thinking - weeblymelaniekinneyemintspd4ets.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/6/5/24652503/110... · 5 thinking...

16
Thinking

Upload: ngonga

Post on 01-Oct-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Thinking

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

2

Thinking

eMINTS National Center 325 Clark Hall Columbia, MO 65211 Voice: (573) 884-7202 Fax: (573) 884-7614 www.emints.org Cover Photos Joshua A. Bickel Contributors eMINTS National Center staff Written July 2011 Updated September 2013 Questions Have a question about eMINTS professional development materials? Send inquiries to the eMINTS staff at [email protected].

©2011 The Curators of the University of Missouri. Use or distribution of materials is restricted to authorized eMINTS instructors and staff. Do not copy, alter or redistribute without the express written permission of eMINTS National Center. To request permission, contact the eMINTS National Center at [email protected] or postal address above. Titles or names of specific software discussed or described in this document are registered trademarks, trademarked or copyrighted as property of the companies that produce the software. Please note that the World Wide Web is volatile and constantly changing. The URLs provided were accurate as of the date of publication.

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

3

Table of Contents

Purpose of the Module ............................................................................ 4

Expected Outcomes ................................................................................ 4

Thinking ............................................................................................... 5

Models of Thinking and Learning

Partnership for 21st Century Skills ................................................... 5

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy ............................................................ 6

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge ........................................................... 7

Marzano’s New Taxonomy .............................................................. 8

Costa and Kallick’s Habits of Mind ................................................... 10

Thinking in the Classroom ....................................................................... 11

Examples from the Classroom ......................................................... 11

Teaching Thinking Skills ................................................................. 12

Personal Classroom Learning Taxonomy ........................................... 12

Putting into Practice ............................................................................... 13

Resources ............................................................................................. 14

References ............................................................................................ 15

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

4

Purpose of the Module To attain a deep understanding of bigger ideas (concepts, principles and theories) learners need to use higher-level thinking skills. Instructional experiences that engage students in desired levels of thinking require purposeful instructional design so that all activities, tasks and so forth reflect the desired level of thinking. This session establishes the foundation for the type of thinking participants desire for their students. In addition, this session addresses the 21st century thinking skills of critical thinking and problem-solving.

Expected Outcomes

• Instruction is designed so that students use higher-order thinking skills.

• Learning experiences facilitate knowledge construction through inquiry supported with technology.

Essential Question How do people learn?

Session Questions How do teachers design learning so students use higher-order thinking skills as they construct knowledge? How does thinking contribute to learning and knowledge construction?

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

5

Thinking The theory of constructivism is grounded in the belief that learners construct knowledge. Knowledge construction is not a process in which learners passively take in information, rather knowledge construction is an active, mind-engaging process (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). The implication from constructivism then is that in order to develop understanding and knowledge a learner is actively involved in thinking. The question then becomes how do teachers design learning so students are actively engaged in thinking as they construct knowledge?

Models of Thinking and Learning Educators and researchers from other fields have long strived to define how people think or learn by developing models of what they perceive takes place when thinking or learning occurs, or frameworks of what needs to occur as learning takes place. This section presents several accepted thinking and learning models and frameworks. The intent is that by looking at various models and frameworks teachers will define the type of thinking and intellectual behaviors and/or skills they desire for their students to use and develop while constructing knowledge in the classroom.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills In a previous module the Partnership for 21st Century Skills framework was introduced. The framework includes three essential sets of skills students in the 21st century need to develop within the context of core knowledge instruction to succeed in work and life. These skill sets include Life and Career Skills, Learning and Innovation Skills and Information, Media and Technology Skills. A subset of the Learning and Innovation Skills is critical thinking and problem-solving. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills defines critical thinking and problem-solving skills as follows.

Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Reason effectively

• Use various types of reasoning (inductive, deductive, etc.) as appropriate to the situation

Use systems thinking • Analyze how parts of a whole interact with each other to produce overall

outcomes in complex systems Make judgments and decisions

• Effectively analyze and evaluate evidence, arguments, claims and beliefs • Analyze and evaluate major alternative points of view • Synthesize and make connections between information and arguments • Interpret information and draw conclusions based on the best analysis • Reflect critically on learning experiences and processes

Solve Problems • Solve different kinds of non-familiar problems in both conventional and

innovative ways • Identify and ask significant questions that clarify various points of view and lead

to better solutions Partnership for 21st Century Skills Framework reprinted with permission

