home

Througout the previous sessions, we talked about different approaches of educational change. This session, a specific model of educational change was presented by Dr. Orly. This model includes several stages. The first stage is the //initiation// stage, where the innovator initiates change. This kind of change can be either original, within the innovator himself, or taken from someone else. For example, the innovator reads about a concept from research and is interested in that sort of change. The second stage is the //inclusion// of team members. Since one person cannot make change on his own, he tries to convince people to join negotiation and discussion about the idea that is being change. The team discussion leads to the next stage of //planning//. The innovator needs the help of colleagues to plan the process of implementation. The last stage is //implementation// of the suggested change. Here you experience or try out the planning you did previously, in the field. The implementation of the intended change can go in three possible directions. First, it may fail; sometimes it does not work. Second, there is a small scale of success; if we try it out only in one class and it seems to work. Third, we can expand and try the change on a larger group. As a result, there are two options, are either failure of the change or expansion. Moreover, the characteristics of this model are teacher-centered, the emphasis is on the teacher, not student, and the initiators are the teachers. During the session, we were presented with six basic questions. We answered the questions according to our opinion and then related to research and literature. The first question was about how we perceive change initiated by teachers. There were several responses by the students, such as, grounded in the field, practical and better, bottom-up, serves pupils' interests, etc. On the other hand, literature indicates that the innovator, the teacher in this case, has access to the field, change is based on action research, requires collaboration and is usually accepted by other teachers, although with reservations. The second question dealt with the Key-Figure of change, which is the characteristics of the innovator. Literature explains that this person should be intelligent, has verbal ability, highly educated, creative, open-minded, high sense of self-efficacy and the ability to modify and plan according to what others say and develop throughout that. The last part of the session was a comparison between the previous curriculum and the national curriculum, as an example of educational change. We discussed the differences between. For example, the previous curriculum includes explicit grammar rules and vocabulary to teach in class, whereas, the national curriculum does not and is a top-down document that is dictated to the teachers and requires adaptation. We also checked whether we are dealing with the curriculum in a different manner in class. We gave feedback on the implementation process of the national curriculum and concluded that it should have been more bottom-up than top-down. The voices of the teacher should have been heard. This brought us to the end of the topic of educational change.

Througout the previous sessions, we talked about different approaches of educational change. This session, a specific model of educational change was presented by Dr. Orly. This model includes several stages. The first stage is the //initiation// stage, where the innovator initiates change. This kind of change can be either original, within the innovator himself, or taken from someone else. For example, the innovator reads about a concept from research and is interested in that sort of change. The second stage is the //inclusion// of team members. Since one person cannot make change on his own, he tries to convince people to join negotiation and discussion about the idea that is being change. The team discussion leads to the next stage of //planning//. The innovator needs the help of colleagues to plan the process of implementation. The last stage is //implementation// of the suggested change. Here you experience or try out the planning you did previously, in the field. The implementation of the intended change can go in three possible directions. First, it may fail; sometimes it does not work. Second, there is a small scale of success; if we try it out only in one class and it seems to work. Third, we can expand and try the change on a larger group. As a result, there are two options, are either failure of the change or expansion. Moreover, the characteristics of this model are teacher-centered, the emphasis is on the teacher, not student, and the initiators are the teachers. During the session, we were presented with six basic questions. We answered the questions according to our opinion and then related to research and literature. The first question was about how we perceive change initiated by teachers. There were several responses by the students, such as, grounded in the field, practical and better, bottom-up, serves pupils' interests, etc. On the other hand, literature indicates that the innovator, the teacher in this case, has access to the field, change is based on action research, requires collaboration and is usually accepted by other teachers, although with reservations. The second question dealt with the Key-Figure of change, which is the characteristics of the innovator. Literature explains that this person should be intelligent, has verbal ability, highly educated, creative, open-minded, high sense of self-efficacy and the ability to modify and plan according to what others say and develop throughout that. The last part of the session was a comparison between the previous curriculum and the national curriculum, as an example of educational change. We discussed the differences between. For example, the previous curriculum includes explicit grammar rules and vocabulary to teach in class, whereas, the national curriculum does not and is a top-down document that is dictated to the teachers and requires adaptation. We also checked whether we are dealing with the curriculum in a different manner in class. We gave feedback on the implementation process of the national curriculum and concluded that it should have been more bottom-up than top-down. The voices of the teacher should have been heard. This brought us to the end of the topic of educational change.
 * __Final Summary:__**