Small Group Instruction - School Principals’ Point Of View - Continuous Research

Abstract

The aim of this article is to present the findings of a continuous research regarding the implementation of the 'Ofek Hadash' - New Horizon - educational reform in Israel. Two studies conducted prior to this one presented the points of view of novice teachers and pedagogical instructors, while the current research presents the point of view of ten elementary school principals in Israel. According to the 'Ofek Hadash' - New Horizon educational reform, all school principals in Israel must oversee the implementation of small group instruction within their school curriculum. Small group instruction is perceived as an opportunity to provide a supportive learning environment that can enable schools to reach their educational goals in small groups. Data was collected from ten elementary school principals in Israel. The findings that emerged from this study depict a gap between the Israeli Ministry of Education guidelines and what the school principals are doing in reality. In other words, it seems that administrative aspects are emphasized in school principals' work more than pedagogical aspects. The study used a qualitative methodology by conducting semi-structured interviews and content analysis. The findings of the research might provide the unique point of view of school principals in implementing small group instruction to reach the goals of the 'Ofek Hadash' educational reform in their respective schools, and add information from stakeholders involved in this issue.

Keywords: Small group instruction; educational reformschool principalsimplementing changeschool principals’ role in implementing change

Introduction

The aim of this article is to present the findings of a continuous research regarding the implementation of the 'Ofek Hadash' - New Horizon - educational reform in Israel. Two studies conducted prior to this one presented the points of view of novice teachers and pedagogical instructors, while the current research presents the point of view of 10 elementary school principals in Israel.

'Ofek Hadash' brings about an emphasis on teaching-learning means aimed at individuals and recognizes the need for a variety of learning organizational frameworks so as to achieve educational and teaching aims and improve learners' achievements. As a result of the reform, many study hours were added to elementary schools. These hours are referred to as individual/small group hours, and are intended for teaching-learning for individuals or small groups no greater than five pupils (Ministry of Education, 2010). This article presents research findings aimed at completing the picture about the implementation of these individualized/small group hours in schools as an implementation of educational change from the point of view of school principals. This viewpoint is important as a consequence of the well-known significance attributed to school principals as educational leaders entrusted with implementing change in the school system.

Problem Statement

Leadership in reform implementation, support for teachers, collegiality and cooperation, listening to teachers while implementing a new educational process, help teachers plan change implementation, focus on pupils' learning outputs in conjunction with their schools' vision, decisions, open communication processes and pupils' achievements. Thus, it seems important to research the 'Ofek Hadash' reform implementation from the point of view of principals and their role in implementing the reform.

Research Questions

How do school principals view their roles in the implementation process of individualized hours within the framework of the 'Ofek Hadash' reform?

Purpose of the Study

To examine school principals' role in implementing individualized hours within the framework of the 'Ofek Hadash' reform.

Research Methods

In order to understand school principals' views about implementing individualized hours, we chose qualitative research according to the interpretive-constructivist approach (Tzabar Ben-Yehoshua, 2001).

As researchers operating on the basis of the interpretive-constructivist paradigm, we sought to understand the examined reality on the basis of interpretive contact with research participants, ten school principals in the Northern Region in Israel, entrusted with implementing individualized hours as part of their school role. Tzabar Ben-Yehoshua (2001) defined qualitative research as research with subjects and not about subjects, and as a fitting research approach to examining people's attitudes, views and actions, and enables reaching in-depth understanding of phenomena. Qualitative research is characterized by collecting information in the natural surroundings of an examined phenomenon (Creswell, 2014) and therefore interviews with principals took place at their schools. In addition, in qualitative research, researchers are considered as a research tool and are meant to collect information needed to understand an examined phenomenon and it is they who analyze and interpret this information. It seems that this research approach is particularly relevant in situations in which complex subjects are investigated, where testing them in experimental studies whose findings are summarized quantitatively-statistically, does not say all there is to say about an examined phenomenon, and therefore cannot present a comprehensive picture of the interpretations behind it. And indeed, quantitative measurement will not allow researchers to profoundly understand a phenomenon (Richardson, 1996).

