is characterized by a degree of uncertainty about outcomes. True
inquiry ends with an elaboration and judgment that depends upon the previous reasoning processes.
(NSTA, 2003, p. 18)

In accordance with the Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (American Association for the
Advancement of Sciences [AAAS], 1993) and the National Science Education Standards (NRC,
1996), Zohar and Dori (2003) include the following examples of higher-order thinking patterns
in inquiry-oriented science education: formulating a research question, planning experiments,
controlling variables, drawing inferences, making and justifying arguments, identifying hidden
assumptions, and identifying reliable sources of information. To what extent can the implemen-
tation of these instructional strategies in teaching a specific curriculum help in fostering general
intellectual competencies? This question is discussed in the following paragraph.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 193

Approaches for instructing thinking skills

Three approaches have been suggested to instruct thinking skills: the process approach, the
content approach, and the infusion approach (Ennis, 1989). The process approach supports
the direct teaching of thinking skills, separately from the regular curriculum, with the aim of
encouraging students to apply cognitive skills to what they learn in other disciplines. Nisbet
and Davies (1990) list dozens of programs based on this approach, such as the Cognitive
Research Trust (CoRT) program put forward by de Bono (1985), the Higher-Order Thinking
Skills (HOTS) program developed by Pogrow (1988, 1996a), and the Instrumental Enrich-
ment (IE) method developed by Feuerstein (Ben Hur, 1994; Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman, &
Miller, 1980).
The content approach, on the other hand, is based on the perception that certain cognitive
skills are specific to particular disciplines, such as mathematics or science, and should be taught
in a specific context (Ashton, 1988). This method requires that teachers have extensive knowl-
edge of their own discipline so they can instruct students how to apply cognitive skills in their
areas and know when to make contextual links with other areas (Chambers, 1988).
The third approach, the infusion approach, aims at combining the teaching of thinking
skills with instructing the curriculum. Swartz and Perkins (Swartz & Parks, 1994), e.g., include
infusing the development of critical and creative thinking skills into science lesson chapters, as
follows: skillfully engaging in complex thinking tasks, skills in clarifying ideas, skills in
generating ideas, skills in assessing the reasonableness of ideas, and designing and teaching
infusion lessons. These authors stress that their program infuses the instruction of critical and
creative thinking into science instruction in secondary school to maximize the impact in teach-
ing all students to be careful, skilful scientific thinkers in ways that they can use their skills in
their lives, even if they are not going to become scientists. Other cases for the infusion
approach have been discussed by Swartz and Perkins (1989), and Ennis (1989). Costa (2002,
paragraph 1) explains the advantages of the infusion approach in comparison to other meth-
ods mentioned above, as follows:
Firstly, skillful thinking cannot be performed in a vacuum there must be something to think
about; and secondly, the nature of the discipline imposes certain constraints on the procedures of
problem solving. The content informs the selection and application of thinking skills just as their
selection and application shape the insights and knowledge derived from the subject matter being
investigated scientific problems, in which the control of experimental variables is paramount,
differs from social and aesthetic problems in which ethics and artistic judgment play a significant
role.

Throughout this article we will relate to this as the IERT model.

So far we have seen that on the one hand critics question the effectiveness of teaching thinking
and problem-solving methods out of a specific content; on the other hand, it is not enough to teach
a particular content area in-depth and to hope that higher-order thinking will spontaneously spring
forth. Sternberg (1987) relates to this point as follows:
It is a mistake to concentrate only upon knowledge to exclusion of thinking skills, because such
concentration risks generating students who will know a lot but who are unable to evaluate their
knowledge. It is equally a mistake to concentrate only on thinking skills, because the result may be
students who know to think but have nothing to think about. (p. 254)

To sum up this part of the discussion, we adopt Costas (2002) viewpoint mentioned earlier,
according to which the development of thinking skills by teaching a defined knowledge domain
combined with steps designed specifically to enhance students thinking is likely to produce the
best results. The teachers, of course, play a central role in schooling aimed at achieving this end,
as discussed below.
194 M. Barak and L. Shakhman

The need to investigate teachers knowledge and attitudes in fostering higher cognitive
processes in class
The educational literature widely acknowledges that teachers views of teaching and learning as
well as their beliefs about knowledge and intelligence have a direct impact on the way they teach
(Borko & Putnam, 1996; Brickhouse, 1990; Hollen, Roth & Anderson, 1991; Kagan, 1992;
Pajares, 1992). Although the notion of fostering thinking can be traced back to philosophers and
psychologists of centuries and decades ago (e.g., Dewey, 1910), the discussion of promoting
higher-order thinking skills in science class is relatively young. The science curriculum of the
1960s was rather structured, and teacher education and professional development programs
during this period primarily emphasized teachers duty in delivering the subject matter rather than
facilitating students learning skills (Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Welch, 1979). If we consider that
todays senior teachers, many of them having over 10 years of experience, had learned their basic
science courses during the 1970s or 1980s, and if we assume that teachers beliefs on how to teach
are derived from their years of sitting and listening to a variety of teachers in school (Richardson,
1996), it would be of interest to examine to what extent these teachers have shifted from content-
oriented teaching and learning, as they probably experienced, to process-oriented learning
instruction, as expected today.
Regarding the previously raised question of how teachers learn, it is increasingly being
recognized that teachers ability to reflect on their instruction is a central factor in their profes-
sional development (Zohar, 2006). This is especially true concerning the task of planning, execut-
ing and improving instruction aimed at fostering higher cognitive processes in class, because this
type of science teaching is often regarded as exceptional in traditional schooling. The more a
teacher is involved in instruction that fosters students thinking, the more he/she is able to reflect
significantly on the teaching and learning that takes place in his/her class. With this notion in
mind, we designed this study to explore what science teachers know about developing students
thinking skills through teaching the required content, and what their beliefs are in this regard.

