![[object Object],[object Object],Confucious]()
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (19)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à Webb keynote
Similaire à Webb keynote (20)
Plus de DASD
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Webb keynote
- 1. Teaching with Depth An Understanding of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
- 5. So...what is the most significant factor in student learning? ...the teacher
- 6. Teachers are the Key “ Teachers must be the primary driving force behind change. They are best positioned to understand the problems that students face and to generate possible solutions. ” James Stigler and James Hiebert, The Teaching Gap
- 8. Differences in Instruction “ Our research indicates that there is a 15% variability difference in student achievement between teachers within the same schools.” Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Dean of Education, University of Michigan
- 9. “ What Matters Very Much is Which Classroom?” “ If a student is in one of the most effective classrooms he or she will learn in 6 months what those in an average classroom will take a year to learn. And if a student is in one of the least effective classrooms in that school, the same amount of learning take 2 years. ”
- 10. Research has indicated that... “ teacher quality trumps virtually all other influences on student achievement.” (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 1999; Hamre and Pianta, 2005; Hanushek, Kain, O'Brien and Rivken, 2005; Wright, Horn and Sanders, 1997)
- 11. Making Sense & Worthwhile Tasks “ What are our Kids really being asked to do?” “ How are we keeping up with Cognitive Demand (man)?”
- 13. Depth of Knowledge (DOK) No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires assessments to “measure the depth and breadth of the state academic content standards for a given grade level”. ( U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. 12 )
- 14. Why Depth of Knowledge? Focuses on complexity of content standards in order to successfully complete an assessment or task. The outcome (product) is the focus of the depth of understanding.
- 16. Why Depth of Knowledge (DOK)? Mechanism to ensure that the intent of the standard and the level of student demonstration required by that standard matches the assessment items (required under NCLB) To ensure that teachers are teaching to a level that will promote student achievement
- 18. It’s NOT about the verb... The Depth of Knowledge is NOT determined by the verb (Bloom’s Taxonomy), but by the context in which the verb is used and the depth of thinking required.
- 20. DOK is about what follows the verb... 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.” The student who has been taught the rule for using commas is merely using the rule.
- 21. Same Verb—Three Different DOK Levels DOK 1- Describe three characteristics of metamorphic rocks. (Requires simple recall) DOK 2- Describe the difference between metamorphic and igneous rocks. (Requires cognitive processing to determine the differences in the two rock types) DOK 3- Describe a model that you might use to represent the relationships that exist within the rock cycle. (Requires deep understanding of rock cycle and a determination of how best to represent it)
- 25. Quick Quiz 1) Give an example of a statement that uses a verb that “sounds” like a high DOK but is used inappropriately. 2) Fill in the blanks: What _____ the verb is more _____ than the verb itself when deciding the DOK level. 3) What is the difference between difficulty and complexity? 4) What really determines the DOK level?
- 26. Quick Quiz Answers 1) Give an example of a statement that uses a verb that “sounds” like a high DOK but is used inappropriately. answers vary 2) Fill in the blanks: What follows the verb is more important than the verb itself when deciding the DOK level. 3) What is the difference between difficulty and complexity? answers vary, but do not rely on the verb 4) What really determines the DOK level? the intended learning outcomes
- 38. “ Extending the length of an activity alone does not necessarily create rigor!”
