[etni] cooling off about HOTS

Dear ETNI readers,
As a veteran teacher who participated in a HOTS course and attended the ETAI 
roundtable discussion (which I had requested), I'd like to try to set the 
record straight regarding a few misconceptions that repeatedly appear on the 
ETNI list.
First, regarding the "discussion" at ETAI: Before the roundtable was set up, I 
asked a member of ETAI's conference committee whether the meeting would allow 
teachers who took the course to express their valid pedagogical concerns about 
the HOTS program as there were several considerable problems we saw with it 
that weren't really addressed in the course.  I was assured that this would be 
the case; nevertheless, my colleagues and I were dismayed (as were others who 
took part in different courses around the country) when we read the title of 
the session: "The Merits (and Demerits) of HOTS".  
Indeed, all the speakers -- reputable teachers who had done the pilot program 
-- were overwhelmingly in favor of HOTS, so much so that few spoke about any 
difficulties with the program whatsoever, and even these gave mere lipservice 
to the issue -- perhaps remembering, as a second thought, the parenthetical 
phrase in the name noted above.  

More significantly, however, neither they nor one of the originators of the 
program who was present attempted to clearly answer some of the important 
questions, both practical and theoretical, that were addressed to them from the 
audience.  The following are a few of the points that were essentially left 
untouched:
  a.. The question of why HOTS is not first implemented across the board in 
other, more suitable disciplines where students can become comfortable with the 
idea of naming their thinking process in L1 before being required to do so in a 
foreign language. 
  b.. The point that literature -- especially in ESL classes -- should be the 
last place to introduce HOTS, which would be better served when doing unseen 
reading texts.  (It would be too lengthy to discuss the reasons for this here, 
but let's just say that most EFL students find the literature to be enough of a 
challenge as it is; it would be a pity to siphon off the enjoyment they can 
eventually derive from the beauty of this kind of language [and, of course, 
THINKING!]experience by adding such an awkward albatross as the 
name-your-thinking process demands of them.) 
  c.. The idea that though the current byword in educational theory -- as well 
as one of the stated goals of the program -- is to get students to "think 
outside the box", ironically the present structure (perhaps I should say 
stricture!) of the HOTS program insists on making them think INSIDE the box, 
and one with hinges of questionable strength at that! 
  d.. The practical consideration that many teachers who will start the program 
have not yet taken the course (largely due to union sanctions), and even among 
those who have taken part in the course, much confusion remains! 
  e.. The request that an original designer of the program should be willing to 
give a full demonstration lesson (not merely a question-answer session) showing 
how to infuse/integrate all the current HOTS steps into a piece of literature.  
With all due respect to the undoubtedly excellent instructors in the courses, 
until this happens many teachers will be unconvinced that all the time they'll 
be investing in this program will be worth the effort.  (Frankly, we've seen 
too many times that the "this is THE answer to your dreams" programs handed 
down to us as an edict from the MOE disintegrate through no fault of the 
hard-working teachers who closely follow the Ministry's directives.)  There's 
nothing better than getting information from its source, and the old adage that 
"seeing is believing" holds true here as well.
These are by no means the only concerns that were left unanswered to any 
satisfactory degree (if at all).  Instead, the presenters chose to speak in a 
glowing and very general way about how their students testified that the HOTS 
experience dramatically changed their way of thinking and thereby improved 
their lives.
Most of us were left unimpressed because we have been using the concepts behind 
the supposedly innovative HOTS program all along, and those of us who have 
tried out the explicit teaching of HOTS see it as a damper on the students' 
enthusiasm for learning literature rather than an enhancer of it.  In fact, in 
high level and good native speaker classes, the students have been quite 
disdainful about the explicit teaching of HOTS and are often even insulted by 
it.  On the other side of the spectrum, I've heard that weaker students are not 
magically transformed into lovers of language and literature by the HOTS 
experience.  
(While two of the presenters did mention that this part of the program -- i.e., 
the explicit teaching of HOTS -- needs more refining, they were apparently 
unconcerned about the fact that the program is due to be implemented before 
teachers get clear guidelines about this or other weak points in the program.)

So we recognize that (like it or not) HOTS is here to stay, and we appreciate 
the work that went into designing the program, as well as the fact that the 
Inspectorate has been willing to listen to our input -- or, at least, to that 
of the teachers involved in the pilot program.
However, one of the primary problems at this point is that HOTS is being too 
hastily implemented considering that even many teachers who took the course are 
still confused about major issues.  (Four point teachers, for example, have 
generally not had their most basic questions addressed.)
As I have said several times before, it is precisely the teachers who carry out 
the Inspectorate's directives who are most concerned about this program.  The 
others (for whom it was presumably designed) will find their way around 
whatever they don't like.

To conclude, I cannot stress enough the need to have a designer of the course 
give a full demonstration lesson to those of us who want it -- for the reason I 
have given here, as well as another that I cannot state publicly (though I and 
my colleagues are willing to do so in a private discussion).
FYI, along with other colleagues, I have repeatedly made this request, which 
includes sending an e-mail message some time ago (as yet unanswered) to the 
Inspectorate about it.

I would like to urge colleagues who read this list and feel as doubtful as we 
do to contact whoever they think can help us get our request (at the very 
least, to have a demo lesson given by a program designer) heard.  Until then, 
it is difficult to sit passively and keep cool about HOTS!

Wishing all a pleasant summer break and chodesh tov,
Batya

P.S.
I neglected to publicly thank all the wonderful people at ETAI, particularly 
Marna Snyder, for the considerable amount of work it must have taken to 
organize the HOTS roundtable at the summer conference.  



----------------------------------------------- 
** 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: