Norman L Webb.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Depths of Knowledge and Reading
Advertisements

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
Level 1 Recall Recall of a fact, information, or procedure. Level 2 Skill/Concept Use information or conceptual knowledge, two or more steps, etc. Level.
Aligning Depth of Knowledge with the TEKS and the STAAR
Understanding Depth 0f knowledge
The Network of Dynamic Learning Communities C 107 F N Increasing Rigor February 5, 2011.
Leadership for the Common Core in Mathematics, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Reviewing the Cognitive Rigor Matrix and DOK Tuesday September.
Please print the three Cognitive Rigor Matrices full page. Thanks!
Science Break Out Session New Math and Science Teacher Dec 2008 Becky Smith.
An Understanding of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Tammy Seneca, Ph.D.
An Overview of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
Teaching with Depth An Understanding of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
INTRODUCTION AND IMPLICATIONS DELAWARE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PA Common Core Standards 1.
+ 21 st Century Skills and Academic Standards Kimberly Hetrick Berry Creek Middle School Eagle County School District.
DOK and GRASPS, an Introduction for new staff
Teaching with Depth An Understanding of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
Categorizing Classroom Experiences
Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
Introduction to Depth of Knowledge
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
Understanding Depth of Knowledge
PSLA 39 TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE APRIL 14, Carolyn Van Etten Beth Sahd Vickie Saltzer – LibGuide Developer.
DOK Depth of Knowledge An Introduction.
Welcome to the Data Warehouse HOME HELP COGNITIVE LEVELS Assessments COGNITIVE LEVELS.
The Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Matrix
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
Quick Glance At ACTASPIRE Math
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Aligning Assessment Questions to DOK Levels Assessing Higher-Order Thinking.
NEW REALITY STUDENTS MUST HAVE HIGHER-ORDER THINKING SKILLS 1.
CURRICULUM CONSTRUCTION II AMANDA SKELTON & GINA NAAS.
Modified from Depth of Knowledge presentation by Dr. Robin Smith at 2009 PRESA Leadership Conference… Adapted from Kentucky Department of Education, Mississippi.
DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE (DOK)
Developing Assessments for and of Deeper Learning [Day 2b-afternoon session] Santa Clara County Office of Education June 25, 2014 Karin K. Hess, Ed.D.
Depth of Knowledge and Cognitive Demand QualityCore Professional Development Day 1, 2–1.
Depth of Knowledge Assessments (D.O.K.) Roseville City School District Leadership Team.
Depth of Knowledge (DOK) An Overview. 2 Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Adapted from the model used by Norman Webb, University of Wisconsin.
Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
Depth of Knowledge and the Cognitive Rigor Matrix 1.
PLANTING THE SEEDS OF RIGOR Region I Principals’ Meeting November 5, 2010.
By Benjamin Newman.  Define “Cognitive Rigor” or “Cognitive Demand”  Understand the role (DOK) Depth of Knowledge plays with regards to teaching with.
Depth of Knowledge (DOK) SUN VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL. 2 Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Adapted from the model used by Norman Webb, University of Wisconsin, to align.
Tuesday 08/12 Grab DOK handouts and put them in your “Units” tab. Warm-up: Look over the Academic Integrity Policy that you researched for homework. Respond.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Getting to Know Webb’s. Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Level One (recall) requires simple recall of such information as fact, definition, term, or simple procedure.
Teaching with Depth An Understanding of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge.
Depth of Knowledge: Elementary ELA Smarter Balanced Professional Development for Washington High-need Schools University of Washington Tacoma Belinda Louie,
Depth of Knowledge Civic Literacy Teacher Network Social Studies.
Understanding Depth of Knowledge. Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Adapted from the model used by Norm Webb, University of Wisconsin, to align standards with.
1 Cognitive Demand in Problems  Cognitive demand is a measure of what the instructional question (a question posed during class) or test item requires.
Depth Of Knowledge Basics © 2010 Measured Progress. All rights reserved. He who learns but does not think is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is.
MELISSA THOMAS ASSESSMENT AND DATA RESPONSE FACILITATOR DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE.
Teaching with Depth An Understanding of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
Definitions & Examples
Counseling with Depth of Knowledge
About This Document The Cognitive Rigor (CR) Matrix (created by Karin Hess by combining Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge) is the primary.
ELA EOG – Preparing for the Marathon
Understanding Depth of Knowledge
Effective Questioning
ELA EOG – Preparing for the Marathon
Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
Preplanning Presentation
Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Levels
Understanding Depth of Knowledge
HS Physical Science Spring 2017
Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
Developing Quality Assessments
Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
Assessment and Higher-Order Thinking
Hess Cognitive Rigor Matrix
Presentation transcript:

