What is the SOLO Taxonomy and how can it be used to promote deeper learning outcomes in the classroom?
Main, P (2021, May 24). A teacher's guide to SOLO Taxonomy. Retrieved from https://www.structural-learning.com/post/what-is-solo-taxonomy
SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes) offers a structured outline for the learners to use to build their learning and thinking. It motivates students to ponder where they are presently in terms of their level of understanding, and what they must do to progress.
SOLO Taxonomy was developed by John Biggs and Kevin Collis, two educational researchers who were interested in creating a framework that could help teachers design more effective learning experiences. The framework is based on the idea that there are different levels of understanding, and that students can move through these levels by engaging with increasingly complex tasks and ideas. By using SOLO Taxonomy, teachers can create learning experiences that are tailored to each student's current level of understanding, and that help them progress towards more sophisticated levels of knowledge.
SOLO Taxonomy is often used in conjunction with the concept of constructive alignment, which is the idea that learning outcomes, teaching activities, and assessment tasks should all be aligned with one another. By aligning these three elements, teachers can ensure that their students are learning in a way that is both meaningful and effective.
With SOLO Taxonomy, teachers can design learning experiences that are aligned with the specific level of understanding that each student has already achieved, and that help them progress towards more advanced levels of understanding. This approach allows students to build on their existing knowledge and skills, and to develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter over time.
Solo Taxonomy is a systematic way that describes how learners' understanding build from easy to difficult while learning different tasks or subjects. The Solo Taxonomy can be used to enhance the quality of learning within the classroom teaching and provide a systematic way of developing deep understanding (Damopolii, 2020). Student learning can be guided in ways that promote deep learning.
SOLO Taxonomy is a valuable tool for assessing the depth of knowledge that students have achieved in a particular subject or task. It allows teachers to identify where students are in their learning journey and determine what steps need to be taken to move them to a deeper level of understanding.
By using SOLO Taxonomy, teachers can design learning experiences that are appropriate for each student's level of understanding and encourage them to move towards deeper levels of knowledge. This can lead to a more effective and engaging learning experience for students, and ultimately, better academic performance.
The Structure of Observed Learning Outcome, presents a compelling way to structure the complexity and quality of students' thinking into distinct levels. It's a versatile tool that allows educators to gauge attainment levels and foster quality learning. This taxonomy consists of five levels, each representing a different depth of knowledge and ability level.
A research survey of 500 high school science teachers revealed that less than 20% were aware of the SOLO taxonomy, indicating the untapped potential this model holds for shaping pedagogy. By incorporating the SOLO taxonomy into teaching, educators can gradually raise students' level of thinking from unistructural to the abstract level, thereby encouraging deeper, more conceptual understandings. It's a robust approach to foster students' transition from just acquiring facts to connecting and applying these facts creatively and thoughtfully.
Understanding the paradigms of SOLO Taxonomy and Bloom's Taxonomy can enrich teaching methods and learning programs. Both taxonomies serve as frameworks for constructing learning objectives, but they differ fundamentally in their structure and focus.
Biggs & Collis and Biggs & Tang, the architects of the SOLO Taxonomy, designed it as a measure of the quality of learning, while Bloom's Taxonomy was developed as a hierarchy of learning objectives.
SOLO taxonomy elucidates the learner's depth of understanding, from the basic concept to the broader concept. It is more learner-focused and aims to measure the learner's quality of understanding along a continuum: from pre-structural, unistructural, multistructural, to relational and extended abstract levels.
Here, the focus is on the learner's progression in understanding classroom concepts and their ability to connect them. A well-structured assessment question in the SOLO taxonomy can enable students to demonstrate their understanding at the conceptual level.
On the other hand, Bloom's Taxonomy is more content-oriented, focusing on the definition of science and the classification of learning objectives within the cognitive domain. It provides a framework for the understanding of science from lower-order cognitive skills (knowledge, comprehension, and application) to higher-order skills (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation).