Moreover, according to Creswell (2014), qualitative research is a process necessary to understand human society. Using this research approach, researchers can build a complete and clear picture of information collected in a natural environment, using interviews, reports, observations and more (Shkedi, 2011). Hence, this approach was found to be most suitable for our research.

Findings

Findings emerging from the content analysis: principals' role in implementing the 'Ofek Hadash' reform.

Content analysis of the semi-structured interviews conducted with the school principals on principal's role in implementing individualized hours yielded five categories, detailed as follows.

Category 1 was High significance attributed to implementing individualized hours. Content analysis revealed that implementing individualized hours was seen as an important and essential process in a school's life principally as part of the reform implementation. Evidence of this can be seen in what R. noted, "Individualized hours are an essential and important resource for the school". A. pointed out that, "Individualized hours are important and essential. Individualized hours are 'a gift to the system'". Principals observed that implementation was important because it derived from instructions they received from the Ministry of Education: "When I became principal, in my first year I received instructions from the school inspector about putting individualized hours into practice at the school", "I got instructions to do it", "There is no choice on the matter, the hours are part of teachers' jobs. Individualized hours exist in every subject", and "They help struggling pupils move forward". Principals also mentioned the areas in which individualized hours are implemented and their importance: "Math, language, English, physical education and sciences. In addition, there are two hours from individualized hours dedicated to homeroom teachers for heart to heart conversations. This contributed to nurturing a good climate and creating an intimate connection with the teacher. In addition, this year individualized hours were devoted to enriching outstanding pupils in areas of knowledge: art, creative writing, mathematical thinking and debates in English for year 6 pupils". Additionally, individualized hours were perceived as important because "Individualized hours invite one to one meetings with pupils".

Principals also stated that "Individualized hours led to a significant change in the school's life", "A change too in parents' perceptions, possibility for teachers' pedagogic discussions and attractive from a teaching tool aspect".

One can conclude that all principals viewed individualized hours as very important to a school's life, as compulsory following instructions from the Ministry of Education, but also as an opportunity to improve school teaching, pedagogic discourse and the educational climate at their institutions.

Category 2 was entitled Ways of implementing individualized hours

Content analysis revealed that principals are aware of ways to implement individualized hours, but the level of their involvement is limited to the organizational-system aspect. They conduct preparatory meetings, schedule them as part of the timetable according to needs and mapping, update parents once a week and carry out documentation and notifications processes every week.

Reports are centred around learning and emotional mapping as a team report for each year level. This means that principals' involvement in implementation is channelled into giving instructions to teachers and delegating monitoring authority to subject coordinators and deputy principals, that is to say to middle range management. Evidence of this can be seen in what principals said, stating that they give "instructions to teachers", "coordinated by teachers who have been trained, subject coordinators", "learning on the go", "planning a format". "Every teacher teaches individualized lessons in another class, and the work program at every level. Individualized lessons are incremental at the end of the day, and during the day". As the principals stated, ‘first we invested in the extremes (meaning either the very weak or the very good pupils), but afterwards we understood that we had to pay attention to the mediocre as well’. That is to say, not just to struggling and excellent pupils, but also to average level pupils. Thus, grouping the pupils was dynamic and changes were made during the year.

From this, one can learn that principals focus on delegating responsibility for implementation to middle-range managers, and are less involved in the pedagogic aspects of implementation.

Category 3 is Principal's role in implementing individualized hours at school.

