Rigor Demystified, Now What?: Applying & Aligning Webb’s Depth of Knowledge to Literacy & Math Instruction.

Format

Individual Presentation

Presenters

Barbara Serianni, Armstrong State UniversityFollow
Kelly Brooksher, Armstrong State UniversityFollow

First Presenter's Institution

NA

Second Presenter's Institution

NA

Location

Sloane

Strand #1

Academic Achievement & School Leadership

Relevance

Further exploration into the mandates that require an increase in academic rigor within classrooms to ultimately prepare all students to be college and career ready. After acquiring the foundational skills of understanding rigor, building rigor into their instruction, and applying the four levels of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge. Rigor Demystified, Now What?: Applying & Aligning Webb’s Depth of Knowledge to Literacy & Math Instruction will address these issues specifically in the content areas of literacy and mathematics.

Brief Program Description

After exploring the four levels of cognitive rigor in Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) and the alignment to the Common Core. Participants will further engage in hands-on activities designed to model the application of DOK in the content areas of literacy and mathematics to improve instructional alignment, increase student engagement, and ensure appropriate rigor in classroom activities and assessment.

Summary

Participants will have the opportunity to continue to explore and develop a working understanding of the four levels of cognitive rigor in Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) with focus on literacy and mathematics instruction. Session objectives include: 1) Participants will be able to practice the application of DOK in the content area of literacy while focusing on instructional alignment, student engagement, and rigor. 2) Participants will be able to practice the application of DOK in the content area of mathematics while focusing on instructional alignment, student engagement, and rigor.

This session is designed as a follow-up to Demystifying Rigor: Dissecting Webb’s Depth of Knowledge for the Classroom. This extension opportunity will provide participants with a student-centered, collaborative opportunity to apply their own understanding of DOK and continue to explore the utilization of the DOK wheel to plan classroom instruction in the areas of literacy and mathematics. Participants will continue to identify the required cognitive level of CCSS and practice creating and aligning instruction and assessment in literacy and mathematics. Collaborative activities will allow participants to apply DOK to standards in these two content areas and create “mini-lessons” that demonstrate the required level of rigor of selected standards. These “make and take” activities can be tailored to the needs of each participant and will provide a framework for designing instruction and assessment as they return to their own classrooms.

The flexible grouping in this session will allow participants to work with others in content or grade-level groups to design relevant and authentic activities for their own classrooms that align to content and grade-level standards and DOK. All activities are student-centered and are designed to ensure that students reach their maximum potential via the exploration, understanding of alignment, and acquisition of adding rigor within today’s classrooms.

Evidence

The concept of cognitive rigor was introduced by Karin Hess when she superimposed Webb’s Depth of Knowledge over Bloom’s Taxonomy and created a cognitive rigor matrix which has been used by many states to identify the depth and complexity of standards and assessments (Hess, Jones, Carlock, & Walkup, 2009). In 2011, Adam Wyse and Steven Viger (2011) investigated alignment between standards, level of rigor, and standardized test questions. Results concluded that item writers have a basic understanding of DOK, but have misconceptions in how they relate to rigor. Many item writers believed that rigor was correlated to difficulty, rather than the items relation to cognitive abilities. Moreover, creating a disconnect between practice and theory. This study adds to the body of literature to support the apparent misconceptions of DOK in relation to alignment of standards and the expectations set forth in said standards. Further research concludes that there is a disconnect between interpreting standards and alignment in mathematics, and a great need for more intensive training (Webb, Herman, & Webb, 2006). More recently, in 2012, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium adopted the concept of cognitive rigor and the Hess matrix (Smarter Balanced, 2012). Cognitive rigor has been accepted and adopted for use by developers of curriculum and assessments. In addition, Judy Brunner (2013) extensively discusses the need for students to be aware of the common core, the origins of the standards, and best practices in deliver this new literacy content to students. As a result there is a need for teachers to apply the concept of cognitive rigor and incorporate a range of cognitive demand in their classroom instruction and assessment.

Brunner, J. (2013). Academic rigor: The core of the core. Principal Leadership, 13(6), 24-28. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1296773063?accountid=8366

Herman, J., & Linn, R. (2014). New assessments, new rigor. Educational Leadership, 71(6), 34-37.

Hess, K. K., Carlock, D., Jones, B., & Walkup, J. R. (2009). What exactly do “fewer, clearer, and higher standards” really look like in the classroom? Using a cognitive rigor matrix to analyze curriculum, plan lessons, and implement assessments. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Detroit MI.

Hess, K. K., Jones, B. S., Carlock, D., & Walkup, J. R. (2009). Cognitive rigor: Blending the strengths of Bloom's Taxonomy and Webb's Depth of Knowledge to enhance classroom-level processes. Retrieved from ERIC database. ED517804). http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED517804.pd

Holmes, V. (2012). Depth of teachers' knowledge: Frameworks for teachers' knowledge of mathematics. Journal Of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 13(1), 55.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (April 2012). Mathematics Item Specifications Grades 3-5. http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/TaskItemSpecifications/Mathematics/MathematicsGeneralItemandTaskSpecificationsGrades3-5.pdf

Webb, N. (1997). Research Monograph Number 6: “Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments on mathematics and science education. Washington, D.C.: CCSSO.

Webb, N., Herman, J. Webb, N., & National Center for Research of Evaluations, S. C. (2006). Alignment of Mathematics State-Level Standards and Assessments: The Role of Reviewer Agreement. CSE Report 685. National Center for Research on Evaluations, Standards, and Student Testing.

Wyse, A. E., & Viger, S. G. (2011). How item writers understand depth of knowledge. Educational Assessment, 16(4), 185-206

Biographical Sketch

Dr. Barbara Serianni is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Childhood and Exceptional Student Education at Armstrong State University. Her areas of interest include early academic intervention through the effective use of RTI, co-teaching, mastery learning, and the effective application of rigor in instruction and assessment.

Dr. Kelly Brooksher is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Childhood and Exceptional Student Education in the College of Education at Armstrong State University. Her diverse background includes K-8 experience in both regular and special education as well as leadership roles as a teacher and administrator. Her research interests includes: co-teaching, grading & assessment, and higher-order thinking strategies.

Keyword Descriptors

Teaching, learning, rigor, alignment, engagement, Depth of Knowledge, Common Core State Standards, student-centered, literacy, mathematics

Presentation Year

2016

Start Date

3-7-2016 10:30 AM

End Date

3-7-2016 11:45 AM

Recommended Citation

Serianni, Barbara and Brooksher, Kelly, "Rigor Demystified, Now What?: Applying & Aligning Webb’s Depth of Knowledge to Literacy & Math Instruction." (2016). National Youth Advocacy and Resilience Conference. 137.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/nyar_savannah/2016/2016/137