Is there a C.R.Q. 0 - or Should There Be One?

Should there be a C.R.Q. 0?

That was a question posed to me today from a teacher during a professional development training I was conducting for teachers who worked at the Santa Clara County of Education Community Schools. I was in the middle of explaining my Questions 4 Cognitive Rigor template that I developed to help teachers organize and scaffold their questioning. I was explaining how the template was structured in the following manner:

• C.R.Q.1 questions inform students of what are the facts they must acquire and gather in order to think deeply about what they are learning.
• C.R.Q.2 questions focus on the standards by challenging and engaging students to think deeply about how and why does the information be processed into deeper knowledge and thinking.
• C.R.Q.3 questions expand students' knowledge and extend their thinking further by asking how can knowledge, understanding, and awareness be transferred and used in a variety of circumstances and contexts.
• C.R.Q.4 questions ask students to think critically and creatively about how they can convey what do you think, believe, or feel; express what is your opinion, perspective, or thoughts; or share what can you create, design, develop, plan, or produce using what they have learned.

The purpose of this template is for teachers to organize their questions so students can process the information they have acquired and gathered into knowledge and thinking they can transfer and use to address and respond to a variety of circumstances and situations in-depth, insightfully, and in their own unique way. The questions are called cognitive rigor questions - or C.R.Q.s - because they challenge and engage students to demonstrate and communicate the depth of their knowledge and thinking.

For years, I have been training schools and teachers on how to use this template to organize and scaffold instruction through inquiry and questioning. However, today, I was asked the good question by a teacher stated at the beginning of this blog post, "Should there be a C.R.Q.-0?"

Immediately, I asked the question I have become known to ask whenever I want someone to clarify their response: "What do you mean?"

The teacher explained how a C.R.Q.0 could be a good question that asks students to share what they already know, understand, or are aware of the concept and content that they are going to learn. She did not see where there was a section in the Questions 4 Cognitive Rigor template to determine background knowledge and was wondering whether there should be a C.R.Q.0 that does not ask what do you need to know, understand, do, or think but rather what do you already know, understand, or are aware of this concept or content you're about to learn.

To be honest, I never thought about designating a category of a C.R.Q.0 that can serve as a check for background knowledge or understanding. In fact, I really never thought about checking for background knowledge and understanding because I associated those questions as more evaluative while the C.R.Q.s I developed were more instructional, driving as well as assessing learning.

However, the idea of a C.R.Q.0 does intrigue me, and for most of today I have been wrapping my head around providing a C.R.Q.0 category that teachers can use not only to determine but also drive what students already know, understand, and are aware of concepts and content.

The C.R.Q.s I developed were derived from the concept of cognitive rigor developed by Karin Hess, Dennis Carlock, Ben Jones, and John Walkup (2009) that aligned Bloom's Revised Taxonomy with Webb's four levels of Depth-of-Knowledge. Walkup addressed the idea of is there a D.O.K.-0 in his blog. He suggests how these activities are "pseudo-challenging" or "appear intellectually challenging" (Walkup, 2015). However, from the description of the task Dr. Walkup describes- baking a cake resembling a cell - it seems as if this task would qualify more as a D.O.K.-1 in that is asks students to recall and reproduce information but in a creative manner.

In regards to C.R.Q.'s, that activity would be a C.R.Q.4. However, the task would be prompted by asking either how could you bake a cake that details the structure and discusses the functions of the parts a cell or even how could you construct a model or graphic representation that details the parts of a cell and their function?

While the C.R.Q.'s I have developed are derived from Webb's Depth-of-Knowledge, these questions focus more on how students can express and share their knowledge and thinking. The depth of their knowledge, thinking, and disposition depends upon how they are expected to demonstrate and communicate their learning. C.R.Q.1's ask students what is the information. C.R.Q.2's ask how can an answer be attained using the information. C.R.Q.3's ask how and why can the information be used to attain a particular response or result. C.R.Q.4's ask what else can you do with the information.

So why not include a C.R.Q.0 that asks what do you already know, understand, and are aware of the information?

Am I going to include a C.R.Q.0 category to the Questions 4 Cognitive Rigor? That's not for me to decide. That's up to you. If you think a C.R.Q.0 would provide students with a deeper educational experience and engage them to think deeply as well as express and share the depth of their knowledge, thinking, and disposition, then I say go for it.

After all, it's your lesson and your students. I'm just providing a tool you can use and a means to challenge and engage your students. What you do with it is up to you.

Erik M. Francis, M.Ed., M.S., is the lead professional education specialist and owner of Maverik Education LLC, providing professional development and consultation on teaching and learning for cognitive rigor. His book Now THAT'S a Good Question! Questions for Cognitive Rigor will be published by ASCD in November 2015. For more information on this topic or how to receive professional development at your site, please visit www.maverikeducation.com.

Lesson Planning by What's Happening or Trending in the World

One of the things I often hear from the educators with whom I work is about the curriculum they are using or the lack of curriculum they have to address the cognitive rigor of college and career ready standards.  They often express their concern about the resources provided to them and how they do not seem to be aligned to the standards even though the textbook publishers proclaim they are.  They also discuss how they do not have the curriculum that truly reflects the kind of questions their students will encounter and experience on the PARCC or SBAC assessments.

However, what if I told you that lessons can be derived and planned just by checking what's trending on Yahoo! or watching the news this morning?