Method
The present study adopted the qualitative approach, guided by Glasers grounded theory method-
ology (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). It aimed at obtaining a holistic understanding of
what is happening regarding the fostering of higher-order thinking in teaching physics, the
participants viewpoints on the issue, how they understand this concept, and what stays beyond
their external expression of their behavior (Silverman, 1997).

Setting
The study took place in the context of teaching physics in Israeli high schools. In Israel, as in
many other countries, physics is frequently regarded as a difficult subject, perhaps an elite
subject in science education (Angell, Guttersrud, Henriksen, & Isnes, 2004; Barmby & Defty,
2006; Osbourne, Driver, & Simon, 1998; Woolnough, 1994). The vast majority of students
majoring in physics are outstanding students, often among the highest achievers in their schools.
Most of the physics teachers are university graduates in the exact sciences or related fields such
as engineering. The physics curriculum is very structured, and the students take an official
matriculation exam (the Bagrut) in physics, which consists of specific chapters in subjects like
mechanics, electricity and electromagnetism, including a laboratory exam. Although the teaching
of physics in Israeli secondary schools can be regarded as a relatively well-established field, some
concerns exist about the level of teaching and learning of this subject, especially the tendency to
base learning on algorithmic solving of standardized questions.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 195

Participants
The participants in the study were 11 physics teachers (eight females and three males), most of
them having over 10 years of experience in the teaching profession; they taught in schools located
within a 50-kilometer radius around a central city. These schools serve a heterogeneous popula-
tion from students living in well-established neighborhoods to students coming from relatively
low-income families; physics students, however, are a rather homogeneous group across the
schools, as mentioned above. We do not claim to have taken a random sample; instead, we
selected the participating teachers to represent fairly well the profile of experienced physics
teachers country-wide. Most of the teachers were regarded as important figures in their schools,
often in charge of preparing the physics class for the matriculation exam.
To explain the consideration in choosing teachers from these backgrounds, it is useful to
examine the five stages of teachers professional development that Huberman (1989, p. 37)
identified: (1) survival and discovery (13 years in the profession); (2) stabilization (46 years);
(3) experimentation (activism)/reassessment (self-doubts) (718 years); (4) serenity/conserva-
tism (1930) years; and (5) disengagement (3150 years). Of the 11 teachers selected in this
study, nine could be regarded as being in the third stage of their professional development, char-
acterized by Huberman as a period of experimentation and activism, as they develop their own
courses, try out new approaches to teaching and confront institutional barriers. Yet, others see it
as a period of self-doubt and reassessment; many teachers leave the profession at this stage as
their level of frustration with the system reaches its peak. One of the two other teachers was noted
as being in the second stage of professional development and the other one in the fourth stage.
We see an advantage in focusing the study on teachers from a specific discipline, in particular
a relatively well-established field like physics, since this enabled concentrating the discussion on
the knowledge and attitude of teachers having a common professional background while reducing
the influence of factors related to differences between the disciplines. In addition, the study
exposed teachers perceptions during their regular work throughout the school year, rather than
under special circumstances, like teaching a new curriculum or participating in an in-service
course.

Data collection and analysis

The main data collection method was semi-structured interviews with the teachers, which took
place individually in their schools. The main value of interviews (Fontana & Frey, 2000; Silver-
man, 1993) is that they offer a rich source of data that provides access to how people account for
their understandings and attitudes about everyday experiences.
The interviews, which lasted about 6090 minutes, started out by presenting the teacher with
a list of 22 strategies for teaching physics, such as formulating a research question, controlling
variables or drawing inferences from an experiment. Several authors (Bruer, 1993; Dori &
Herscovitz, 1999; Langer, 1997) suggested these teaching methods as contributing to a higher
level of physics learning. Since we assumed that many of the teachers were familiar with at least
some of these instructional strategies from previous courses, we chose to start the conversation at
this point to create a convenient opening discussion during the interview. The interviewees were
asked to comment on each strategy, e.g., the extent to which he/she had been using it in class, its
advantages and disadvantages, or where he/she had learned about them; they were also
encouraged to add additional strategies they knew or used. The conversation, however, did not
adhere to this format but rather developed into divergent directions according to each teachers
interests or preferences, as we will show later on in this article.
This study aimed at listening to the teachers. We are aware of the fact that the study is based
almost entirely on what the teachers said, without any attempt to check or verify their reports,
196 M. Barak and L. Shakhman

beyond our general knowledge on the educational system in the region, which helped in selecting
the participants. All the teachers were interviewed by the second author of this article, herself a
physics teacher for about 15 years. To create a relaxed atmosphere, the interviewer stated explic-
itly to each interviewee that the study was about teaching physics in general, and there was no
intention to judge or evaluate him/her in any way. We believe that this approach encouraged the
teachers to talk freely about both their successes and difficulties, rather than attempting to display
themselves at their best.
The interviews were transcribed verbatim. An inductive analysis was performed (Patton,
1990) in which patterns, themes, and categories of analysis were extracted from the data. First,
we reread the transcripts separately to formulate a tentative understanding; in subsequent
readings, we attempted to confirm this understanding. As part of the verification methodology
(Strauss, 1987), we repeatedly reread the data; initial categories were revised as a result of several
rounds of discussion.
It is important to clarify that the study aimed at discovering the theory implicit in the data
rather than trying to test a predetermined hypothesis (Glaser, 1978). The major categories that
were identified, to be described later in this article, literally emerged from the data analysis; they
were neither hypothesized in advance nor derived from the literature on teachers professional
development or promoting thinking skills. In addition, as we mentioned previously, the 22 teach-
ing strategies that served as a stimulus for opening the interviews were selected from the literature
on science teaching as part of preparations for the study. In contrast, the major categories
constituting the outcomes of the study emerged afterwards as part of the data analysis.