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

6

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy In 1956, educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom developed a multi-tiered level of classifying thinking according to six levels of complexity in the cognitive domain. Bloom’s model also included a series of taxonomies for the affective and psychomotor domains. The cognitive domain taxonomy is hierarchical in that a student functioning at a particular level has mastered the material at the levels below that level. One of Bloom’s former students, Lorin Anderson, updated the taxonomy, publishing an updated version in 2001 that was more reflective of 21st century work (Overbaugh & Shultz; Forehand). Bloom’s taxonomy includes two dimensions—the cognitive process dimension and the knowledge dimension. The cognitive dimension is the one most educators are familiar with and it outlines levels of thinking in a hierarchical manner from the lowest level to the highest level. The knowledge dimension defines what will be learned. Cognitive Process Dimension As in the original cognitive taxonomy, the updated cognitive process dimension has six categories; however, the order has been altered and the nouns changed to verbs to better reflect action. Each level of the cognitive process dimension is displayed in the table below with a short summary of the process at that level.

Creating Put pieces together to develop an original idea Evaluating Make judgments based on criteria and standards Analyzing Breaking information into parts to explore relationships Applying Using information in another situation

Understanding Construct meaning from information Remembering Recalling information from long-term memory

Knowledge Dimension The original cognitive domain taxonomy by Bloom also included the knowledge dimension (what a person knows), though it included only three categories: knowledge, conceptual and procedural. This dimension clarifies the type of knowledge that is acted upon by the cognitive process dimension. Using both the cognitive process dimension and the knowledge dimension for comparison with other models of thinking provides a more detailed analysis of the various models. Anderson expanded the types of knowledge in the knowledge dimension into four different categories: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is the basic information students must become acquainted with to be able to solve problems. Conceptual knowledge is the way that basic information forms larger structures of understanding, the bigger more generalized ideas that give meaning to factual information. Procedural knowledge includes the methods and techniques students use to complete tasks, solve problems and so forth. Metacognitive knowledge is an understanding of thinking in general and an awareness of one’s own thinking.

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

7

Factual Knowledge Conceptual Knowledge

Procedural Knowledge

Metacognitive Knowledge

• Terms, vocabulary definitions

• Details about elements, events, etc.

• Classifications and categories of ideas

• Principles and generalizations

• Theories, models and structures

• Specific subject skills (algorithms, heuristics, rules of thumb), techniques and methods

• Knowing when to use appropriate procedures

• Knowledge about thinking processes and how to use these processes effectively

• Self-knowledge

(CELT Learning Technologies; Copyright © 2011 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Adapted by permission.)

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge In 1997, Norman Webb developed a “Depth-of-Knowledge” model that can be used to analyze the cognitive expectation demanded by standards, curricular activities and assessment tasks. Curricular knowledge—which is what students need to know and be able to do—is categorized in a hierarchical manner based on cognitive demands or complexity. Depth of Knowledge assigns a level to what students must learn or do and the thinking required to successfully demonstrate an expected outcome (Mississippi Department of Education; Vandeven; Colorado Department of Education). Level 1: Recall This level involves basic initial comprehension and recall of information such as a fact, definition, term or simple procedure. The ability to perform an algorithm or apply a formula that is a one-step, well-defined procedure would also be included at this level. There is no complexity or depth at level 1. This is recall, rote response and surface level knowledge. Students use simple skills or abilities to locate facts from text, follow a set procedure or perform a specific set of steps. Level 2: Skills & Concepts Level 2 requires initial comprehension and further processing beyond an automatic or repetitive response. At this level students make decisions about how to approach a problem. They apply skills, process content and interpret information. Level 3: Strategic Thinking This level calls for students to analyze, evaluate, reason and plan at a deeper and more complex way than previous levels. They begin to work with abstractions and are expected to use more reasoning. At this level there is more than one possible answer to situations or problems and students are required to justify their responses. Level 4: Extended Thinking The top level involves higher-level thinking where students use complex reasoning, planning and thinking over an extended period of time. Students are required to make connections within and among content areas. Multiple alternatives are possible for problem-solving and students must select one approach. Complex products are developed that demonstrate reasoning and include evidence and examples (Baughman; Hess).

