I wanted to share my responses to the four questions I am most frequently asked about Depth of Knowledge (DOK). Obviously, there are many other questions that you might have so please tell me what they are in the comments.
This question doesn’t come up much when doing real world problem-based lessons. However, there aren’t many applications of these higher DOK problems. So, when students ask this question I explain how it is similar to going to the gym: you’re never going to have a situation where you are on your back and have to lift a 100 lb object off your chest. You still exercise though because it makes your whole body stronger. It’s the same with these problems: while you may never have this situation happen, they make your mind stronger by strengthening your critical thinking skills.
Generally, I begin by giving students problems at DOK 1. The important part here is to increase the DOK level as soon as students are ready for it. This is certainly not what I always did. I used to give students 30 routine DOK 1 problems out of the book to do as classwork. At the time that seemed like a good idea, but in retrospect it seems like after correctly answering the first few problems the rest was just busy work. Instead, once it is established that students can do DOK 1, move on to DOK 2, and then to DOK 3.
The easiest place for teachers to begin fitting these into their pacing guide is by inserting them anywhere they would have their students do procedural skills practice. For example, instead of worksheets, classwork, or homework that are filled with DOK 1 problems, you could insert a DOK 2 or DOK 3 problem.
The issue comes from math class traditionally being about getting the answer as quickly as possible with the least amount of effort possible. So, when students try a problem a couple of times and don’t get it right, they want to give up. To combat this, I created the Open Middle Worksheet. It changes the incentives so that students earn points based on attempts and reflecting on their strategy. Many other teachers have found it to be incredibly effective. You can read more about how I used it in this blog post.
I hope that the answers to these questions have been useful. Did I miss any questions that you were wondering about? If so, please let me know in the comments.
How does this fit into assessment of and for learning? I often see that students are assessed thoroughly at the DoK 1 level (and then pushed onto a new topic/standard, but the opportunity to assess and explore in more depth is not emphasized.
What guidelines/questions can help teachers ensure that they are providing opportunities for growth, learning and assessment here? Furthermore, I do not believe that a student must show proficiency in DoK 1 in order to work in DoK 2 or 3. Sometimes exposure to this advanced thinking can trigger greater understanding. Do others have thoughts around this?
Hi Lori. Thanks for sharing your questions and concerns. In terms of how DOK fits into assessment, we have used problems at DOK 1-3 to formatively assess students and we’ve gotten rich (and scary) data back about student misconceptions. Does that match what you think?
I’m a little confused by what you’re asking with this question: “What guidelines/questions can help teachers ensure that they are providing opportunities for growth, learning and assessment here?”
Regarding DOK 1 before DOK 2 or 3, I think I understand your point: “students using a higher depth of knowledge problem can make connections that will help them.” However, I’m not sure that it works the way you think. For example, looking at the tool on this page (http://robertkaplinsky.com/tool-to-distinguish-between-depth-of-knowledge-levels/) which DOK 3 problems would you use with students first if they could not do the DOK 1 problems for that same concept?
Yes, this does match my thinking. Problems at DOK 1-3 all have a place in our assessment practices. I believe we must make sure we are opening questioning past DOK 1 in order to see (provide?) the true learning opportunities in students. Too often, some students are left at the DOK 1 level.
In regards to the DOK 1 before DOK 2/3 conversation: I think that some of the DOK 3 problems can become great problems for differentiation in a math classroom. For example, the DOK 3 problem at your link for standard F-IF.7a provides entry for all learners. While some prior knowledge is necessary, all students can engage in this question, discuss it, compare and contrast, select appropriate tools and potentially solve it even before they have mastered the DOK 1 problem in this set. In fact, it may be a good instructional tool for engaging mathematical curiosity among learners. I am finding that as I open the questions up a bit, learning can feel safer for students. When learner brains are calm (safe), more learning can occur.
Thank you for engaging in conversation with me. I am very interested in how instructional strategies paired with appropriate problem choice can push learning.
I absolutely agree that most of my students appreciated when we started off with a DOK 3 or even DOK 4 task. They could use their real-life experiences and really use their thinking skills. I could give them a “voice” and learn a lot about their understanding and their thinking during their work in groups with these tasks. The abstract recall that we find in DOK 1 tasks was really my end result. Kids learn a lot from reading books – even if they cannot spell every word in the book and even though they cannot spell every word in the book! We can understand that kids can learn a lot from reading. . they can learn grammar, spelling, understanding – and if they do not understand an important (to them) word, they will look it up or they will ask what it means! I believe kids can learn from engaging in rich tasks and I know that they will ask for the knowledge they need as they work. DOK comes last in my mind, when they are very fluent in the processes.
Your statement about “real-life experiences” make me wonder if we are using the labels DOK 1, DOK 2, DOK 3, and DOK 4 in the same way. Here is an example of how I am using them: http://robertkaplinsky.com/tool-to-distinguish-between-depth-of-knowledge-levels/.
With these problems, it would be challenging to begin with DOK 3 if students could not do DOK 1. To be clear though, I do agree that problems like the ones on my lessons page are fine to begin with.
I have read your tables on DOKs, so I do know what you mean and I agree with you – I have shared your tables with many! This is why I was so surprised to read that you start with DOK 1. Let’s look at the Fractions column. . . If you allow your students to create their own fractions, like a puzzle game. .they take ownership of “their fractions” – then they can draw the fractions and discover their sizes and how they relate to one another. . then I would ask them to experiment with placing their fractions on the number line (DOK 2) and finally go to the preciseness of accurately placing them on the number line (DOK 1). Try it! You may be surprised! Giving the kids “power” to create their own, allowing them to experiment gives them a much deeper understanding and engages them much more – is my experience.
Thanks for pushing back Annika. Consider a different problem column, the 5th grade Adding Mixed Numbers column. The process of doing the DOK 3 for that column requires the same skill set needed to the DOK 1. If they cannot do the DOK 1, then they cannot attempt the DOK 3 either.
As for your column, I do see what you’re saying, but I have tried using that problem, and based on my experience, if students don’t have enough understanding to do, say, the DOK 2, then they also don’t have enough understanding to place the fractions they create in the DOK 3 nor know what pairs of numbers would make it easier or harder to place.
I try to start all my concepts with the DOK 3 level question I hope for them to achieve. Then, as they problem solve they ultimately realize they need something else, some missing ability or methods, or there is just an inefficiency. When doing this, the “why” is clearly shown and students engagement into the problem solving process is heightened. The more they do, including realizing what they don’t know, the more they learn.
At least that is my goal. 😎
I think you have a great goal! All too often we start with DOK 1 tasks, go on to DOK 2 and then 3 and 4, when students will be “hooked” if they get a DOK3 or even better a longer project, DOK 4, where they see the need for learning new DOK 1 (memorizing) and DOK 2 (number crunching) skills. I do know I exaggerated a bit with my parentheses, I hope you understand that.
I used to work with a great text book that used this strategy throughout the school year, Integrated Mathematics Program (IMP). The kids bought in to each and every project.
Walking away with a new action step to take back to teachers at my school – “For example, instead of worksheets, classwork, or homework that are filled with DOK 1 problems, you could insert a DOK 2 or DOK 3 problem.” It’s natural for teacher to increase number complexity when students are seeing success. BUT, are teachers transitioning students into problems beyond that DOK? Ready to take action!
Great points Ashley. Definitely worth thinking about how we approach increasing complexity.