However, it falls short of assessing whether students can integrate and extend their knowledge in the same way the SOLO taxonomy does.
As Biggs and Tang put it, "The SOLO taxonomy not only suggests an item writing methodology, but the same taxonomy can be used to score the items." This points to the versatility of the SOLO model in both constructing and evaluating connected questions, a feature less prominent in Bloom's taxonomy.
In essence, both taxonomies offer valuable insights, but their application depends on the educational context and the desired learning outcomes. For a more holistic understanding of student learning, educators might consider integrating the strengths of both taxonomies in their pedagogical approach.
Sources:
The intersection of SOLO Taxonomy and John Hattie's ideas about education presents a compelling synergy. Hattie, renowned for his work on Visible Learning, emphasizes the impact of effective feedback and the importance of students understanding their own learning process.
SOLO Taxonomy aligns perfectly with these principles. It offers a structured framework for students to assess their own learning and for teachers to provide meaningful feedback. The taxonomy's stages - from prestructural to extended abstract - provide a clear ladder of progression. This enables students to visualize their current understanding and what the next level of comprehension looks like, promoting a sense of self-regulated learning.
Moreover, Hattie advocates for teaching strategies that move students towards higher-order thinking skills. SOLO Taxonomy serves as a roadmap for this journey, providing clear signposts for moving from surface to deep, and ultimately, to conceptual understanding.
In essence, the combination of Hattie's emphasis on visible, self-regulated learning and the structured progression inherent in the SOLO Taxonomy creates a powerful tool for enhancing student learning outcomes. Together, they provide a robust framework for guiding students towards deeper, more insightful learning experiences.
Teachers can use:
SOLO Taxonomy is based on the idea of cognitive processes, which are the different ways in which we process information and understand concepts. These cognitive processes include surface learning, which is focused on memorization and recall, and deep learning, which involves understanding concepts and applying them in new situations.
By using SOLO Taxonomy, teachers can help students progress from surface learning to deep learning, and ultimately to the highest level of cognitive processing, which is extended abstract thinking. This approach not only helps students develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter, but also prepares them for real-world problem solving and critical thinking.
Solo Taxonomy is useful because:
As we have seen, the SOLO taxonomy is a powerful tool that teachers can use to design learning activities that progressively deepen a student's understanding of a subject. Here are eight fictional examples of how SOLO taxonomy can be applied across various subjects in primary education:
1. Mathematics: In a lesson on fractions, a teacher could start with the unistructural level by asking students to identify fractions in a group of shapes. Moving to the multistructural level, students could be asked to compare and order different fractions. At the relational level, students could be tasked with finding equivalent fractions, and finally, at the extended abstract level, students could apply their understanding of fractions to solve real-world problems, such as dividing a pizza or a bar of chocolate into equal parts.
2. English: In a lesson on narrative writing, students at the unistructural level could identify key elements of a story (characters, setting, plot). At the multistructural level, they could describe these elements in detail. At the relational level, they could analyze how these elements interact to create a cohesive story. Finally, at the extended abstract level, students could create their own original narrative incorporating these elements.
3. Geography: In a lesson on climate zones, students could start at the unistructural level by identifying different climate zones. At the multistructural level, they could describe the characteristics of each zone. At the relational level, they could compare and contrast different zones. At the extended abstract level, they could discuss the impact of these climate zones on human life and culture.
4. History: In a lesson on the Roman Empire, students at the unistructural level could identify key events or figures. At the multistructural level, they could describe these events or figures in detail. At the relational level, they could explain the cause and effect relationships between these events. At the extended abstract level, they could evaluate the impact of the Roman Empire on modern society.
5. Science: In a lesson on the water cycle, students at the unistructural level could identify different stages of the water cycle. At the multistructural level, they could describe these stages in detail. At the relational level, they could explain how these stages are interconnected. At the extended abstract level, they could discuss the importance of the water cycle for life on Earth.