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

8

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge

Level 1: Recall Recall of information; performance of a simple process or procedure

Level 2: Skills & Concepts Decisions are made as to how to approach a question or problem; actions require more than one mental process or step

Level 3: Strategic Thinking Deep understanding exhibited through planning, using evidence and more complex cognitive reasoning

Level 4: Extended Thinking Requires high-level thinking and is very complex; students select one approach from multiple possibilities

Marzano’s New Taxonomy Education researcher Robert Marzano developed a model of thinking that is a researched-based theory of how students think. Marzano’s taxonomy contains three systems (the self-system, metacognitive system and cognitive system), plus the knowledge domain, that are important for thinking and learning. The taxonomy is designed to not only explain the complexity or depth of thinking but also includes the process students follow when faced with a task that requires thinking. Self-System According to Marzano, when confronted with a task the self-system—which includes the attitudes, beliefs and feelings of an individual—determines a person’s motivation to complete the task. The first thing a student does when confronted with a task is determine whether the task is important and whether there is value in learning what is required to complete the task. If the task is deemed as important to pursue the next thing a student considers is whether they feel they have the ability to complete the task successfully. If the student has a high degree of efficacy the student will become engaged and persist at completing the task, overcoming any challenges that might occur. Finally, the way a person feels about the knowledge plays an important role on motivation for learning.

Self-System Importance The student believes the task is important and will complete it

Efficacy The student believes he/she has the ability to complete the task

Emotions Emotions are connected with knowledge

Metacogntive System In concise terms, metacognition is knowing what one knows, self-regulation of thinking, self-monitoring of thinking and personal representation of knowledge. This system in Marzano’s taxonomy is in charge of setting goals and making decisions about the information that is needed to complete a task and which cognitive system process is needed for the task. In addition, this system regulates and monitors the process so changes can be made as needed.

Copyright © 2011 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Adapted by permission.

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

9

Metacognitive System Specifying learning goals

Monitoring the execution of knowledge

Monitoring clarity Monitoring accuracy

Cognitive System The cognitive system consists of mental processes that act upon the knowledge domain. People need to access the information and procedures stored in their memory so they can use the knowledge. Marzano divides the cognitive system into four parts: knowledge retrieval, comprehension, analysis and knowledge utilization. The four parts in this system are not isolated processes; they are dependent upon the previous process. According to Marzano, an individual cannot comprehend something without retrieving knowledge from memory. A description of each process follows.

• Knowledge retrieval involves pulling information, facts or processes from where they are stored in memory. At this level it is the recall of factual information or procedures exactly as they have been stored.

• Comprehension involves identifying important information from a body of knowledge and organizing the information in appropriate mental categories.

• Analysis engages the learner in using one of five cognitive processes – matching, classifying, error analysis, generalizing and specifying. At this level students create new insights and figure out how to use what they learned in new situations.

• The last level of the cognitive system is the process of knowledge utilization. At this level students use knowledge to make decisions, solve problems, generate hypotheses that result in experimental inquiry and conduct investigations.

Cognitive System

Knowledge retrieval Comprehension Analysis Knowledge utilization

Knowledge Domain In this domain Marzano acknowledges that to think a person needs to have knowledge. Without knowledge students do not have much to work with in terms of thinking. Marzano identifies three categories of knowledge: information, mental procedures and physical procedures. Information is the “what” of knowledge. This includes facts, concepts, generalizations, principles and theories that are organized mentally in a person’s mind. Mental procedures are the complex processes a person follows to complete various tasks. This includes processes such as map-reading, completing a sequence of steps for math calculations or writing mechanics. Physical procedures are processes that are physically carried out. This includes procedures used in physical fitness classes, but it also includes other motor coordination activities such as manipulating a pencil or pen.

Knowledge Domain

Information

Mental procedures Physical procedures

Copyright © 2011 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Adapted by permission.

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

10

Costa and Kallick’s Habits of Mind

Noted educators Arthur Costa and Bena Kallick developed a set of 16 Habits of Mind as attributes that describe intelligent behavior people use when they are confronted with questions and problems in which the answers are not immediately known. Development of the Habits of Mind came from studies of effective, skillful problem-solvers and the synthesis of work from leaders in the fields of education, philosophy, psychology and the arts. The premise for their work is that to effectively prepare students for life students need to know how to behave when faced with uncertainties. Costa and Kallick do not consider their habits of mind list to be complete, rather they intend for teachers and students to add to and elaborate on the list (Costa & Kallick). The table below provides a list of the 16 Habits of Mind and a summary of each habit.

Costa and Kallick’s Habits of Mind 1. Persisting Sticking to a task until it is complete. Analyzing

a problem and deciding which strategy should be used and when a new strategy should be used.

2. Thinking and communicating with clarity and precision

Taking care to communicate accurately both orally and in writing. Statements are supported with explanations, comparisons, quantification and evidence.

3. Managing impulsivity Alternatives are thoughtfully considered so there is a clear vision, plan of action or goal before taking action.

4. Gathering data through all senses

Use of the senses to observe or take in information. Actively experiencing information through the senses so they are open and ready to absorb information from the environment.

