Let’s Make a DOK 3! (Part 1)

(From Chapter 9: “Let’s Make a DOK!” featured in Deconstructing Depth of Knowledge: A Method and Model for Deeper Teaching and Learning by Erik M. Francis)

In 2016, I wrote a blog that compared the demand and expectations of Webb’s DOK Levels to popular television shows. I called it “Let’s Make a DOK!”, a play on the title of the classic game show Let’s Make a Deal! The name has a double meaning, since we can adapt the format of game shows into our classroom to develop and deliver DOK teaching and learning experiences that are not only educational but also energetic, enriching, and enjoyable.

In this blog series, I will compare the goals and expectations of each DOK Level to the format of a familiar television genre. I will also establish and explain with examples how these shows can be emulated in the classroom and engage students in an active DOK teaching and learning learning that’s academic, affective, and authentic.

NOTE: This blog will be presented in two parts due to how deeply a DOK 3 demands to be examined and explained. Check back for Part Two of this blog that will examine and explain with evidence how DOK 3 teaching and learning experiences resembles debates and discussion forums.

What Distinguishes a DOK 3?

The goal of a DOK 3 teaching and learning experience is for students to do one or more of the following:

• Justify an answer with evidence.
• Verify an answer with evidence.
• Conclude an answer based on evidence.
• Consider an answer based on evidence.
• Critique an answer based on evidence.

These are the DOK Goals and DOK Expectations for a DOK 3 Teaching and Learning Experience. Notice the words and phrases featured in these DOK 3 descriptors: “an answer” and “evidence”. 

What distinguishes a DOK 3 is that the experience does not demand or involve attaining or explaining answers. That’s a DOK 1 and DOK 2, respectfully. In fact, in a DOK 3 , the answer is given as a response, result, or reason. All answers in a DOK 3 are possibilities. They can also be presented as actions, alternatives, or arguments. Students comprehend and communicate their learning by either thinking strategically (DOK 3 Skill) or using complex reasoning (DOK 3 Skill) to examine and explain with evidence (DOK 3 Response). Students are assessed and evaluated whether they can defend, justify, or refute actions, alternatives, answers, or arguments – be it their own or those made with others – using both the facts and their feelings as evidence to strengthen and support reasoning. Responses are “right” rather than “correct”. Correct answers are irrefutable. “Right” responses can be refuted – or defended or justified – with evidence.

DOK 3 teaching and learning experiences are also goal-oriented. There is a specific outcome or result that students must achieve. However, unlike a DOK 1 or DOK 2 experience, the outcome or result is given or presented. It also must be achieved by completing a complex task within a specific timeframe that could engage students to do one or more of the following:

• Delve deeper
• Inquire and investigate
• Debate and discuss with specific claims (argumentation)
• Think critically
• Problem solve
• Think creatively
• Defend, justify, or refute (with evidence)
• Check, confirm, conclude, consider, or critique (based on evidence)

These are the DOK Tasks students could complete in a DOK 3 experience. They are highly abstract, nonroutine, and extremely challenging. The challenge and complexity, however, is based on what exactly and how deeply the task demands students to comprehend and communicate their learning to achieve the goal.

DOK 3: The Reality TV Skills Challenge

The complexity of the DOK 3 Task students must complete and the demand of the DOK 3 Skill students must perform resembles the goals and expectations of reality TV skills challenges such as LegoMasters and Top Chef!  On these shows, the contestants approach and complete a task as an expert in their field. For example, on LegoMasters , the contestants have learned to become “experts” in building with Legos. On Top Chef!, the contestants have received different levels of training in the culinary arts. They have not only attained the knowledge and skills in their specific area of expertise. They can also apply the knowledge and skills proficiently. They have also developed or augmented the knowledge and skills into personal or self-knowledge – or expertise.

 On reality TV skills challenge show, the host presents a goal. For example, on LegoMasters, the goal could be to build a bridge out of Legos that can withstand itense tremors; on Top Chef!, create a taco bar. The expectations is that the contestants will use the resources and tools available or provided to them (e.g., a tub full of Legos of different sizes and colors; different  ingredients, bakeware, cookware, kitchenware, or ovenware) to complete the task accurately, acceptably, and appropriately within a designated or specific amount of time. Once the goals and expectations have been presented, the host steps back and facilitates the experience as the contestants use both the available resources and their own resourcefulness to complete the complex task within the time allotted.

The contestants determine and drive the direction of the show during that designated time. They actively approach the task by doing the following:

• Drawing upon their deep understanding and awareness of a subject rather than just relying on surface-level data or details.
• Analyzing information, circumstances, and conditions holistically and disparately
• Recognizing complex patterns or trends.
• Making connections between different concepts.
• Considering all alternatives or possibilities.
• Responding quickly yet strategically to changes in circumstances or conditions.
•  Evaluating their own thinking to find the best or most accurate, acceptable, or appropriate option, direction, or solution consistently.

This is what it means to “think like an expert” – or rather, think like a disciplinarian, professional, or specialist. “Experts” do not seek to attain or explain answers. In fact, experts have the “answer”. The answer either given to them as a response, result, or reason. They could also come up with or create one as a conjecture, hypothesis, or idea in response to a situation or stimulus. The expert commits to examining and evaluating not only the applicability but also the validity of “an answer” – be it the one presented or the one they postulated or proposed. However, a true “expert” not only uses their deep knowledge and skills to justify or verify why they are “right” or conclude and critique why others are “wrong”. Adam Grant (2021) calls this behavior “getting into prosecutor mode when we recognize flaws in other people’s reasoning [and] marshal arguments to prove them wrong and win our case” (p. 18). The true expert considers – or thinks strategically and uses complex reasoning – why they may be “wrong”.. Grant (2021) calls this “thinking like a scientist”, which involves “involves more than just reacting with an open mind. It means being actively open-minded. It requires searching for reasons why we might be wrong—not for reasons why we must be right—and revising our views based on what we learn” (p. 25).

