# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EQuip Rubric for Social Studies Lessons and Units (Grades K-12)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resource Vetting Protocol for Social Studies Teachers

# data[].attributes.headline
7-8 Scope and Sequence - Preliminary Thoughts

# data[].attributes.subject
7-8 Scope and Sequence - Preliminary Thoughts

# data[].attributes.body
Option 1

Keep current unit progression

Option 2

7th Grade

America before and after colonization

Revolution and the colonies

Forming a new nation

8th Grade

Launch of the new republic

Expanding nation

America mid-1800s

Union challenged

Option 3

8th Grade - To have students engaged in their learning by having them be a stakeholder in their learning.

Identity - Who Am I?

What makes me who I am?

1789-1824

Character

What do you do when no one is looking?

Jackson

Change/Conflict/Growth

How does change and conflict allow us to grow as individuals?

Industrial Revolution

Immigration

Westward movement

Decisions

How do my decisions affect myself and others?

Slavery

Courage/Resiliency

Are courage and resiliency traits innate or acquired?

Civil War

Reconstruction

# data[].attributes.body
All elements of the CBCI

Purpose

Content (tied to standards)

POG

Concepts

Guiding Questions

Factual

Conceptual

Provocative

Consistent for all teachers

Instructional practices may vary?

Skills

Reading

Research

Inquiry

May add more here

Assessments

Designated formative and summative

Standards

Sources

Use backward design in the revision process

# data[].attributes.body
Integrate content and skills

Life skills

Cultural literacy

Personal development

POG

Civics

Aligned with adolescent neuro-science

The purpose is for students to understand our past, connect to today and bceome citizens who are informed and active

To ensure that students have access to a variety of experiences that prepare them to engae with the modern world

The ability to read, analyze, think, collaborate and communicate

Passion, desire and confidence to engage as citizens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WebbAlign is a proud WCEPS program. WCEPS works to extend the reach of educational innovations that originated at UW Madison to positively impact learners of all ages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NPS 8th Grade Social Studies - Rubicon Atlas Units

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NPS Seventh Grade Rubicon Atlas Units 0431_001

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The creator of the well-known framework explains how it helps teachers evaluate the cognitive complexity of a task or assignment-and clears up some misconceptions about it.

Question: What is the 37th digit in the number pi? (No calculator or googling allowed!)

Coming up with the 37th digit of pi is a very difficult task. But it's not a complex task. In our classrooms, it's important that we know what makes a task complex versus difficult so that we can effectively address the rigor or depth of K-12 academic expectations. One of us (Norman Webb) developed the Depth of Knowledge (DOK) framework in the late 1990s precisely for this purpose: to categorize expectations and tasks according to the complexity of engagement required.

DOK provides a common language that can be used to determine the degree to which the complexity of cognitive engagement, explicit in academic standards, is being translated into appropriate learning opportunities and assessment tasks. Because today's academic standards emphasize conceptual understanding and authentic application of disciplinary practice, evaluating complexity of engagement is more important than ever. This article explores how teachers and administrators can use DOK to work more efficiently, effectively, and purposefully when they design curriculum.

DOK IN THE CLASSROOM

In general, lessons and courses are anchored in academic standards. Even for coursework that is not standards-based, teachers design curriculum based on learning objectives. To use DOK in your practice, start by looking at the standards (or other learning objectives) that anchor a lesson. What is the complexity of cognitive engagement required for success? When interpreting a standard, you can use the full DOK definitions for a specific content area. These general key questions can also help:

DOK 1: Is the focus on recall of facts or reproduction of taught processes?

DOK 2: Is the focus on relationships between concepts and ideas or using underlying conceptual understanding?

DOK 3: Is the focus on abstract inference or reasoning, nonroutine problem-solving, or authentic evaluative or argumentative processes that can be completed in one sitting?

DOK 4: Is the focus at least with the complexity of DOK 3, but iterative, reflective work and extended time are necessary for completion?

Evaluating the complexity of an expectation or task. When using DOK to evaluate educational materials, think about the degree of processing of concepts and skills required. For example, recalling the names of the state capitals is a low-complexity task. Retrieving bits of information from memory requires a minimal degree of processing of concepts. Either it's in there and can be accessed... or it's not. Similarly, correctly executing a multistep protocol is a simple task: There are specific steps to follow, and the protocol is either completed correctly... or not. As another example, we may ask students to use the standard algorithm to add two three-digit numbers or to follow specific, ordered steps to properly focus a microscope.

In contrast, tasks that require abstract reasoning and nonroutine problem-solving are highly complex. For example, tasks that involve analyzing multiple alternative solutions with consideration of constraints and trade-offs or building original evidential arguments require significantly more processing of concepts and skills than do tasks that must be completed via recall.

