Depth of knowledge.

It’s a concept we in education have heard a lot about since our states transitioned to college and
career ready standards – be it the Common Core State Standards, the Next Generation Science
Standards, or whatever each individual state has decided to call their academic standards that
promote college and career readiness.

It’s also one of the most misinterpreted and misrepresented concepts in education that is not only
confusing but also frustrating us educators. Most of it is due to the infamous DOK Wheel.

Perhaps you are familiar with this wheel. Perhaps you were presented a copy of the wheel as part
of the Race to the Top training that addressed transitioning to the Common Core State Standards.
Perhaps you were provided a copy of this graphic as a poster or instructional tool you can use
develop and deliver lessons that not only address depth of knowledge but also promote cognitive
rigor.

This graphic is an effective and useful tool – for teaching and learning for higher order thinking.
It categorizes the levels of thinking students are expected to demonstrate, which is what cognitive
taxonomies such as Anderson and Krathwohl’s revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy, Cognitive and
Metacognitive Systems of Marzano’s New Taxonomy, and Biggs and Collis’s SOLO Taxonomy. In
fact, out of all the taxonomies that categorize higher order thinking, the DOK Wheel is most aligned
to the SOLO Taxonomy and its four quadrants. This should be called the HOT Wheel or even the
SOLO Wheel and could be used to plan and provide instruction that marks and measures higher
order thinking.
However, it does not designate the depth of knowledge students are expected to communicate – or,
at least, how Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Model designates these levels.

(You can click here to read further about why the DOK Wheel does not accurately depict Webb’s
Depth of Knowledge.)

Now before you look wide-eyed or with a narrowed gaze at your school leaders or the professional
development coordinators of your local ecucation agency for giving you the DOK Wheel and having
you use it to plan and provide your instruction and assessment, don’t blame them! They were only
using the resource they were provided in their own training by either an academic organization or
professional development provider who specialized in training that addresses the cognitive rigor of
college and career ready standards. Also the DOK Wheel is everywhere! Just conduct a Google
search for depth of knowledge or DOK, and you’ll find The DOK Wheel linked to state and local
education agencies as an instructional resource for educators.
So from where did the DOK wheel come?

The origins of the DOK Wheel are unknown. No one seems to know from where it came or who
designed it. What is confirmed, however, is that it was not designed by Norman Webb and he does
not endorse it as a tool for educators to use to plan and provide complex instruction and
assessments (Walkup, 2014a).

Unfortunately, the DOK Wheel has been widely addressed and included in professional development
trainings and materials on college and career ready standards. The widespread saturation of the
DOK Wheel and other poorly designed visuals and maps has also been due to educators and
professional development providers downloading these visuals and incorporating them into their
presentations and trainings with the assumption the visual was a credible source that was developed
by Dr. Webb. There’s a citation at the bottom of the DOK Wheel graphic that references the
developer of depth of knowledge, Norman Webb along with a url link, which is why many people
believe this wheel was authorized by Dr. Webb. However, if you try the link, you’ll not only find it has
no connection to the DOK wheel whatsoever but is also a dead link. (Click here to view the actual
source that is being cited.)

The concept of depth of knowledge that is addressed in the college and career ready standards was
developed by Norman Webb (1997; 2002). Webb designed his model as a means of increasing the
cognitive complexity and demand of standardized assessments. Traditionally, standardized
assessments measured students to think deeply about the academic content, concepts, ideas, and
procedures they were learning. However, these assessments were limited in measuring students
ability to transfer and use what they were learning in different contexts. They were also limited in
measuring the depth of understanding students must develop and demonstrate. Students were
challenged to demonstrate – or show – the ability to think deeply about how to answer questions,
address problems, accomplish tasks, and analyze texts and topics. However, they were not being
challenged to communicate – or tell – how and why they could transfer and use what they were
learning in different contexts.