Findings
In presenting the outcomes of qualitative research, we hereby report on the findings of this
study along with a discussion of the findings based on the theoretical discussion presented
previously.
In the data analysis, the following four main categories (dimensions) relating to teachers
perceptions on fostering higher-order thinking in teaching physics were identified, as illustrated
in Figure 1: (1) meta-strategic knowledge on the subject; (2) utilization of higher-level instruc-
tional strategies; (3) beliefs about the students; and (4) teachers self-perception regarding the
issue discussed. The suggested categories differ one from another since, e.g., a teacher could have
little theoretical knowledge on higher-order thinking in science but have reasonable practical
experience in achieving this goal, or vice versa. Yet, the four ellipses in Figure 1 are presented as

Meta-strategic
Beliefs about knowledge
the students Self-perception
Utilization of higher-
level instructional
strategies

Figure 1. Four dimensions of teachers perceptions on fostering higher-order thinking in teaching physics,
as identified in the data analysis.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 197

partially overlapping to imply that the suggested categories are not absolutely foreign, as
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Figure 1. Four dimensions of teachers perceptions on fostering higher-order thinking in teaching physics, as identified in the data analysis.

Dimension 1: Teachers meta-strategic knowledge in fostering higher-order thinking in

physics studies
Zohar (2006) defines teachers meta-strategic knowledge as a particular component of meta-
cognition that refers to explicit knowledge regarding the thinking strategies used during
instruction. In the present study, we refer to teachers meta-strategic knowledge in fostering
higher-order thinking in teaching physics. As previously mentioned, the interviewer started the
interview with each teacher by presenting a list of 22 teaching strategies that could help in
achieving a higher level of thinking in the class. The discussions, however, moved to diverse
directions according to each teachers preferences. The interviewer did not ask a teacher direct
questions like What do you know about fostering high-level thinking?; instead, she paid
attention to the teachers spontaneous expressions on issues such as the objectives of teaching
physics beyond conveying specific knowledge, or what characterizes high-level versus low-
level learning, and tried to lead the conversation in these directions. In the latter stages of the
data analysis, after identifying the categories, we could discern that the participants showed
different levels of meta-strategic knowledge in higher-order thinking, as the following exam-
ples illustrate.
The lowest level of meta-strategic knowledge has to do with teachers who showed a state of
confusion, embarrassment, or bewilderment when talking about fostering higher-level thinking
in physics lessons. For instance:
What does it mean through thinking under the pressure of time in the class you dont have all
the time you need
If we had more time but presently it is very difficult if you want to drill the subject matter the
number of teaching hours is unrealistic.

When a teacher was unfamiliar with the subject, he/she shifted the discussion to general
difficulties, such as the shortage of teaching hours. Frequently, the teachers were aware of the fact
that they were unable to teach thinking as illustrated below (T = teacher; I = interviewer):
T: Critical thinking is to cast a doubt. I dont know how to do that.
I: Can we develop students thinking?
T: I dont know there are methods of developing thinking, but we have to learn them. It is
possible but we (the teachers) need to learn how there are books, courses, there is a
famous one, what is his name Eduard de Bono but these things take time.
This teacher made efforts to show that he knows something about the issue by mentioning de
Bonos name; yet he said that he and other teachers know very little about the topic.
The second level concerns teachers who exhibited an intuitive understanding of developing
thinking in physics studies; they feel or grasp something on the issue but are unable to present
their thoughts. Typical statements by teachers in this level included:
This is the way I was taught. I remember that in physics class I was forced to solve exercises in several
ways. I think that this contributes and teaches you to think.
I dont know how something (a specific instruction method) could develop students thinking, but I
know it does this must be something unusual if students just know how to put numbers into equa-
tions, what is it worth?
The teacher quoted above considers fostering students thinking as something uncommon or
exceptional, rather than as a normal way of teaching physics.
198 M. Barak and L. Shakhman

At the highest level in our findings were teachers who exhibited significant knowledge in
fostering thinking, and were even interested in discussing the issue.
I built a concept map with thembut I did the work (instead of the students) the secret of concept
maps is that you prepare themcoping with this, the constructions, makes the internalization.
It is important to give the students time to think I am working on this with the team (other teachers
at school) and myself we have to make the students work.
Teachers in this group were also aware of the difficulty of shifting from conveying the subject
matter to process-oriented instruction:
I see myself and most of the teachers as wanting to give, to convey the subject matterto feed the
material to the students with a silver spoon. What is required is not to give (the students) fish but
rather to teach them how to fish.
The following teacher understands intuitively the importance of reflection in learning:
When students understand their difficulties, they study better; generally people learn more from their
mistakes than from their successes.
Although the present study comprised a relatively small sample of experienced physics teach-
ers, the results indicate that among them were teachers who were confused by merely talking
about the subject, as well as teachers who demonstrated some intuitive understanding on what
higher-level thinking is. None of the participants, however, were familiar with more professional
terms such as reflection, meta-cognition or transfer that are often used in discussions on higher-
order thinking; this, in turn limited their ability to talk about the subject.