For example, we may ask students to develop an engineering design solution to a problem they identify. We could have students write or present a research-based argument about what time school should start and end, taking into account different perspectives of students, families, and staff. Overall, complexity of cognitive engagement depends on multiple factors, including the degree of processing required, the degree of intricacies (interconnected parts), and the extent to which the work is concrete versus abstract.

Appropriate use of DOK differentiates difficulty from complexity. Although complex tasks (like analyzing alternative solutions or building an evidential argument) are likely to be difficult, many difficult tasks (like correctly following a multistep protocol or memorizing state capitals) are not complex. Overall, difficulty depends on multiple factors, including the amount of effort required, the opportunity for error, and the opportunity to learn. "What does a fossa eat?" is a very simple question. But for someone who has never had the opportunity to learn what a fossa eats, it is also a very difficult question-unanswerable, in fact.

Use of DOK can help ensure that tasks that are intended to be complex are, indeed, complex (and not just difficult). It is also important to recognize when difficulty is inherent to a task. For example, long division and use of standard English punctuation may be difficult, but they are also tasks that students are typically expected to master.

AVOIDING MISINTERPRETATIONS OF DOK

As DOK has become a widely used tool in the United States and beyond, a variety of misinterpretations have inevitably emerged. For example, a frequently reproduced and highly misleading graphic (known to some as "the DOK wheel" and to others as the "wheel of misfortune") attributes verbs to the different levels of DOK. This graphic suggests that a verb can be used to determine the complexity of engagement required by an expectation or task.

For instance, according to this graphic, the verb identify indicates a DOK 1. That could surely work in some cases-imagine having students "identify the circle in a group of shapes." But now imagine having students "identify a strategy for addressing attendance issues using data from multiple sources." Obviously, the complexity of these two tasks is significantly different despite using the same verb. To determine complexity, we need to look beyond the verb and consider the full scope of an expectation or task.

Another common misrepresentation is seen in progression or stair-step models that depict DOK as a hierarchy like Bloom's or Maslow's. But learning does not necessarily progress "up" from simple to complex. Consider mathematics: We often have students work conceptually with an idea before we introduce a more simple, rote approach. For example, we typically have students work with manipulables and form conceptual constructs of the idea of area before we introduce the equation l x w = a.

If you have ever used project-based learning (PBL), you have likely seen that a student may dive into work on a DOK 3 problem only to discover a simultaneous need for a DOK 1 task, like looking up a definition or taking a measurement. In fact, the use of a complex problem to motivate a need-to-know for lower-complexity goals is a core rationale for use of PBL.

Misrepresenting learning as progressing from simple to complex can be harmful if students who struggle with low-complexity tasks are held back from the rich, engaging, complex educational opportunities that we know promote learning. Ensuring access to complex learning opportunities for all students is foundational to the equity-focused goals of standards-based systems.

Incorporating DOK into practice can start by using the simple questions included here to ensure clearly and commonly understood learning targets. Then, the same process can be applied to the questions, tasks, and prompts we use in lessons and assessments. By defining and naming the DOK of the different components, we can work with greater focus and intentionality to check that the complexity of engagement explicit within those learning targets is carried through in the classroom.

And, by the way, the 37th digit of pi is 4.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inside Look at Webb's Depth of Knowledge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The creator of the well-known framework explains how it helps teachers evaluate the cognitive complexity of a task or assignment-and clears up some misconceptions about it.

# data[].attributes.body
Lesson for Unit 6 An Expanding Nation (DBQ)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Notes from NMS 8th Grade Social Studies Meeting 092524

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newtown MS - November 5th Professional LEarning

# data[].attributes.body
1. Historical Accuracy

2. Bias

3. Offers Different Perspectives

4. Tools for teaching skills

Primary source analysis

Assistance with informational text

5. Helps students make connections

6. Engaging activities

Multimedia

Collaborative

7. Supplemental content tools

8. Easy online access

9. Resources can be edited

10. "Boring" quotient

11. Helpful teachers' edition

12. Includes inquiry-based activities that are focused on the development of higher order thinking skills

# data[].attributes.body
Challenges as teachers

Providing individual feedback - time consuming

Time to create

Gamification of instruction

Collaboration time with teachers to co-develop lessons

Instructional time with students

Location - physical proximity for classrooms

Need to know "what is the job"

# data[].attributes.body
Questions/Challenges

How much direct instruction

How much higher order abstract thinking

How to chunk activities

Differences in gender development

Social media influence

How to give meaningful feedback

How much tech in the classroom

# data[].attributes.body
Time management

Success driven

Can collaborate

Detailed

Editor

Supportive

Goal-driven

Communicator

Analyze

Self-directed

Curious

Ability to Research

Learning can be fun

Sets goals

Questions

Confidence

Organized

Self-Advocates