It's 5:15 am as I write this, and I am in my hotel room in Lake Havasu, AZ, (not on vacation) watching the news and surfing the net before I get ready to work with one of my schools for the day.  I go on Yahoo! and I see this is article the lead article on the page: http://news.yahoo.com/signs-alien-life-found-2025-nasas-chief-scientist-212655192.html

Immediately, I'm thinking about how this would be a great lesson to teach today in school and how I wish I had a classroom where I could have the students read not only this article but also other articles and editorials that are currently appearing on the internet discussing this topic.  Though I don't have a classroom to teach, I do immediately take out my cognitive rigor questions and decide to make some Daily Good Questions as if I would be teaching this today.

The first thing I think about is what is the topical good question that the article addresses.  I also want students to expand their knowledge and extend their thinking about the content, ideas, and messages presented in the article.

Then I check the Next Generation Science Standards and the English Language Arts Common Core State Standards to determine what overarching concepts and standards could be addressed in this lesson.

I also consider the universal ideas and themes the article and its subject matter broach.

Then I think about what exactly would I want my students to do with the information they have read.

This is what I came up with  - and it only took me approximately 15 minutes not including the time it took to read the article.

Now I not only have a standards-driven lesson for the day but also a student-centered experience that has students thinking deeply about the ideas and information stated in the article as well as expressing and sharing their own knowledge, thinking, and disposition about what they have read.

This is the benefit of teaching and learning for cognitive rigor.  It allows us educators to provide our students deeper educational experiences that stimulate their thinking and deepen their knowledge, understanding, and awareness not only about concepts and content but also the academic standards they must meet and exceed.  It also provides us educators to expand our students' knowledge and extend their thinking across the curriculum and beyond the classroom to recognize and realize the relevance of the academic skills and subjects they are learning.

We don't need to be beholden to the curriculum packages and textbooks provided to us.  All we need to do is consider the connection between academic concepts and real world circumstances.  This can be done not only in the literary based courses such as English language arts and history / social studies but also the mathematical and scientific courses that are more conceptual and procedural.  Consider the following example that involves using the Pythagorean Theorem.

This is a topical good question that was derived directly from the Mathematics Common Core State Standards - specifically CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.8.G.B.7.  The images were found from an image search I conducted looking for mathematical and real world problems involving the Pythagorean Theorem.  If I was to teach this lesson, I would ask my students to address and respond to the topical good question and choose to solve either 2 mathematical and 1 real world problem or 1 mathematical and 2 real world problems to use as their evidentiary support in their response.  They are still "doing the math" by solving these problems.  However, they are also thinking mathematically about how can the Pythagorean Theorem and its converse be used to determine unknown side lengths in right triangles and express and share their response using some form of oral, written, creative, or technical communication.

Again, this was all planned using the internet as well my own curiosity, interest. imagination, and wonder about the concepts and content I would be teaching.

So before we go to bed or as we wake up in the morning, take a moment to read the paper, watch the news, or search the internet - or even have the news playing in the background.  Look and listen what's going on in the world.  Think about how it relates to what you are teaching or how it could address the standards.  Then make those good questions that will not only stimulate students' thinking and deepen their knowledge, understanding, and awareness but also expand their knowledge, extend their thinking, and pique their curiosity, imagination, interest, and wonder.

That's what good questions do, and it can be easy and simple to provide students deeper educational experience if you ask good questions.

Erik M. Francis, M.Ed., M.S., is the lead professional education specialist and owner of Maverik Education LLC, providing professional development and consultation on teaching and learning for cognitive rigor. His book Now THAT'S a Good Question! Questions for Cognitive Rigor will be published by ASCD in November 2015. For more information on this topic or how to receive professional development at your site, please visit www.maverikeducation.com.

Where Should We Go From Here? A Suggestion for Reviewing the Common Core State Standards

"Where do we go from here now that all other children are growin' upAnd how do we spend our lives if there's no-one to lend us a hand."

- "Games People Play"

Alan Parsons Project

Now that the AZ Senate has once again voted down a bill that would abolish the Common Core State Standards, it's time for all stakeholders involved - the teachers, the administrators, the parents, and the legislators - to look closely at the real issues surrounding the standards. The problem with the Common Core State Standards are not with the standards themselves.  While they are not "perfect", they are more rigorous in regards to the level of thinking and depth of knowledge they expect students to demonstrate and communicate - much more than previous state-based standards that asked students to remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create without any context.  

The standards should be reviewed by members of the community to ensure these standards will appropriately and effectively prepare our children for the demands and expectations they will face in their postsecondary academic and vocational endeavors.  The complaints about how the standards were adopted and implemented are valid.  They are a true example of how poorly the change process has been implemented.

The true problem with the Common Core State Standards is the emphasis that has been placed upon them, and unfortunately this emphasis has not been academic.  They have been used as a political example of federal government intrusion.  They have been used as an economic reason to sell and purchase new textbooks and curriculum packages.  They have also been used a threat to schools to "raise the rigor" and "raise their performance" as measured by student achievement on tests.

Another key concern about the Common Core State Standards is how students and teachers have been prepared to address these standards.  While state and county education agencies have provided professional development to educators, these trainings have been costly not only fiscally but also in regards to time.  It is impossible for a one-day professional development - be it full day, half-day, or two hours before or after school - to be effective without follow-up and follow-through.  The strategies that are also being taught as part of this professional development are not only unfocused but also require every teacher to teach a certain way.  Instead of asking teachers to think deeply about how could these standards be taught, we are directly instructing them that this is the way the standards MUST be taught without any evidence or proof that these instructional methodologies, strategies, and techniques are effective.