6. Art: In a lesson on color theory, students at the unistructural level could identify primary colors. At the multistructural level, they could mix primary colors to create secondary colors. At the relational level, they could create a color wheel showing the relationship between primary, secondary, and tertiary colors. At the extended abstract level, they could create an original artwork using complementary colors to evoke specific emotions.
7. Physical Education: In a lesson on basketball, students at the unistructural level could learn to dribble the ball. At the multistructural level, they could learn to pass and shoot. At the relational level, they could play a game, applying these skills in a dynamic environment. At the extended abstract level, they could reflect on their performance and devise strategies for improvement.
8. Music: In a lesson on rhythm, students at the unistructural level could clap a simple beat. At the multistructural level, they could clap a complex rhythm. At the relational level, they could perform a rhythm in a group, listening to and synchronizing with others. At the extended abstract level, they could compose their own rhythm and perform it for the class.
These examples demonstrate how the SOLO taxonomy can guide the design of learning activities that progressively deepen students' understanding, moving from surface to deep learning. The SOLO taxonomy not only provides a clear structure for these progressions, but also allows teachers to easily identify the current level of a student's understanding and to design appropriate learning activities to move them to the next level.
Key Insights:
"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
According to a study by the Journal of Educational Psychology, students who were taught using strategies that promoted higher-order thinking performed 20% better on academic assessments.
At its core, the Universal Thinking Framework from Structural Learning Theory is built upon the seminal cognitive development theories of the 20th century, including the works of Piaget and Vygotsky, and even integrates principles from Bruner's theories. It posits that true learning isn't merely a process of rote memorization or assimilation of facts, but an intricate dance of assimilation and accommodation, constructing and reconstructing cognitive schemas. This echoes Piaget's theory of cognitive development, which emphasizes the dynamic, constructive nature of learning.
This framework guides students through a structured journey of identifying and connecting key concepts, effectively facilitating the creation of mental models that reflect their understanding. The Universal Thinking Framework is not a static process; it's iterative, fostering a continuous cycle of refinement and expansion of these mental models as new information is assimilated, thereby promoting generative learning.
A significant advantage of this approach is its alignment with the Cognitive Load Theory, reducing the strain on working memory by helping learners organize and structure complex information. This process naturally enhances metacognitive awareness, empowering learners to monitor and regulate their own cognitive processes more effectively.
Moreover, the Universal Thinking Framework aligns with Vygotsky's concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, as it scaffolds the learning process, guiding learners from their current understanding towards higher levels of comprehension. It's a tool for gradual release, enabling students to eventually become independent learners.
Its universal applicability is a defining feature. Whether it's the humanities or the sciences, the framework can be employed across disciplines, reinforcing the assertion by Bruner that "any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development."
In essence, the Universal Thinking Framework embodies the essence of active, structured, and deep learning. It's not just about absorbing knowledge, but generating it. It's a powerful methodology for educators aiming to nurture learners who can engage with content at a profound level, creating rich, interconnected networks of understanding.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy. Australian journal of education, 33(2), 151-163.
Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. McGraw-hill education (UK).
Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Lin, Y. C. (2019). Mobile learning and student cognition: A systematic review of PK‐12 research using Bloom’s Taxonomy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 684-701.
Damopolii, I., Nunaki, J. H., Nusantari, E., & Kandowangko, N. Y. (2020, June). The effectiveness of Inquiry-based learning to train students’ thinking skill based on SOLO taxonomy. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1567, No. 4, p. 042025). IOP Publishing.
Want more? Here is a link on Problems with Bloom's Taxonomy (Invalid, unreliable, impractical) Want to dive into SOLO model? Check out Pam Hook's Website. Start with these two introductory books: pamhook.com
To review the SOLO taxonomy you can view three minutes of the video Understanding, from Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding, section 3 (3:15 – 6:18). (youtube.com)
SOLO Taxonomy: A Guide for Schools Bk 1: a Common Language by Julie Mills and Pam Hook SOLO Taxonomy: A Guide for Schools Bk 2 by Pam Hook Julie Mills Leave a reply © 2019 Eductechalogy. All rights reserved. (amazon.com)
SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes) offers a structured outline for the learners to use to build their learning and thinking. It motivates students to ponder where they are presently in terms of their level of understanding, and what they must do to progress.
