1. Everett Public Schools DOK to Unit Planning LMS Department August 28, 2014

2. How does Depth of Knowledge (DOK) fit within engaging students and having them think through content in different ways? How is the “Depth of Knowledge” a foundation for the construction of a proficiency scale to “unpack” clusters/ standards? Initial Session Overview

3. Norman Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Adapted from the model used by Norman Webb, University of Wisconsin, to align standards with curriculum and assessments. The degree of depth or complexity of knowledge reflected in the content standards and assessments How deeply a student needs to understand the content for a given response/assessment

4. Created based on work of Webb, Norman L. and others. “Web Alignment Tool” 24 July 2005. Wisconsin Center of Educational Research. University of Wisconsin- Madison. 2 Feb. 2006

5. Depth of Knowledge depends on more than the verb. The complexity also depends on what the verb is acting on. For example, “draw” is in the DOK level 1 sector. But a student who draws a blueprint of a new building is doing more than recall of information. Explain also can be at different levels--explain by repeating a definition (DOK level 1), explain by putting a paragraph into your own words (DOK level 2), or explain by describing an analysis of the factors contributing to the economic down turn of the US (DOK level 3).

6. Depth of thinking required Context in which the verb is used DOK Level

8. What comes after the verb is more important than the verb itself. “Analyze this sentence to decide if the commas have been used correctly” does not meet the criteria for high cognitive processing. Rationale: The student who has been taught the rule for using commas is merely using the rule

10. DOK Snapshot DOK is a scale of cognitive demand DOK is not an exact science DOK is about the item/standard not the student The context of the item/standard must be considered to determine the DOK level not just a look at what verb was chosen. DOK is lowered when too much information is given DOK is not about difficulty but how much thinking is required for the student to complete the prompt/task

11. Bloom’s and Webb’s Different models to describe cognitive rigor Bloom – What type of thinking are needed to complete the task? Webb – How deeply do you have to understand the content to successfully interact at a given depth? How complex is the content?

12. Cognitive Rigor Matrix This matrix from the Smarter Balanced Content Specifications for Mathematics draws from both Bloom’s (revised) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge Levels below.

13. Visualization Spend time as a table coming up with a visual analogy or a graphic representation of the differences or relationship between Webb’s model and Bloom’s model. Please add necessary labels and if you have time add a slogan to help remember the difference. Remember: Both are of value.

14. Share Visualization Join one other table and share your visual. (2 minutes) Table A: Share and explain your model (2 minutes) Table B: Ask clarifying questions to make certain you fully understand the other table’s visual. (2 minutes) Table B: Share and explain your model (2 minutes) Table A: Ask clarifying questions to make certain you fully understand the other table’s visual.

15. Addresses the content being assessed and the depth to which we expect students to demonstrate understanding of a particular content area Is a reference to the complexity of mental processing that must occur to answer a question, perform a task or generate a product Is not grade contextualized- all about the expertise in a content area DOK Further Clarification

16. Determining DOK How would you describe the progression from 1 st grade to 4 th grade? As a small group discuss and have one member record what each standard’s DOK level might be and provide a rationale for your thinking. Include any questions your discussion raised or disagreements you encountered.

17. Learning Targets and Unit Plans

18. Session Goals 1.Teachers will learn how to write student- friendly, measurable, observable learning targets that are appropriate for a day’s instruction. 2.Teachers will learn how to create unit plans that contain information that is relevant to students.

19. Criteria for Making Targets 1.States an Observable and Measurable Outcome. 2.States special conditions. 3.Specifies performance level. 4.Clear to students 5.Appropriate for the Day

20. 1. Is it measurable AND observable? Simple test: Would two observers agree that the student had demonstrated the outcome? By the end of the semester, the student will identify pictures of words that sound alike. The student is familiar with the law. The student understands the process of osmosis. The student can solve linear equations with 80% accuracy.

21. Observables List Recite Build Draw Unobservables Value Appreciate Know Understand

22. For Discussion Learning Outcome vs. Learning Activity

23. Learning Activities vs. Outcomes Outcome Identify Recall List Write Activity Study Watch Listen Read 1.Reciting the four components of a good essay. 2.Practicing the violin. 3.Recite the alphabet. 4.Outlining the main theme in House of Seven Gables.

24. 2. States special conditions 3. Specifies performance levels. – Special supplies necessary: map, calculator, typed list, specific lab equipment, etc. – Do you need to specify the performance level?

25. CLEAR AND SIMPLE