Parents have also not been involved in the change process.  That's not just the school's fault.  Some parents truly do not have time to think about how the standards are changing the expectations for teaching and learning.  The impression and the message they are receiving about the standards are from the homework sheets students are bringing home that have been mistakenly labeled as "Common Core math" and "Common Core reading and writing" along with the 30 second news bites, talk show topics, or articles in newspapers and magazines that focus more on the debate over rather than the analysis of the CCSS.

If the Common Core State Standards are to serve their intent and purpose, then the education and political decision-makers not only in Arizona but every state that have adopted the Common Core State Standards need to refocus their attention on how to implement these standards effectively and efficiently. Here are some questions schools and their stakeholders should reflect upon and review: 1) How do the standards provide students educational experiences that will stimulate their thinking and deepen their understanding of the concepts and content they are learning? 2) How do the standards provide teachers the opportunity to think deeply - critically, creatively, decisively, flexibly, practically, and strategically - how to provide deeper, student-centered teaching and learning experiences that expand students' knowledge and extend their thinking across the curriculum and beyond the classroom? 3) How do the standards serve as a measure of student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and overall school performance not just based upon on formative and summative assessments but on authentic assessments that allow students to express and share their knowledge, thinking, and disposition in-depth, insightfully, and in their own unique way using oral, written, creative, or technical expression? These are the good questions that should drive the review of the standards.  What makes them good questions is not their form but rather their intent and purpose, which is to have us think deeply, examine and explore thoroughly, and communicate clearly deeper knowledge, understanding, and awareness - the same things we want our students to do with their learning. Forget all the rhetoric from those who support or are against the standards.  Put aside the textbooks and curriculum packages sold to the local education agency that advertise they are "aligned to and address the Common Core State Standards".  Let's look closely at these standards with a critical  - yet unbiased view to determine whether they meet their intent and purpose, which is to challenge and engage students to demonstrate and communicate their deeper knowledge, thinking, and disposition about the concepts and content they are learning.

Check Your Agenda at the Door! The Misconstruction of the Common Core

Today I was proud to speak before the Arizona Senate Education Committee about the Common Core State Standards.  I am against the legislative bill that would rid our state of the CCSS.  However, it might not be for the reasons that you think.

As I said in my testimony, I support the intent and purpose of CCSS, which is to challenge and engage students to demonstrate and communicate deeper levels of cognitive rigor i.e. higher order thinking and depth of knowledge.  However, I do not support the politics and economics that have sullied the intent and purpose of these standards.

The CCSS are not the problem with education.  The problem lies in the implementation and impression.  The message is being misinterpreted, which is unfortunate because it allowed us for the first time to set nationwide expectations for student learning.  How to teach the standards still lies in state and local control.  Unfortunately, that control has been turned over to the politicians who have made this another excuse to rail against our current federal administration and the textbook companies who have wrongly misconstrued, "This is now the way you need to read, write, and do math."

The CCSS has unfortunately become an extension of No Child Left Behind in that accountability is more important and vital - or essential - than academics.  The difference is that the accountability was a federal mandate that tasked the states to provide standards-based instruction at the state level.  These standards, unfortunately, were neither well-written nor cognitively demanding.  The CCSS are not only cognitively complex but also flexible enough for both students and teachers to think critically and creatively how to participate in and provide deeper teaching and learning experiences.

Unfortunately, the assessments and the focus on them have muddied the intent and purpose of the CCSS, which is to teach our children not what is the information but rather how and why the information can be used to attain a desired or specific response and result, what else can be done with the information to attain a certain outcome or solution, and - most importantly - what can you, the student, do with the information you have learned.  

Education has become more about accountability and assessment than academics.  We are teaching students to take tests that have high stakes.  However, are those high stakes placed on the students ability to demonstrate and communicate their learning clearly, correctly, and creatively or are the high stakes more placed more on the school to perform?  What's more important - that the student or the school receives an A? 

The work our children are bringing home are not because of the standards.  This is the work that the textbook companies and curriculum publishers are perpetuating as "Common Core Math" and "Common Core Literacy".  With all the work I have done with the CCSS, I have yet to see any question on a PARCC or SBAC  test that resembles anything featured on Khan Academy or published by Harcourt-Mifflin or Pearson.  There is no one way to teach the CCSS because it is not a curriculum or a program.  They are a set of performance objectives that defines what a child must know, understand, and be able to do by the end of a grade level.  How they get there should lie in the professional decisions and judgment of the educators.

If the CCSS are to fulfill its intent and purpose, then it needs to be taken away from the politicians and publishers and given to the educators who can teach these cognitively rigorous standards critically and creatively.  It is as simple as asking kids, "Why is this the answer?" to a math problem or providing a real world situation in which the mathematical practice, principle, and process can be used.  It is as simple as students thinking deeply and conveying what is the meaning and message behind the literary fiction and nonfiction texts they are reading and reviewing; explaining how authors use the conventions of writing, language, and even production to express the meaning and message; and sharing how could the student create, design, develop, plan, or produce a similar text that addresses the meaning and messages of these texts in their own unique way.  We need to teach students how to process the academic information - the data, the details, the definitions - they have researched and retrieved into deeper knowledge and thinking they can transfer and use in a variety of circumstances and conditions as well as express and share their deeper understanding and awareness in their own unique way.

That is what signifies college and career readiness - not performance on a standardized test.  That is the intent and purpose of the Common Core State Standards.  That is what unfortunately has been lost in all the politicking and commercialization not only of the standards but also education.