Webb first introduced the concept of depth of knowledge in his paper “Research Monograph No. 8:
Criteria for Alignment of Expectations and Assessments in Mathematics and Science Education”
(1997). The purpose of this monograph was “to define criteria for judging the alignment between
expectations and assessments” (Webb, 1997). He explains how depth of knowledge consistency
serves as attribute under the criteria of content focus, explaining how DOK can vary on a number of
dimensions such as the following

 the level of cognitive complexity of information students should be expected to know

 how well they should be able to transfer this knowledge to different contexts
 how well they should be able to form generalizations
 how much prerequisite knowledge they must have in order to grasp ideas

Essentially, depth of knowledge designates how deeply students must know, understand, and be
aware of what they are learning in order to attain and explain answers, outcomes, results, and
solutions. It also designates how extensively students are expected to transfer and use what they
have learned in different academic and real world contexts.

In 2002 Webb published his paper “Depth of Knowledge in the Four Content Areas” in which he not
only describes how depth of knowledge can be addressed in all the content areas but also
established the following levels within his model:

 DOK-1: Recall and reproduce data, definitions, details, facts, information, and procedures.
(knowledge acquisition)
 DOK-2: Use academic concepts and cognitive skills to answer questions, address problems,
accomplish tasks, and analyze texts and topics. (knowledge application)
 DOK-3: Think strategically and reasonably about how and why concepts, ideas, operations,
and procedures can be used to attain and explain answers, conclusions, decisions,
outcomes, reasons, and results. (knowledge analysis)
  DOK-4: Think extensively about what else can be done, how else can learning be used, and
how could the student personally use what they have learned in different academic and real
world contexts. (knowledge augmentation)

The focus of these levels are not on the type of thinking or even the kind of knowledge students are
expected to demonstrate. That’s what taxonomies such as Bloom’s, SOLO, or Marzano’s do –
establish the level of thinking students will be expected to demonstrate as part of a learning
experience. Webb’s establishes the context – the scenario, the setting, or the situation – which
students will express and share the depth and extent of their learning. Are they expected to acquire
knowledge (DOK-1)? Apply knowledge (DOK-2)? Analyze knowledge (DOK-3)? Augment
knowledge (DOK-4)?
These levels may seem to scaffold similarly to taxonomies like Bloom’s. However, they establish
how in-depth students will express and share their learning. DOK-1 is content-specific, focusing on
the specific text or topic being taught and learned. DOK-2 and DOK-3 is item-oriented, focusing
on how and why learning can be transferred and used to attain and explain reasons, relationships,
and results. DOK-4 is extensive and practical, focusing on how and why learning can be transferred
and used across the curriculum and beyond the classroom. Karin Hess (2006) describes these
levels not as steps but rather “ceilings” that establish how far or in-depth students will study and
share knowledge and thinking.
It was Karin Hess along with Dennis Carlock, Ben Jones, and John Walkup who extended the
concept of using depth of knowledge to instruct and assess student learning by superimposing
Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge Model with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to mark and measure the
cognitive rigor of learning experiences (2009).

In teaching and learning for cognitive rigor, Bloom’s determines the cognition or thinking students
are expected to demonstrate as part of a learning experience. That’s the verb that starts the
educational objective or academic standard. Webb’s designates the context – the scenario, setting,
and situation – students are expected to express and share what they are learning. To align Bloom’s
and Webb’s, Hess, Carlock, Jones, and Walkup created the Cognitive Rigor Matrix / Hess Matrix to
categorize educational objectives and questions based upon their cognitive complexity.

The DOK Wheel represents a poor attempt to visualize depth of knowledge similar to how Bloom’s
Taxonomy has often been graphically represented as a pyramid. According to John Walkup’s blog
(2014a), the DOK Wheel “most likely it grew out of crude attempts to map the familiar six levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy into the four levels of Depth of Knowledge, therefore creating a shortcut to
understanding the new rigor measure”. In a phone interview with Walkup, Webb himself commented
how “[t]he only possible use of the chart I can see is if someone took a verb and asked how it could
be placed in each of the four sectors” (Walkup, 2014a). Hess refers to the DOK Wheel as the “DOK
wheel of misfortune” and tell people in my workshops to discard it. It flies in the face of what DOK is
about: What comes AFTER the verb” (Walkup, 2014b).