Dimension 2: Teachers utilization of instructional strategies aimed at fostering

higher-order thinking
As mentioned earlier, several instructional methods can help in enhancing students thinking skills,
such as drawing concept maps, asking students to estimate in advance the results of a scientific
enquiry, or engaging them in open tasks (Swartz & Parks, 1994; Zohar & Dori, 2003). However,
the mere use of these strategies in teaching a specific subject does not promise the fostering of
students higher-level thinking. The IERT model (Introducing, Engagement, Reflection, Transfer)
(Swartz, 1991) mentioned earlier is helpful in this regard because it characterizes more specifically
instruction aimed at infusing the fostering of thinking into teaching the required curriculum.
The present results, however, indicated that teachers differ one from another, not in terms of
their familiarity with diverse methods for teaching physics (often taught in teachers courses), but
in the way or extent they utilize these method in the IERT model. In the discussion that follows,
we classified the participants into three groups: the false users, the instrumental users, and the
intended users.

False users
The term false users describes teachers who have an idea of instruction that could lead to deeper
cognitive processes, and apparently use these methods but actually act in contrast to the spirit of
the IERT approach. For example, one of the interviewees claimed that she was aware of the
advantage of using multiple representations of a physical phenomenon, such as a formula, a graph
or a table, yet she did not see the advantage here of developing students thinking, but rather a
way of facilitating their learning.
T: We frequently make figures, graphs and schemes (the interviewer understands that the teacher
draws on the board and the students copy to their notebooks)
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 199

I: Why are you doing that? (instead of the students)

T: The students say that when I arrange the material for them, it makes it easier for them to learn
from their notebooks.

In this case, the teacher takes upon herself the thinking behind presenting a new concept, and
organizes the information for the students instead of explaining to them the aim of presenting a
phenomenon in different ways, engaging them in the process, and encouraging them to reflect on
this learning.
One of the strategies for fostering reflective thinking in class is asking the students to describe
verbally, in writing or orally the difficulties they faced and how they overcame them. This is a
kind of refection on learning the subject matter. When teachers do not understand the objective
of reflection, they tend to act more contrarily than required, as the following example shows:
T: I am trying to do this by myself, to identify difficulties and show them to the students they are
unable to do that for them it is difficult.
I: Why are you doing that?
T: When I ask them to cite their difficulties, they only say in general that they dont know they
dont understand anything.

By doing the hard work for the students, this teacher also misses the point of developing
students reflective-thinking skills.
An important condition for fostering higher thinking in class is creating an atmosphere of
openness and security for the students to make trials, take risks in solving a problem using an
original method, or express unusual ideas. In the context of laboratory work, asking students to
estimate in advance the expected result of an experiment is a common way of developing
scientific reasoning. Let us see how a teacher interprets these two concepts:
T: Just before any experiment, I ask the students to describe the expected results.
I: Why?
T: This gives me the possibility of showing them later when they fail, to tell one student how clever
he is and to another how stupid; also, to force them to think a little, to make predictions, to apply
their life experience.

Instrumental users (content-oriented approach)

This term refers to teachers who occasionally try to enrich their teaching methods but regard this
as a way of raising students achievement in physics or fulfilling the curriculum requirements.
For example:
I: You mentioned you are asking the students to think out loud. Why do you do this?
T: I dont know sometimes I feel that this way the subject matter is absorbed better it develops
some interest in the part of the students it diversifies the lessons
Other teachers are strongly influenced by the demands of the matriculation exams:
T: We present the results of a lab experiment and make a generalization this is the requirement
recently in the matriculation exam, there are results of an experiment and the student must
draw conclusions from them.
When the students were asked to justify verbally the solution to a computation exercise:
I: Do you mean we have to guide the students to justify their answers?
T: Yes, sure, systematically. Any additional word in the matriculation exam is a plus for them
what will students do in the exam, if they are unable to justify their answers?
Some of the teachers generally believe that merely teaching physics develops students
thinking, as the following example shows:
200 M. Barak and L. Shakhman

It is easier to develop thinking in physics because you have the tools for doing so. What are the tools
of thinking? You have a collection of principles and rules you use them to solve a problem or a
conflict therefore this discipline, physics, helps to develop thinking.
The teachers quoted above exclusively apply the engagement phase of the IERT model
presented earlier. Actually, the requirements of the formal curriculum, which the teachers
partially follow, are based on hidden beliefs that teaching the subject matter in an in-depth manner
will do the job, or in other words, the content approach, we mentioned previously.

Intended users (process-oriented approach)

Teachers in this group feel that the development of students cognitive skills is one of the major
objectives of teaching physics, and they actively seek achieving this aim. These teachers can often
explain why they are using a specific teaching method and what it has to do with developing
students reasoning. One example is a teacher who reported that:
I intentionally create a situation in the class in which students present different positions on an issue
under debate and try to convince one another this develops scientific thinking more than when the
teacher takes control it imparts the important skill of how to convince others identify an empty
saying see both sides in a discussion explain oneself listen to others.
One of the teachers reported she made attempts on how to teach:
I carried out a small research study about using concept maps I taught two chapters in optics; in
one of them I included the use of concept maps in the class; in the other I didnt. The results showed
that this did not influence the high-achievers, but there was an improvement among the low-
achieversI did not measure this statistically, but I felt the change.
Another teacher said that she deliberately identifies for the students the names of the strategies
they use in class:
I emphasize terms like assumption, decision, generalization, and so on; I do it because for me this is
what explains the process; otherwise it (the learning to think) is just like waving my arms around.
The above example is about teachers who intentionally utilize some of the concepts of talking
with students about thinking, engage them in thinking activities, and attempt to have the students
reflect on their thinking. None of the teachers participating in this study referred to a possible
transfer of thinking methods used in classes into learning other physics studies or other contexts.
In summary, we have identified three types of teachers in terms of their use of instruction that
could foster thinking skills: teachers who try to think for their students, teachers who perceive the
development of thinking as a means of improving the learning of physics, and teachers who
regard the development of cognitive skills as an important part of their teaching duty.

