SOLO based approaches and effective strategies

Revision as of 00:41, 12 January 2013 (view source) PamHook (Talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 04:17, 4 July 2014 (view source) PamHook (Talk | contribs)
(2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[[File:MeasuringLearningOutcomes resized.jpg |left]]When schools create a “thinking toolbox” of skills and dispositions, they risk teaching for the knowing of thinking, rather than the understanding of thinking. (For an example of a thinking toolbox click on thumbnail below - from [http://www.nzcer.org.nz/nzcerpress/curriculum-matters/curriculum-matters-2-2006 Hook, P. (2006). A Thinking Curriculum. Curriculum Matters NZCER Press, Volume 2 p83.)]	+	[[File:MeasuringLearningOutcomes resized.jpg |left]]When schools create a “thinking toolbox” of skills and dispositions, they risk teaching for the knowing of thinking, rather than the understanding of thinking. (For an example of a thinking toolbox click on thumbnail below - adapted from [http://www.nzcer.org.nz/nzcerpress/curriculum-matters/curriculum-matters-2-2006 Hook, P. (2006). A Thinking Curriculum. Curriculum Matters NZCER Press, Volume 2 p83.)] To teach for the understanding of thinking, schools must create learning environments where the thinking and ICT interventions are used to enhance the conditions of value for different learning outcomes. Purposeful use of thinking and ICT interventions can only occur in environments where learning outcomes can be analysed and improved, and where pedagogies for reflection, pattern recognition, and connection, are encouraged.
	{{file thumbnail|Thinking_Toobox_2004_Thumbnail|Thinking_Toobox_2004|jpg|jpg|left}}		{{file thumbnail|Thinking_Toobox_2004_Thumbnail|Thinking_Toobox_2004|jpg|jpg|left}}
−	To teach for the understanding of thinking, schools must create learning environments where the thinking and ICT interventions are used to enhance the conditions of value for different learning outcomes. Purposeful use of thinking and ICT interventions can only occur in environments where learning outcomes can be analysed and improved, and where pedagogies for reflection, pattern recognition, and connection, are encouraged. The meta language for learning from The Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) model (Biggs and Collis, 1998) allows schools to teach for this understanding of thinking.  This meta language of learning enables the thinking toolbox to be classified against different complexities of student learning outcomes rather than against critical, creative and caring learning outcomes.	+	The meta language for learning from The Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) model (Biggs and Collis, 1998) allows schools to teach for this understanding of thinking.  The five levels of learning outcome in SOLO (prestructural, unistructural, multistructural, relational, extended abstract) enables the thinking toolbox to be classified against different complexities of learning outcomes rather than against critical, creative and caring thinking outcomes.
	For an example of this approach see [[File:HOT SOLO Coded Thinking Interventions.pdf]]		For an example of this approach see [[File:HOT SOLO Coded Thinking Interventions.pdf]]
Line 44:		Line 44:
	| [[SOLO Odd one out]]		| [[SOLO Odd one out]]
	| [[SOLO Whoosh]]		| [[SOLO Whoosh]]
−	|	+	| [[SOLO Comparative Analysis Template]]
	|-		|-
	|		|

---

Latest revision as of 04:17, 4 July 2014

When schools create a “thinking toolbox” of skills and dispositions, they risk teaching for the knowing of thinking, rather than the understanding of thinking. (For an example of a thinking toolbox click on thumbnail below - adapted from Hook, P. (2006). A Thinking Curriculum. Curriculum Matters NZCER Press, Volume 2 p83.) To teach for the understanding of thinking, schools must create learning environments where the thinking and ICT interventions are used to enhance the conditions of value for different learning outcomes. Purposeful use of thinking and ICT interventions can only occur in environments where learning outcomes can be analysed and improved, and where pedagogies for reflection, pattern recognition, and connection, are encouraged.

The meta language for learning from The Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) model (Biggs and Collis, 1998) allows schools to teach for this understanding of thinking. The five levels of learning outcome in SOLO (prestructural, unistructural, multistructural, relational, extended abstract) enables the thinking toolbox to be classified against different complexities of learning outcomes rather than against critical, creative and caring thinking outcomes. For an example of this approach see File:HOT SOLO Coded Thinking Interventions.pdf

Using SOLO levels to differentiate learning outcomes can be applied to any approach and or strategy used for thinking - enabling both teachers and students to better target support for specific learning outcomes. Refer examples in the table below.

SOLO Stations	SOLO Make your own success criteria	SOLO Improve an existing answer
SOLO Quote,context, significance, wrap up	SOLO Hexagons	SOLO Hot potato
SOLO Close reading	SOLO Noughts and crosses	SOLO See think wonder
SOLO What makes you say that?	SOLO Literature circles	SOLO Write your own test paper
SOLO HOT Maps and self assessment rubrics	SOLO HookED Maps and self assessment rubric	SOLO de Bono's Six Hats
SOLO Ryan's Thinker's Keys	SOLO de Bono's DATT Thinking	SOLO Graphic organisers
SOLO Living graphs	SOLO Mind movies	SOLO Mysteries
SOLO Story-telling	SOLO Fact or opinion?	SOLO Reading photographs
SOLO Odd one out	SOLO Whoosh	SOLO Comparative Analysis Template

v d e HookED Wiki Assessment capable students Advantages of SOLO Taxonomy SOLO based approaches and effective strategies Feed Up Feed Back Feed Forward Feed Up Overview Learning Goals SOLO Visual Maps SMART Goals Feed Back Overview Feedback follows instruction HookED SOLO Rubrics Feed Forward Overview