EN
Translate:
Depth of Knowledge (DOK) can be used as a concept, framework and language for checking and confirming how closely activities, items, problems, questions or tasks address and assess a specific standard.
Depth of Knowledge (DOK) can be used as a concept, framework and language to mark and measure the complexity and demand of standards, activities, items, learning objectives and targets, questions or tasks.
Depth of Knowledge (DOK) can be used as a concept, framework and language for delivering instruction, responding to intervention (RtI), extending or enriching learning, and addressing and assessing learning loss.
Learn why the DOK Wheel is inaccurate.
The following information is derived from the work of the following academic authors, researchers and practitioners:
Deconstructing Depth of Knowledge by Erik M. Francis (solutiontree.com/truedok)
Depth of Knowledge (DOK) is a different and deeper way to look at instructional goals and learning expectations of academic standards, curricular activities, assessment items, and generative artificial intelligence (AI) resources. It is a concept, framework and language that can serve as the following:
Depth of Knowledge (DOK) is a concept that clarifies and considers the complexity of the conditions and criteria - or context - in which students must understand and use their learning.
Determining the level of Depth of Knowledge (DOK) demanded involves checking and confirming the following:
That's described and detailed by the words and phrases that follow the cognitive action - or Bloom's - verb that introduces a learning intention, objective or target.
Depth of Knowledge (DOK) does not consider the difficulty of an academic standard, curricular activity, or assessment item. Activities, items, learning objectives and targets, questions, and tasks are described as "easy" or "hard" - or "difficult" - based on the following:
The DOK Level depends on the depth and extent students must comprehend and communicate their learning. Academic standards, activities, items, learning objectives and targets, problems, questions, and tasks are described as "simple" or "complex" based on the following:
There's no 1:1 correspondence between the difficulty and demand of an academic standard, curricular activity, or assessment item. For example, a DOK 1 activity, item, probllem, question or task simply requires students to answer correctly. However, attaining the answer can be "hard" for students - especially when they are first learning about the subject or skill. The demand of the mental processing students must perform at a DOK 3 is complex. However, they may find the experience "easy" once they have developed and demonstrated subject-specific knowledge, understanding, awareness or expertise.
Depth of Knowledge (DOK) is a language educators can use to clarify and communicate what exactly and how deeply academic standards, curricular activities, and assessment items demand students to understand and use their learning to demonstrate proficiency or perform successfully.
The DOK Descriptors state and specify the following:
The DOK Levels are a framework that describes four different contexts or ways academic standards, curricular activities, and assessment items can demand students to understand and use their learning.
NO! The DOK Levels do not function as a taxonomy that categorizes and scaffolds levels of learning. A teaching and learning experience does not have to start at a reduced DOK Level before students can be engaged and encouraged to comprehend and communicate their learning at a deeper DOK Level. Each DOK Level functions independently of each other.
However, each DOK Level can function as a multi-tiered systems of support for delivering instruction, responding to intervention, extending or enriching student learning, and addressing and assessing learning loss.
NO! The level of Depth of Knowledge demanded is not determined by the type or level of thinking students must demonstrate as indicated by a cognitive action - or "Bloom's" - verb.
This misconception was perpetuated by the DOK Wheel that was distributed as part of the Common Core State Standards training materials. However, Dr. Norman Webb (2023), who created the concept and framework of DOK, has refuted the accuracy of the DOK Wheel. He also did not design the DOK Wheel even though he is cited as the creator.
CLICK HERE to read Norman Webb's refutation of the DOK Wheel published in Edutopia.
DO NOT USE THE DOK WHEEL TO DETERMINE THE DOK LEVEL OF AN ACADEMIC STANDARD, CURRICULAR ACTIVITY OR ASSESSMENT ITEM. LOOK BEYOND THE INITIAL COGNITIVE ACTION - OR "BLOOM'S" - VERB INTRODUCING A LEARNING INTENTION, OBJECTIVE OR TARGET.
Depth of Knowledge (DOK) was originally developed by Dr. Norman Webb (1997) as a concept, framework and language system for evaluating the degree of alignment - or DOK consistency - between curricular activities and assessment items that address a specific standard. The DOK Levels function more as a rating scale for coding and comparing the cognitive demand of expectations (standards) and assessments.
The degree of alignment between academic standards, curricular activities, and assessment items are defined and determined as the following:
DOK can also be used to check and confirm how closely activities, items, questions and tasks offered by an e-curricular program, an e-marketplace, or a generative artificial intelligence (AI) resource or tool address and assess a specific standard. This is important not only to check whether the activities, items, and tasks address and assess the standard. It verifies whether a resource or tool's designation of a DOK Level is accurate or inaccurate. It also allows educators to make or modify instructional decisions about how to plan and provide teaching and learning experiences for students.
CLICK HERE to learn more about how to use DOK as a criterion for alignment studies between expectations (standards), activities and assessments.
Cognitive rigor is a concept developed by Dr. Karin Hess (2009), who superimposed Bloom's Revised Taxonomy with Webb's DOK Levels into matrix form. The cognitive rigor of an academic standard, curricular activity, or assessment item is marked and measured by the following:
Determining the cognitive rigor of an academic standard, curricular activity, or assessment item starts with identifying the type of thinking students must demonstrate as indicated by a cognitive action verb and determining the level where it's categorized in the Cognitive Domain of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy.
The next step is to look beyond that initial cognitive action verb at the words and phrases that describe what exactly students must think about - or learn - and how deeply they must comprehend and communicate their knowledge and thinking - or learning. Those words and phrases determine the level of Depth of Knowledge demanded.
Both the level of thinking in Bloom's and the DOK Level inform the cognitive rigor of the academic standard, curricular activity or assessment item. For example, the cognitive rigor of an academic standard, curricular activity, or assessment item that expects students to analyze and demands students to specify and explain (DOK Task) how they can apply knowledge, concepts, or skills (DOK Skill) to establish and explain answers with examples (DOK Response) would be designated as BLOOM'S 4 / DOK 2.
CLICK HERE to learn more about how to use the Hess Matrix to measure the cognitive rigor of academic standards, curricular activities, assessment items, and generative AI resources.
The delivery and intensity of a DOK teaching and learning experience depends on the following:
Teaching and learning for Depth of Knowledge starts with the standard. The standard establishes both the DOK Goal and the DOK Expectation. The DOK Level of the standard sets what Hess (2018) describes as the "ceiling of assessment" - the deepest level a standardized assessment could and should demand students to understand and use their learning. It also establishes the range of DOK Levels assessment items on a standardized assessment could and should evaluate student learning. Demanding students to understand and use their learning beyond the expectations of a standard would make the assessment unfair. Assessing students only at the DOK Level of the standard would make the assessment too difficult. To truly determine the depth and extent of student learning, they should be assessed over a range of DOK Levels leading to and through the standard's learning intention or its most cognitively demanding objective.
If students struggle to achieve the standard at the DOK Level demanded, then the teacher should tier their instruction to the DOK Level at which students can understand and use their learning correctly or successfully. The teacher then builds on the student's strengths and guides them to rise to, reach, and go beyond the level of Depth of Knowledge demanded by the standard being addressed and assessed. This not only utilizes the instructional philosophy and practice of backwards design by starting with the end in mind (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005). It also transforms the DOK Levels into a multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) for delivering instruction, responding to intervention (RtI), extending or enriching student learning, or addressing and assessing learning loss.
Inquiring Minds Want to Learn:
Posing Good Questions
to Promote Student Inquiry
by
Erik M. Francis
Published by Solution Tree