Dimension 3: Teachers beliefs about their students

As discussed earlier, teachers beliefs about students understanding, thinking and learning are
critical factors in any educational reform (Borko & Putnam, 1996). In analyzing the conversations
with the teachers, two extreme perceptions on students potential to develop higher-order think-
ing were observed: at one pole were four pessimistic teachers, who expressed disappointment
and despair for their students; at the other pole were five optimistic teachers who confided
strongly in their students. The following are quotes from teachers statements about their
students, with a focus on issues related to using higher-order thinking:
Regarding students self-confidence, at one pole:
The students do not possess critical thinking; they believe in the teacher as if he is God; whatever he
says is sacred.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 201

At the other pole:

Students are used to getting everything ready-made. If you keep telling them you have to decide,
you decide for yourselves, they get used to the notion that they also have a say in the class.
And also:
Sometimes I tell my students: you are like Einsteinyou have the same brain just use it more
About solving a problem in several ways, on the one hand:
In the tests, I wish they knew (at least) one way to solve a problem, my poor students.
or:
Usually we are content with one solution for a question. If a student wants to present another solution,
and if I have time, I can look at it; otherwise I say (to the student): we have seen one conventional
solution; it is better that all the students understand it, rather than confuse them with two solutions.
On the other hand:
When a student presents a solution that is better than your own, you are enthusiastic, excited; you
present it to the class it surprises you I love it.
About refection, the majority of teachers were pessimistic about students ability to reflect on
their difficulties or successes in learning:
Identify difficulties (the students themselves)? I dont see how they can; they cant distinguish
(between different kinds of difficulties) for them, difficult is difficult.
As we mentioned earlier, physics is considered to be an advanced subject in Israeli high
school and students majoring in physics are often considered as outstanding learners. Yet, a
significant number of teachers expressed a low level of confidence in their students. While the
pessimistic teachers related mainly to students abilities or motivation, the optimistic ones noted
their personal involvement in promoting students learning. In other words, when there are
difficulties in the class, the teachers tend to blame the students; when there are successes, the
teachers emphasize their contribution.

Dimension 4: Teachers self-perception beliefs in their own learning

Teachers self-beliefs and abilities to reflect on their own learning are important ingredients in
their professional development (Bransford et al., 2000; Pajares, 1992). Although the interviewer
did not raise this point explicitly in the interview, almost all the interviewees related spontane-
ously to this issue, certainly as being related to the discussion about students learning. Some of
the teachers showed a low level of confidence in their ability to learn and improve; others
described their efforts to improve, while still others expressed a higher self-esteem in this regard.
The following examples demonstrate these findings.
One of the teachers was frustrated by her difficulty to escape from frontal teaching, although
she was aware of the need to diversify her instruction:
Sometimes I dont understand myself there are (teaching) tools in the air they were created by
the academic community (my) teaching is mainly about frontal presentation I rarely absorb
something different.
Another case is a teacher who reported she made continuous efforts to improve but admitted
it was difficult to change teaching habits:
I: Did you ask the students to formulate their own questions?
T: This is indeed a strong method, but I do not use it. Pity!
202 M. Barak and L. Shakhman

I: Why?
T: It doesnt come into my mind I have to focus on it, to force myself to make it automatic;
there are methods I learned (in in-service training) I know they help the students you try a
method once, and it works, but you leave it.
I: That means you try, enjoy it, and thats it?
T: Yes. You even succeed, but you dont continue.
Finally, let us examine an example of a teacher who made significant progress in her teaching:
After gaining some experience in teaching, I attended several in-service courses they contributed
a great deal some things I am doing exactly as the instructor showed other things I would like to
do differently the instructor strengthened me in several teaching methods I used earlier, for exam-
ple a lot of verbal explanations, and only later, the mathematical model.
One can see that the real challenge of in-service training courses for teachers is not in the
teaching of new instructional methods, but rather in increasing teachers self-confidence in their
ability to introduce these methods into the class wisely and continuously.

To what extent do teachers viewpoints on different aspects of fostering higher-order

thinking skills inter-relate?
So far, we have seen that a great diversity exists among teachers viewpoints regarding the four
dimensions of fostering higher-order cognitive skills identified in this study. To what extent do
their viewpoints in the different aspects inter-relate?
If a strong correlation exists, it could prove that the teachers do not distinguish between the
different aspects of fostering higher-order thinking in class, as this study indicates, but they rather
perceive the entire issue through an optimistic or a pessimistic lens.
Specifically, we were interested in the question of whether a correlation exists between teach-
ers tendencies to use higher-level instructional strategies and their beliefs in their students in this
regard. Although we do not consider that ranking teachers in a specific aspect can be accurate,
such a classification, as seen in Table 1, could help in the current discussion.
Table 1 illustrates that the teachers approaches in using higher-level instruction correlate
only partially with their beliefs in their students abilities to acquire higher-order thinking.
Teachers 1 and 2 were ranked High in both categories, and teachers 10 and 11 Low. Regarding

Table 1. Evaluation of 11 teachers according to their reflections on using higher-level instruction in class,
and their confidence in their students abilities to acquire higher-order thinking.

