1. Shifting to a Standards-Based Mindset
LMS Department
Everett High School
August 28, 2014

2. Everett High School Current Language Purpose of Grading Statement
End of Course Grades (Semester/End of Year):
To communicate information about student proficiency on content standards to students, parents, educators and other stakeholders.
Formative/Summative Grades:
To provide information to students for self-evaluation
To provide information to classroom/program to inform the next steps of the instruction
Common summative/formative assessments will be used frequently to inform student progress towards standard

3. Schimmer’s Progression
Changes HOW we determine single grades

4. Shifting to a Standards-Based Mindset
Emphasize COMPLETION or STANDARDS?
Is school about ACTIVITIES or LEARNING?
Tom Schimmer, teacher and principal who is now authoring books and providing professional development around shifting to a Standards – Based Mindset asks these four questions.
Starting Place is not the grading but the design of the course – its assessments and routines
Is school about POINTS or EVIDENCE?
Is learning an EVENT or a PROCESS?

5. Backwards Design Model
Identify/Select Course Standards
Common Core, NGSS, WA State, Industry, National
Scale Standards
Design/Use Common “Leveled” Assessments
Instructional Plan/Map
Determine Reporting/Grading Variables
Develop Interventions/Enrichment
Purpose of Grading Clarified –
Course design – Assessment Design – has to support that purpose
Student-Involved
Assessment
Student-Friendly
Unit Plans

6. Backwards Design Model
Identify/Select Course Standards
Common Core, NGSS, WA State, Industry, National
Scale Standards
Design/Use Common “Leveled” Assessments
Instructional Plan/Map
Determine Reporting/Grading Variables
Develop Interventions/Enrichment
Starting place is clarity over the standards –
Content area in Everett now have a common ground starting place – Depth of Knowledge – Proficiency Scaling – Tools from which to design a course that helps focus on learning so easier to grade for learning
Student-Involved
Assessment
Student-Friendly
Unit Plans

7. In Partnership with Curriculum Specialists
Proficiency
Scaling
DOK
Leveling Tasks
Assessment for Learning
Student-Involved Assessment
Grading for Learning
Common Assessments
Data Analysis and Reporting
Instructional Technology
Instructional Maps
Student Unit Plans
Jo Anne

8. Session’s Overview
How is the “Depth of Knowledge” a foundation for a more coherent system for assessment, instruction, curriculum and grading?
What does it mean to focus on standards?
How does restructuring a course help keep Everett’s agreement on the shared purpose for grading?
Print TM

9. Webb’s
I did not create the DOK wheel. I believe someone in Florida used my work to create the DOK wheel. Because the wheel is not mine, I cannot grant or deny its use.   I think the DOK chart is misleading and I do not recommend its use. 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).   So I cannot provide you the requested permission and, in fact, I discourage you from using the DOK wheel. It is a simplification of my work that does not fully represent the issues of content complexity. The only possible use of the chart I can see is if someone took a verb and ask how it could be placed in each of the four sectors.   I did create the definitions similar to the shorten version at the bottom of the chart. I have attached shorten definitions that you are free to use.I hope these are useful. I am sorry I do not have a precise graphic such as the wheel.
Created based on work of Webb, Norman L. and others. “Web Alignment Tool” 24 July Wisconsin Center of Educational Research. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2 Feb. 2006

10. Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
Addresses the content being assessed and the depth to which we expect students to demonstrate understanding of that content.
Is a reference to the complexity of mental processing that must occur to answer a question, perform a task, or generate a product
Is about cognitive complexity, not difficulty
Is not grade contextualized
Offers a pathway to rigor

11. Norman Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
Adapted from the model used by Norm Webb, University of Wisconsin, to align standards with 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

12. Explain also can be at different levels--explain
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).
Correspondence from Norman Webb – cautioning use of the wheel.

