by Mieder van Loggerenberg
Understanding the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy: A Comprehensive Analysis The Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy is a widely used educational framework that assists educators in assessing and categorizing students' learning outcomes. Developed by John B. Biggs and Kevin F. Collis in the 1980s, SOLO taxonomy provides a structured approach to measuring the depth of understanding achieved by learners. This article explores the SOLO taxonomy, its theoretical underpinnings, hierarchical structure, application in educational contexts, and its implications for teaching and assessment.
Introduction
The SOLO taxonomy is valuable for educators, curriculum designers, and instructional assessors. It aims to help educators gauge the depth of a student's understanding and the complexity of their thinking about a specific topic or learning outcome. The taxonomy has gained prominence in educational circles because it provides a framework for designing effective teaching strategies and assessments.
Historical Development
The SOLO taxonomy was developed by John B. Biggs and Kevin F. Collis in the late 1980s. Biggs, an influential figure in the field of educational psychology, and Collis aimed to address the limitations of existing taxonomies, such as Bloom's taxonomy, which primarily focused on classifying cognitive processes without sufficiently considering the complexity of students' responses.
Theoretical Underpinnings
The SOLO taxonomy is grounded in the idea of hierarchical learning outcomes, with each level building upon the previous one. The acronym SOLO stands for "Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes," which emphasizes observable behaviors and outcomes. The taxonomy is rooted in constructivist and cognitive psychology theories, which posit that learning involves the construction of knowledge through mental processes.
Hierarchical Structure
The SOLO taxonomy comprises five hierarchical levels, each representing a different cognitive development and understanding stage. These levels, in ascending order of complexity, are:
Level 1 Pre-structural:
Learners do not understand the concept or topic in question at this level. Their responses are typically irrelevant or incorrect.
Level 2 Unistructural:
Learners at this stage demonstrate a basic understanding of isolated facts or concepts. A single, simple idea or fact characterizes their responses.
Level 3 Multi-structural:
Learners understand multiple facts or concepts at this level, but their understanding remains disconnected. Their responses show a collection of relevant but independent information.
Level 4 Relational:
Learners at this stage can connect and integrate multiple concepts or ideas. Their responses demonstrate an understanding of how these concepts relate to each other.
Level 5 Extended Abstract:
At the highest level of the taxonomy, learners at this stage connect and integrate concepts and apply them in novel and complex ways. They exhibit a deep, holistic understanding and can transfer their knowledge to new situations.
Application in Educational Contexts
a. Curriculum Design:
Educators can use the SOLO taxonomy to structure curriculum and learning outcomes. They can ensure that learning activities and assessments promote higher-order thinking and deeper understanding by aligning course objectives with the taxonomy levels.
b. Assessment and Feedback:
SOLO can be employed in assessing assessments to measure the depth of students' learning. Rubrics based on the taxonomy can help educators provide more specific and targeted feedback to guide students' progress.
c. Differentiation:
Teachers can use SOLO to differentiate instruction by tailoring activities and assessments to students' current level of understanding. This supports personalized learning and helps students progress at their own pace.
d. Professional Development:
Educators can use the SOLO taxonomy to reflect on their teaching practices and refine instructional strategies. It can be a valuable tool for professional development and collaborative discussions among educators.
Implications for Teaching and Assessment:
a. Effective Teaching Strategies:
SOLO encourages educators to move beyond rote memorization and promote deeper comprehension. Strategies such as concept mapping, problem-based learning, and collaborative activities align well with the taxonomy.
b. Formative Assessment:
Formative assessment techniques, like peer assessment, self-assessment, and discussions, can be integrated into the learning process to support students in progressing through the SOLO levels.
c. Valid and Reliable Assessment:
SOLO-based assessments offer a more precise measure of student understanding. Rubrics and assessment criteria should be carefully designed to align with the taxonomy.
d. Encouraging Metacognition:
The SOLO taxonomy prompts students to think about their thinking (metacognition) as they strive to reach higher levels of understanding. This awareness can foster self-directed learning and problem-solving skills.
Challenges and Criticisms
Despite its many advantages, the SOLO taxonomy has challenges. Critics argue that it may oversimplify the complex nature of learning and that assessing the "depth" of understanding can be subjective. Some educators find it challenging to create assessments that align perfectly with the taxonomy levels.
Conclusion
The Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy is a powerful framework that enhances teaching, assessment, and curriculum design by categorizing learning outcomes into five hierarchical levels of increasing complexity. Rooted in constructivist and cognitive psychology theories, the taxonomy provides educators with a valuable tool for promoting more profound understanding and higher-order thinking among students. While its challenges are not without, its widespread adoption and impact in educational contexts demonstrate its enduring relevance and utility in modern education.
References
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. McGraw-Hill Education.
Hattie, J., & Purdie, N. (1998). Extend, Refine, and Reconsider Knowledge Transfer: A Simple Taxonomy to Compare Three Traditions of Research about Transfer of Learning. Educational Psychology, 33(3-4), 141-152.
Comments