Use of higher-level
Teacher instructional strategies Belief in the students
1 High High
2 High High
3 Mid-level Low
4 Mid-level Low
5 Mid-level High
6 Mid-level High
7 Mid-level High
8 Mid-level Mid-level
9 Low Mid-level
10 Low Low
11 Low Low
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 203

the use of higher-level instructional strategies, teachers 3 and 4 were ranked higher in their beliefs
in their students higher-order thinking, while an opposite situation occurred for teachers 5, 6, 7,
and 9. These results can be divided into two poles: at one end are the teachers who report that they
rarely use higher-level instructional strategies in class although they believe that many of their
students are able to learn significantly; at the other end are the teachers who say that they try to
apply higher-level instructional approaches although they are not sure about their students
abilities to deal with more in-depth learning.
How can we explain the diversity of teachers viewpoints regarding the different aspects of
fostering higher-order thinking in science class, and in particular, the little correlation between
teachers beliefs and practical behavior, as demonstrated above? We will relate to this point in the
discussion of the findings below.

Discussion
In this study, we aimed at examining what teachers know and do about fostering higher-order
thinking in the context of teaching science, and how they see themselves involved in fulfilling
this goal. The findings showed diversity among the teachers in four areas: meta-strategic knowl-
edge in the concept of higher-order thinking; utilization of instructional strategies related to this;
beliefs about the students; and teachers self-perception of the issue discussed. The main
outcomes are summarized below.
Firstly, while many teachers are barely able to talk about concepts such as higher-order think-
ing, others have a general sense of the notion. Few teachers, if any, are familiar with the concepts
suggested by the educational literature to enhance higher-order thinking in science class.
Secondly, some of the teachers report they use teaching strategies in class in a way that could
impede the development of students as autonomous thinkers; others occasionally try to foster
higher-order thinking among their students but regard this as a way of improving achievements
in physics; only a minority of the teachers see the fostering of higher-order thinking as an
important objective in teaching physics.
Thirdly, the teachers were divided into two extremes regarding their beliefs in their students
potential to acquire higher-order thinking: those who had great confidence in their students, and
those who had despaired in teaching high-level science beyond solving computational exercises
algorithmically.
Fourthly, in addition to teachers who believe only to a certain extent in their own abilities to
learn and improve, there are teachers who are confident in their teaching and constantly seek to
enhance their pedagogical knowledge.
To discuss the relationships of the four dimensions of teachers perceptions to the fostering
of higher-order thinking in the class, let us return to the question of how the literature treats teach-
ers views on teaching and learning mentioned earlier. Many researchers (Clark, 1998; Kagan,
1992; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Zohar, 2004b) agree that teachers
knowledge, beliefs and instructional behavior are interrelated. Teachers views on teaching and
learning have a direct impact on their teaching practices, and a teachers individual experience
affects his/her view of the educational process. Several authors (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Kagan,
1990; Pajares, 1992) highlighted the fact that terms such as teachers knowledge and teachers
beliefs are not precisely defined, and no consensus exists as to their exact meaning. Researchers
have suggested a number of different terms, such as teacher cognition, teacher thinking,
teachers self-reflection or teachers personal knowledge (Tamir, 1991). In the current discus-
sion, we relate to the term teachers personal knowledge as a cognitive dimension, e.g., the
ability to define, explain or manipulate concepts in the teachers area of specialization, as well as
about cognition, teaching, and learning. Teachers beliefs, either about their students or about
204 M. Barak and L. Shakhman

themselves, relate to affective aspects such as attitudes, motivation, self-confidence or self-

efficacy, namely an individuals beliefs in his/her capability to perform in a certain manner or to
attain a certain goal (Bandura, 1997; Calderhead, 1996; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996).
How can we regard the findings of the current research, which show poor correlation between
teachers meta-strategic knowledge, beliefs about their students, self-perception, and instruc-
tional practices? Educational researchers (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Zohar, 2004b) mention several
circumstances in which teachers knowledge and beliefs are not necessarily reflected in their
practice. One reason is that teachers sometimes have contradictory beliefs that prevent them from
acting upon a desired teaching strategy. For example, under the influence of pre-service or in-
service training courses, teachers may adopt the constructivist view of learning; in contrast, their
own experience as students and teachers frequently leads them to believe that efficient learning
is realized when the teacher delivers knowledge to the students. A second reason that may
preclude teachers from acting upon their beliefs could be the lack of knowledge and experience,
either in the subject matter or in a certain instructional approach. It is well documented in the
educational literature that novice teachers in a specific domain tend to adhere to conventional
teacher-led instruction, while experienced teachers are more open to move towards reform-
guided instruction. A third reason that may prevent teachers from acting upon their beliefs may
relate to contextual factors, such as lack of time, large classes, or mandatory exams. Henderson
and Dancy (2007), who investigated the barriers in using research-based instructional strategies
in teaching physics at the tertiary level, found that experienced teachers have beliefs about teach-
ing and learning that are more compatible with educational research than their self-described
instructional practices. These teachers often blamed this discrepancy on situational factors that
favored traditional instruction, such as course structure and the over-emphasis on mathematical
problem solving.
Although the current study dealt with experienced physics teachers, we have found indica-
tions of all three reasons mentioned above. First, it is evident that the vast majority of experienced
Israeli physics teachers had studied physics either in high school or university using the conven-
tional conservative method, and they have been teaching this subject using this method for many
years. Second, we have seen that most teachers possess only little meta-strategic knowledge about
teaching towards higher-order thinking. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that these teachers are
experts in conventional teaching, but beginners in utilizing reform-based instruction in their area
of specialization. Third, the context of teaching physics in Israeli high schools is not likely to
support constructivist-guided instruction. Teaching science, particularly physics, in Israeli high
schools is strongly guided by the obligation to complete a given syllabus and prepare the
students for conventional pen-and-paper exams. However, the conditions in school, such as the
number of learning hours or the quality of laboratories, are insufficient. These difficulties
especially characterize schools in peripheral areas, such as those participating in the current
study, because these schools frequently have fewer resources in comparison to schools in well-
established cities in the central part of the country. This was the background, for example, for a
program aimed at enhancing the learning of mathematics, science, and technology among
students in schools in the southern part of the country with the aim of increasing students acces-
sibility to higher education (Barak, 2005).
The picture described above can also partially explain the situation whereby, although physics
students are among the highest achievers in their schools, teachers do not always express great
confidence in their students abilities to acquire higher-order thinking. Support of this view was
also found in another study (Barak, 2005), in which a physics teacher in a high school within an
affluent neighborhood explicitly said that the best students excelled academically on a regional
level, but not in comparison to excellent students from schools in the countrys center. It should
be emphasized that the obligatory physics curriculum and the matriculation exams are standard
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 205

