This study investigates challenges in addressing metacognition in professional development (PD) programs addressing instruction of higher-order thinking (HOT). A set of semi-structured interviews was conducted with 18 instructional leaders who had prominent roles in large-scale implementation programs designed to teach HOT. Most participants (n = 15) expressed the opinion that metacognition is valuable in teaching HOT yet, reported that metacognitive teaching is rare in wide-scale efforts to implement HOT. They explained that the major reason for this gap is teachers’ fragile knowledge of metacognition. The analysis shows a deficiency in teachers’ general metacognitive knowledge, deficiency in the more specific metastrategic knowledge (MSK) regarding individual thinking strategies, and deficiencies in relevant pedagogical knowledge. Implications are discussed.

AbstractPurposeThis study investigates how senior science teachers viewed the effects of a Raising Test Scores policy and its implementation on instruction of higher order thinking (HOT), and on teaching thinking to students with low academic achievements.BackgroundThe study was conducted in the context of three concurrent policies advocating: (a) improving test scores; (b) developing students’ thinking and inquiry skills; and (c) narrowing achievement gaps.MethodologyData collection was based on 20 interviews with senior science teachers.ResultsThe findings show that the senior teachers? expectations regarding a ?new spirit? calling for instruction of inquiry and HOT throughout the system did not materialize under the high stakes testing regime. Test preparation did involve intense engagement with HOT tasks. However, under the regime of high stakes testing, instruction of HOT seemed to take the form of ?mechanical instruction?, implying rote learning and drilling students in answering HOT items, rather than teaching for thinking in a meaningful way.ConclusionIn the presence of the aggressive policy addressing the need to raise test scores, the goal of teaching students to think, as well as the more specific goal of teaching low-achieving students to think was compromised in a considerable way.