SOLO Taxonomy was developed by John Biggs and Kevin Collis, two educational researchers who were interested in creating a framework that could help teachers design more effective learning experiences. The framework is based on the idea that there are different levels of understanding, and that students can move through these levels by engaging with increasingly complex tasks and ideas. By using SOLO Taxonomy, teachers can create learning experiences that are tailored to each student's current level of understanding, and that help them progress towards more sophisticated levels of knowledge.
SOLO Taxonomy is often used in conjunction with the concept of constructive alignment, which is the idea that learning outcomes, teaching activities, and assessment tasks should all be aligned with one another. By aligning these three elements, teachers can ensure that their students are learning in a way that is both meaningful and effective.
With SOLO Taxonomy, teachers can design learning experiences that are aligned with the specific level of understanding that each student has already achieved, and that help them progress towards more advanced levels of understanding. This approach allows students to build on their existing knowledge and skills, and to develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter over time.
Solo Taxonomy is a systematic way that describes how learners' understanding build from easy to difficult while learning different tasks or subjects. The Solo Taxonomy can be used to enhance the quality of learning within the classroom teaching and provide a systematic way of developing deep understanding (Damopolii, 2020). Student learning can be guided in ways that promote deep learning.
SOLO Taxonomy is a valuable tool for assessing the depth of knowledge that students have achieved in a particular subject or task. It allows teachers to identify where students are in their learning journey and determine what steps need to be taken to move them to a deeper level of understanding.
By using SOLO Taxonomy, teachers can design learning experiences that are appropriate for each student's level of understanding and encourage them to move towards deeper levels of knowledge. This can lead to a more effective and engaging learning experience for students, and ultimately, better academic performance.
The Structure of Observed Learning Outcome, presents a compelling way to structure the complexity and quality of students' thinking into distinct levels. It's a versatile tool that allows educators to gauge attainment levels and foster quality learning. This taxonomy consists of five levels, each representing a different depth of knowledge and ability level.
A research survey of 500 high school science teachers revealed that less than 20% were aware of the SOLO taxonomy, indicating the untapped potential this model holds for shaping pedagogy. By incorporating the SOLO taxonomy into teaching, educators can gradually raise students' level of thinking from unistructural to the abstract level, thereby encouraging deeper, more conceptual understandings. It's a robust approach to foster students' transition from just acquiring facts to connecting and applying these facts creatively and thoughtfully.
Understanding the paradigms of SOLO Taxonomy and Bloom's Taxonomy can enrich teaching methods and learning programs. Both taxonomies serve as frameworks for constructing learning objectives, but they differ fundamentally in their structure and focus.
Biggs & Collis and Biggs & Tang, the architects of the SOLO Taxonomy, designed it as a measure of the quality of learning, while Bloom's Taxonomy was developed as a hierarchy of learning objectives.
SOLO taxonomy elucidates the learner's depth of understanding, from the basic concept to the broader concept. It is more learner-focused and aims to measure the learner's quality of understanding along a continuum: from pre-structural, unistructural, multistructural, to relational and extended abstract levels.
Here, the focus is on the learner's progression in understanding classroom concepts and their ability to connect them. A well-structured assessment question in the SOLO taxonomy can enable students to demonstrate their understanding at the conceptual level.
On the other hand, Bloom's Taxonomy is more content-oriented, focusing on the definition of science and the classification of learning objectives within the cognitive domain. It provides a framework for the understanding of science from lower-order cognitive skills (knowledge, comprehension, and application) to higher-order skills (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation).
However, it falls short of assessing whether students can integrate and extend their knowledge in the same way the SOLO taxonomy does.
