1 2
play

1 2 Norman Webb developed criteria commonly referred to as Webbs - PDF document

Feb 08, 2023 •455 likes •703 views

1 2 Norman Webb developed criteria commonly referred to as Webbs Depth of Knowledge when he was a senior research scientist at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research in the late 1990s. This criteria was used to analyze the cognitive

  1. 1

  2. 2

  3. Norman Webb developed criteria commonly referred to as Webb’s Depth of Knowledge when he was a senior research scientist at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research in the late 1990’s. This criteria was used to analyze the cognitive demands between standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment; perhaps most notably evaluating assessments states that were developed as part of No Child Left Behind. Depth of Knowledge requires educators to consider how deeply one must know the content to complete a task and is different from the type of thinking required, as examined in Bloom’s taxonomy, which we will discuss in a few moments. This work divides the cognitive complexity required to complete learning activities and assessments into four categories : Level 1 : Recall and Reproduce (recall facts and perform routine procedures); Level 2 : Basic Application of Skills/ Content ( process and applying information at a basic level such as analyzing or comparing and contrasting in routine situations); Level 3 : Strategic Thinking (requires reasoning or abstract thinking in non-routine applications as well as providing evidence or justification for ideas); and Level 4 : Extended Thinking (usually requires multiple steps with one or more sources or content areas). 3

  4. Understanding the Depth of Knowledge (DOK) level for the standards impacts the cognitive rigor of both the instruction and assessment. In other words, (CLICK) when the DOK level of the standards is identified, (CLICK) appropriate learning activities can be planned and (CLICK) assessments that measure the cognitive rigor of the standards can be selected or developed. (CLICK) These three elements work together, with the standards impacting both instruction and assessment, as well as instruction and assessment impacting one another. Next, let’s examine each Depth of Knowledge level a little deeper. 4

  5. Depth of Knowledge Level 1 requires recognition of information (facts, terms, definitions) or the performance of a simple, routine process that involves following well-known rules, procedures or formulas. In level 1, students would be engaged in activities that require them to memorize and recall information. In this sense, Level 1 is a lot like Jeopardy! Students also may be required to locate information, learn a process, or reproduce a model. Take a look at the examples for Level 1. . Level 1 is not necessarily “easy’” but it does not require reasoning. Students find “the right answer” and there is no debating correctness. At this level, students do not need to have a very deep understanding of the content. 5

  6. Depth of Knowledge Level 2 requires some basic application in routine situations. In this level, students need to explain “how” or “why,” and they often must estimate or interpret to create a response. Take a look at the examples for Level 2, and you should notice that this level requires some decisions on the part of students, but the options are limited and the problems are routine. Level 2 requires a little deeper content knowledge in order for students to use reasoning in routine ways. 6

  7. Depth of Knowledge Level 3 requires students to transfer knowledge and to engage in abstract thinking to solve non-routine problems. There may be more than one correct answer or way to approach finding a solution and students will need to justify their answer or conclusion and/or site evidence to support their thinking. However, Level 3 usually only requires that students interact with one text, source, or content area. Notice that in Level 3, students are required to transfer knowledge in ways that they may have not practiced before (non-routine application). When you examine the examples for Level 3, you will notice that students will need to know the content fairly deeply to complete the tasks, and that students could approach these tasks in different ways or come to different conclusions; however, the tasks are centered on one text or content area. 7

  8. Depth if Knowledge Level 4 expands upon level 3 and requires students to use multiple sources or texts and/or to integrate skills and knowledge from multiple content areas. Level 4 is usually focused on real-world situations that may have multiple solutions or approaches and may require students to create solutions and/or construct new knowledge. Students working at this level know the content very well and have mastered the foundational knowledge and skills and are able to use them in novel ways and in unexpected situations. 8

  9. Sometimes it is helpful to think of common experience to understand the difference in the DOK Levels. Let’s look at an example with learning to cook. To begin, it may be helpful to understand that DOK Levels 1 & 2 are highly TEACHER dependent. (CLICK) Level 1 requires a demonstration of basic cooking knowledge. (CLICK) Level 2 requires that students think about different versions of grilled cheese and that they make decisions around ingredients as well as cooking methods (on the stove top, using a Panini maker or a toaster oven, or perhaps on an outdoor grill). (CLICK) The example for Level 1 only requires basic recall and (CLICK) Level 2 requires some basic application and decision-making. (CLICK) However, notice that in each of these situations, the teacher giving the task, even in level 2, is the main decision-maker. 9

  10. (CLICK) Carrying the cooking example forward, notice that Levels 3 & 4 are highly LEARNER dependent---a shift from the TEACHER dependent situations in levels 1 & 2. (CLICK) In Level 3, students will need to draw on their skills, knowledge, and prior experiences to make decisions about how to create a meal within the allotted time limits. They will need to decide which cooking methods are appropriate and which ingredients will combine well, and they will need to explain the choices they made. (CLICK) Level 4, is a much broader task. Students will need to consider budget and time constraints as well as specific dietary needs, requiring them to think beyond the knowledge and skills of cooking. (CLICK) Again, in each of these task, the student is required to do most of the thinking and decision-making. 10

  11. (CLICK) Most educators are familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomy, and a common misconception is that Webb’s Depth of Knowledge is just another name for Bloom’s Taxonomy, or that Webb’s is a replacement for Bloom’s Taxonomy. In reality, BOTH are important and have much to offer to educators working to understand the alignment of standards, instruction, and assessment. Bloom’s Taxonomy really defines a cognitive process---the difference between identifying and analyzing. The focus here is on the TYPE of thinking. (CLICK)On the other hand, Webb’s Depth of Knowledge focuses on the cognitive demand--- WHAT is being processed and how deeply it must be understood. (CLICK) One of these is not more important than the other; rather both have important contributions to make. (CLICK) Educators should also be cautious about and simplistic “conversions” from Bloom’s Taxonomy to Webb’s Depth of Knowledge. 11

  12. Karin Hess is well known for having developed a matrix that allows educators to consider these two concepts together. Take a look at handout 1 (Hess’s Cognitive Rigor Matrix--- General). In this chart, you will notice that the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy is on the left hand side, and Webb’s DOK levels run across the top. If you only consider the titles of each of category, you can make some initial predictions. For example, just from the titles, we would expect that (CLICK) Webb’s Level 1 (Recall/ Reproduce) would be very similar to Bloom’s(CLICK) “Remember” or perhaps even (CLICK) “Understand”. Therefore, on a matrix, we would expect to see an intersection for these two(CLICK)---and we do. 12

  13. What may be more surprising is how far into Bloom’s Taxonomy the Depth of Knowledge Level 1 actually goes. If we take a look at just the level 1 column, you’ll notice that the matrix is filled in for “Apply” and “Analyze” --- and even “Create” (CLICK). This illustrates that Bloom’s Taxonomy lets us know that “create” is a high level thinking process, but Webb’s Depth of Knowledge also helps us to understand that it also matters WHAT you are creating. 13

Recommend

More recommend