on a national level, and the quotes above were made in the background of efforts to enhance
physics studies in the school rather than as an expression of low expectations of the students.
Of the three factors affecting the diversity of teachers viewpoints and practice in teaching
physics discussed above teachers personal background, their knowledge, and the school
context we will focus the rest of the discussion on the disparity between what the teachers
commonly learn about enhancing the instruction of science and the actual situation in schools.
The educational literature (Brandt, 1998; Resnick, 1987; Richardson, 1996; Zohar, 2004a)
tracks the discussion on fostering significant learning in school to the basic distinction between
two learning theories: the traditional transmission-of-knowledge approach versus a reform-
oriented, constructivist approach in which individuals learn what is personally meaningful to
them, have choices and feel in control of their learning, and construct new knowledge based on
what they already know. This view of learning has been at the center of teachers pre-service and
in-service programs in the past two decades. Indeed, the Israeli educational system had suggested
a variety of in-service teacher education programs in fields such as physics (Yerushalmi & Eylon,
2004), biology (Zohar, 2004a, b), and chemistry (Hofstein, Carmeli, & Shore, 2004). As previ-
ously noted, all participants in the current study were experienced physics teachers, and many had
attended in-service training courses, as was revealed in the interviews. These courses frequently
relate to broad issues such as inquiry-based science, social and environmental aspects of science,
and teaching for critical thinking in the science class (Zoller, 1993). However, as Tobin, Kahle,
and Fraser (1990) stress, shifting from teaching based on lectures, class discussion, and algorith-
mic problem solving to instructional strategies that enhance higher-order thinking among
students is not a simple endeavor, and challenges even the most experienced teachers. Therefore,
teachers often regard constructivist inquiry-based pedagogy as a kind of general idea or utopia.
Borko and Putnam (1996) pointed out that:

Experienced teachers often must try to learn about new approaches while simultaneously continuing
to juggle the many demands of school life, and face the long-established knowledge and beliefs that
may conflict in subtle but important ways with the changes they are trying to make. (p. 699)

Bolhuis and Voeten (2004) also found that although teachers might be convinced of the under-
lying principles related to process-oriented learning, it does not necessarily equal competencies
in translating these principles into practice; these authors also recommend making teachers
conceptions more explicit through discussion. Confronting a possible inconsistency between their
own conceptions and students learning may be useful in this process. Barak, Ben-Chaim, and
Zoller (2007) also show the advantages of purposely teaching to promote higher-order thinking
skills within the framework of science education over traditional schooling.

Concluding remarks
Rather than claiming that extensive reform in teaching science is required to nurture students
higher-order thinking competencies, as often appears in the educational literature, we join
Pogrow (1996b) in suggesting that educational change requires highly specific, systematic, and
structured methodologies with supporting materials. Introducing elements of constructivist
pedagogy combined with specific steps aimed at fostering higher-order thinking into class could
be a realistic aim for teachers. One example of a systematic approach of fostering thinking in
teaching a specific content is the IERT model (Swartz, 1991) mentioned earlier in this article.
This model includes the following four elements: Introducing the aim of a thinking strategy or
problem-solving approach to the students in the context of learning a specific subject matter;
Engaging the students in the suggested strategy; encouraging Reflection on using the strategy;
and teaching the students how to Transfer a specific strategy to other related contexts. An
206 M. Barak and L. Shakhman

additional approach has been suggested by Zohar (2004a, p.307), who identifies six elements of
teachers pedagogical knowledge that are essential in the instruction of higher-order thinking
skills in science class, such as: teaching thinking as consisting of inducing a process, introduc-
ing in class problems that necessitate higher-level reasoning, and regarding students reasoning
difficulties as opportunities for fruitful interactions between teachers and students. This author
also stresses that:
An adequate learning activity may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a learning situation
in which students have to think for themselves; the other necessary condition is an adequate
pedagogy, one that will elicit students thinking. (Zohar, 2004a, p. 307)
Considerable work is required, therefore, in teachers pre-service and in-service training
programs to make the development of higher-order thinking a regular and feasible ingredient in
science teaching within the present educational system.