- 39. How Does FCAT use Cognitive Complexity Levels? Low DOK Taken from: FCAT Test Design Summary: July 2008 FLorida Department of Education ( http:fcat.fldoe.org/pdf/fc05designsummary.pdf )
- 41. Depth of Knowledge Levels - Science Cognitive Complexity of Knowledge Rating for Math and Science
- 42. Percentage of Points by Cognitive Complexity Level for FCAT Math Low DOK Grades Low Level Moderate Level High Level 3-4 25-35 50-70 5-15 5* 10-20 50-70 20-30 6-7 10-20 60-80 10-20 8* 10-20 50-70 20-30 9 10-20 60-80 10-20 10* 10-20 50-70 20-30
- 43. Percentage of Points by Cognitive Complexity Level for FCAT Science Low DOK Grades Low Level Moderate Level High Level 5* 15-25 40-60 25-35 8* 15-25 40-60 25-35 11* 15-25 40-60 25-35
- 44. Writing Low DOK The FCAT Writing prompt is a high cognitive performance task administered at Grades 4,8, and 10
- 46. Depth of Knowledge and the Florida’s Next Generation Standards available at: http://www.floridastandards.org/
- 47. Aligning DOK levels of standards and assessments Standards ratings may serve as a “ceiling” for assessment
- 48. Depth of Knowledge/Level of Cognitive Complexity on the FCAT Information available on http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatrelease.asp
- 49. DOK Activity
- 50. Depth of Knowledge/Level of Cognitive Complexity on the FCAT
- 51. Depth of Knowledge/Level of Cognitive Complexity on the FCAT
- 52. Depth of Knowledge/Level of Cognitive Complexity on the FCAT
- 54. The alignment between tasks, standards, and assessments allows for cognitive complexity with a deeper understanding. Low DOK “ A mile wide and an inch deep”
- 55. Remember DOK is... … descriptive … focuses on how deeply a student has to know the content in order to respond … NOT the same as difficulty. … NOT the same as Bloom’s Taxonomy
- 56. The Heart of the Matter is the Depth of Knowledge
Notes de l'éditeur
- Many Factors Contribute to the Achievement Gap The achievement gap stems from both home- and school-based factors. It exists before students ever cross the school threshold, and this disadvantage can greatly affect their educational progress and success. Students living in poverty tend to be less successful in school The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducted a national longitudinal study of children entering kindergarten in 1998. It found that students whose mothers had not graduated from high school, whose families received public assistance or were headed by single parents, and/or whose parents’ primary language was not English were disproportionately represented among low performers. All of these factors correlate highly with poverty. Although poverty does not cause low achievement, it does set the conditions for it. Students living in poverty are more likely to be exposed to factors known to affect achievement, such as: Lack of access to proper nutrition, health care, and decent housing; and Exposure to substance abuse and high-crime communities. Risk factors have a synergistic effect on school performance—children with one risk factor typically do not fare as well as those with none. Children with two or more of these factors generally lag far behind those with only one. Not to be overlooked are social factors and processes that play an enormous role in determining a child’s later learning and future academic success. High family stress levels, maternal depression, little interaction with the child, and family illiteracy all have a negative impact on a child’s developing capacity to learn. Because African Americans and Latinos in California represent disproportionate numbers of children living in poverty, they are also more likely to begin school at a disadvantage. Cultural factors can also affect student performance The cultural background of both students and educators can also play a role in student achievement. First, it is well documented that some educators have lower academic expectations for students of color. This has been a topic of much discussion over the past decades, and attempting to change teachers’ attitudes and practices is at the heart of the standards-based reform movement. Beyond this complex and pervasive problem is another issue—how the values and expectations of students’ backgrounds and communities influence their attitudes about schooling and academic performance. The extent to which culture affects attitude and achievement is a politically sensitive and controversial subject. The variables most consistently correlated with low student achievement are poverty and low parent education level. Yet even among students coming from poor families, some cultural groups generally outperform others in school. And among wealthier students, some groups of students—for example, middle-class African American males—consistently lag behind their white classmates. Researchers differ regarding the causes of these gaps. Temple University professor Laurence Steinberg has found that although Asian students associate negative life consequences with poor school performance, African American and Hispanic students do not. University of California-Berkeley professor John Ogbu argues that community-based “folk theories” contribute to self-defeating behaviors. (An example of a folk theory would be that because of the history of discrimination against African Americans, even those who work hard will never reap the rewards that whites do.) Others theorize that the efforts of even the most supportive parents and communities can be undermined by teens’ need for peer approval. Schools can play a role in narrowing the gap A driving force in education reform for decades has been optimism that schools can help students overcome the disadvantages they bring with them into the classroom. For more than 40 years, researchers have conducted extensive investigations to determine which school factors influence student achievement. However, results of this research point to complex interactions among multiple factors, indicating that the solutions are neither simple nor straightforward. The state and federal movement toward a standards-based approach to school improvement begins with the assumption that all students can meet high academic expectations. Based on that assumption, a fundamental strategy has been to shed light on the achievement gaps that exist between groups of students. Evaluating what combination of educational strategies, resources, capacity-building, and incentives can contribute to better academic performance among low-performing students continues to be a focus for educators and researchers. Meanwhile, policymakers have crafted accountability systems that put increased pressure on the schools and school districts that are currently falling short in helping all their students meet rigorous new achievement goals. http://www.edsource.org/stu_achivegap.html
- It is important to understand that the DOK classification scheme was adopted because it does not require an inference about the skill knowledge, and background of the student, but is based solely on what is being asked cognitively. The Depth of Knowledge classification scheme classifies assessment items or tasks, not students or student work. This classification scheme was developed originally for assessment items. The intention for use was to align learning objectives with assessments. The Depths of knowledge were developed by Norman L. Webb at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research and the National Institute for Science Education. Florida’s Next Generation Standards were rated for depth of knowledge to help align learning goals with instruction and assessment.
