Gerlinde Olvera

American high school graduates are ill prepared to compete in the 21st century job market (Elmo 2006). As a result, states recognize the need for a paradigm shift in education. They are adjusting curriculum, standards, and assessment analysis to better match the demand for 21^st century skills using Norman Webb’s depth of knowledge (DOK) levels. Aside from being a successful tool to assure cognitive rigor as an integral part of assessment and standards analysis, Norman Webb’s depth of knowledge (DOK) levels are also an excellent means to teach advanced levels of cognition as an integral part of the enacted curriculum.

However, how are educators going to integrate state and nationally mandated standards with a cognitively rigorous curriculum? The rigor of the problem and the characteristics of the students should determine questioning and grouping strategies employed by the teacher (Slavin 1995; Walqui 2008).

John Walkup, president of The Standards Company LLC, and I have written an article titled “Questioning strategies for teaching cognitively rigorous curricula”. The article explores educators’ roles in applying Norman Webb’s DOK levels to teach students the skills necessary for successful members of the 21^st century.

In the article we discuss how questioning and grouping strategies as well as the role of the teacher adjust to the cognitive rigor of the enacted curriculum.

Questioning strategies must involve multiple questions related to each idea (No Child Left Behind). However, it is vital that students are allowed appropriate think or wait time before responding to questions (Rowe 1979, 1980; Casteel et al. 1973; Lyman 1981; Borich 1992; Rowe 1987; Stahl 1994). Consequently, teachers need to consider which questioning strategies work best for the intended lesson.

In addition, since the role of group activity in learning is well established (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001; Slavin 1995), teachers should carefully plan for the appropriate grouping strategies for each DOK level.

For example a DOK 1 leveled cognitive thinking skills lesson requires students to reconstruct and recall the learned material. Student learning relies on the teacher’s dissemination of information. Questioning strategies elicit a rote response (Hess 2005). Wait time for responses should be approximately three seconds; more for EL learners or students with disabilities (Walqui 2008). This amount of wait time will reflect an increased correctness while the typical “I don’t know” responses decrease (Stahl, 1994). Students do not need to be grouped since the student either knows or does not know the information. However as the rigor of cognitive expectations increase questioning strategies, wait time and grouping strategies change.

DOK 2 leveled lessons prompt students go beyond reproducing learned knowledge to make a decision as to how to approach a problem. Teacher posed questions are open ended and wait time increases which allows student based solutions (Webb 2002). Teachers may still elicit responses from individual students. However at this level think/pair/share grouping is a useful tool to familiarize students with solving problems while accepting the notions of others and learning from peers.

DOK 3 leveled lessons require complex thinking skills such as reasoning, developing a plan for approaching a problem or task and justification of solutions (Webb 2002). Students need increased time to formulate their solutions. The teacher’s role is to encourage independent thinking in students, and questioning strategies must reflect this (O’Donnel et al. 1999). Teachers should encourage students to explore various aspects without presenting students with possible answers. At this level collaborative grouping strategies allow students to think and react at higher cognitive levels and increase student interest in the curriculum (Walqui 2008). Although not all students perform equally well at higher cognitive levels, collaborative groups allow them to assist the group in other ways while learning from their peers. This allows struggling students to internalize the method for finding solutions to complex problems by taking cues from others better versed in applying higher cognitive skills. English language learners and academically disadvantaged students especially benefit from increased use of groups (Walqui 2008).

DOK 4 leveled instruction requires extended thinking of students. This often encompasses an investigation or application that requires extended time (usually several class periods) to research, think, and processes multiple conditions of the problem or task and to establish non-routine connections across disciplines and content areas (Webb 2002). Students need to demonstrate substantial background knowledge while organizing, planning and monitoring most aspects of solving problems in a task-appropriate way (Cantwell, Moore 1996). Questioning strategies and assessment allow for multiple measures of mastery and include the student’s ability to utilize content knowledge as well as the achievement of self-imposed individual and group goals (P21).

Pedagogy geared toward teaching students to become independent 21^st century thinkers alters the role of teachers. Often teachers want to assist student groups by leading them along solution paths they deem “best.” However, such assistance (e.g., hints) simply teaches students to wait until their teacher spoon-feeds them their desired information, a practice detrimental to teaching students higher-level thinking strategies. Instead, the teacher’s ultimate role is to encourage students to explore various aspects of the problem while mentoring the groups and assessing students’ comprehension and cognitive progress (O’Donnel et al. 1999).

