Advantages of SOLO Taxonomy
(→Advantages of SOLO Taxonomy) |
(→Advantages of SOLO Taxonomy) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
SOLO has many advantages over Bloom's | SOLO has many advantages over Bloom's | ||
| − | 1. Research/evidence based on structure of student learning outcomes (versus developed from proposal by a committee of educators) | + | 1. Research/evidence based on structure of student learning outcomes (versus Bloom's developed from proposal by a committee of educators) |
2. Theory about teaching and learning (versus Bloom's theory about knowledge) | 2. Theory about teaching and learning (versus Bloom's theory about knowledge) | ||
| Line 17: | Line 15: | ||
5. Levels can be communicated through text, hand signs and symbols - across large and noisy learning environments (versus Bloom's where levels communicated by text alone) | 5. Levels can be communicated through text, hand signs and symbols - across large and noisy learning environments (versus Bloom's where levels communicated by text alone) | ||
| − | 6. Task and outcome can be at different levels (versus Bloom's not designed/cannot be used to level outcomes | + | 6. Task and outcome can be at different levels (versus Bloom's not designed/cannot be used to level outcomes against each task) |
| − | 7. Clarity of verb use for each level (versus Bloom's confused verb use across levels.) | + | 7. Clarity of verb use for each level (versus Bloom's confused verb use across levels.)Clarity of verb level is a powerful advantage when educators are planning and writing learning intentions using OBE and constructive alignment - and when students are doing their own inqury and . (refer examples below) |
''SOLO has advantages over Bloom's cognitive taxonomy (Bloom 1965), the traditional taxonomy for differentiating learning experiences. SOLO is a theory about teaching and learning based on research on student learning rather than a theory about knowledge based on the judgements of educational administrators (Biggs and Tang 2007, p. 80). A second advantage lies in SOLO's facility in enabling student and educator to understand and evaluate learning experiences and learning outcomes in terms of ascending cognitive complexity (Hattie and Brown 2004). Thus if SOLO is used to design the learning experience and its assessment, then it is possible to design the follow-up learning experience at an appropriate level of cognitive complexity in order to challenge yet not overwhelm. SOLO can be used to design a learning experience or ask a question at one level of cognitive complexity whilst at the same time determining different levels of complexity in the student learning outcomes or answers within that level. For example it is possible to design a learning experience using compare and contrast,a declarative knowledge verb at the relational level and at the same time assess a student's learning outcome or answer against success criteria written at unistructural, multistructural, relational or extended abstract levels. Finally and significantly, when working with teachers, SOLO provides greater clarity when writing ILOs. For example an intended learning outcome from the "understanding" level of Bloom's revised taxonomy includes verbs such as classify, compare, exemplify, conclude, demonstrate, discuss, explain, identify, illustrate, interpret, paraphrase, predict, and report (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001). SOLO differentiates these verbs from one level in Bloom into three different levels of learning outcome, allowing a more effective targeting of ILOs and a greater clarity when helping students learning to learn (Biggs and Tang 2007, p. 80).'' Extract from Hook, P. (2012). Teaching and Learning: tales from the ampersand. In L. Rowan and C. Bigum (Eds),[http://www.amazon.com/Transformative-Approaches-Technologies-Diversity-Classrooms/dp/9400726414/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342478991&sr=1-1 Future Proofing Education: Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms. Springer.] p. 123 and 124 | ''SOLO has advantages over Bloom's cognitive taxonomy (Bloom 1965), the traditional taxonomy for differentiating learning experiences. SOLO is a theory about teaching and learning based on research on student learning rather than a theory about knowledge based on the judgements of educational administrators (Biggs and Tang 2007, p. 80). A second advantage lies in SOLO's facility in enabling student and educator to understand and evaluate learning experiences and learning outcomes in terms of ascending cognitive complexity (Hattie and Brown 2004). Thus if SOLO is used to design the learning experience and its assessment, then it is possible to design the follow-up learning experience at an appropriate level of cognitive complexity in order to challenge yet not overwhelm. SOLO can be used to design a learning experience or ask a question at one level of cognitive complexity whilst at the same time determining different levels of complexity in the student learning outcomes or answers within that level. For example it is possible to design a learning