Do I think the Common Core State Standards are good standards?  I would say they are good not in the way they are written but rather how they challenge and engage students to think deeply and express and share their deeper knowledge, thinking, and disposition in their own unique way using oral, written, creative, and technical expression.  That's what I think makes both a standard and the questions that address it good.  Do I think they can be better?  There's always room for improvement or to go to the next level.

That's my objection to states repealing the CCSS, and that is what I expressed and shared this morning before the Arizona Senate Education Committee.  States such Arizona are having similar debates and discussions and facing similar decisions.  However, what are their other option?  Are there a better set of standards that set deeper expectations for student learning?  States such as Arizona are backing out of the CCSS without a set of or even a plan for developing academic standards and performance standards that will drive instruction, assessment, and evaluation, and that is why I stood against the bill for repealing the Common Core State Standards in Arizona.

If Arizona or any state backs out of the CCSS, I would strongly recommend against returning to the previous state standards students were addressing and also being assessed on under No Child Left Behind.  The majority of these standards are more content-driven than conceptual, teaching students who, what, where, and when rather than challenging and engaging them to think deeply and express and share how, why, what if, either / or, or even what can you create, design, develop, do, innovate, invent, plan, or produce.  Those standards were designed and developed to instruct, assess, and evaluate basic skills.  Today's students, graduates, and citizens need to learn concepts and content deeply.  Knowledge is a commodity and easily acquired, gathered, and even stored thanks to information technology systems.  The modern student needs to know how to process the knowledge they acquire and gather into knowledge, thinking, and disposition they can transfer and use in a variety of academic and real world circumstances and conditions in their own unique way using oral, written, creative, and technical expression.

Perhaps if a state wants to make their own set of postsecondary ready standards, they should look at the standards developed by national organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English and International Reading Association, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Science Teachers Association, the National History Standards from UCLA that teach historical content and thinking and the National Council of Social Studies, the National Arts Standards, the National Health Education Standards, and the National Standards for Foreign Language.  They could also further teaching and learning by incorporating the Framework for 21st Century Learning developed by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills.

However, if these standards are going to work, then those who develop the standards need to do what the performers who sang "We Are the World" were asked to do when they entered the studio to record the song: Check your ego - or in this case, your agenda - at the door.  

- E.M.F.

3/19/2014

Truth, Justice, and American Education: How the Common Core Debate Is As Senseless As a Superhero Slugfest

How does this picture reflect the arguments over the Common Core State Standards?

Think about what the heroes in this picture stand for - truth, justice, and the American way.  However, it's that last idea - the American way - that caused the heroes in this picture to battle each other.  

The Justice League have a more idealistic view of the American way and hold not only the public but also themselves to such high standards.  The Avengers have a more practical view and realize that sometimes hard choices must be made and lines must be crossed in the name of truth and justice.  Though their meaning and methods differ, their intent and purpose are the same - protect the innocent and preserve the common good.

Doesn't that sound like the Common Core debate?  Both the supporters and detractors believe education needs to be "saved".  However, where they disagree is how education should be "saved" - or improved.

However, could it be possible that both sides are misinformed in their approach to supporting and detracting the standards?

The CCSS supporters claim that the standards address the cognitive rigor that will have our students demonstrating higher levels of thinking and communicating deeper knowledge, understanding, and awareness of what they are learning to prepare them for the demands, expectations, and responsibilities they will encounter after graduating from high school.  However, there is no scientifically-based research that proves these standards are effective in raising the rigor of student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and overall school performance.  To state that the curriculum offered by a school or through a publish company is misleading since there are no materials or strategies that have been proven to be effective - only hypotheses and theories.

The CCSS detractors claim that the adoption and implementation of the standards is an attempt for the federal government to have more of say in regards to decision-making with education right down to the school level.  However, the CCSS is not a federal mandate.  It was a state-led initiative that was supported by the current Presidential administration who offered states an administrative incentive to adopt these standards by offering to absolve them to the stringent requirements of No Child Left Behind and a fiscal incentive through the Race to the Top grant that would fund the implementation and professional development of these new standards and the instructional strategies to address them.  To state that President Obama and his administration are responsible for the development and implementation of these standards is misleading since the idea and proposal for the national standards can be traced back to President Bush Sr.'s administration in the late '80s and early '90s (and, interestingly, abandoned by President Bill Clinton - a democrat who advocated for the development of academic standards that were developed by the individual states).

However, both sides do have a valid point.  The CCSS supporters are correct in that the academic standards for student performance and progress should be strengthened and made more rigorous and relevant.  The CCSS detractors are correct in that these standards developed and implemented were thrust upon not only educators but the public as a whole without any opportunity for discussion or review.

So what is the truth about the Common Core State Standards?  

They will not make our students any smarter nor any more intelligent.  However, they hopefully will help our students think deeper about what they are learning and demonstrate and communicate the deeper knowledge, understanding, and awareness they develop using oral, written, creative, and technical expression to answer questions or come up with new ideas, knowledge, perspectives, and ways of thinking.

The curriculum materials offered by the education companies do not address the cognitive rigor of the Common Core State Standards.  They may be aligned to them in that they identify the standards that to be taught and learned with the materials they provide, but there is no scientifically-based research to prove one curriculum package is any better than another.  It's all speculation and theory at this point until our students' performance and proficiency are measured by the PARCC or Smarter Balanced exams.

Where's the justice behind the Common Core State Standards?

