The learner will demonstrate -- or TLWD.
It's the statement and acronym typically used to clarify and create learning goals. This introductory statement was originally used with Bloom's Taxonomy to identify clearly in which cognitive category students were expected to demonstrate their learning - e.g. The learner will demonstrate knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. When Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised Bloom's Taxonomy by renaming the cognitive categories from noun to verbs, the introductory statement became The student will be able to... followed by the newly named cognitive category - remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, or create . The push for student-centered objectives written in student friendly language once again changed the introductory statement for learning goals to be more direct and personal (I will...) or collaborative (We will...).
However, with the instructional shift focusing on college and career readiness, it's time to once again rephrase the introductory phrase that set the learning goals for a lesson or unit. Why? Because learning is not only about demonstrating knowledge and thinking anymore. Students are now also expected to communicate the depth and extent of their knowledge, understanding, and awareness of what they have learned. In other words, learning by doing is no longer the goal. Now students must be able to explain how it is done, express why it can be done, and expound upon what else can be done with the concepts and content they are learning.
Interestingly, for the most part, the college and career ready standards as they are written and presented do not foster and promote communication of knowledge and thinking. While there are some performance objectives that begin with cognitive verbs that are synonymous with communication, such as define, describe, explain, present, represent, summarize, or write, the majority of the cognitive verbs introducing the standards are more more intrinsic and cerebral than extrinsic and communicative. Performance objective direct students to demonstrate how they can to analyze, apply, determine, evaluate, integrate, or interpret, but they neither inform nor guide students how to express and share their analyses, applications, determinations, evaluations, integrations, or interpretations.
This is why questions, not performance objectives, are an effective and integral means for demonstrating and communicating learning. They prompt students to think about what they are about to learn. They also encourage students to express and share the depth of their learning.
So where do we come up with these questions? We rephrase the same performance objectives of academic standards as good questions that foster communication of learning using oral, written, creative, or technical expression.
How can we rephrase these performance objectives into questions? We use the introductory statement The students will examine and explain and convert the cognitive verb of the standard into a question stem.
The verb examine challenges and engages students to think deeply about what they are learning. The verb explain prompts and encourages students to express and share the depth or extent of their learning. These are the cognitive processes that not only address college and career readiness but also foster and promote cognitive rigor -- specifically, the demonstration of higher order thinking and communication of depth of knowledge.
Now look at what happens when these performance objectives are rephrased as good questions. They not only foster and promote demonstrating and communicating learning but also increase the cognitive rigor of the learning experience by having students think deeply and express and share the depth of their knowledge, understanding, and awareness of how, why, what influence, and how can you apply.
cess can be made simple by using by taking the following steps:
- Identify the standard(s) that will be addressed.
- Use the introductory statement The students will examine and explain...
- Convert the cognitive verb to the correlating cognitive rigor question (C.R.Q.) stem using the Bloom's Revised Taxonomy Inverted Pyramid. (See the accompanying graphic).
- Complete the question with the concept or content addressed in the standard.
These good questions not only serve as summative assessments but also set the instructional focus throughout a learning experience. The phrases and words are the academic vocabulary, subject-specific terminology, and specific details and elements students will need to recognize and understand who, what, where, or when in order to address and respond to these questions and meet these performance objectives with the depth and extent they expect.
Turning performance objectives may seem easy and simple, but is actually difficult and complex - or rather, complicated. It will take time and thinking to develop a good question that is so open-ended and thought-provoking that they will drive and determine the depth and extent of learning. However, this pro
Use the formula for creating good questions from academic standards:
The students will examine and explain + C.R.Q. stem + subject / topic
Erik M. Francis, M.Ed., M.S., is the lead professional education specialist and owner of Maverik Education LLC, providing professional development and consultation on teaching and learning for cognitive rigor. His book Now THAT'S a Good Question! How to Promote Cognitive Rigor Through Classroom Questioning will be published by ASCD in Winter 2016. For more information on this topic or how to receive professional development at your site, please visit www.maverikeducation.com.