14. JB

15. What do you think makes each of these tasks a different DOK level if it is not about the verb?

16. DOK Levels 4: Extended Thinking 1: Recall 2: 3: Strategic Thinking
Skill /Concept
3: Strategic Thinking

17. Depth of Knowledge Recall— Identify this utensil.
Concept— Explain the function of the fork.
Strategic— Identify two examples of when a fork would not be the best utensil for a type of food and explain why.
Extended— Design an investigation to determine the optimal number and length of tines for a salad fork.
This example is meant to provide a simple, academic example of the difference between the Webb levels. It is meant to mirror the basic labels provided for each level on the first Webb slide.
Level 1 – Recognizing and identifying a fork is at the factual recall level of understanding and application of the “concept” of a utensil.
Level 2 - Requires a relatively simple level of understanding of how a fork functions and the skill of translating that understanding into an explanation.
Level 3 - Requires some analysis and connecting to the understanding of forks and food to generate a conclusion and explanation for a real situation.
Level 4 – Requires a deeper and more involved application of the understanding of forks as part of a complex investigation.
From: Lois Barnes
SREB/HSTW

18. Depth of Knowledge Recall— Collect data samples over several months.
Concept— Organize the data in a chart.
Strategic— Use the chart to make and justify predictions
Extended— Develop a generalized model from the data and apply it to a new situation.

19. Depth of Knowledge
DOK 1 – Student response limited to teacher –specific answer DOK 2 – Student response limited by teacher – strategy options DOK 3 – Student response varies – varied reasoning accepted DOK 4 – Student response variable – options need to be defensible
*Break*

20. Cognitive Complexity vs Difficulty
What is the difference between Cognitive Complexity and Difficulty Level?
Difficulty refers to how many students answered the question correctly.
High Order Thinking refers to how many steps it takes to answer the question.
Add:
4,678,895+ 9,578,885
What is the DOK?

21. Bloom’s and Webb’s Different models to describe cognitive rigor
Bloom – What type of thinking (verbs) 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?
In 2009, we coauthored with Karin Hess and Dennis Carlock an article that introduced the concept of Cognitive Rigor, which interlaces Webb’s Depth of Knowledge and the Cognitive Processes Domain of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy.[1] However, many still confuse the two with regard to rigor.
1, Depth of Knowledge categorizes the cognitive complexity of an activity, as evidenced by the amount of planning, discussing, fact-checking, and researching employed to accumulate the knowledge needed to complete the activity.  In essence, it looks at the structure and complexity required to work with the activity.
Bloom’s Taxonomy, on the other hand, is more neurological; it describes the types of thinking needed to interact with information during an activity. Therefore, it looks more closely at the cognitive demand at the moment for a particular type of information processing.
In short, Bloom’s Taxonomy describes a neurological event; Depth of Knowledge describes a broader cognitive process.
Lesson planning with Depth of Knowledge
When developing a lesson, we suggest teachers rely, at the very outset, on Depth of Knowledge (not Bloom’s Taxonomy) to establish expectations for the level of understanding they want their students to demonstrate by lesson’s end. To demonstrate how Depth of Knowledge impacts lesson design, as well as how the Wheel of Misfortune can undermine the effort, consider the following example:
Suppose a teacher wants her students to exhibit DOK-4 Depth of Knowledge on the topic of engineering. Using the Wheel of Misfortune, she sees that it lists “design” under DOK-4. “Aaaaah, I can have my students design a bridge, for which they can build and test its strength.” Unfortunately, that isn’t a DOK-4 activity unless the students incorporate their knowledge of engineering and physics into the design. Without that context, the verb “design” is meaningless in terms of establishing DOK because it fails to embody the larger complexities of what would be truly required to account for all the essential attributes needed to complete the activity.
At that point, design devolved into assembly. The students assembled, tested, re-assembled, tested,….
The same problem arises when using the lower end of the chart. Consider the verb “calculate.” It’s DOK-1 according to the chart. True, many calculate-level activities align to DOK-1 (especially in mathematics). However, scientists and mathematics often calculate at much higher DOK levels.
Summary
Both Bloom’s Taxonomy and Depth of Knowledge serve important purposes.  Lesson planning relies on both systems to set expectations and select effective instructional methods. Confusing the two systems can adversely impact lesson planning, diminishing the students’ learning experience.