Content analysis revealed that form the point of view of principals, implementing individualized hours accompanies dealing with organizational aspects of implementation and providing resources allowing teachers to implement individualized hours at school. Evidence of this can be seen in their remarks that "The essential change over the past few years is in the fact that schools have given thought to pupils who will be given individualized hours (mediocre pupils who can be advanced, and not the very weak ones), developing outstanding groups during individualized hours and making heart-to-heart conversations important". In other words, principals helped plan teaching by having structured discussions with teachers about the issue of implementing individualized hours. Organizational aspects refer to assigning these hours within the timetable, "Individualized hours are assigned into teachers' timetables mainly at the end of the day, but also during the day". Principals also engaged with parents of those pupils whose children stayed late at the end of their school day: "Pupils get letters to their parents, advising them of the part their children play in individualized hours, the time of day and area of knowledge and the pupils get a timetable of individualized hours according to their assignment". "As a principal, I have an individualized school timetable reported by teachers electronically. Teachers mostly conduct individualized hours in their classrooms or in a classroom allocated to them for this purpose. As part of organizing individualized hours, a room was prepared with dividers for individualized work with a small number of pupils". From this, it is possible to understand that dealing with the organizational aspects of implementing individualized hours refers also to allocating appropriate learning environments for individualized hours.

Another aspect of principals' role in implementing individualized hours refers to building a time framework on an annual basis: "The year is divided into 3 periods. In each period, the groups change according to the needs of children". Principals also deal with determining criteria entitling individualized hours: "Each homeroom teacher creates groups based on mapping findings in core subjects to create groups needing reinforcement according to levels. Additionally, there are support groups in the areas of sport, art and music". From this one can understand that principals help teachers plan their teaching the individualized hours.

In summary it can be said that the way individualized hours are implemented is expressed in the way lessons are organized in the overall annual timetable and with help preparing teaching and determining entitlement criteria for individualized lessons.

Category 4: Training to implement individualized hours.

It was interesting to discover what content analysis revealed about principals' points of view with regard to training to implement individualized hours. According to principals, teachers are the only ones who need to get special training to implement individualized hours. "It is necessary to instruct teachers how to carry out individualized hours creatively in which there is meaningful learning and that pupils will not just get more of the same". Some principals mentioned that "Teachers at my school did not get any appropriate training for teaching individualized hours". However, in contrast to teachers, principals do not require any training to implement individualized hours. "In my opinion, they don't need special training to implement individualized hours at their school. Principals should be left with the autonomy 'to tailor a suit that fits their school according to Ministry instructions of course and under the assumption that it is channeled to advancing pupils in learning, emotional and social aspects". In other words, in principals' views, they should deal solely with organizational and management aspects.

More testimonies noted that "The school staff got initial training about individualized hours, their importance and how to implement them about six years ago. In addition, every year there is a discussion on planning days on the topic of practical execution of individualized hours for the new school year (which pupils? excellence/reinforcement? Subject matters?". In other words, principals conduct a discussion about individualized hours as part of annual planning to ensure and clarify the meaning of the reform.

In summary, it can be said that training to implement individualized hours is solely for teachers, whereas principals are involved in management and supervision.

Category 5: Principals' assessment and supervision of the implementation of individualized hours

Content analysis of the data collected from school principals revealed that the category of assessing and supervising the implementation of individualized hours was seen as part of their role as defined by the Ministry of Education. Most principals who participated in the research noted that they observe lessons as a way of assessing firsthand how individualized hours are implemented. R. stated that "I observe lessons in general and as part of this I observe individualized lessons". "From time to time I observe individualized lessons, and assess, and I also get administrative reports".

According to some principals, individualized lessons appear to be like routine frontal lessons: "Sometimes an individualized hour is quite similar to a lesson that took place in the morning, except is conducted in a small group". Moreover, individualized hours are implemented as a resource to resolve urgent problems at school, such as filling-in for absent teachers: "Sometimes teachers are called to substitute for multiple absent teachers during individualized hours", "Teachers sometimes use individualizes hours to converse with parents, to carry out tasks and more". It appears that principals follow-up the implementation of individualized hours primarily through reports presented by the teachers who carry out these precious hours. "At the end of each month I get a special report in the individualized hour file about every individualized hour for that month detailed with pupils' names, lesson content and examples of materials used in the lessons".

It seems that evaluating individualized lessons is carried out using follow-up observations and reports provided by teachers themselves: "One must constantly follow-up and improve, I observe and guide, supervision isn't easy, it requires principals to have a finger on the pulse".

