#492 – Deconstructing DOK, with Erik M. Francis

If you are listening to the podcast with your instructional team or would like to explore this topic more deeply, here are guiding questions to prompt your reflection:

• What are some common misconceptions about Depth of Knowledge that you have encountered in schools?
• How might using DOK as a shared language for learning change conversations among teachers and students?
• In what ways can teachers shift from using questions to assess answers to using questions to develop thinking?
• How can breaking down complex standards help teachers clarify what students need to learn and how deeply they should learn it?
• What strategies could help students move from simply answering correctly (DOK 1) to explaining and justifying their thinking (DOK 2 and DOK 3)?
• How can educators create learning experiences that motivate students to care about the content that they are studying?
• What is one small change that you could make in your questioning or instruction to help students demonstrate deeper levels of understanding?

• Maverik Education (Erik M. Francis)
• An Inside Look at Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (Norman Webb, Sara Christopherson, and Bill Morelan via Edutopia)
• Now That’s a Good Question! How to Promote Cognitive Rigor Through Classroom Questioning (written by Erik M. Francis)
• Deconstructing Depth of Knowledge: A Method and Model for Deeper Teaching and Learning (written by Erik M. Francis)
• Inquiring Minds Want to Learn: Posing Good Questions to Promote Student Inquiry (written by Erik M. Francis)
• Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning (Charlotte Ruhl via Simply Psychology)
• The Clarity Pathway (Larry Ainsworth)

#492 Deconstructing DOK, with Erik M. Francis

AVID Open Access
55 min

Transcript

The following transcript was automatically generated from the podcast audio by generative artificial intelligence.  Because of the automated nature of the process, this transcript may include unintended transcription and mechanical errors.

Erik M. Francis 0:00 How can we use DOK to create a system-wide language where it doesn’t matter if you’re in kindergarten, third grade, sixth grade, ninth grade, or 12th grade? Doesn’t matter if you’re teaching PE or math or English. This is what learning looks like, sounds like, and feels like through the eyes of a student.

Paul Beckermann 0:20 The topic for today’s podcast is Deconstructing DOK with Erik M. Francis. Unpacking Education is brought to you by AVID. AVID believes in seeing the potential of every student. To learn more about AVID, visit their website at avid.org.

Rena Clark 0:38 Welcome to Unpacking Education, the podcast where we explore current issues and best practices in education. I’m Rena Clark.

Paul Beckermann 0:49 I’m Paul Beckermann.

Winston Benjamin 0:50 And I’m Winston Benjamin. We are educators,

Paul Beckermann 0:54 and we’re here to share insights and actionable strategies.

Transition Music with Rena’s Children 0:58 Education is our passport to the future.

Paul Beckermann 1:03 Our quote for today is from our guest, Erik M. Francis, in his book Deconstructing Depth of Knowledge: A Method and Model for Deeper Teaching and Learning. He writes, “I believe teaching and learning for depth of knowledge is not only an academic method or model that promotes rigorous instruction, learning, or assessment — it also fosters and promotes a growth mindset for teaching and learning.”

All right, Winston, what are you thinking about with that quote today?

Winston Benjamin 1:32 There are a lot of levels of things to dig into, but I like the idea that it fosters and promotes growth mindsets, because I think it’s the conversation that teachers need to have with students about what they’re learning, how they’re being assessed, and why they’re being assessed that really matters in helping students make changes and improvements in themselves. Because just like coaches, you have to give students the why behind what they’re doing and how they can improve themselves. So that’s a big thing for me.

Paul Beckermann 2:02 I like that you pulled out the word why, because I was thinking it also shows the what and the how. It’s kind of like all those big questions that we have as teachers — I think it wraps all of those in, and that growth mindset is key.

All right, we are excited to welcome Erik to our podcast today. Erik is an international author, educator, presenter, and professional development producer with over 30 years of expertise in education. Welcome to the show, Erik.

Erik M. Francis 2:30 Thanks, guys. Thanks for having me.

Paul Beckermann 2:34 It’s really a pleasure to have you here. I gave kind of the 30,000-foot overview of who you are. Do you want to get a little more personal for our listeners and let them know who is Erik Francis — who are you?

Erik M. Francis 2:49 Well, I’m a father, and I have three daughters. I’ve been an educator for over 30 years. I’ve been a middle school teacher and a site administrator. I worked at a State Department here in Arizona, and then in 2012 I decided to branch out on my own and start providing consultation to help schools develop their Title I programs.

I always wanted to be an instructional leader, and that was actually why my career as an administrator was short — because I felt like anything but. I felt like a cop without a badge. I was a therapist, an accountant, a politician. I was not really doing the instructional leadership I wanted to do, which was helping and supporting teachers to be more effective, highly effective, or to enhance their effectiveness in the classroom.