Norman L Webb

Jose J. Vazquez Rivera 65323 Miss Rivera EDEL*308

Norman L. Webb is a senior research scientist with the Wisconsin Center for Education Research and the National Institute for Science Education

Webb is a mathematics educator and evaluator who leads the Institute's work on strategies for evaluating reform and rethinking how we evaluate mathematics and science education, while focusing on the NSF's Mathematics and Science Partnerships.

His own research has focused on assessment of students' knowledge of mathematics and the alignment of standards and assessments. Webb also directs evaluations of curriculum and professional development projects. Webb create a Four DOK Levels

Four Levels of Depth-of-Knowledge

There are four DOK levels, created by Norman Webb, a Wisconsin research scientist and mathematics educator. Webb’s four levels of depth-of-knowledge are level 1 (recall), level 2 (skill/concept), level 3 (strategic thinking), and level 4 (extended thinking), and they are applicable to all subject areas and at all grade levels, including college.

Level 1 Level 1 requires students to receive or recite facts or to use simple skills or abilities. Oral reading that does not include analysis of the text as well as basic comprehension of a text is included. Items require only a shallow understanding of text presented and often consist of verbatim recall from text or simple understanding of a single word or phrase.

Some examples that represent but do not constitute all of Level 1 performance are: • Support ideas by reference to details in the text. • Use a dictionary to find the meaning of words. • Identify figurative language in a reading passage.

Level 2 Level 2 includes the engagement of some mental processing beyond recalling or reproducing a response; it requires both comprehension and subsequent processing of text or portions of text. Intersentence analysis of inference is required. Some important concepts are covered but not in a complex way.

Standards and items at this level may include words such as summarize, interpret, infer, classify, organize, collect, display, compare, and determine whether fact or opinion. Literal main ideas are stressed. A Level 2 assessment item may require students to apply some of the skills and concepts that are covered in Level 1.

Some examples that represent but do not constitute all of Level 2 performance are: • Use context cues to identify the meaning of unfamiliar words. • Predict a logical outcome based on information in a reading selection. • Identify and summarize the major events in a narrative.

Level 3 Deep knowledge becomes more of a focus at Level 3. Students are encouraged to go beyond the text; however, they are still required to show understanding of the ideas in the text. Students may be encouraged to explain, eneralize, or connect ideas.

Standards and items at Level 3 involve reasoning and planning Standards and items at Level 3 involve reasoning and planning. Students must be able to support their thinking. Items may involve abstract theme identification, inference across an entire passage, or students’ application of prior knowledge. Items may also involve more superficial connections between texts.

Some examples that represent but do not constitute all of Level 3 performance are: • Determine the author’s purpose and describe how it affects the interpretation of a reading selection. • Summarize information from multiple sources to address a specific topic. • Analyze and describe the characteristics of various types of literature.

Level 4 Higher order thinking is central and knowledge is deep at Level 4. The standard or assessment item at this level will probably be an extended activity, with extended time provided. The extended time period is not a distinguishing factor if the required work is only repetitive and does not require applying significant conceptual understanding and higher-order thinking.

Students take information from at least one passage and are asked to apply this information to a new task. They may also be asked to develop hypotheses and perform complex analyses of the connections among texts.

Some examples that represent but do not constitute all of Level 4 performance are: • Analyze and synthesize information from multiple sources. • Examine and explain alternative perspectives across a variety of sources. • Describe and illustrate how common themes are found across texts from different cultures.

Chart http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/DOK_Chart.pdf

Reference http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/DOK_Chart.pdf http://www.tn.gov/education/cte/directors/doc/webb_dok_4_subj.pdf Miss Rivera