However, since the success of any lesson depends on the ability of teachers to plan and reflect upon the enacted curriculum (DiGiulio 2004), teachers need to demonstrate their goals and teaching strategies with well prepared lesson plans. Upon completion of lessons teachers should also take the time to reflect upon the outcome of concluded lessons.

Teaching students to employ higher level cognitive skills is a challenge for any educator. It is not an easy task to combine curriculum standards with guiding students to succeed in increasing levels of cognitive rigor while becoming contributing members of a group and later on of our society. However, all involved with education need to take up the challenge of ensuring that our students are ready to think creatively and successfully interact with members of our global society; skills required for successful citizens of the 21^st century.

References:

Cantwell R. H. & Moore, P. J., (1996), The development of measures of individual differences in self-regulatory control and their relationship to academic performance, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 500-517.

DiGiulio, R. C., (2004), Great Teaching, What Matters Most in Helping Students Succeed, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Elmo, R. UCE AMitsifer Lecture, November 11, 2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfQzo5e4iSU.

Hess, K., (2005), Applying depth of knowledge (DOK) levels in writing, Center for Assessment, Dover, NH.

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001), Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.

ODonnel, A. M. & King, A., (1999), Cognitive Perspective on Peer Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Slavin, R. E. (1995), Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd ed.), Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.

Stahl, R. J. (1994), Using “Think-Time” and “Wait-Time” Skillfully in the Classroom, ERIC Digest, Bloomington, IN.

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, P21, (2007), Framework for 21st Century Learning, The Partnership for 21^st Century Skills, Tucson, AZ.

U.S. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Act, http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml.

Walqui, A., (2008), Quality Teaching for English Learners: The development of adolescent English Language Learners potential through a pedagogy of high challenge and high support, WestEd, www.wested.org/qtel.

Webb, N. L., (2002), Depth-of-knowledge levels for four content areas, Unpublished.

The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) announced in 2000 that even though states and districts are attempting to educate students who will be able to function as contributing members of the 21^st century most are unsuccessful. In fact, according to SCANS, the educational system still adheres to a methodology that was designed approximately 100 years ago (SCANS 2000). Now, fully into the 21^st century, not much seems to have changed since SCANS published the report (Elmo 2006).

This is a disturbing thought, since, without a doubt, our society has changed within the last 100 years. Nowadays it is just as important to know how to access knowledge and where to go for answers as knowing the facts (Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. 2000). Committees on the Science of Learning emphasize that the utmost goal for schools should be to enhance students’ learning so they are able to transfer knowledge gained in school to their everyday environment (Bransford, et al 2000). Meanwhile businesses desperately call for graduates who know how to apply their learned skills to our society’s demands (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007).

How do we achieve this goal? Suggestions abound; more technology for teachers and students, better access to global issues, involve students in their learning process, include parents and the community; the list is endless. However, I am a realist. I know full well that not all school districts can afford to completely revamp their teaching methodologies and technological equipment. Doing so involves time, a lot of money, and training (meaning teachers out of the classroom).

However, there are simple ways to prepare students to meet the demands of the 21^st century.

1. Challenge students to employ higher level cognitive skills.
2. Prompt students to make the connections between learned materials and our society.

Every teacher can do both in the classroom. What does it take to do so? Think about how students have been taught. How many times can we ask them to learn that 8 x 8 = 64? Instead the teacher could ask, “How could you find out what 8 x 8 equals? How many ways can you think of to produce 64?” (Note: I did not request the number 64 but simply 64. This could include 64 of anything and anyone.) Write down all examples.” Suddenly students are challenged to think on higher cognitive levels. Instead of Blooms Taxonomy 1 or Depth of Knowledge 1 (DOK 1) the required cognitive level has become a Blooms 3 or 4 and DOK 2 or 3 depending on how much guidance the teacher provides. Debriefing should allow students to make the correlation to the real world. For example, why could it important to understand various ways to come up with 64?