The implementation of the CCSS is also not a violation of the 10th Amendment, which delegates all powers and responsibilities not designated to the federal government to the states.  The states did not have to adopt or implement the CCSS.  Four states - Texas, Virginia, Alaska, and Nebraska - chose to establish their own college and career ready standards and assessments.  Indiana has backed out of implementing the CCSS but still maintained their NCLB waiver because their new plan met the requirements of the Race to the Top grant.  Other states such as Oklahoma are either repealing or exploring the possibility of abandoning the CCSS under the consequence of having their federally funding pulled unless they can develop a system of instruction, assessment, and evaluation that meets the criteria of the Race to the Top grant.  The states were not forced or even coerced to adopt the standards.  They were given incentives, but they could have chosen not to take the reprieve or the money.

What's the evil and injustice behind the Common Core State Standards?

The misconception of what the CCSS are and what their intent and purpose are has been so grossly distorted due to this debate.  It's become a Brave New World situation.  There is so much information and misinformation out there that it's difficult to discern what's fact or fiction.

The "bad guys" are those who have fueled this confusion about the CCSS and used them to advocate their personal or political agenda.  The concept and idea of rigorous standards is irrefutable.  Our students need to be challenged and engaged to know, understand, think about, and be aware of what they are learning and how these concepts and content can be used to address, handle, settle, or solve real world circumstances, issues, problems, and situations.  However, what's the best manner or method to do this should be an educational concern and issue, not a political problem or situation.

Who are the "heroes" in this battle over the Common Core State Standards?

That's the teachers - the Supermen and Wonder Women who will use their professional judgment and training to present the concepts and content addressed in these standards in new and novel ways and challenge and engage our students to think deeply beyond the data, details, elements, facts, and information as they are presented.  They are the ones who will take whatever standards are implemented and provide our students with deeper teaching and learning experiences they deserve.  They are the ones who should not depend on the curriculum packages offered by the publishing companies that provide "false promises" about alignment to the CCSS or the politicians who have made this more about their feelings about the current Presidential administration to provide them the support they need to teach.  They are the ones who will create the lessons, the units, and the scope and sequence of the courses that will provide our children with engaging and enriching education experiences.

Let the CCSS supporters and debaters continue to fight each other proclaiming they have the best interest of the community in their mind.  We teachers will be the X-Men and the Teen Titans, fighting the good fight to ensure the American way of equality and opportunity are preserved through our actions. 

- E.M.F.

Relevancy Check: Why Am I Teaching This?

Is It Time for a Relevancy Check?

You know what you're supposed to teach.  It's defined in academic standards implemented by your state and and outlined the curriculum adopted by the district.

You know what your students are expected to know, understand, and do and how deeply they need to know, understand, and be aware of what they're learning.  It's stated in the performance objectives your state's academic standards and set by the questions, problems, and tasks your students your students must answer, address, and accomplish.

However, can you honestly say why you are teaching the ideas, principles, subjects, theories, and topics you you are teaching or even why it is important and vital - or essential - for students to learn these concepts and content?

How often have you been asked by your students - or did you even ask your teachers - why do they need to know this?  What do you tell them?  Do you find yourself at a loss for words and unable to find the connection between academic concepts and real world circumstances?

Then perhaps it's time for you to conduct a relevancy check.

For years, we've been focused on conducting checks for rigor to determine the levels of difficulty and depth of complexity of what we are teaching.  That's what the Common Core State Standards have encouraged and prompted us to do.  However, what we seem to struggle with is to have our students recognize and realize how they can use the academic concepts and content they are learning to address real world circumstances, issues, problems, or situations.

Cognitive Rigor Matrix (Hess, Jones, Carlock& Walkup, 2009)

Hess, Carlock, Jones, and Walkup (2009) developed the concept of cognitive rigor to aligned  Bloom's Taxonomy with Webb's Depth of Knowledge.  They even developed the Cognitive Rigor Matrix to help teachers align the cognitive complexity Bloom's Taxonomy and Webb's Depth of Knowledge.  While most teachers are able to provide questions, problems, and tasks that have students demonstrate higher level thinking, they struggle with challenging and engaging students to extend their thinking across the curriculum and beyond the classroom.

What most teachers seem to strive for yet struggle with is what has become the elusive D.O.K.-4 Question that extends students' thinking across the curriculum and beyond the classroom.  With D.O.K.-4, students are challenged and engaged to conduct research and investigations to solve real-world problems with unpredictable outcomes.  The strive has been to connect the academic concepts and content being taught and learned to real-world situations.  The struggle has been for teachers to think about what exactly are those real-world circumstances, issues, problems, are situations.

D.O.K-4 questions are not just about rigor but relevance - the thinking and reasoning behind what we are teaching and how knowledge, understanding, and awareness can be used to answer multidisciplinary questions and address real world issues, problems, and situations.  The D.O.K.-4 establishes the importance and value - or relevancy - of what we are teaching and our students are learning.

To define the relevancy, we need to consider how deeper knowledge and thinking about academic concepts and content can extend across the curriculum and beyond the classroom.  In order to do this, we need to consider the following questions:

• How could learning these ideas, principles, processes, and theories benefit our students academically, personally, professionally, and socially?

• How could learning these concepts and content help our students better understand the past, handle the present, and prepare for the future?

• What is the connection these subjects and topics have globally, nationally, and locally?

Relevancy Check Chart

In order to help teachers recognize and realize the relevancy of what they are teaching, I have developed what I call the Relevancy Check - a chart that will help teachers determine the connection between the academic concepts they are teaching and their importance and value in the real world.  