So I started providing professional development based on strategies I had used in my own classroom. I’m a questioner — I love asking questions. I used to ask my students questions all the time, and they would respond, and that’s how they’d learn deeply.

Then I started writing books. My first book in 2016 was called Now That’s a Good Question! I wrote it because my question was: what exactly is an essential question? Because it really depends on who you read. If you read Wiggins and McTighe, they say it’s one thing. Ted Sizer says it’s another. John Larmer says it’s a driving question for project-based learning. So I wanted to write a book addressing what a good question is — or more importantly, what does a good question do?

Then I took some time, and the pandemic torpedoed me, so I said, okay, I’m going to write another book. I had learned about depth of knowledge — DOK — during my Common Core training, and found that a lot of what we were told was inaccurate and inconsistent with its original intent. I wanted to write a book about how you can understand and use DOK as a concept, a framework, and a language, which is what I’m talking about a lot lately.

My third book came out about a year ago, called Inquiring Minds Want to Learn. It goes from what questions you can ask to how you can ask those questions so students will address them. I developed something called the Inquiring Minds Framework.

Now I just provide professional development. I work with schools around the country and around the world, and I’m really happy to do what I do, the way I do it. That’s me in a nutshell.

Winston Benjamin 5:24 Thank you for being here. I appreciate you giving the audience a little bit of a foundation on who they’re listening to, because that matters — sometimes you need to know who you’re listening to.

In your introduction, you mentioned depth of knowledge and how people may have a misunderstanding, or may not be using it in the most effective way. For those who may not be as versed in the concept, can you give us a high-level explanation of DOK — the depth of knowledge levels — and why they’re important? Give us a general overview: what is it, why is it important, and how do we engage with those levels?

Erik M. Francis 6:11 Well, the first thing we should clarify is that DOK was never meant to be a method or model for teaching and learning. It was a criterion for alignment studies. That’s what it was originally designed to be — you would take your standards and code them as a 1, 2, 3, or 4. Those are the DOK levels. Then you would take an activity or an assessment item, code it the same way, and see how closely the activity or assessment item addressed and assessed the standard.

Alignment is something we really need to start looking at again when it comes to teaching. The big thing now is about HQIMs — high-quality instructional materials. Well, we may have required instructional materials, but how closely do they actually address and assess the standard? So that’s where a lot of confusion comes from with depth of knowledge — it was never meant to be about teaching and learning. It was about being a criterion for alignment studies.

Then it became more of a measure for cognitive rigor. What happened was Karen Hess took it and made her Hess Matrix, where she superimposed Bloom’s Taxonomy with Webb’s DOK levels. Again, it was about coding the rigor.

What I did was turn it into a method and model for teaching and learning. I say there are four ways kids can demonstrate and discuss their learning. It’s a concept in terms of how it clarifies the complexity of learning expectations set by standards and learning experiences. It’s a framework that establishes four different ways that kids can demonstrate and discuss their learning.

Lately, what I’ve been talking about a lot is how it’s a language, because we have all these taxonomies, cognitive frameworks, and ideas about levels of thinking. But what does learning look like, sound like, and feel like? And more importantly, what does it look like, sound like, and feel like to the learner?

So lately I’ve been tying DOK a lot to visible learning — John Hattie’s work, specifically the first premise, which is about being clear about the purpose. Teachers look at learning through the lens of the learner, which means you’re not just looking at your standard as a teacher. You have to break it up into different objectives. What does that look like, sound like, and feel like to a student? Students see themselves as teachers — they demonstrate, discuss, and communicate.

I really think the future of education is not just cognition, and I don’t think it’s computerization. I think the future is comprehension and communication, because we have to understand what we’re receiving, and we also have to be able to communicate our understanding of it. That’s where the DOK levels come in as a language.

When I’m working with schools right now, the question is: how can we use DOK to create a system-wide language where it doesn’t matter if you’re in kindergarten, third grade, sixth grade, ninth grade, or 12th grade? Doesn’t matter if you’re teaching PE or math or English, and it doesn’t matter what acronyms or numbers define the services a student receives. This is what learning looks like, sounds like, and feels like through the eyes of a student.

I really think we need to start focusing on that more than just asking, “So what are you doing?” It’s not just about what you’re doing — it’s what exactly and how deeply you can demonstrate and discuss, or comprehend and communicate, your learning. It’s not another framework for cognition. It’s something to use to enhance your clarity as a teacher, make your teaching and learning more coherent, and enhance students’ comprehension and communication skills.