experience using compare and contrast,a declarative knowledge verb at the relational level and at the same time assess a student's learning outcome or answer against success criteria written at unistructural, multistructural, relational or extended abstract levels. Finally and significantly, when working with teachers, SOLO provides greater clarity when writing ILOs. For example an intended learning outcome from the "understanding" level of Bloom's revised taxonomy includes verbs such as classify, compare, exemplify, conclude, demonstrate, discuss, explain, identify, illustrate, interpret, paraphrase, predict, and report (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001). SOLO differentiates these verbs from one level in Bloom into three different levels of learning outcome, allowing a more effective targeting of ILOs and a greater clarity when helping students learning to learn (Biggs and Tang 2007, p. 80).'' Extract from Hook, P. (2012). Teaching and Learning: tales from the ampersand. In L. Rowan and C. Bigum (Eds),[http://www.amazon.com/Transformative-Approaches-Technologies-Diversity-Classrooms/dp/9400726414/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342478991&sr=1-1 Future Proofing Education: Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms. Springer.] p. 123 and 124 | ||
Revision as of 01:54, 25 November 2013
SOLO has many advantages over Bloom's
1. Research/evidence based on structure of student learning outcomes (versus Bloom's developed from proposal by a committee of educators)
2. Theory about teaching and learning (versus Bloom's theory about knowledge)
3. Model based on levels of ascending cognitive complexity (versus Bloom's questionable hierarchical link between levels) This is powerful when giving feedback, feed-forward and feed-up. For example - Educators and students find it easy to determine what they are doing - the SOLO complexity of the task - Educators and students find it easy to reliably and validly determine how well it is going - SOLO differentiated success criteria - Educators and students find it easy to reliably and validly determine their next steps - plus one SOLO level
4. High inter-rater reliability - educators and students tend to agree when moderating student work against SOLO levels - (versus Bloom's with low inter-rater reliability)
5. Levels can be communicated through text, hand signs and symbols - across large and noisy learning environments (versus Bloom's where levels communicated by text alone)
6. Task and outcome can be at different levels (versus Bloom's not designed/cannot be used to level outcomes against each task)
7. Clarity of verb use for each level (versus Bloom's confused verb use across levels.)Clarity of verb level is a powerful advantage when educators are planning and writing learning intentions using OBE and constructive alignment - and when students are doing their own inqury and . (refer examples below)
SOLO has advantages over Bloom's cognitive taxonomy (Bloom 1965), the traditional taxonomy for differentiating learning experiences. SOLO is a theory about teaching and learning based on research on student learning rather than a theory about knowledge based on the judgements of educational administrators (Biggs and Tang 2007, p. 80). A second advantage lies in SOLO's facility in enabling student and educator to understand and evaluate learning experiences and learning outcomes in terms of ascending cognitive complexity (Hattie and Brown 2004). Thus if SOLO is used to design the learning experience and its assessment, then it is possible to design the follow-up learning experience at an appropriate level of cognitive complexity in order to challenge yet not overwhelm. SOLO can be used to design a learning experience or ask a question at one level of cognitive complexity whilst at the same time determining different levels of complexity in the student learning outcomes or answers within that level. For example it is possible to design a learning experience using compare and contrast,a declarative knowledge verb at the relational level and at the same time assess a student's learning outcome or answer against success criteria written at unistructural, multistructural, relational or extended abstract levels. Finally and significantly, when working with teachers, SOLO provides greater clarity when writing ILOs. For example an intended learning outcome from the "understanding" level of Bloom's revised taxonomy includes verbs such as classify, compare, exemplify, conclude, demonstrate, discuss, explain, identify, illustrate, interpret, paraphrase, predict, and report (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001). SOLO differentiates these verbs from one level in Bloom into three different levels of learning outcome, allowing a more effective targeting of ILOs and a greater clarity when helping students learning to learn (Biggs and Tang 2007, p. 80). Extract from Hook, P. (2012). Teaching and Learning: tales from the ampersand. In L. Rowan and C. Bigum (Eds),Future Proofing Education: Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms. Springer. p. 123 and 124