22. 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.
The depth of knowledge levels defined by Smarter Balanced are informed by the Cognitive Rigor matrix. The Cognitive Rigor matrix combines two common taxonomies that categorize levels of cognition and shows how the Smarter Balanced depth of knowledge categories relate to these taxonomies. Here, the concept of remembering information only relates to the first depth of knowledge level. In contrast, evaluation does not relate to either of the first two levels of depth of knowledge. This table, which can be found in the Smarter Balanced Content Specifications for Mathematics, is a useful aid for guiding the development of items at different depth of knowledge levels.
Now let’s examine the content specifications.

23. DOK Snapshot DOK is a scale of cognitive demand
DOK is about the item/standard not the student
DOK is not about difficulty but how much content knowledge is required within the thinking student need to do to complete the prompt/task
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 an exact science
*Break*

24. How can we be consistent in applying DOK for a given course?
Depth of Knowledge = Cognitive Demand = Rigor
How much and what kind of “thinking” is called for in each set of standards (cluster, PE, ELAR)?
What tasks and contexts will students need to demonstrate proficiency?
What kinds of “thinking” is called for approaching the standard and advancing beyond?

25. Proficiency Scaling
The process of identifying and developing the cognitive demand or level of rigor for a given standard.
Starting with the standard: educators use a framework … (Webb’s DOK) …as way to build “a rigorous rubric-based approach in the interest of valid and reliable assessing” which informs both teacher and student
If Proficient is the standard:
What is Advanced?
What is a Basic?
Marzano, Robert J. Formative Assessment and Standards-Based Grading 2010

26. Proficiency Scale
Advanced
Cognitive task extending from standard; requiring decision-making, expressing reasoning, or applying what has been explicitly taught in new contexts
Proficient
Standard as defined by the state including expectations for content, process, skills, and/or performance to be explicitly taught.
Basic
Cognitive step just before standard that is explicitly taught; includes concepts broken into distinct segments, foundational skills and key vocabulary.
Foundational
Various cognitive steps before Basic
Print TM

27. Proficiency Scale level
does not equal
DOK level
Recall/
Reproduction
DOK 1
Skills/ Concepts
DOK 2
DOK 3
Strategic Thinking
Extended Thinking
DOK 4
We’ll show you an example …

28. Determining DOK
How would you describe the progression from 1st grade to 4th 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.
2nd Bullet will come in on Click Need to begin by
Be careful of Grade Level

29. Clarifying Course Standards
District teams drafted
Grades 6-12 ELA Reading and Writing, U.S. History, World History, Algebra II, Geometry, Algebra 1, Grades 6-8 Mathematics, Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra II, K-8 NGSS Science, Coordinated Science, Biology, Chemistry
Advanced
Cognitive task extending from standard; requiring decision-making, expressing reasoning, or applying what has been explicitly taught in new contexts
Proficient
Standard as defined by the state including expectations for content, process, skills, and/or performance to be explicitly taught.
Basic
Cognitive step just before standard that is explicitly taught; includes concepts broken into distinct segments, foundational skills and key vocabulary.
Foundational
Various cognitive steps before Basic
Proficiency Scale
Print JB

30. Proficiency Scale K-Math Advanced Proficient Basic Foundational
Standard as defined by the state including expectations for content, process, skills, and/or performance to be explicitly taught.
Know number names and the count sequence. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS)
Count to 100 by ones (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)
Count to 100 by tens (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)
Count forward beginning from a given number within the known sequence (instead of having to begin at 1). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)
Write numbers from 0 to 20. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)
Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.3)
Basic
Foundational
Various cognitive steps before Basic
Print TM

31. Proficiency Scale K-Math Advanced Proficient Basic Foundational
Standard as defined by the state including expectations for content, process, skills, and/or performance to be explicitly taught.
Know number names and the count sequence. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS)
Count to 100 by ones (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)
Count to 100 by tens (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)
Count forward beginning from a given number within the known sequence (instead of having to begin at 1). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)
Write numbers from 0 to 20. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)
Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.3)
Basic
Cognitive step just before standard that is explicitly taught; includes concepts broken into distinct segments, foundational skills and key vocabulary
Uses the pattern of 1-9 to count within a decade (e.g. in twenties, in thirties, etc)
Writes numbers from 0 to 20 using a tool (e.g. number line, 100s chart)
Represents a number of objects with a visual tool 0-20 (refer to a number line or number card).
Recognizes the numbers from 0 to 20.
Foundational
Various cognitive steps before Basic
Print TM