Paul Beckermann 10:11 Can you give an example of what that might look like in practice? What was your content area — were you ELA, social studies?

Erik M. Francis 10:22 It’s funny — I’m an English teacher, but I used to teach out of my content area to make extra money during my prep hour. That’s actually where a lot of my strategies come from, because my kids would say, “You’re not a math teacher, you’re not a science teacher — you don’t know this stuff.” And I’d say, “You know what? You’re absolutely right. So here’s the deal: I’m going to ask the question, and you’re going to teach me.”

So let’s think about it this way. With DOK 1, all you have to do is answer correctly. People have a hard time wrapping their head around that, because sometimes they think if something is hard or difficult, it must be deeper than DOK 1. But it’s not about difficulty — it’s about the demand.

What I like to say now, tying it back to the science of reading: if a skill is automatic or becomes automatic, it’s a DOK 1. If I can find the answer on a calculator by pressing a few buttons and pressing an operation, that’s a DOK 1. If I can find it on a computer, that’s a DOK 1. Reading fluently is a DOK 1. A lot of times people say, “Well, understanding language is complex.” But when a skill becomes automatic — when it’s not cognitively or contextually demanding — that’s a DOK 1.

DOK 2 is about processing. That’s when I’m using multiple skills to process something, or when I’m explaining how I got my answer. DOK 3 is about proving. Whenever you see the word evidence, that’s a DOK 3. If I have to cite textual evidence to draw an inference from the text and analyze what it says explicitly, that’s a DOK 3. If I’m asking “what if,” that’s a DOK 3. If I’m analyzing arguments based on evidence — not opinions — that’s a DOK 3.

DOK 4 is extensive. It’s not simply project-based learning. It is extensive in a practical and purposeful way. It takes a lot of time — that’s a characteristic, not a criterion — but it also takes a lot of talking and transfer. You’re going deep within the subject area, beyond the classroom, and across the curriculum.

If I apply this to ELA: if I can read a book fluently, it’s a DOK 1. If I can use information from the text to explain key ideas, details, craft, or structure, it’s a DOK 2. If I can justify with evidence from the book, or think critically and creatively based on evidence, that’s a DOK 3. If I’m doing an author study or a genre study, that’s a DOK 4 — or if I’m retelling the story from a different character’s perspective.

One of my favorite assignments when I taught The Outsiders was to tell the story from a different character’s perspective. You could be Johnny, Sodapop, Cherry, or Dally. You could do it from a third-person standpoint or write it as a news report. Then I had them take another existing story and retell it from a different character’s perspective.

My favorite example was a student who went up in front of the class and growled for about two minutes, then flipped the page and said, “I’m C-3PO, human-cyborg relations. I’m going to translate the story Chewbacca just told you about how we rescued the princess from the Death Star and how we ended up defeating the Empire.”

Paul Beckermann 14:34 All right, now a Star Wars analogy — now you’re talking my language.

Erik M. Francis 14:41 I’m a big pop culture reference person.

The big thing is — and I know it sounds complicated — I can’t make DOK simple, but I can make it easy. What if we just said there are four different ways students can comprehend and communicate their learning?

They can either answer with just the facts, or just do it. They can give examples where they establish, explain, or express. They can give evidence where they consider, conclude, or critique — where they employ, examine, evaluate, and explain. Or they can extend it, making more extensive transfer connections. That’s it. And that’s DOK in a nutshell.

Paul Beckermann 15:31 I just want to ask a follow-up question about that, because I heard you mention some verbs, and it reminds me of the DOK wheel that I think we all saw in undergrad. You have said teachers should stop using that tool the way they’re using it. Can you talk about the DOK wheel, why it’s problematic, and what teachers should be doing instead?

Erik M. Francis 15:50 This is my favorite part of the conversation about DOK. The DOK wheel is like Fight Club — the first rule of Fight Club is we don’t talk about Fight Club. That’s why we don’t talk about why the DOK wheel is inaccurate.

First of all, it was never developed by Norman Webb, and he has refuted it. There’s an Edutopia article he wrote where he said the DOK wheel is inaccurate.

Here’s what happened: when Norman Webb first started doing alignment studies, one of the first states he worked with was Florida. Instead of using Bloom’s Taxonomy, they used DOK levels for alignment studies. A teacher uploaded something to the internet and said, “This is depth of knowledge.”

The thing about depth of knowledge is that it’s not about the verb — it’s about what comes after the verb. The DOK wheel is an inaccurate document, and here’s how everyone got it: when we all went to Common Core, a state — I’ll keep their identity secret; let’s just say Frank Sinatra sang about them — put out a graphic they found on the internet. I actually have a message from someone at that State Department of Education who said, “We realized our mistake and tried to fix it.” But I like to say it’s like pouring water out of a bottle or sand out of a bag — you’re not going to get every drop or grain back.