The first box is where you will identify the concept, content, subject, or topic you are teaching.  For example, perhaps you are teaching fractions, the American Revolution, plate tectonics, or Macbeth.  The second box is where you will list the performance objectives of the standards and clusters you are teaching.  The next set of boxes is where you will determine what is the relevance of what you are teaching academically, personally, professionally, socially; to the past, the present, and future; and globally, nationally, and locally.

Not all of these sections will be answered.  However, there should be more than an academic relevancy to what you are teaching.  Otherwise, why are you teaching it (because it's in the text or the standards are not a good enough reason).

As we head back to campus for another school year, consider how you could use this chart to help you recognize and realize the importance and value - or relevance - of what you're teaching.  If you can't see the relevancy, then perhaps you need to reflect upon your own depth of knowledge of what you are teaching.

- E.M.F.

(To learn more about how you can use the Relevancy Check or how you can receive a professional development training on how to use this tool, please contact us at erik@maverikeducation.comor visit our website at www.maverikeducation.com).

Michael Crichton + Cognitive Rigor + Common Core = Complexity Through Creativity

Each year, districts and schools conduct book studies as part of their professional development plan to learn new insights, methods, and strategies to improve student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and overall school performance.  The books typically read for these book studies are either education trade books that discuss key issues or best practices in education or leadership and management books that address how to improve operational effectiveness and stakeholder relations.

However, what if this year for the book study your school read a Michael Crichton novel and analyzed and evaluated how his books reflect the kind of learning we want students to demonstrate and communicate?

The Literary Fiction of Michael Crichton

Perhaps you've heard of Michael Crichton's books or their movie adaptations - Jurassic Park, Congo, Sphere, Rising Sun, The Great Train Robbery, Disclosure, The Andromeda Strain, A Case of Need (apparently, there was a film adaptation made in the 1970s), or Eaters of the Dead, which was adapted into the film The 13th Warrior.  Perhaps you've seen the film Twister or watched the TV show E/R.  Perhaps you've read one of his fiction novels that was not turned into a film such as Airframe, Pirate Latitudes, Next, Prey, State of Fear, or Pirate Latitudes.  Perhaps you read his nonfiction work Travels.

If you're familiar with Michael Crichton's works, you know that his novels, films, and TV shows are not mindless tales that showcase nonsensical topics.  They are actually academic and even highly cerebral tomes that address open-ended, thought-provoking essential questions in an entertaining manner.

Consider the topic addressed in Jurassic Park - Should scientists bring back the dinosaurs and reintroduce them into the world and how would they do it?  This would be an interesting topic to explore in a K-12 science classroom studying fossils, biology, genetics, cloning or artificial selection.  In fact, the part of the novel Jurassic Park that explains how the scientists extracted dinosaur blood from fossilized mosquitoes and how the scientists mistakenly chose to replace the unknown DNA strands with amphibian DNA reads like a biology textbook.  It also examines and explores a number of prevailing debate over whether dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than reptiles.

In Congo, Crichton takes us into the heart of Africa where the characters encounter the natural dangers and the political strife occurring in the jungle.  He also examines and explores the controversial idea of the evolutionary connection between humans and apes by featuring an ape who communicates through sign language and savage simian creatures that protect the gemstones the expedition team is looking for whose features and behaviors indicate they are either an ape-chimpanzee hybrid or even a gorilla-human hybrid. 

Timeline addresses time travel, explaining how time travel is similar to transmitting a message via a fax machine in which the original form of a person stays in the present and a "facsimile" of them actually travels through the time spectrum.  Sphere also addresses time travel as well as what lies at the bottom of the ocean in a highly complex, psychological manner.

Most of Crichton's novels  focus heavily on scientific theory.  The Andromeda Strain is one of the first books that presented how the world would react to the spread of a deadly epidemic (in this case, it was an extraterrestrial biological infestation brought back by an American satellite that returns to Earth). The Terminal Man is about unlocking the hidden potential of the human brain.  Prey is about nanotechnology.  Twister is about how to be able to track and predict tornadoes.  Next is another evolutionary story about man's connections to apes.  State of Fear is about global warming and is considered to be one of his most controversial novels.  

Crichton also dabbled in the social sciences with his stories and also addressed some very topical yet controversial issues.  Rising Sun addresses the controversial subject of how Japanese business practices and culture has seeped into American culture.  Disclosure takes a different turn on sexual harassment - male on female - and infers how it can be used for leverage and selfish intentions.  Airframe is about the procedures and politics involved in investigating airline crashes.  Crichton has also written historical fiction such as Eaters of the Dead, The Great Train Robbery, and Pirate Latitudes based upon actual events and people.

What's interesting and relevant about Crichton's novels and stories in their connection to education is not what the stories discuss - although you would definitely learn more about whatever it's discussing - but rather how he presents this information.  Crichton's books are the epitome of metacognition, the ability to use knowledge a person develops through learning to answer a question, address a problem, or accomplish a task or even come up with new ideas, knowledge, perspectives, and ways of thinking.  Each one of Crichton's novels is based upon a hypothesis or notion he has about a particular academic, social, or scientific concept, idea, subject, or topic.  Each novel or film asks a question that he examines and explores throughout the story.  His stories are actually expository and even argumentative writing, and he tests his hypotheses and presents his ideas through narrative.