In summary, the evidence shows that lessons are assessed following observations and reading the reports provided by teachers who implement individualized lessons.

Conclusion

This modest research showed the range of roles that school principals carry out to implement individualized hours in the framework of the 'Ofek Hadash' reform. The findings show that school principals view individualized hours as important to the school system, and even as a gift. This finding agrees with research literature on principals' role in implementing educational change in schools. According to Ajibola (2008), educational change represents policy, but is also a technical issue, change is not only a process but also a product. In other words, educational change, which represents a national educational policy view, also has practical aspects and this falls under the responsibility of principals. According to Mirton (2000), school principals are responsible for guaranteeing the quality of educational change in that if the change represents national education policy, then this policy is meant to be translated for educational purposes, to develop curricula and improve teaching (Billard, 2003). School principals in their role as school leaders are the driving force for meaningful educational processes such as reform implementation (Ifeoma, 2010).

Hence, principals' role in implementing educational change is critical to its successful implementation.

Together with this view, the findings showed that principals' involvement in the implementation of the 'Ofek Hadash' reform regarding individualized hours included delegating authority for its implementation to middle range management. Middle range managers, that is deputy principals and class coordinators or subject coordinators, are those who arrange the school schedule and ensure that individualized hours are included in weekly arrangements. This finding supports the literature (Spillane, 2005) that pointed explicitly to the fact that it is a principal's role to delegate authority. And indeed, school principals who participated in this research commented that they appointed their deputies to perform organizational tasks relating to reform implementation, such as building work teams, conducting planning and assessment meetings. Since implementing educational change is expressed by delegating authority to implement reform to middle range management, middle range managers emerge from this study as an important link in the change implementation process.

Additionally, current research findings exposed a range of roles performed by principals in implementing individualized hours. These roles include helping to plan teaching, conducting constant communication with stakeholders, parents and inspectors, preparing the system to determine time frames for implementing individualized hours in practice, establishing control and report mechanisms, allocating a suitable learning environment for teaching in small groups and determining entitlement criteria for getting individualized hours. This finding partially supports research literature. According to Grimmet (1996), principals' role in implementing educational reform includes providing support to teachers, collegiality and cooperation, listening to teachers during implementation of a new educational process, helping teachers to plan change implementation, focus on pupils' learning outputs in conjunction with schools' vision, decisions, open communication processes and pupils' achievements. However, the research findings show that in fact, those who perform most of the aforementioned roles are middle range managers, and not school principals themselves. Specifically, principals entrusted with supervising and assessing individualized hours are busy completing forms and reading reports that implementing teachers provide in the name of accountability for education. While some reported that they observe lessons as part of their quality assurance and assessment process, they are also supposed to complete forms and report on the implementation of individualized hours, when they themselves do not teach in practice. In other words, the research revealed that school principals are in fact a type of top managers who have the overall responsibility for reform implementation, and as a result are responsible towards stakeholders, parents and Ministry of Education representatives.

Another interesting finding that emerged from the research and is likely to strengthen this insight is the question of training to teach in small groups. It transpires from this research that principals believe that they do not require any special training to implement individualized hours. Previous studies on the topic of implementing individualized hours by new teachers (Od-Cohen & Hadari, 2015) and pedagogical instructors (Od-Cohen & Hadari, 2016) showed that teaching in small groups is not included in teacher training or pedagogical instructors study programs, despite their acknowledgement of its importance, they do not pay attention to this subject at a time when individualized hours is the only pedagogical aspect of the 'Ofek Hadash' reform, which is mainly organizational. This raises the question, without appropriate training to implement small group teaching and with no practical knowledge of this issue, on the basis of what knowledge are these assessments and control measures established by school principals?

Thus, assessment and control processes for individualized hours carried out by principals and middle range management might be dubious because there is no suitable training on this issue.