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0aEFbhdeAno%3Fsi%3DUgnMi2srBt8WFjMJ%26start%3D146

Unfortunately, the contestants on these shows generally do not demonstrate such behavior. They more often than not enter into “prosecutor mode” or  what Grant (2021) also calls “preacher mode” when they feel their participation on the show is in jeopardy (Sidenote: Click here to learn why demands its contestants to comprehend and communicate their learning at a DOK 1 – and that’s okay if that’s what the TV show or standard demands) and need to defend or justify themselves personally as an “expert”, not their actions, alternatives, answers, or arguments. Their reasoning is more emotional than evidentiary. Their responses are based more ot solely on their feelings and refute the facts no matter how irrefutable or undeniable they are. That’s also what makes these shows so entertaining.

A DOK 3 teaching and learning experience should not have the level of drama, discord, or even dysfunction often experienced on reality TV skills challenges. Those are competitions, and the goal is to “win” – sometimes at all costs, by any means necessary, and even in cruel and selfish ways. However, the complexity of the tasks the contestant must complete, the demand of the mental skill they must perform, and the extent of the response they must provide resemble the descriptors of a DOK 3 Task, DOK 3 Skill, and DOK 3 Response. The goals and expectations of these shows also reflect and represent the complexity and demand of a DOK 3 teaching and learning experience. It’s also shows how students should address and approach the activities, items, problems, questions, and tasks assigned to them – with the perspective or point of view of a disciplinarian, professional, or specialist – or “expert” – in that specific area, field of study, or subject.

How to Plan a DOK 3 Reality TV Skill Challenge

DOK 3 teaching and learning experiences are challenges, not competitions. Students “win” by achieving the goals and expectations and comprehending and communicating their learning at a DOK 3. Students should be engaged to think strategically or use complex reasoning. The criteria for success is for students to examine and explain with evidence.

Here are the steps for developing and delivering a DOK 3 teaching and learning experience 

Step 1. Choose the standard the DOK 3 teaching and learning experience will address and address. (The standard does not need to be a DOK 3).  

Step 2. Present students with an answer they must analyze and evaluate or a goal or objective they must achieve within a set timeframe. An appropriate amount of time would be one full class period with time set aside to review responses and reasoning.

Step 3. Assign the task students must complete accurately and appropriately within the given timeframe. The DOK 3 task could demand students to do one or more of the following:

• think critically
• think creatively
• problem solve
• defend, justify or refute (with evidence)
• check, confirm, conclude, consider or critique (based on criteria or evidence)

Step 4. Step back and facilitate the experience as the students take charge and control of their learning. Conduct checks for understanding for clarification. If corrections are needed, use questioning and inquiry to engage students to reflect and respond.

Step 5. Consider the following options to increase the complexity and challenge:

• Change the circumstances and conditions of the experience by altering the circumstances and conditions conditions or introducing a new aspect or element to check, confirm, or consider.
• Provide another alternative, option, or possibility (e.g., another way to “do the math”, reorganizing the numbers to create new algorithmic problems, changing the measurements or values).
• Ask hypothetical questions such as what if, what would happen, what could happen, how may, or how might.

Step 6. After 15-20 minutes into the experience, start informing students how much time has allotted and how much is left. At the 30 minute mark, do this every 5 minutes. When there’s 5 minutes left, start informing the students every minute (e.g., 5 minutes, 4 minutes, 3 minutes, etc.). Let them know when they are at the “two-minute warning”. Inform them when there’s one minute left, then 30 second, then countdown from 10.

Step 7. Once time is up, have the students stop what they are doing and be prepared to share their responses and reasoning. The criteria for success is not whether they answered the question, solved the problem, or completed the task successfully. The criteria for success is whether they can justify the reasoning for their responses or results with or based on evidence.

Considerations:

• If the majority of the students do not complete the task successfully within the timeframe given, extend the time. This can be to the end of the period or to the next day. (Note: Taking more than one day to complete the task does not deepen the DOK Level to a DOK 4).
• If students’ responses, results, or reasoning are not accurate or appropriate, shift the DOK Purpose from justifying or verifying to concluding, considering and critiquing why they were unable to achieve the goal.
• Offer and provide guidance, interventions, and support to students throughout the experience as necessary or needed. Use your discretion.
• Make sure the frustration or struggle students experience is “creative ” or “productive“. (Click the hyperlinks to understand and learn how this is experienced).

Would you like to learn how to develop and deliver your own original DOK 3teaching and learning experiences or other DOK 3 activities, items, problems, questions, or tasks for your students? Click here to visit Maverik Education AI TM) to learn more.

Erik M. Francis, M.Ed., M.S., is an international author, educator, presenter, and professional development provider with over 25 years of experience in education. He is the author of Inquiring Minds Want to Learn: Posing Good Questions to Promote Student Inquiry (Solution Tree), Deconstructing Depth of Knowledge: A Method and Model for Deeper Teaching and Learning (Solution Tree), and Now That’s a Good Question! How to Promote Cognitive Rigor Through Classroom Questioning (ASCD). Erik is the owner of Maverik Education, providing professional development, guidance, and support on how to plan and provide teaching and learning experiences that are standards based, socially and emotionally supportive, and student responsive. He is also consistently ranked as one of the World’s Top 30 Education Professionals by the international research organization Global Gurus and the Top 10 Global Thought Leaders in Education by the organization Thinkers360. 

References and Resources:

Grant, Adam. Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know. Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.