5. Listening with understanding and empathy

Tuning in to what another person says to the point of being able to paraphrase what they say and detect indicators of their emotional state through oral and body language.

6. Creating, imagining and innovation

Conceiving problem solutions differently and looking for alternate possibilities from many different approaches.

7. Thinking flexibly Approaching problems from different angles, being able to change thoughts when new data is received and being able to develop options and alternatives to problems. Toleration of confusion and ambiguity.

8. Thinking about thinking (metacognition)

The ability to reflect and evaluate on the quality of personal thinking skills and strategies. Consciously planning a strategy, following through, then reflecting back and evaluating its effectiveness.

9. Taking responsible risks Feeling comfortable taking educated risks. Knowing when a risk is worth taking but also being comfortable embarking on a risk as a venture or adventure.

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

11

10. Striving for accuracy Continuing toward high quality work and craftsmanship (exactness, precision, accuracy, correctness, faithfulness and reworking products).

11. Finding humor Humor has not only positive psychological effects on humans, it also liberates creativity and provokes higher-level thinking skills. Use of appropriate humor enhances thinking.

12. Questioning and posing problems

Posing questions to fill in the gaps between what is known and what is unknown. Asking a wide range of questions.

13. Thinking interdependently Realizing that problem-solving is so complex it takes a team to access all of the data necessary to consider as many possibilities as possible. A heightened ability to think jointly with others.

14. Applying past knowledge to new situations

Use of past knowledge and experiences to help support or explain new challenges, or use of prior processes to help solve new perplexing problems.

15. Remaining open to continuous learning

Constantly searching for improvement, always growing, always learning, always modifying. Seizing the unknown as an opportunity to learn.

16. Responding with wonderment and awe

Finding enjoyment in being curious about the world and possessing the desire to figure things out by themselves.

(2000, Costa & Kallick)

Thinking in the Classroom To get students to use higher levels of thinking the tasks they are given in the classroom must demand more complex thinking skills. When appropriate, design a complex project or task that goes beyond asking students to acquire factual knowledge or apply a set of skills on a homework assignment. Strive to design the project or task so students are expected to use information or skills to solve problems, make decisions, determine which procedure best fits a situation, justify choices, create original products and so forth.

Examples from the Classroom The following examples demonstrate tasks teachers have used in classrooms to require students to use more complex thinking skills. Secondary Social Studies To enhance student understanding of the choice and risk involved when choosing a route to California in 1849, students assessed the three route options most frequently used by pioneers. Assessment criteria was identified by students and ranked from most important for decision-making to least important. Students used the assessment criteria to evaluate and select the route they would have taken if they had made the trip in 1849.

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

12

Secondary Science After studying the effects of tornados and high winds on residential structures, students designed homes they felt would withstand high wind velocity. Structural integrity was tested with simulations and data collected from each structural test. Student teams analyzed the strengths and weaknesses revealed through the structural tests and proposed structural suggestions for homes that can withstand high wind velocity. Secondary Math Students were provided with a copy of an e-mail message that summarized a newspaper article which stated that the smell of baked bread may be a health hazard. In addition to a list of various consequences produced by the aroma of baked bread, the article cited the primary danger of bread baking to be the breakdown of the ozone layer from organic components. The article suggested that bread baking was inducing global warming and the e-mail outlined 12 statistical statements regarding the negative impact bread consumption has on people. For example, the e-mail noted that more than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters, half of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests and so forth. The e-mail concluded with a bread restriction proposal. Students were asked to write a rebuttal to the e-mail, presenting arguments against the dangers of bread and discussing the misuse of statistics. Secondary Communication Arts As students read a novel, they wrote interview questions that could be directed to characters in the novel. After they had completed the novel, students assumed the roles of the characters from the novel for a simulated television talk-show interview. Questions written previously by students while reading the novel were posed to the characters by the talk-show host. Students assuming character roles responded to the interview questions based on their interpretation and analysis of their character’s behaviors, motives and actions in the novel. Elementary Students assumed the role of concerned citizen and worked with a team to identify a local problem, such as a traffic safety issue, dark street corner and so forth. Teams researched the issue and developed a solution proposal that could be presented to the city council to initiate change. Part of the preparation included development of answers to questions that might be posed by city council members during the proposal presentation.

