Debbie Baughman

At the Standards Company, the curriculum analysts evaluate several curricular items when analyzing student work. We evaluate not only the standards covered, but also the rigor and the depth and breadth of the assigned curriculum. We align these areas using both Bloom’s Taxonomy and Norman Webb’s depth-of-knowledge model (DOK). Before working at the Standards Company, I was familiar with Bloom’s but not with DOK. I have gained practical experience, however, by conducting research on the use of DOK in the educational field, by evaluating thousands of student assignments, and by discussing and analyzing it in-depth with colleagues.

To someone who is unfamiliar with DOK, it seems at first glance to be not much different than Bloom’s. And in some aspects they are similar. But DOK measures rigor, or complexity, written as a hierarchy but not as a taxonomy. Unlike Bloom’s, the verb is not the distinguishing factor.  Rather, the context of the verb is how one delineates between the different DOK levels, each of which basically describe and show the progression of the rigor of what is being taught and learned.

There are four DOK levels, created by Norman Webb, a Wisconsin research scientist and mathematics educator (http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/people/staff.php?sid=1342). 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 applies to items that involve simple knowledge. There is little comprehension involved at this level, no complexity, and no depth. It involves recall, rote response, and only a very basic, surface knowledge of material. It is not to say that Level 1 activities are unimportant because they are, in fact, very important. The levels of DOK progress in steps, one building on the other, and a student cannot reach a higher DOK level unless he has first mastered a lower DOK level.  Level 1 items are much like a foundation upon which deeper knowledge can be built.

Level 2 involves more comprehension of material than level 1. Students begin to apply skills, and they process concepts. At this level, students interpret material and make simple decisions about how to approach a problem. They do such things as infer, conclude, compare, summarize, and determine relationships (cause/effect, etc.). But, they are not yet dealing with much complexity. It is at level 3 that they “go beyond” and begin to wrestle with complex concepts, tasks, and material.

At level 3, students begin to do such things as analyze, evaluate, reason, and plan. They can also do these things at level 2, but they do them in much deeper and complex ways at level 3. For instance, at level 2, students might make inter-sentence inferences, but at level 3, students infer across an entire passage of text. At level 2, students compare/contrast ideas within one text; at level 3, they compare/contrast ideas between two separate texts. They begin to deal with abstractions and open-ended conclusions at this level, and they are also able to support their thinking.

Finally, after students have learned the basics at level 1, applied them at level 2, and strategically thought about them at level 3, they now extend their thinking by completing much deeper and complex tasks at level 4. At level 4, students’ grasp of knowledge is deep. According to Webb, higher-level thinking is absolutely central at this level, and students do such things as synthesize, hypothesize, evaluate, and analyze. Their interaction with material, whether it is language arts, math, science, or social studies, is in-depth, complete, and purposeful. Now, they are doing such things as writing in-depth multi-paragraph persuasive essays with thesis statements, evidence, examples, and complex reasoning. It involves much higher-level thought processes and skills than level 1 or 2.

Recognizing DOK levels is not always clear-cut or simple.  While some assignments, activities, and/or questions are easily identifiable as a certain DOK level, others are not.  Merely looking at the wording of a standard or assignment does not necessarily reveal the DOK level. Several things are involved, including the content, the activity and/or thinking processes, and the complexity of both the content and activity/thinking processes.

I hope to continue discussing Webb’s depth-of-knowledge in terms of its applicability and importance. But I’ll end with this, for now– here at The Standards Company, we discuss, research, and evaluate DOK on a regular basis. As a result, my own personal knowledge of Webb’s depth-of-knowledge levels has definitely grown from a DOK level 1 to a DOK level 4!

DOK LEVELS

Level 1: RECALL

Level 2: SKILL/CONCEPT

Level 3: STRATEGIC THINKING

Level 4:  EXTENDED THINKING