In conclusion, despite the modest number of participants in this research, its uniqueness is in that it brought to the surface the question of individualized hours from the point of view of school principals as dubious. In other words, although the reform has been implemented in the Israeli education system for over ten years, it does not realize the aims of individualized hours in schools. The research showed that school principals and middle managers are occupied with completing reports and assessing and supervising this important process without appropriate training and sometimes without any practical knowledge in the field. In order for this important resource, which entails a huge investment by the educational system, and for the educational policy on the subject of individualized hours to indeed become an educational goal and a meaningful process to promote pupils' achievements, for which they were originally intended, professional development frameworks for principals should be established. As such, there is a chance that individualized hours will be implemented in a manner that justifies the huge investment therein.

References

• Ajibola, M. A. (2008). Innovations and curriculum development for basic education in Nigeria: Policy priorities and challenges of practice and implementation. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, Vol 1 [1] June 2010: 85-90.
• Avidov-Unger, O, Reingold, R. (2012). From Policy to Implementation: Policy for the Professional Development of Teachers – Perspective of Ministry of Education Regions and School Principals. Shvilei Mehkar, 18: 98 – 106 (In Hebrew).
• Azulay, S., Vardi, O. (2010). Answer to the question: What is Individualization? Eureka, 29-37/ https://www.matar.tau.ac.il/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/newspaper29-doc03.pdf.
• Billard, F. O. (2003). Managing secondary teachers for effective instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly 29 (1) 111 – 118.
• Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Galily, T. (2013). Small Group Instruction instead of Private Lessons. Physical Education Information Booklet, 2013, 1 Central District (In Hebrew).
• Geijsel, F.P., Sleegers, P.J.C., Stoel, R. and Krüger, M.L. (2007). The Effect of Psychological, Organizational and Leadership Factors on Professional Learning in Schools. Retrieved on 14th May 2008 from http://magnet.cdrb/Techpaper2.html.
• Grimmett, P. P. (1996). The struggles of teacher research in a context of education reform: Implications for instructional supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(1),37-65.
• http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Applications/Mankal/EtsMedorim/3/3‐1/HoraotKeva/K‐2010‐8a‐3‐1‐38.htm.
• Ifeoma , O. E., (2010). Roles and Actions of School Principals in Managing Curricular Reforms in Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, Vol 1 [1]: 85-90.
• Kacen L., Krumer-Nevo, (2010). Data Analysis in Qualitative Research. Beer-Sheva: Ben Gurion University Publishing (In Hebrew).
• Levin, T. Horin, A. (1998). Nurturing Awareness of Learning Processes among Third Grade Pupils through a Presentation Portfolio. In: Ilan, M. (Ed.). Theory and Practice in Curriculum Planning, Booklet 13. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education (In Henbrew).
• Mason, J., (1996). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage.
• Mintrom, M. (2000). Leveraging Local Innovation: The Case of Michigan's Charter Schools. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
• Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2000). Profound Improvement: Building capacity for a Learning Community. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
• Od-Cohen, Y. & Hadari, J., (2016). Training for Small Group Instruction in Pre-Service Teacher Education: Pedagogical Instructors’ Perceptions. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioral Sciences. Ep SBS, eISSN: 2357-1330.
• Od-Cohen, Y., Hadari, J., (2015). Implementing Small Group Instruction among Novice Teachers in Their First Year of Teaching. Elsevier Ltd. ERD 2015, 3-4.
• Oplatka, Y. (2010). Teachers and Principals in 'Ofek Hadash'. From Resistance to Participation. Hed Hachinuch, 85(3) pp. 28 – 30 (In Hebrew).
• Richardson, V., (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. (pp.102–119). New York: Macmillan.
• Shkedi, A. (2011) The Meaning behind the Words, Methodologies of Qualitative Research: Theory and Practice. Tel Aviv: Ramot (In Hebrew).
• Spillane, J.P (2005). Distributed Leadership. The Educational Forum 69(2):143-150.
• Tzabar Ben-Yehoshua, N. (2001). Genres and Traditions in Qualitative Research. Lod: Dvir.