- Many on-demand assessment instruments will not include any assessment activities that could be classified as Level 4. However, standards, goals, and objectives can be stated in such a way as to expect students to perform extended thinking. “Develop generalizations of the results obtained and the strategies used and apply them to new problem situations,” is an example of a Grade 8 objective that is a Level 4. 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.
- The levels of low, moderate, and high are those used by FCAT and are based on a similar scheme developed by the National Assessment for Educational Progress. These 3-level schemes differ only slightly from Norman Webb’s 4-level scheme. In the FCAT 3-level scheme, Webb’s DOK levels 3 and aspects of level 4 are combined in the “high.”
- Florida’s Next Generation standards were rated in terms of DOK by pulling together a large group that included DOK experts, scientists, science curriculum specialists, teachers, and the Department of Education. This process was facilitated by FCRSTEM and FDOE Office of Math & Science. The result: All of Florida’s Math and Science Next Generation Standards have been assigned a DOK rating. These ratings are available through the Florida Standards Database.
- In general, the ratings of the benchmarks set a ceiling for assessment. Thus, a benchmark that is rated at a moderate level, could be assessed at a low level or a moderate level. Ideally, the benchmark rating aligns with the assessment level – this was a purpose for rating benchmarks. This helps teachers know to what depth students are expected to master the benchmarks. It helps to build a common understanding of the expectations of the benchmark, though a great deal of interpretation and consensus building is required.
- This example item was provided by the FCAT developers as an example of a moderate complexity item. The item asks students to bring together understanding of multiple forces (friction and gravity) along with the properties of the materials that the blocks are made of, and finally to make a comparison. The requirements to bring together understanding of properties and forces and then to make a comparison between the different blocks are what make this item a moderate complexity task.
- This example item was provided by the FCAT developers as an example of a high complexity item. This item takes the requirements of the last item up one more step by requiring students to consider an additional variable, the inclination of the plane and therefore requires them to consider multiple variables and explain, in terms of forces, how these variable affect the movement of the blocks. The student is required to predict the effect of a change within the system which requires them to think beyond the image provided. Keep in mind that the moderate level item that this item was built upon can be raised to a high level in many ways. What are some other ways that one could bring the moderate level task up to a high level task? An example would be to provide a set of data and then require students to explain the experiment.
- This example item was provided by the FCAT developers as an example of a low complexity item. The item asks students to recall/recognize which force causes objects to move down an inclined plane. If a student identifies the correct force, the answer is found. It does not require further processing of the information.
- Tasks, standards, and assessments are classified in terms of DOK to ensure alignment between these activities and to ensure that a common understanding of these activities is established for the teachers, students, and administrators. These alignments can be used to indicate how well instruction or a test reflects the intended standards. These alignments also help to ensure that standards, instruction, and assessment result in student understanding that goes deeper than “an inch”