SOLO Taxonomy

Contents
• What is Solo?
SOLO, stands for Structure of the
• How is it used?
• The SOLO model Observed Learning Outcome. It was
Developed by Biggs and Collis (1982)
• The stages of SOLO
• SOLO in action
• SOLO rubric
• SOLO vs Blooms (John Hattie)

What is Solo?
• Biggs describes SOLO as “a framework for understanding.” (1999, p.37)
• SOLO describes the level of increasing complexity in a student's understanding of a subject, through five stages, and it
is claimed to be applicable to any subject area.
• SOLO is hierarchal and each stage embraces the previous and adds something to it.
• SOLO provides a systematic way of describing how a learner’s performance grows in complexity when mastering many
tasks, particularly the sort of tasks undertaken in school.

How is it used?
• SOLO is being used to increase quality and quantity of thought.
• SOLO is being used as a tool in differentiating curriculum.
• SOLO is being used for assessment and evaluation.
• SOLO is being used by teachers allowing them and the learners to formulate deeper questions.
• SOLO is being used as a metacognitive tool.

The SOLO model

http://www.johnbiggs.com.au/solo_graph.html

The stages of SOLO

Prestructural:
Here students are simply acquiring bits of unconnected information, which have no organisation and make no sense. No
understanding demonstrated and approach involves acquiring disconnected bits of information. Student misses
the point.

© eTime 2011. All rights reserved.

Unistructural:
Simple and obvious connections are made, but their significance is not grasped. Student shows concrete, reductive
understanding of the topic. Simple and obvious connections are made but broader significance is not understood.

Multistructural:
A number of connections may be made, but the meta-connections between them are missed, as is their significance for
the whole. Student can understand several components but the understanding of each remains discreet. A number of
connections are made but the significance of the whole is not determined. Ideas and concepts around an issue are
disorganised and aren't related together.

Relational:
The student is now able to appreciate the significance of the parts in relation to the whole. Student can indicate
connection between facts and theory, action and purpose. Shows understanding of several components which are
integrated conceptually showing understanding of how the parts contribute to the whole. Can apply the concept to familiar
problems or work situations.

Extended abstract:
The student is making connections not only within the given subject area, but also beyond it, able to generalize and
transfer the principles and ideas underlying the specific instance. Student conceptualizes at a level extending beyond
what has been dealt with in the actual teaching. Understanding is transferable and generalizable to different areas.

SOLO in action
Context: Key Competencies: Relating to Others. For example: Cooperating in team sport

Prestructural: I need help to interact with others

Unistructural: I can participate in a team
Multistructural: I can participate in a team and take responsibility
Relational: I can interact in a team, adopting different roles to meet differing demands
Extended Abstract: I can interact confidently with others in team situations, and make individual compromises based on
identifying ways to improve outcomes

Context: Teacher Use of Learning Intentions

Prestructural: No link to topic

Unistructural: A connection made to lesson content
Multistructural: Connection to lesson made and importance stressed to students
Relational: Full connections are made to lesson and unit
Extended Abstract: Full connections are made to lesson, unit and links to other concepts

SOLO rubric

© eTime 2011. All rights reserved.

SOLO vs Blooms
Professor John Hattie

• “Bloom’s taxonomy presupposes that there is a necessary relationship between the questions asked and the responses
to be elicited, whereas in the SOLO taxonomy both the questions and the answers can be at differing levels.

• Whereas Bloom separates 'knowledge' from the intellectual abilities or process that operate on this 'knowledge', the
SOLO taxonomy is primarily based on the processes of understanding used by the students when answering the
prompts. Knowledge, therefore, permeates across all levels of the SOLO taxonomy.

• Hierarchy. Bloom has argued that his taxonomy is related not only to complexity, but also to an order of difficulty such
that problems requiring behaviour at one level should be answered more correctly before tackling problems requiring
behaviour at a higher level. Although there may be measurement advantages to this increasing difficulty, this is not a
necessary requirement of the SOLO method. It is possible for an item at the relational level, for example, to be
constructed so that it is less difficult than an item at the unistructural level. For example, an item aiming to elicit
relational responses might be 'How does the movement of the Earth relative to the Sun define day and night?'. This
may be easier (depending on instruction, etc.) than a unistructural item that asks 'What does celestial rotation mean?'

• Bloom’s taxonomy is not accompanied by criteria for judging the outcome of the activity (Ennis, 1985), whereas SOLO
is explicitly useful for judging the outcomes. “

http://hooked-on-thinking.wikispaces.com/SOLO+Taxonomy+versus+Bloom%27s+Taxonomy

Notes

© eTime 2011. All rights reserved.