My own work with depth of knowledge and analysis of the wheel led me to design a visual I hope not
only teachers will use to plan and provide their instruction and assessment but also administrators
will use as a guide for observing and evaluating teacher instruction and effectiveness. I have
attempted to create a graphic representation that not only embodies Webb’s concept of depth of
knowledge but also how Hess, Carlock, Jones, and Walkup explain how the Webb’s DOK model
superimposes with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy in their Cognitive Matrix. I call this visual Webb’s
Depth of Model Context Ceilings. Each block represents how in-depth or extensively students will
develop, demonstrate, and discuss their learning. I also incorporated my strategy of asking good
questions to set the instructional focus and serve as an assessment – formative, summative, or
authentic – for student learning.

DOK-1: What is the knowledge? At this level, students are asked to acquire and gather the
information they need to develop deeper knowledge and thinking. They are asked mostly factual
questions (who, what, where, when) about the texts and topics they are reading and reviewing.
They might also might be asked to recall or reproduce how or why a concept or procedure works or
is used. The answers to these good questions are either correct or incorrect. Good questions at this
level ask students to describe what are the ideas and information presented in texts and explain how
concepts and procedures work.
DOK-2: How can the knowledge be used? At this level, students are asked to demonstrate and
communicate conceptual and procedural knowledge. They are asked analytical questions that
challenge them to examine and explain how can the concepts and procedures they are learning be
used to answer questions, address problems, accomplish tasks, or analyze texts and topics. They
also begin to show and tell self-knowledge and personal understanding of how can and could they
(or you) use what they (you) are learning. They also begin to think critically about how would
you use the concepts and procedures to answer a question, address a problem, accomplish a task,
or analyze a text or topic. Good questions at this level ask students to show and tell how concepts
and procedures are used. The emphasis is more on the application of ideas and information rather
than the item being addressed.
DOK-3: Why can the knowledge be used? Students learning at this level are still demonstrating
and communicating conceptual and procedural understanding. However, the instructional focus and
assessments shift from applying to analyze and evaluating how and why concepts and procedures
can be transferred and used to attain and explain certain scenarios, settings, situations, and
solutions. Students are also asked hypothetical questions that prompt them to think strategically
and creatively about how could you use what they are learning. They are also asked argumentative
questions that engage them to think reasonably about the credibility and validity of ideas and
theories, critique different perspectives and points of view, and defend or refute conclusions and
decisions.
DOK-4: How else can the knowledge be used? At this level, students are encouraged to extend
their thinking deeper within the subject they are learning, across the curriculum, and even beyond
the classroom. These learning experiences focus heavily on developing and demonstrating
metacognition – specifically, conditional and contextual knowledge and self-knowledge. Students
are asked to think critically about the impact, implications, and influence ideas and information have
on a much grander scale. They are also encouraged to express and share their own perspectives
and points of view about a text or topic using oral, written, creative, or technical communication.
These learning experiences are time and thought-intensive and are typically presented and
provided as active and authentic learning experiences such as project-based or problem-based
learning that require in-depth research, examinations, investigations, and demonstrations of learning
through design.
The Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Ceiling Context and the driving questions at the top of each ceiling
provides administrators, teachers, and hopefully even students and parents an understanding of how
deeply and extensively students will be expected to demonstrate and communicate their learning.
The question stems within the ceilings actually encourage more flexibility in the level of thinking
students are expected to demonstrate within these levels. However, as Walkup (2014a) says in his
blog, “With Depth of Knowledge, context (notably absent in the wheel chart) is everything” – or, as
Hess simply puts it, “what comes AFTER the verb” in a performance objective or academic standard
establishes the DOK. When planning for teaching and learning for depth of knowledge, consider
how deeply or extensively you want your students to go with their learning. Establish the scenario,
setting, or situation teaching and learning will be developed, delivered, and demonstrated.

That is teaching and learning that promotes depth of knowledge.