As Biggs and Tang put it, "The SOLO taxonomy not only suggests an item writing methodology, but the same taxonomy can be used to score the items." This points to the versatility of the SOLO model in both constructing and evaluating connected questions, a feature less prominent in Bloom's taxonomy.
In essence, both taxonomies offer valuable insights, but their application depends on the educational context and the desired learning outcomes. For a more holistic understanding of student learning, educators might consider integrating the strengths of both taxonomies in their pedagogical approach.
Sources:
The intersection of SOLO Taxonomy and John Hattie's ideas about education presents a compelling synergy. Hattie, renowned for his work on Visible Learning, emphasizes the impact of effective feedback and the importance of students understanding their own learning process.
SOLO Taxonomy aligns perfectly with these principles. It offers a structured framework for students to assess their own learning and for teachers to provide meaningful feedback. The taxonomy's stages - from prestructural to extended abstract - provide a clear ladder of progression. This enables students to visualize their current understanding and what the next level of comprehension looks like, promoting a sense of self-regulated learning.
Moreover, Hattie advocates for teaching strategies that move students towards higher-order thinking skills. SOLO Taxonomy serves as a roadmap for this journey, providing clear signposts for moving from surface to deep, and ultimately, to conceptual understanding.
In essence, the combination of Hattie's emphasis on visible, self-regulated learning and the structured progression inherent in the SOLO Taxonomy creates a powerful tool for enhancing student learning outcomes. Together, they provide a robust framework for guiding students towards deeper, more insightful learning experiences.
Teachers can use:
SOLO Taxonomy is based on the idea of cognitive processes, which are the different ways in which we process information and understand concepts. These cognitive processes include surface learning, which is focused on memorization and recall, and deep learning, which involves understanding concepts and applying them in new situations.
By using SOLO Taxonomy, teachers can help students progress from surface learning to deep learning, and ultimately to the highest level of cognitive processing, which is extended abstract thinking. This approach not only helps students develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter, but also prepares them for real-world problem solving and critical thinking.
Solo Taxonomy is useful because:
As we have seen, the SOLO taxonomy is a powerful tool that teachers can use to design learning activities that progressively deepen a student's understanding of a subject. Here are eight fictional examples of how SOLO taxonomy can be applied across various subjects in primary education:
1. Mathematics: In a lesson on fractions, a teacher could start with the unistructural level by asking students to identify fractions in a group of shapes. Moving to the multistructural level, students could be asked to compare and order different fractions. At the relational level, students could be tasked with finding equivalent fractions, and finally, at the extended abstract level, students could apply their understanding of fractions to solve real-world problems, such as dividing a pizza or a bar of chocolate into equal parts.
2. English: In a lesson on narrative writing, students at the unistructural level could identify key elements of a story (characters, setting, plot). At the multistructural level, they could describe these elements in detail. At the relational level, they could analyze how these elements interact to create a cohesive story. Finally, at the extended abstract level, students could create their own original narrative incorporating these elements.
3. Geography: In a lesson on climate zones, students could start at the unistructural level by identifying different climate zones. At the multistructural level, they could describe the characteristics of each zone. At the relational level, they could compare and contrast different zones. At the extended abstract level, they could discuss the impact of these climate zones on human life and culture.
4. History: In a lesson on the Roman Empire, students at the unistructural level could identify key events or figures. At the multistructural level, they could describe these events or figures in detail. At the relational level, they could explain the cause and effect relationships between these events. At the extended abstract level, they could evaluate the impact of the Roman Empire on modern society.
5. Science: In a lesson on the water cycle, students at the unistructural level could identify different stages of the water cycle. At the multistructural level, they could describe these stages in detail. At the relational level, they could explain how these stages are interconnected. At the extended abstract level, they could discuss the importance of the water cycle for life on Earth.
6. Art: In a lesson on color theory, students at the unistructural level could identify primary colors. At the multistructural level, they could mix primary colors to create secondary colors. At the relational level, they could create a color wheel showing the relationship between primary, secondary, and tertiary colors. At the extended abstract level, they could create an original artwork using complementary colors to evoke specific emotions.