The DOK wheel is actually a derivative of the Bloom’s Hot Wheel, which was created by Dr. Barbara Clark. The difference between the DOK wheel and the Bloom’s Hot Wheel is that the Bloom’s Hot Wheel has five spokes full of verbs, and the DOK wheel has four.

So it’s not about the verb — it’s about what comes after the verb. If I say analyze, we know that’s a higher level of thinking according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. But what exactly and how deeply do they have to analyze?

If I say, “Analyze whether the information is in the text,” there’s some processing going on, but what does the output look like? The student is just going to say it’s there or it’s not. That’s a DOK 1. But if I say, “Analyze how the information is present in the text,” now I have to explain that — that’s a DOK 2. If I say, “Analyze how the information supports the central idea or theme,” that’s a DOK 3 — supports implies evidence. If I say, “Analyze how two or more texts addressing the same topic present information and support the central idea or theme,” now it’s a DOK 4.

When we talk about teacher clarity, depth of knowledge brings the clarity. The two questions you have to ask yourself are: What exactly? and How deeply?

This is really a benefit because our standards are now multidimensional. My next book is going to take a deep dive into rethinking the standards, because one thing we haven’t communicated well is that these standards are not just cognitively complex — they’re contextually complex. They’re written very differently from what I call the pre-College and Career Readiness Standards, which just assessed for content knowledge and basic skills. These new standards are contextual. They’re talking about delving deeper and transferring. They’re very, very contextual.

If you look at the Next Generation Science Standards, it’s not just “describe the function of a cell and the way the parts contribute to the function.” That’s two-dimensional. The third dimension is the science and engineering practice that says, “Develop and use a model to do it.” Now I’ve increased the demand.

I see people say, “Oh, don’t use Bloom’s — use depth of knowledge.” It’s not either/or — it’s both. Use Bloom’s, and when you see a verb at a certain level, recognize it’s higher-order thinking. But then ask: what exactly and how deeply are they thinking about it? That’s where DOK comes in, and that’s where I use it as a language.

Winston Benjamin 20:43 I appreciate this conversation because when I have conversations that make me think, I really enjoy those.

One of the things I want you to talk about is that you’ve described how people have been trained through a process but don’t really understand how to engage their students in DOK thinking. How do we deconstruct our academic standards to really help teachers demonstrate those levels of DOK? You started engaging with that a little bit, but what are ways we can help teachers break that cycle so they can see this in different ways and maximize the “yes, and” of what you’re talking about?

Erik M. Francis 21:37 What’s really interesting is that if you delve deep into everybody’s concepts, you’re really only getting half the story. This is something we talk about as authors. I mean, if you talk to Charlotte Danielson about the Danielson Framework, she’ll say, “That’s not the intent of it.” If you talk to Jay McTighe about essential questions — the great thing is, I’ve had the privilege of learning from Tom Guskey, and it was really fascinating, because Dr. Tom Guskey was a protégé of Benjamin Bloom. Even Bloom’s Taxonomy — when we see these giant lists of verbs, that’s not exactly what it was. It becomes a watered-down, polluted concept, and that’s the danger.

I talk about this because Larry Ainsworth has become a colleague and a close friend of mine. I never want to be the person who says, “Don’t listen to them, listen to me.” Listen to everybody — listen with the ear of a learner.

Getting back to Larry Ainsworth: we’ve taken the whole concept of unwrapping the standards and we only have half the story. Actually, we have about two-thirds of the story. When we go to unwrap standards, what do we do? The simplest misconception is that we spend a day circling verbs and underlining nouns, and it gets to the point where we’re circling and underlining without even knowing why. “That’s a verb, circle it.” But some of those words aren’t things kids are doing — they’re describing a context. And what’s really interesting is that Larry has always talked about context within standards. Back in the day, teachers had to come up with the context — they had to determine what exactly and how deeply students would engage in learning, because the standards were broad and many instructional decisions happened at the classroom level. And that’s the way it should be as a system — we have local control, and teachers have autonomy and flexibility to teach the standard.

Now, when I say that, some leaders get nervous. They say, “You just gave my teachers free rein.” No — you have autonomy and flexibility to teach the standard. There’s more to the story.

So what I’ve done — and this will be in my next book — is honor the traditional process. Larry Ainsworth’s process is timeless. Keep circling your verbs and underlining your nouns, make a T-chart, put your unwrapped concepts and unwrapped skills on it. But what I suggest is making a three-column table, because the standards are now three-dimensional. You have cognition, which is the thinking. You have content, which are your nouns. And you have context, which are all the other words you’re neither underlining nor circling.