Crichton's novels are also examples of project-based learning - particularly by communicating his ideas clearly through oral, written, creative, and technical expression.  He teaches us something new with every story.  Think about it.  Did you ever consider dinosaurs could possibly be the ancestors of birds rather than reptiles before you read or watched Jurassic Park?  Was that the "ah-ha" moment you took away from the book or the movie?  Did it compel you to look up and research whether there was any truth to what Crichton suggested?

Crichton's novels also exemplify the depth in which we want our students to think critically, creatively, and strategically and examine and explore through research, investigation, experiential, hands-on learning, and creative design.  He takes us beyond the facts and information as they are presented or provided and challenges us to question what we believe we know and what we are currently learning.  His books could actually be a supplement to any science or social studies textbook or be taught in conjunction with exploration of current events.

Plus, his books and movies are so much fun to read and watch!

How can we have our students' demonstrate higher level thinking and communicate their deeper knowledge, understanding, and awareness of what they are learning as if they were Michael Crichton?  

We need to provide them opportunities to express and share their knowledge, understanding, and awareness using their innate skills and talents.

That's what Crichton did.  He used his verbal, visual, and technical skills to present his ideas in a creative manner.  He was also highly intrapersonal in that he was an author who preferred to work by himself (though he did collaborate with his wife in writing Twister and also directed a couple of films such as Coma. Looker, and Westworld).

That's not to say every child should express their learning creatively through a novel or a film or even art.  Crichton wrote nonfiction as well.  In fact, many of his articles are great examples of expository and argumentative writing.

Multiple Intelligence Activities: World War II

Multiple Intelligence Activities: Pythagorean Theorem

To have my students express and share their knowledge, understanding, and awareness like an artisan or thinker like Michael Crichton, I created the Multiple Intelligence Activity grid based upon the Tic-Tac-Toe tool used typically in differentiated instruction that allows students to use their strengths, skills, and talents to demonstrate and communicate their learning.   The projects I included in there were aligned to the multiple intelligences defined by Howard Gardner.  

Each box had one or two very abstract, broad, and complex descriptions of the project the student could develop - draw a poster, write a short story, make a PowerPoint presentation or video, engage in a debate.  How the students designed and developed the project was up to them.  In keeping with the practice of differentiated instruction that allows students to choose how they learn, I allowed them the choice of either working alone, with a partner, or as part of a group or team to complete their project.  I also provided them the opportunity to do a student original combo if they did not like any of the project ideas presented, which meant they could combine one of the projects presented within the grid - for example, turn a short story written by one student into a graphic novel or a film.  They could also come up with their own idea for a project they would want to do that addressed the objective of the unit, answered one of the good cognitive rigor questions of the unit, and also would prompt their audience to think deeply about what they are learning.

Multiple Intelligence Activity: Science Fiction

Along with their projects, each student would have to write a research and process paper that detailed the research they conducted to complete their project and how and why they designed and developed their project as they did.  That's what I would grade since that's really what I was focused upon - how deeply they learned about the concept, idea, subject, or topic they addressed in their project and how they defended, explained, or justified their thinking and reasoning.  I would turn the projects themselves over to the class for grading.  The final week of the unit was the class showcase in which each student or group presented their problem.  My students read the stories and papers and watch the presentations and performances.  After they were viewed, they would answer three questions:

Multiple Intelligence Activity: Animals

1. How does the project address the objectives of the unit?
2. How does the project answer one or more of the essential questions of the unit?
3. What deeper knowledge, understanding, and awareness did you acquire from this project?

After the reviews were submitted, my class would engage in a Q & A session with the presenter(s) of the project to discuss how they produced their project and what their intent, message, or purpose was.  Based upon the results of the reviews, the students would receive a grade from the peer evaluation that I would average in with the grade I gave them for their research and process papers.

Teaching and grading like this not only made my class more enriching but also enjoyable and even manageable.  Before this, I would spend days grading a different version of the same project I assigned over and over.  I also encountered the "angry parent" who would be upset about my critique over the quality of the project.  By turning the grading of the project to the students, it relieved me from grading the quality of their project and allowed me to focus more on what I really was concerned about - how deeply did they learn about the concept, idea, subject, or topic and how did they use that knowledge to accomplish the task or create new ideas, knowledge, perspectives, and ways of thinking.

Plus, these projects gave me student-produced artifacts I could use to teach my students in the other classes as well as in the future!  That's one of the essential reasons why we should have our students do projects - to have student-created artifacts, examples, and exemplars that we can use to teach our students deeper and show students what they have the potential to do with what they have learned.  Whenever I presented a story, research paper, video, or work of art one of my former students did, I always had a student who muttered, "I could do that," or even claim they could do it better.  

When we do project-based learning, we're not only allowing students to demonstrate and communicate their deeper knowledge, understanding, thinking, and awareness using their innate skills and talents.  We're helping these students to develop these skills and talents into expertise they will hopefully be able to use successfully in their personal and professional lives.  We're also thinking about the future by showing our students what they could potentially do with what they are learning and giving them the freedom to take what they have learned and come up with their own ideas, knowledge, perspectives, and ways of thinking.

Just like Michael Crichton did in every story he wrote.

- E.M.F.

(If you're interested in learning how to do project-based learning with the Multiple Intelligence Activity grid or have this training as a professional development for your teachers at your school, please contact me at erik@maverikeducation.com or visit my website www.maverikeducation.com).

Let's Make a D.O.K.! A Game Show Approach to Depth of Knowledge

What exactly is depth of knowledge?

