What Is Cognitive Rigor?
Rigor has become the educational “buzzword” of the 21st Century. Cognitive rigor is marked and measured by the depth and extent students are challenged and engaged to demonstrate and communicate their knowledge and thinking. It also marks and measures the depth and complexity of student learning experiences. This instructional model developed by Karin Hess (2009) superimposes two educational frameworks that are commonly used to establish performance objectives and learning targets:
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy: The revised version by Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl (2001) defines the kind of knowledge and type of thinking students are expected to demonstrate in order to answer questions, address problems, accomplish tasks, and analyze texts and topics. In their revised version, Anderson and Krathwohl distinguish between knowledge and thinking by splitting the Cognitive Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy into two dimensions that address the following:
The Knowledge Dimension
The Cognitive Process Dimension
Each of these dimensions within the Cognitive Domain of the revised taxonomy categorizes “the skills and stuff” students will learn based upon their complexity. The skills are the cognitive actions and processes students are expected to demonstrate and develop. The stuff is the curriculum and subject matter that is being taught and learned – or what the landmark report A Nation at Risk (1983) describes as “the very stuff of education”. By splitting the Cognitive Domain into two dimensions, Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy clearly distinguishes between the subject matter content (knowledge) that is being taught and learned and what students must do (thinking) with what they are learning.
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Levels
The depth of knowledge levels in the model developed by Norman Webb (1997, 2002) establishes how deeply or extensively students are expected to transfer and use what they are learning.
While Bloom’s and Webb’s both deal with establishing and evaluatIng the depth and complexity of student learning experiences, they differ in regards to their their scope, application, and sequencing.
Bloom’s defines the skills (cognition) and stuff (content, concepts, and courses of action) students will learn as part of an educational experience. Webb’s designates the scenario, setting, or situation (context) in which students will transfer and use the deeper knowledge and thinking they have acquired and developed. The “rigor” of a learning experience is marked and measured how deeply students are expected to think about what they are learning and how extensively they are to express and share what they have learned.
Also, Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge Model is not a taxonomy with levels that scaffold based on their complexity like Bloom’s. Hess (2006) describes the Webb’s levels as “ceilings” that designate how deeply or extensively students are expected to transfer and use the knowledge and understanding they have acquired and developed. For example, learning experiences at a DOK-1 level expects students to develop and demonstrate background knowledge or foundational understanding about a specific text or topic. An educational experience at a DOK-2 level challenges students to examine and explain how academic concepts and skills can be used to answer questions, address problems, accomplish tasks, and analyze specific texts and topics. An educational experience at a DOK-3 level engages students to think strategically about how and why they can transfer and use what they are learning to attain and explain answers, outcomes, results, and solutions. A learning experience at a DOK-4 level encourages students to think extensively about what else can be done with the deeper knowledge and understanding they have acquired and developed as well as how can they personally use what they have learned in a variety of academic or real world contexts.
Cognitive rigor involves superimposing Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy with Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Model to develop educational objectives. Bloom’s establishes the kind of knowledge and type of thinking to demonstrate. Webb’s designates the context in which the knowledge and thinking – or learning – will be transferred and used and also how it will be expressed and shared. The context is designated by what comes after the verb in an educational objective. This context can be content-specific and focus on knowledge acquisition (DOK-1); focus on knowledge application (DOK-2) or knowledge analysis (DOK-3) of how and why concepts and procedures can be transferred and used to attain and explain answers, outcomes, and results; or emphasize knowledge augmentation (DOK-4) by encourage students to think critically and creatively about what else can be done with the knowledge, how else could the knowledge be used, or – most importantly – what can they personally design, develop, and do with the knowledge.
Cognitive rigor expects students both demonstrate and communicate the depth and extent of their learning using some format or type of oral, written, creative, or technical expression. It also expects not only to attain but also explain answers, conclusions, outcomes, results, and solutions. By using good questions instead of performance objectives that direct students simply to do something to prove they are learning, we not only prompt students to think deeply about the texts and topics they are reading and reviewing but also express and share how they can use the concepts and procedures they are learning in detail, in-depth, insightfully, and in their own unique way.
That’s what truly marks and measures rigorous learning!
Erik M. Francis, M.Ed., M.S. is an author, educator, and speaker who specializes in teaching and learning that promotes cognitive rigor and college and career readiness. . He is also the author of Now THAT’S a Good Question! How to Promote Cognitive Rigor Through Classroom Questioning published by ASCD. He is also the owner of Maverik Education LLC, providing academic professional development and consultation to K-12 schools, colleges, and universities on developing learning environments and delivering educational experiences that challenge students to demonstrate higher order thinking and communicate depth of knowledge.