Teaching Thinking Skills As students begin working on complex projects or tasks it may become apparent that they are not familiar with how to use higher-level thinking skills so they may need modeling, an explanation of how or when to use a particular thinking skill and ongoing coaching on how to use the skill effectively. Intel Teach provides guidelines teachers can use to teach thinking skills to their students at the following website: http://www.intel.com.au/content/dam/www/program/education/apac/au/en/documents/project-design/dep-thinking-environments.pdf

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

13

Personal Classroom Learning Taxonomy One strategy teachers can use to purposefully plan for students to use higher-level thinking skills in the classroom is to develop a personal classroom learning taxonomy. In a classroom learning taxonomy, teachers identify the type of thinking and/or habits of mind or other intelligent behaviors desired for students in their classroom. The personal taxonomy can be designed as an overall set of goals that is used to guide all instructional planning in the classroom over the course of a semester or year, or it can be designed as thinking goals for a specific unit or project.

Putting into Practice Complete the personal classroom learning taxonomy and store it in a place (a physical location or electronic location) that will be accessible during future professional-development sessions and for classroom instruction planning. Develop an instructional plan (classroom activity, lesson or unit) that is designed to engage students in higher-level thinking. Put the plan into action before the next professional-development session. Note student response to the plan and how it may have impacted their understanding of concepts related to curriculum standards.

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

14

Resources Partnership for 21st Century Skills Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Framework for 21st Century Learning.

http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=120

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Thinking and Problem Solving. http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=260&Itemid=120

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Electronic Journal of

Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1). http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/articulos/8/english/Art_8_94.pdf

CELT Learning Technologies. A Model of Learning Objectives Based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Iowa State University.

http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/RevisedBlooms1.html Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s Taxonomy Blooms Digitally. Tech & Learning.

http://www.techlearning.com/article/8670

Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom's Taxonomy. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology.

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy

Intel Corporation. Bloom’s Taxonomy: A New Look at an Old Standby. Designing Effective Projects: Thinking Skills Frameworks.

http://educate.intel.com/en/ProjectDesign/ThinkingSkills/ThinkingFrameworks/Bloom_Taxonomy.htm

Overbaugh, R. C., & Schultz, L. Bloom’s Taxonomy. Old Dominion University. http://ww2.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Colorado Department of Education. Colorado Academic Standards: Depth of Knowledge. Office of Standards, Assessments and Research & Evaluation.

http://tsdwlstandards.wikispaces.com/file/view/Depth+of+Knowledge+for+the+CAS.pdf

Hess, K. K. (2004). Applying Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge (DOK) Levels in Reading. National Center for Assessment, Dover, N.H.

http://www.nciea.org/publications/DOKreading_KH08.pdf Vandeven, M. (2006). Depth of Knowledge. St. Louis Area Curriculum Coordinators Association. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/DOK_presentation.pdf

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

15

Marzano’s New Taxonomy Intel, Inc. Marzano’s New Taxonomy. Designing Effective Projects: Thinking Skills Frameworks.

http://download.intel.com/education/Common/in/Resources/DEP/skills/Marzano.pdf

Costa and Kallick’s Habits of Mind Costa, A. L. & Kallick, B. (2000). Describing 16 Habits of Mind. Adapted from Habits of Mind: A Developmental Series. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

http://www.instituteforhabitsofmind.com/resources/pdf/16HOM.pdf North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Habits of Mind. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/learning/lr2habit.htm

References Brooks, G. & Brooks, M. (1999). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. CELT Learning Technologies. A Model of Learning Objectives Based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Iowa State University.

http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/RevisedBlooms1.html Colorado Department of Education. Colorado Academic Standards: Depth of Knowledge. Office of Standards, Assessments and Research & Evaluation.

http://tsdwlstandards.wikispaces.com/file/view/Depth+of+Knowledge+for+the+CAS.pdf

Costa, A. L. & Kallick, B. (2000). Describing 16 Habits of Mind. Adapted from Habits of Mind: A Developmental Series. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

http://www.instituteforhabitsofmind.com/resources/pdf/16HOM.pdf Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom's Taxonomy: Original and Revised. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology.

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ Intel, Inc. Marzano’s New Taxonomy. Designing Effective Projects: Thinking Skills Frameworks.

http://download.intel.com/education/Common/in/Resources/DEP/skills/Marzano.pdf

Mississippi Department of Education. (2009). Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Guide.

http://www.aps.edu/rda/documents/resources/Webbs_DOK_Guide.pdf

Overbaugh, R. C., & Schultz, L. Bloom’s Taxonomy. Old Dominion University. http://ww2.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm

e M I N T S N a t i o n a l C e n t e r

16

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Framework for 21st Century Learning.

http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=120

Vandeven, M. (2006). Depth of Knowledge. St. Louis Area Curriculum Coordinators Association. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/DOK_presentation.pdf