Another example may be to encourage students to ponder why learning the parts of an essay can be helpful in the real world and have them write an essay about real life situations of their choice. As a comparison the teacher could prompt students to express their thoughts in writing in any writing style other than an essay. Again the choice should be theirs. Finally, students could compare and contrast essays with other styles of writing and decide their usefulness in given situations. Now a simple Bloom’s Taxonomy level 1 or 2 has turned into Bloom’s 3 to 6 while the DOK level has risen from 1 or 2 to DOK 3 or 4; again depending on the teacher’s involvement in the students’ thought processes. In addition, by allowing students to make the connections to real life, they are already entertaining higher cognitive level thinking skills.

However, we simply cannot assume that our students know how to correlate learning to real life or that they will be able to use higher cognitive levels intrinsically. These are skills our students need to be taught beginning in elementary school so they can meet the expectations of high school and our global society later-on.

Of course there is a time and place for everything. Basics are important. However, learning will become more interesting and real if we teachers allow students to discover, explain, critique and make connections. Suddenly, simple factoids become interesting and valuable, and it doesn’t take any more time than doing times tables or rehashing parts of essays over and over again, because “The kids just don’t get it.”

Bransford , J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R., eds. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. 2000. The Social Life of Information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Elmo R. 2006. The Resilience of Teacher Culture. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfQzo5e4iSU

Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2007. The Intellectual and Policy Foundations

of the 21st Century Skills Framework. http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/route21.

The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, U.S. Department of Labor 2000. What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America. http://wdr.doleta.gov/opr/fulltext/document.cfm?docn=6140

It’s all over the news. There seems to be a serious disparity between the success of boys and girls in school. Boys are lagging behind, have a higher dropout rate from high school, and are less apt to pursue college. How can we help our male students become more successful?

One of the more prevalent suggestions to aid boys seems to be gender-divided education or at least partially separate education for boys (Sax 2007). The reasoning behind this theory is that boys need more stimuli than girls, who can sit quietly and read much better than boys (Gurien and Stephens 2007).

Throughout my long teaching career I have come to know many girls who learned best when they were engaged and boys who devoured books like candy. I think it is destructive to categorize children’s learning by their gender. I believe that all children can and are willing to learn.

In order to be able to learn a child must be curious about learning new things. However, traditional classrooms almost immediately squelch this curiosity and replace it with rote memorization, drawing within the lines and prescribed art projects (Thompson 2006). Some children are good at these. I was not one of them. I have always been hands on, outside the lines, constantly forgetting factoids and wiggly when bored. I know for a fact that all girls do not like to sit still and read.

I don’t think the problem is necessarily gender related but how we as teachers present learning. I strongly believe that we need to revisit Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences when we are teaching our students. Not many of our children can be categorized into either mathematical or linguistic intelligences, yet most schools and lessons still focus on those according to Dr. Gardner (Gardner 2006).

Our society is changing and often a strong mathematical/logic or linguistic talent is not at the center of our careers anymore. The Partnership for 21^st Century Skills emphasizes that students must be engaged in the classroom in order to graduate students that are ready to succeed in today’s global society (Route 21).

So how can we make learning more interesting for students? Allow them to use their intelligences by varying lessons to match most of their intelligences. This needs to happen K – 12. Foster their love for learning by tapping into the skills they already love to perform. Success breeds confidence. Consequently students will be more apt to try out skills they are not good at.

Our boys will benefit from such classroom instruction, not from being separated or singled out.

Sources:

Gardner. c2006. Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice. New York: Basic Books.

Gurien M. and K. Stephens. c2007. The Minds of Boys. New York: Wiley, John & Sons. http://www.michaelgurian.com/the_minds_of_boys.html

Gurien Michael, 2008. “Boys in crisis” CBS News Video.

Route 21. Partnership for 21^st century skills. http://www.21stcenturyskills.org

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1754194n%3fsource=search_video

Sax. c2007.Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated and Underachieving Young Men. New York: Basic Books.

Stahl, Lesley 2003 “The gender gap: boys lagging – girls move ahead”, CBS Evening News, 60 Minutes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/31/60minutes/main527678.shtml

Thompson, Michael, 2006. “Raising Cain: Focus on Boys” PBS documentary. http://www.pbs.org/opb/raisingcain

Welcome to Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!