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.
Washington, DC: Author
Aguirre, J., & Speer, N.M. (1999). Examining the relationship between beliefs and knowledge in teacher
practice. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 327356.
Angell, C., Guttersrud, ., Henriksen, E.K., & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils and
teachers views of physics and physics teaching. Science Education, 5(88), 683706.
Ashton, P. (1988). Teaching higher-order thinking and content: An essential ingredient in teacher
preparation. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: WH Freeman.
Barak, M. (2005). Schooluniversity collaboration: Disadvantaged pupils and higher education. Education
and Society, 23(1), 4346.
Barak, M., Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order
thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353369.
Barmby, P., & Defty, N. (2006). Secondary school pupils perception of physics. Research in Science and
Technological Education, 24(2), 199215.
Ben Hur, M. (Ed.). (1994). On Feuersteins instrumental enrichment. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight.
Beyer, B. (1988). Developing a scope and sequence for thinking skills instruction. Education Leadership,
45(7), 2630.
Bolhuis, S., & Voeten, J.M. (2004). Teachers conceptions of student learning and own learning. Teacher
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(1), 7798.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology (pp. 673708). New York: Macmillan.
Brandt, R. (1998). Powerful learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
Brickhouse, N.W. (1990). Teachers beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom
practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 5362.
Bruer, J.T. (1993). Schools of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook
of educational psychology (pp. 709725). New York: Macmillan.
Chambers, J. (1988). Teaching thinking throughout the curriculum Where else? Educational Leadership,
45(7), 46.
Clark, C.M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on
teacher thinking. Educational Researcher, 17(2), 512.
Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255296). New York: Macmillan.
Costa, A.L. (1985). How can we recognize improved student thinking? In A.L. Costa (Ed.), Developing
minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 288290). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 207

Costa, A.L. (2002). Components of a well developed thinking skills program. Retrieved August 12, 2006,
from http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/thinking/costa2.htm
Davis, E.A, & Krajcik, J.S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning.
Educational Researcher, 34(3), 314.
de Bono, E. (1985). The Cort thinking program. In J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking
and learning skills (Vol. 1, pp. 389416). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health.
Dori, Y.J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Anal-
ysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 411430.
Ennis, R.H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research.
Educational Researcher, 18(3), 410.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M.B., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention
program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N.K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 645673). Thousands
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Glaser, R.E. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93104.
Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The
influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics
Education Research, 3(2), 020102.
Hofstein, A., Carmeli, M., & Shore R. (2004). The professional development of high school chemistry
coordinators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), 324.
Hollon, R.E., Roth, K.J., & Anderson, C.W. (1991). Science teachers conceptions of teaching and
learning. Advances in Research on Teaching, 2, 145185.
Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 3157.
Kagan, D.M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks
principle. Review of Educational Research, 60, 419469.
Kagan, D.M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(10), 6570.
Langer, E.J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Marzano, R.J., Brandt, R.S., Hughes, C.S., Jones, B.F., Presseisen, B.Z., Rankin, S.C., et al. (1988).
Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4),
317328.
Nisbet, J., & Davis, P. (1990). The curriculum redefined: Learning to think, thinking to learn. Research
Papers in Education, 5, 4972.
NRC (National Research Council). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
NSTA (National Science Teachers Association). (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation.
Retrieved August 11, 2005, from http://www.nsta.org/main/pdfs/NSTAstandards2003.pdf
Osbourne, J., Driver, R., & Simon, S. (1998). Attitudes to science: Issues and concerns. School Science
Review, 79(288), 2733.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62(3), 307332.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pogrow, S. (1988). Teaching thinking to at-risk elementary students. Educational Leadership, 45, 7985.
Pogrow, S. (1996a). HOTS: Helping low achievers in grades 47. Principal, 76(2), 3435.
Pogrow, S. (1996b). Reforming the wannabe reformers: Why education reforms almost always end up
making things worse. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(10), 656663.
Prawat, R. (1992). Teachers beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American
Journal of Education, 100(3), 354395.
Resnick, L.B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teacher education (pp. 102119). New York: Macmillan.
208 M. Barak and L. Shakhman

Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 16231640.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction.
London: Sage.
Silverman, D. (Ed.). (1997). Qualitative research. London: Sage.
Sternberg, R.J. (1987). Questions and answers about the nature and teaching of thinking skills. In J. Baron
& R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 252259). New York:
Freeman.
Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677688.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swartz, R.J. (1991). Infusing the teaching of thinking into content instruction. In A.L. Costa (Ed.),
Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (Rev. ed., Vol. 1). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Swartz, R.J., & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing the teaching of critical and creative thinking into content
instruction. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Books & Software.
Swartz, R.J., & Perkins, D.N. (1989). Teaching thinking: Issues and approaches. Cheltenham: Hawker
Brownlow Education.
Tamir, P. (1991). Professional and personal knowledge of teachers and teacher educators. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 7, 263268.
Tobin, K., Kahle, J., & Fraser, B. (1990). Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with
higher-level cognitive learning. London: Falmer.
Welch, W.W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. In D.C. Berliner
(Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 282306). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Woolnough, B.E. (1994). Why students choose physics, or reject it. Physics Education, 29(5), 368374.
Yerushalmi, E., & Eylon, B.S. (2004, September 9). Assessing reflection on practice: A problem solving
perspective. In Proceedings of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) Conference, pp. 153156.
Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher-order thinking.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 413429.
Zohar, A. (2004a). Elements of teachers pedagogical knowledge regarding instruction of higher-order
thinking. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 293312.
Zohar, A. (2004b). Higher-order thinking in science classrooms: Students learning and teachers profes-
sional development. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers metastrategic knowledge in the context of
teaching higher-order thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 331377.
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. (2003). Higher-order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually
exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145181.
Zoller, U. (1993). Lecture and learning: Are they compatible? Maybe for LOCS; unlikely for HOCS.
Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 195197.