32. Proficiency Scale K-Math Advanced Proficient Basic Foundational
Cognitive task extending from standard; requiring decision-making, expressing reasoning, or applying what has been explicitly taught in new contexts
Count backwards from a given number by ones.
Write numbers from various starting points beyond 20 and continue the number pattern.
Write given numbers out of sequence above 20.
Proficient
Standard as defined by the state including expectations for content, process, skills, and/or performance to be explicitly taught.
Know number names and the count sequence. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS)
Count to 100 by ones (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)
Count to 100 by tens (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)
Count forward beginning from a given number within the known sequence (instead of having to begin at 1). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)
Write numbers from 0 to 20. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)
Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.3)
Basic
Cognitive step just before standard that is explicitly taught; includes concepts broken into distinct segments, foundational skills and key vocabulary
Uses the pattern of 1-9 to count within a decade (e.g. in twenties, in thirties, etc)
Writes numbers from 0 to 20 using a tool (e.g. number line, 100s chart)
Represents a number of objects with a visual tool 0-20 (refer to a number line or number card).
Recognizes the numbers from 0 to 20.
Foundational
Various cognitive steps before Basic
Print TM

33. Proficiency Scale
Advanced
Cognitive task extending from standard; requiring decision-making, expressing reasoning, or applying what has been explicitly taught in new contexts
Proficient
Standard as defined by the state including expectations for content, process, skills, and/or performance to be explicitly taught.
Basic
Cognitive step just before standard that is explicitly taught; includes concepts broken into distinct segments, foundational skills and key vocabulary.
Foundational
Various cognitive steps before Basic
Print TM

34. Difference Between Scales and Rubrics
Scales are built for teachers use in planning assessments and instruction
Scales are tied to standard – independent of performance task
Basic tasks are deliberate performance expectations not written to be “lacking” or “missing” proficient elements
Rubrics are tied to specific performance expectations
Rubrics are smaller picture
Proficiency Scales are the bigger picture
Print TM

35. Leveraging Scaling Scaling and Leveling
Rigorous, Informative Assessment
Scaling and Leveling
Curriculum & Instruction
Reporting Variables/
Grading Practices

36. Clarifying Course Standards
Cognitive demand and learning progression
Print JB

37. Determine sequencing of standards
Course Overview
What will be measured, when and to what level
Specific to unit
Specific to lesson
Print JB

38. Session’s Overview
How is the “Depth of Knowledge” a foundation for a more coherent system for assessment, instruction, curriculum and grading?
What does it mean to focus on standards?
How does restructuring a course help keep Everett’s agreement on the shared purpose for grading?
Print TM

39. In Partnership with Curriculum Specialists
Proficiency
Scaling
DOK
Leveling Tasks
Assessment for Learning
Student-Involved Assessment
Grading for Learning
Common Assessments
Data Analysis and Reporting
Instructional Technology
Instructional Maps
Student Unit Plans
Jo Anne

40. Schimmer’s Key Questions
Emphasize COMPLETION or STANDARDS?
Is school about ACTIVITIES or LEARNING?
Is school about POINTS or EVIDENCE?
Tom Schimmer, teacher and principal who is now authoring books and providing professional development around shifting to a Standards – Based Mindset asks these four questions.
Is learning an EVENT or a PROCESS?

41. Everett High School Current Language Purpose of Grading Statement
End of Course Grades (Semester/End of Year):
To communicate information about student proficiency on content standards to students, parents, educators and other stakeholders.
Formative/Summative Grades:
To provide information to students for self-evaluation
To provide information to classroom/program to inform the next steps of the instruction
Common summative/formative assessments will be used frequently to inform student progress towards standard

42. Welcome, Encourage, Inspire to Build Confident Learners
Dweck: Praise
Ted Talk TTThttp://
Dweck