So if I take an ELA standard — it says, “Use context within and beyond a sentence to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words and multiple-meaning words.” There’s a lot going on in that one standard. First, I have two verbs: use and determine. That means I have at least two different objectives. Then I underline my nouns: context, sentence, unfamiliar words, multiple-meaning words. Maryellen Sprenger’s work would call those the critical words — the words we need to define to ensure students can comprehend and communicate in the content area.

But now I’m saying: don’t just unwrap the skills and concepts to identify the thinking and content knowledge. Use it to build academic vocabulary. Understand the Bloom’s verbs, and understand the Tier 3, subject-specific terms. But then look at those other words. “Use context within and beyond a sentence” — that tells me what exactly and how deeply I have to use context. Within a sentence is one level of demand. Beyond the sentence is another level of demand. And notice it says “a sentence” — declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences. That’s the first objective. The second says “determine the meaning of multiple-meaning words and unfamiliar words” — those are two separate objectives.

So when you deconstruct that one standard, you actually have up to about six objectives students need to achieve to demonstrate proficiency and perform successfully.

I understand people want to say, “I just want to know what I have to teach.” But we can’t approach these standards that way anymore. We can’t take a broadsword to them. We have to take a scalpel. We have to be surgical about it. And when you do that, your teaching will not only be more intentional and coherent — the work you’re putting into unwrapping and deconstructing that standard will actually pay off, compared to creating an activity that probably isn’t aligned to the standard or never turns out the way you planned.

We really need to be intentional about our standards. Because if we’re going to close the gaps — and the word gap in learning didn’t exist until we became standards-based — we have to figure out what exactly kids need to do to achieve that standard.

I like the analogy of a race. The standard is the finish line, and the finish line defines the race. If you look at it through DOK levels, a DOK 1 is a dash — just get to the finish line. A DOK 4 is a triathlon, because you’re not just running; you’re swimming and biking. The difference between a DOK 2 and a DOK 3? A DOK 2 is a backyard obstacle course, and a DOK 3 is an American Ninja Warrior course.

We need to figure out what the finish line is, and we need to start there — Understanding by Design, working backwards to find out where the kids are in that pathway. That’s what teaching like a coach looks like. A track coach, a pit boss in a car race, a horse trainer — they don’t train from the starting line. They train from the finish line. They say, “Can you get to the finish line?” and send them on their way. But then they look to see where on the track a student is weak and where they’re strong, and they ask: how can you use your strengths to propel yourself and compensate for the areas needing growth?

Paul Beckermann 30:20 You know, when you’re talking here, I always think of DOK as questions, and I know that’s part of it, but I’m also hearing you talk about cognitive tasks — not just questions. Am I understanding you correctly?

Erik M. Francis 30:38 You are. What I like to say is: DOK is the response we want kids to provide. Questioning is how we get them to provide that response.

Paul Beckermann 30:48 Gotcha.

Erik M. Francis 30:49 The hard part about questioning — and I talk about this — is that we put a lot of pressure on people to ask good questions or better questions. Questioning is, I’d say, a gift, but when I say gift in terms of giftedness, it’s a blessing and a curse, because questions are just everywhere for me. I could literally hear something and immediately have a question. I was that kid in class when the teacher said, “Does anyone have any questions?” — my hand shot up, and my teacher would say, “About the lesson, Erik?” And I’d go, “Oh, no, I’m good.”

We really need to retrain our minds around this, because what happens is when kids start school, research has shown that children between the ages of two and five will ask 200 to 500 questions a day — all directed at their mother, because that’s the safe adult in the room. When they go to school, a social and physiological thing happens. Their frontal cortex starts to develop, so now they’re not speaking in interrogatives — they’re speaking in declaratives. That’s why we have so many kids at the elementary level who say, “I have a question.” “What’s the question?” “I went to McDonald’s last night.” “What’s your question?” That’s where we have to teach them interrogative statements and grammar.

The other thing is social. We’re often using questioning to assess, and that’s how we unfortunately tend to use it — we think that when we ask a question, students have to give the answer, and it better be correct. That’s not teaching and learning with questioning and inquiry. You’re not supposed to already have the answer — and when I say wait time, it’s not just about giving students time to respond. We need to give them reflection time. We need them to really think it over, mull it over — and they may not even respond. It may be something they walk away thinking about. So DOK is the response we want kids to give, and understanding and using our questions well is how we get kids to respond in those four ways.