7. Physical Education: In a lesson on basketball, students at the unistructural level could learn to dribble the ball. At the multistructural level, they could learn to pass and shoot. At the relational level, they could play a game, applying these skills in a dynamic environment. At the extended abstract level, they could reflect on their performance and devise strategies for improvement.
8. Music: In a lesson on rhythm, students at the unistructural level could clap a simple beat. At the multistructural level, they could clap a complex rhythm. At the relational level, they could perform a rhythm in a group, listening to and synchronizing with others. At the extended abstract level, they could compose their own rhythm and perform it for the class.
These examples demonstrate how the SOLO taxonomy can guide the design of learning activities that progressively deepen students' understanding, moving from surface to deep learning. The SOLO taxonomy not only provides a clear structure for these progressions, but also allows teachers to easily identify the current level of a student's understanding and to design appropriate learning activities to move them to the next level.
Key Insights:
"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
According to a study by the Journal of Educational Psychology, students who were taught using strategies that promoted higher-order thinking performed 20% better on academic assessments.
At its core, the Universal Thinking Framework from Structural Learning Theory is built upon the seminal cognitive development theories of the 20th century, including the works of Piaget and Vygotsky, and even integrates principles from Bruner's theories. It posits that true learning isn't merely a process of rote memorization or assimilation of facts, but an intricate dance of assimilation and accommodation, constructing and reconstructing cognitive schemas. This echoes Piaget's theory of cognitive development, which emphasizes the dynamic, constructive nature of learning.
This framework guides students through a structured journey of identifying and connecting key concepts, effectively facilitating the creation of mental models that reflect their understanding. The Universal Thinking Framework is not a static process; it's iterative, fostering a continuous cycle of refinement and expansion of these mental models as new information is assimilated, thereby promoting generative learning.
A significant advantage of this approach is its alignment with the Cognitive Load Theory, reducing the strain on working memory by helping learners organize and structure complex information. This process naturally enhances metacognitive awareness, empowering learners to monitor and regulate their own cognitive processes more effectively.
Moreover, the Universal Thinking Framework aligns with Vygotsky's concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, as it scaffolds the learning process, guiding learners from their current understanding towards higher levels of comprehension. It's a tool for gradual release, enabling students to eventually become independent learners.
Its universal applicability is a defining feature. Whether it's the humanities or the sciences, the framework can be employed across disciplines, reinforcing the assertion by Bruner that "any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development."
In essence, the Universal Thinking Framework embodies the essence of active, structured, and deep learning. It's not just about absorbing knowledge, but generating it. It's a powerful methodology for educators aiming to nurture learners who can engage with content at a profound level, creating rich, interconnected networks of understanding.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy. Australian journal of education, 33(2), 151-163.
Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. McGraw-hill education (UK).
Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Lin, Y. C. (2019). Mobile learning and student cognition: A systematic review of PK‐12 research using Bloom’s Taxonomy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 684-701.
Damopolii, I., Nunaki, J. H., Nusantari, E., & Kandowangko, N. Y. (2020, June). The effectiveness of Inquiry-based learning to train students’ thinking skill based on SOLO taxonomy. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1567, No. 4, p. 042025). IOP Publishing.
Want more? Here is a link on Problems with Bloom's Taxonomy (Invalid, unreliable, impractical) Want to dive into SOLO model? Check out Pam Hook's Website. Start with these two introductory books: pamhook.com
To review the SOLO taxonomy you can view three minutes of the video Understanding, from Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding, section 3 (3:15 – 6:18). (youtube.com)
SOLO Taxonomy: A Guide for Schools Bk 1: a Common Language by Julie Mills and Pam Hook SOLO Taxonomy: A Guide for Schools Bk 2 by Pam Hook Julie Mills Leave a reply © 2019 Eductechalogy. All rights reserved. (amazon.com)