Questioning with Webb's Depth of Knowledge

The framework designed by Norman Webb (1997) categorizes depth of knowledge into four levels. 

D.O.K.-1 questions require students  to recall or reproduce knowledge and/or skills to come up with an answer that is either correct or incorrect.  Questions at this particular level usually involves working with facts, terms, and/or properties of objects.

D.O.K.-2 questions expect students to think deeper about how to answer questions by applying the knowledge and skills they have acquired and developed.  Such teaching and learning experiences involve students working with or applying skills and/or concepts to tasks related to the field of study in a laboratory setting.  They also require students to follow a set of principles, categories, and protocols in order to answer a question, address a problem, or accomplish a task. 

A D.O.K.-3 question challenges students to think critically and strategically how to answer a question acceptably, accurately, appropriately, and authentically.  They challenge and engage students to demonstrate and communicate higher levels of thinking such as analysis and evaluation but also communicate their thinking and reasoning behind their responses and results.

A D.O.K.-4 question engages students to examine and explore concepts and content deeply and think creatively how they can use their knowledge, understanding, and awareness to answer questions or come up with new ideas, knowledge, perspectives, and ways of thinking about what they are learning.  Such questions encourage students to examine and explore how to address, handle, settle, or solve real world circumstances, issues, problems, and situations through research, investigation, experimentation, and creative design.  They also expect students to express and share their claims, conclusions, decisions, and reasons using oral, written, creative, and technical expression. 

Sounds simple, right?

Then why is there so much confusion as to what qualifies as deeper knowledge, understanding, thinking, and awareness?  

Why is there so much concern over how students' depth of knowledge of concepts and content will be assessed and evaluated on assessments such as the PARCC or the Smarter Balanced exams?  

How would you explain this academic concept to a new teacher who has just entered the profession or moved from a state that had not adopted the Common Core State Standards?

How would you explain this cognitive schema to a veteran teacher who is used to aligning their instruction to the categories within the Cognitive Domain of Bloom's Taxonomy or its revised version which has split knowledge into its own dimension?

How would you explain this instructional focus to parents and students who for years have been instructed, assessed, and evaluated based upon how much they know, understand, and can do rather than how deeply they know, understand, and aware of a concept or content in order to answer a question, address a problem, or accomplish a task?

How can we develop instructional activities and assessments that not only stimulate student thinking and deepen their knowledge, understanding, and awareness about what they are learning but also measure and monitor the level of thinking and depth of knowledge they can demonstrate and communicate?

We can teach them like game show contestants.

Now wait a minute.  I'm not suggesting we turn our classroom into entertainment centers in which students compete with their classmates as to who can answer questions, address problems, or accomplish tasks correctly or successfully for a prize or reward.  I'm suggesting that they can use the format of questions, problems, and tasks on various game shows to challenge and engage students to demonstrate and communicate different levels of knowledge, understanding, thinking, and awareness.

D.O.K.-1 activities generally resemble the kind of questions contestants are asked on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire or Jeopardy - multiple choice or short answer questions that require demonstrating and communicating factual knowledge of specific details, elements, and information correctly.  The questions asked on Jeopardy are similar to how we assess and evaluate our students' factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge of the subjects and topics they are learning - asking them to recall, recognize, and remember specific details, elements, facts and information correctly.   Such questions are more difficult than complex, requiring students to work hard at remembering so many details correctly, which is why Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and Jeopardy are two of the most difficult game shows on the air.  However, such questions can help students develop the knowledge and understanding they will need to think deeper about what they are learning. 

D.O.K.-2 activities are similar to the competitive tasks presented on shows such as Top Chef or Hell's Kitchen in which contestants expected to use conceptual and procedural knowledge to answer a question, address a problem, or accomplish a task.  These shows are like a lab experience in which students actively apply their knowledge, understanding, and skills to complete and are evaluated based upon their ability to produce a correct, desired, or specific result.  It expects students to use what they have learned to answer a question, address a problem, or accomplish a task.  As with Hell's Kitchen and Top Chef, D.O.K.-2 questions focus heavily on skills-based performance, expecting students to demonstrate their ability to use the factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge they have acquired in a specific area, discipline, or subject.

D.O.K.-3 activities are similar to the problems and tasks presented on game shows such as Survivor or The Apprentice  Both shows are prime examples of problem-based learning that challenges students to think critically and strategically about how to answer a question, address a problem, or accomplish a task.  They also emphasize collaboration in that the questions, problems, and tasks posed, presented, and provided cannot be answered, addressed, or accomplished alone or immediately.  D.O.K.-3 activities are like the competitions on Survivor and the tasks on The Apprentice in that they are highly complex and focus more on the process in which a question, problem, or task can be answered, addressed, or accomplished.

D.O.K.-4 activities are like Shark Tank, which essentially is project-based learning and even engineering design.  A person thinks creatively about how to design and develop an innovative or inventive plan or product that addresses a particular circumstance, issue, problem, or situation; plots out the plan or produces a prototype; tests their idea or design; and then presents their conclusions to a panel, defending, explaining, and justifying their reasoning and results.  Project-based learning should mirror the experience of Shark Tank in that students should be expected to present what they have designed, developed, or done and have their project evaluated by the teacher and their peers as to whether it answers the essential question of the unit or class, addresses a particular objective, and teaches them something new about the concept or content they are learning.

So when you are planning your D.O.K. activities this year, consider which game show your question, problem, or task will appear and how it expects to students to demonstrate and communicate their thinking - and let's make a D.O.K.!

- E.M.F.