Paul Beckermann 33:06 So one follow-up question: I’m thinking about the student’s role in all of this, because a lot of this feels teacher-generated and teacher-initiated. But we want our kids to be inquirers. We want inquiry to be a key part of the learning process. How do we bring kids into that process? How do we teach them to keep striving toward those upper levels? Is that part of the equation?

Erik M. Francis 33:34 It is, and it’s a bigger issue we’re facing right now in terms of cognition. I actually think it’s more of an affective issue — meaning the emotional response to learning. Are we giving kids a reason to read? That’s what I often ask. Why should they care about this?

I’m doing a keynote on this. I call it Generation C — not Alpha or Z — because everything in their life involves the letter C. They’re marked by connectivity, computers, and cell phones. The 21st-century skills are critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication, character, and citizenship. If you think about it, everything in their life starts with C. What have we been teaching kids for the last 10 years? To be college and career ready. What are the standards called? Common Core. What are they marked for? Cognitive rigor. What disrupted it all? COVID-19. What happened? Schools closed. What have we been saying for the last five years? “Please come back.”

Research says this generation is connected electronically, but disconnected emotionally. Their attitude is, “Why do I need to learn this when I can press a couple of buttons and get it?” So we need to teach them how to make authentic connections. We need to help kids care about what they’re learning — and that’s where the teacher’s creativity comes in.

Kids don’t have questions unless we give them a reason to care. Let me give you an example. I was in a classroom recently where they were talking about the Constitution. I always advise social studies teachers to go into the Articles of Confederation first, because that’s the reason we have the Constitution. So I said to the kids, “Who’s the first president of the United States?” They all said George Washington. I said, “What do you mean?” And they looked at me like, “What do you mean?” I said, “Well, you’re right — he was the first president elected under the U.S. Constitution. But what if I told you there were also eight presidents appointed under the Articles of Confederation?” And the kids were like, “Wait, what? Why aren’t they acknowledged? Why don’t we learn about them?” Why. See what’s happening there?

We need to reteach kids how to ask questions, because they’ve been taught not to. How many times were you in a class where someone said, “Is this about the lesson?” I was that kid. Someone would say, “Does anyone have any questions?” and my hand would shoot up. I even had teachers say, “Does anyone except Erik have a question?” And I’d say, “Well, now my question has changed — why everyone except me?”

We want kids to be curious, but what are we doing to make them curious? That’s where the true creativity of the teacher comes in, and I think that’s where we need to share our love for what we’re teaching.

I’m actually developing something based on Simon Sinek’s Golden Circle. We tend to talk about the standard as the what, but I want to talk about the standard as the why. The standard is the reason we’re teaching this. But why is this also interesting to learn? That’s where teacher autonomy and flexibility needs to come in.

If I’m teaching The Scarlet Letter, why am I teaching it? Because students have to analyze how complex characters develop over the course of the text and contribute to the theme — that’s the standard. But why am I really teaching it? Because I want kids to think critically about how the four main characters address the theme of guilt — stereotypically, socially, religiously, and psychologically. And I want them to wonder: if TMZ had been around back in the Puritan days, would Hester Prynne be on TMZ? Would she turn out like a Kim Kardashian — because from scandal can come success, if you learn from your mistakes?

If you know The Scarlet Letter, people eventually forgot what the “A” meant. When Hester was first branded, everyone knew it stood for adulteress. But over time, they forgot, and they said, “Oh, it must mean able — because that’s what she is.” So how does that resonate today? That’s my why.

Now, the how — I’m going to have them read the book and write a literary analysis about how the four main characters address the theme of guilt. And then we’ll go extensive and ask: why do the messages and ideas of The Scarlet Letter last to this day? Because many of those philosophies and attitudes are still very much present.

What am I teaching them, in terms of character, through The Scarlet Letter? That’s the Golden Circle — start with why, then how, then what. And use it to help you plan your teaching, not just as a personal motivational tool.

Winston Benjamin 39:29 You kind of answered my last question already, which is about a good first step for a teacher — just think about what you’re teaching. Why are you doing this? Why are you putting your students through this? But now you’re going to get us jumping into the next part, which is the toolkit.

Transition Music with Rena’s Children 39:47 Check it out, check it out, check it out. What’s in the toolkit? Check it out.

Winston Benjamin 39:58 So Paul, what do you want to throw in the toolkit?

Paul Beckermann 40:02 I’m thinking about what Erik said — that we need to reteach kids how to ask questions, because they’re taught not to. Back in my English teaching days, we’d often say, “Read this and then answer these questions.” Very passive, very boring for kids.

