SOLO TAXONOMY

1
Name
• Misbah Munir
• Hassan Ahmad Tahir

Roll No
• Bef2100061
• Bef2100066
Class
• B.ed(1.5)A
Subject
• Curriculum Development
Course Code
• EDUC3147
Dated
• May 16,2022
Submitted to
• Dr. Qudsia Fatima
University of Education Township, Lahore

2
Levels of thinking
As we know, not all thinking or knowing is the same. Yet 80% or more of all questions teachers
ask (spoken or written) can be answered with lower-order thinking skills:
• By recall or remembering
• By knowledge simple handling of a restricted set of ideas, data, knowledge
If we can develop students’ higher-order thinking skills this will enhance their metacognitive
abilities and hence their learning.

Introduction
The SOLO taxonomy stands for ‘structure of observed learning outcome’. It was developed by John
Biggs as an alternative to Bloom’s taxonomy of knowledge. The SOLO taxonomy is considered
a more practical framework than Bloom’s due to its focus on observable outcomes rather
than internal cognitive processes.
In simple terms, the taxonomy presents a systematic way to describe how learner performance
grows in complexity when mastering tasks (in an educational setting). It defines levels of
increasing complexity in a learners understanding of an idea. Learners may not exhibit all stages.
Biggs describes it as “a framework for understanding understanding.” It seeks to provide a way
to identify connections that learners make, with each level adding more.

What is SOLO Taxonomy?

SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes) provides a structured framework for students
to use to progress their thinking and learning. It encourages students to think about where they
are currently with their learning, and what they need to do in order to progress.

Why use SOLO?

SOLO is a true hierarchic taxonomy – increasing in quantity and quality of thought. SOLO is a
powerful tool in differentiating curriculum and providing cognitive challenge for learners. SOLO
allows teachers and learners to ask deeper questions without creating new ones. SOLO is a
powerful metacognitive tool.

Definition of SOLO Taxonomy

The structure of observed learning outcomes taxonomy (SOLO taxonomy) is a tool for
measuring how well a student understands a topic.

SOLO and Curriculum Development

SOLO can be used not only in assessment, but in designing the curriculum in terms of the level
of learning outcomes intended, which is helpful in implementing constructive alignments. In

3
constructive alignment, we start with the outcomes we intend students to learn, and align
teaching and assessment to those outcomes.
It describes 5 levels of understanding from simple to complex.

The SOLO taxonomy contains 5 levels of knowledge, from simple to complex

1. Pre structural
2. Unistructural
3. Multi structural
4. Relational
5. Extended Abstract
At the lower levels, students demonstrate lower-order cognitive skills, while at higher levels
students demonstrate the ability to use complex inductive reasoning strategies.

This is the first stage – where students don’t really have any
knowledge or understanding of the topic being studied. A student who is pre-structural will
usually respond with ‘I don’t understand’.

Moving on from pre-structural, students who are unistructural

have a limited knowledge of the topic – they may just know one isolated fact about the topic. So,
a typical response might be:
‘I have some understanding of this topic’.
Keywords Define, identify, do simple procedure

Keywords: Define, describe ,do simple algorithm , combine

4
Progressing from unistructural to multistructural simply means that the student knows a few facts
about this topic – but is unable to link them together. So a typical response might be ‘I know a
few things about this topic’ or ‘I have gathered some information about this topic’.

With relational, we are starting to move towards higher level

thinking – students are able to link together and explain several ideas around a related topic. So a
typical student ‘relational response might be: ‘I can see the connections between the information
I have gathered’.

Keywords: Compare/contrast, Explain, causes, Sequence, Classify, Analyse, Part/whole,

Relate, Analogy, Apply, Formulate, questions,

The final and most complex level is extended

abstract. With this, not only are students able to link lots of related ideas together, but they can
also link these to other bigger ideas and concepts. So a student response at this level might
sound like: ‘By reflecting and evaluating on my learning, I am able to look at the bigger picture
and link lots of different ideas together’.

Keywords: Evaluate, Theorise, Generalise, Predict, Create, Imagine, Hypothesise, Reflect

An example….
In science, students might be asked the question ‘What do you understand by the term
respiration’. Students may then respond in the following ways:

5
SOLO examples related to weather

6
▪ Prestructural
“Err…. What?”
▪ Unistructural
“It releases energy”
▪ Multistructural
“It’s a chemical reaction that releases energy, uses oxygen and glucose and release carbon
dioxide.”
▪ Relational
“It’s a reaction that takes place in all body cells. Products of digestion, such as glucose, are
transported to cells by the blood and reacted with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide which is
breathed out. Energy is released.”
▪ Extended abstract
“It’s a reaction that takes place in all body cells. Products of digestion, such as glucose, are
transported to cells by the blood and reacted with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide which is
breathed out via the lungs (using gas exchange and ventilation). As energy is released,
respiration is an example of an exothermic reaction. The energy that is released can then be
used by the body for growth of new cells, repair of tissues and keeping warm.”

Surface and deep thinking

Unistructural and multistructural questions test students’ surface thinking
(lower-order thinking skills)Relational and extended abstract questions test deep thinking
(higher-order thinking skills)Use of SOLO allows us to balance the cognitive demand of the
questions we ask and to scaffold students into deeper thinking and metacognition

Why is it so useful?

▪ It supports students to reflect on their own thinking

▪ It helps teachers to thoughtfully shape learning intentions and learning experiences.
▪ It makes it easy to identify and use effectives success criteria.
▪ It provides feedback and feedforward with regards to learning outcomes.
▪ It helps students to reflect meaningfully on what the next steps in their learning are.

Disadvantages
• The model doesn’t take into account difficulty of topics themselves. Some topics (such as
brain surgery!) require extreme difficulty to reach levels 3 or 4 of the taxonomy. Other
topics may be easy to understand, manipulate and theories at level 5 of the taxonomy
(extended abstract level). So, even very difficult postgraduate level curricula may require
lower-order verbs within their learning outcomes.
• The model assumes courses should contain learning outcomes and places high value on
assessment. Some educators may believe that assessment and learning outcomes stifle
creativity and student-led learning and are therefore inappropriate.

7
Final Thoughts
The structure of observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy is a very useful framework for
thinking about how well a student should, or does, understand a topic. I find it very beneficial for
both writing curricula and assessing students’ work.
I reflect on it regularly when considering what grade I should give a student as it gives me a
framework for considering how deep their understanding truly is.

References

Biggs, J.B., and Collis, K.F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning. New York: Academic
Press.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. SHRE and Open University Press.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. What the student
does (3rd Ed.). Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO model to analyze competence progression of
university science curricula. Higher Education, 58(4), 531-549.

8
9