I had a colleague who did a really great flip on it. She would assign a chapter, but the kids had to come back with the questions. Each student had a note card and had to write their own questions. Sometimes they were targeted, sometimes they were wide open — “How does this relate to me?” — and sometimes they were aligned to the standards. I thought it was a really powerful way to get kids to own the conversation. The next day’s discussion was based entirely around those student-generated questions. It was a cool flip on things.

Winston Benjamin 41:03 There’s a strategy, Paul. You and I are actually taking away similar things. I’m going to drop in Erik’s book, Now That’s a Good Question! — because going back to our point, it’s really about figuring out how to do what you just described, Paul. What are the good ways to frame and shape a question to push our students to think deeper and more critically? Flipping the question is one example. I’m sure there are others that Erik’s book can demonstrate.

Erik, anything you’d like to throw into the toolkit — a book, a strategy, a mindset?

Erik M. Francis 41:47 Can I add a couple of things?

Paul Beckermann 41:50 Yeah, for sure.

Erik M. Francis 41:52 Okay, good. Let’s start small. Let’s just see if we can get kids to demonstrate and discuss their learning to DOK 2. Let’s just see if they can explain how and why they know what they know.

The easiest way to do that is this: every time a child gives you an answer, ask two questions — What do you mean? and You’re right, but why? You ask “you’re right, but why?” to affirm they’re correct, and then you push them to think a little bit deeper.

If I said to you, “What’s two plus two?” and you said “four,” I’d say, “You’re right, but why?” Now you have to explain it. Now it’s a little more demanding, because now you have to think about it. And little kids can do it. I have video of first graders explaining why two plus two equals four. They’re accurate, and they all have a different way to explain it — they’re talking about subitizing, about number lines. We have to start this young, and we need to make sure we’re not letting age be a reason why we don’t do things. If not now, then when?

What do you mean? does two things: it clarifies, and it communicates. So if I said to you, “There are nine planets,” what would you say?

Paul Beckermann 43:26 Pluto’s not a planet anymore.

Erik M. Francis 43:29 What do you mean?

Erik M. Francis 43:32 Because actually, do you know that Pluto’s planetary status came down to a popular vote at the International Astronomers Union in 2006? And what if I also told you that Pluto is a planet in my home state of Arizona? A bill went through our legislature, and the governor signed it into law because Pluto was discovered here in Arizona. So in Arizona, it’s a planet.

And I’ll encourage you to look up the NPR interview — you are going to laugh and go, “Oh my gosh,” because it gets into this whole discussion about not wanting European bureaucrats deciding what is or isn’t a planet.

But that’s the world our kids are living in now. They leave their house hearing one thing, and by the time they get to school, the story has changed. By lunch, the story has changed again. By the time they get home, the whole thing has changed, and their young brains can’t process that fast enough. Their left brain is still processing it when the information has already shifted — and that’s why their right brain is so stressed out.

So: every time a kid gives you an answer, say “You’re right, but why?” if they’re correct. Say “What do you mean?” if you want them to clarify or correct themselves.

Here’s the other thing I’d love to add to the toolbox. Take every standard and put one of five different question stems in front of it, and you’ll turn every standard into a question — and also personalize the learning.

If I take the standard “Fluently multiply multi-digit numbers using an algorithm,” and I put How do you in front of it, it becomes an assessment question: “How do you fluently multiply multi-digit numbers using an algorithm?”

If I put How can you in front of it, it becomes instructional. It sets the structural focus and serves as an assessment. Instead of an “I can” statement, it becomes: “How can you fluently multiply multi-digit numbers using an algorithm?” or “How can you develop and use a model to describe the function of a cell and the way the parts contribute to its function?” Now it’s an invitation to learn rather than putting words in the student’s mouth.

How could you encourages inquiry, because it implies there may be more than one way.

How would you supports differentiation. If I ask, “How would you fluently multiply multi-digit numbers using an algorithm?” — one student might say, “I’d just use the standard stacking method.” Another might say, “I’d use place value.” Another might say, “I’d use the lattice method.”

And then there’s How can I — which I initially had hesitations about, because when you say “how can I,” I’m that kid in your class who goes, “I don’t know, teacher — how can you?” But I had a teacher who actually came to me after she’d been saying “how can I” in front of every objective. She was frustrated when I said it should be “how can you,” and she disconnected from the feedback.

Then I sat down with her and said, “Okay, show me what you’re doing.” And it was brilliant. She teaches at Copper Ridge K–8 here in Scottsdale. She takes every objective and standard and has students put “How can I” in front of it, but the kids are the ones answering the question. And when they go back to their notes, the notes are talking to them. “How can I…” — it’s in their own words. Their notes become a personal resource.

So that’s my contribution to the toolbox: every time a kid gives you an answer, ask “What do you mean?” and “You’re right, but why?” And use these five question stems — How do you for assessment, How can you for instruction and replacing learning targets, How could you for inquiry, How would you for differentiation, and How can I or How could I for personalization.

Paul Beckermann 47:59 That’s awesome. All right, we’re going to take all of these things and boil it down to one thing.

Transition Music 48:06 It’s time for that one thing. That one thing.

Paul Beckermann 48:18 Okay, last segment — one thing. Let’s boil this down. What’s the one thing you’re thinking about after our conversation today? Winston, we’ll start with you. I’ll go next, and then Erik, we’ll let you finish it up for us.

Winston Benjamin 48:34 The one thing I’m really holding onto is that we have to start asking kids better questions. Why are they sitting there if all they’re doing is saying yes or no? I really appreciate the idea of asking better questions.

Paul Beckermann 48:58 I’m thinking about the word and. A few different times in the conversation, Erik talked about “and.” It’s not Bloom’s or DOK — it’s Bloom’s and DOK. It’s not just “you’re right” — it’s “you’re right, and why is that the correct answer?” It’s not just listening to one person’s perspective — it’s listening to everybody’s perspective and then making decisions for yourself. It’s this inclusiveness. And how do we get kids curious and bring them into the equation, too? So it’s teacher and student. I’m thinking about and today.

All right, Erik — what’s your final thought? What would you like to leave our listeners with?

Erik M. Francis 49:47 I want every teacher to feel confident and comfortable that they are all already teaching at deeper DOK levels. And I’ll tell administrators: your teachers are already teaching at deeper DOK levels.

Remember what I said: DOK 2 is about explaining, and that’s what teachers do when they teach — they explain in their own words. DOK 3 is about evidence and justification, and when we’re evaluating students, we’re using reasoning to justify their responses and results. And what amazing things teachers can do — they can take a standard, a curriculum, and connect it to the real world, like I did with The Scarlet Letter or the assignments for The Outsiders. Or take the Pythagorean Theorem and say, “We’re going to become firefighters. There’s a 20-story building on fire. How can we use the Pythagorean Theorem to figure out where to position the ladder?” That’s a DOK 4.

So I want every teacher out there to feel confident and comfortable that they are teaching at deeper DOK levels.

The question is: what’s the level the kids are learning at? So let me flip the script. When you hear Charlie Brown’s teacher going, “Wah wah wah wah wah” — she is teaching at deeper DOK levels. But what’s the level the kids are learning at? When you watch Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller talking about voodoo economics, he is teaching at deeper DOK levels. His depth of knowledge is extensive. But look at those kids — they are not learning at deeper DOK levels.

If you want your kids to learn at deeper DOK levels, to quote Aaron Burr in Hamilton: talk less, smile more.

Paul Beckermann 51:45 All right! And I think our listeners would be smiling if they knew how to find your books. Erik, where can they get ahold of those?

Erik M. Francis 51:55 Two of my books are with Solution Tree. If you go to solutiontree.com, you’ll find Deconstructing Depth of Knowledge and Inquiring Minds Want to Learn. My first book was published by ASCD — Now That’s a Good Question! — and I’m proud to say people still find it valuable, even approaching its 10-year anniversary.

You can also connect with me on my website: www.maverikeducation.com. It’s named after my daughters Madison, Avery, and Amanda, with my name in it as well. There’s no C in Maverick — it’s M-A-V-E-R-I-K-education.com. You’ll find a lot of resources there, and if you see QR codes on any of my graphics, scan them with your phone — you’ll be able to exchange information, and you’ll get access to graphics and videos.

I’m always around to connect. I really believe this is a time when professional learning is important, but we’ve got to help and support teachers. We have to find not just the joy in learning, but get back to the fun of teaching. That’s going to be my focus for the 2026–27 school year — how can we recapture the fun of teaching and give teachers the autonomy and flexibility to teach the standard?

Paul Beckermann 53:33 Great. Well, thanks for all of that, Erik. We look forward to following you and checking out your next book. Good luck with it, and thanks so much for being here.

Erik M. Francis 53:44 Thanks for having me.

Rena Clark 53:47 Thanks for listening to Unpacking Education.

Winston Benjamin 53:50 We invite you to visit us at avidopenaccess.org, where you can discover resources to support student agency and academic tenacity to create a classroom for future-ready learners.

Paul Beckermann 54:03 We’ll be back next Wednesday for a fresh episode of Unpacking Education.

Rena Clark 54:08 And remember — go forth and be awesome.

Winston Benjamin 54:11 Thank you for all you do.

Paul Beckermann 54:14 You make a difference.