Instructional design	85

Broad categories covered:		Theory base:		Pedagogical stance:
•	self-engagement	•	psychological models	•	transmission of
•	productive thinking		of information-		knowledge
•	building		processing
	understanding
•	information-gathering
Classification by:		Values:		Practical
•	levels of internalisation	•	not made explicit	illustrations for
	of information and rules			teachers:
				•	instructional
					objectives are
					used to illustrate
					the levels and
					sub-levels only, no

curriculum examples are given

Biggs and Collis’ SOLO taxonomy: Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome

Description and intended use

The taxonomy was devised by Biggs and Collis (Biggs and Collis 1982; Biggs, 1995; 1999). According to the authors it provides a systematic way of describing how a learner’s performance grows in complexity and level of abstraction when mastering many tasks, particularly the sort of task undertaken in school. Collis and Biggs (1982) proposed that there are clear implications for how schools develop programmes. They argue for a general sequence in the growth of the structural complexity of many concepts and skills, and that sequence may then be used to identify specific targets or to help teachers assess particular outcomes. The SOLO taxonomy therefore attempts to describe the level of increasing complexity in a student’s understanding of a subject, through five levels of response, and it is claimed to be applicable to any subject area. Not all students get through all five levels, and not all teaching (and even less ‘training’) is designed to take them all the way. The levels are described in outline below and with additional criteria in table 3.4.

86 Frameworks for Thinking

Table 3.4. The SOLO taxonomy levels, with descriptors and criteria

SOLO		Relating	Consistency
description	Capacity	operation	and closure
Pre-structural	Minimal: cue	Denial, tautology,	No need felt for
	and response	transduction.	consistency:
	confused	Bound to	closure without
		specifics.	seeing the
			problem.
Unistructural	Low: cue and	Can generalise	No need felt for
	one relevant	only in terms	consistency: thus
	datum	of one aspect.	closed too
			quickly; jumps
			to conclusions
			so can be very
			inconsistent.
Multistructural	Medium: cue	Can generalise	Feeling for
	and isolated	only in terms	consistency:
	relevant data	of a few	closure too soon
		limited and	on basis of
		independent	isolated
		aspects.	fixations so can
			reach different
			conclusions with
			same data.
Relational	High: cue and	Induction: can	No inconsistency
	relevant	generalise	in given system,
	data and	within given or	but closure is
	interrelations	experienced	unique to
		context using	given system.
		related aspects.
Extended	Maximal: cue	Deduction and	Inconsistencies
abstract	and relevant	induction:	resolved: no
	data and	can generalise	need for closed
	interrelations	to situations	decisions;
	and	not	conclusions held
	hypotheses	experienced.	open or qualified
			to allow logically
			possible
			alternatives.

Instructional design	87

1.Pre-structural: here students are simply acquiring bits of unconnected information, which have no organisation and make no sense.

2.Unistructural: simple and obvious connections are made, but their significance is not grasped.

3.Multistructural: a number of connections may be made, but the meta-connections between them are missed, as is their significance for the whole.

4.Relational: the student is now able to appreciate the significance of the parts in relation to the whole.

5.Extended abstract: the student makes connections not only within the given subject area, but also beyond it, and is able to generalise and transfer the principles and ideas underlying the specific instance.

The taxonomy makes use of a modified Piagetian framework (Piaget, 1952) and the same progression through levels of response is said to be repeated at each of the following stages:

i.sensorimotor (from birth)

ii.iconic (from 18 months)

iii.concrete symbolic (from 6 years)

iv.formal (from 16 years)

v.post-formal (from 18 years).

Each level of response does not so much replace the previous one as add to the repertoire of available cognitive responses. In different situations, therefore, learners may ‘regress’ to an earlier level of response or utilise a higher cognitive function than is strictly required, adopting a ‘multi-modal’ approach to the task at hand (Biggs and Collis, 1991). The SOLO taxonomy is based on an analysis of the work of several hundred pupils of different ages across a range of subjects and the identification of recurring patterns in pupils’ thinking. Biggs and Collis found a general age-related progression through secondary schooling, from multistructural to relational to extended abstract thinking (equivalent to Piaget’s formal operations stage and not usually reached before the age of 16).

Each level of the SOLO taxonomy refers to a demand on the amount of working memory or attention span, since at higher levels there are

88 Frameworks for Thinking

not only more aspects of a situation to consider but also more relationships between aspects and between actual and hypothetical situations.

The purpose of the SOLO taxonomy is to provide a systematic way of describing how a learner’s performance grows in structural complexity when tackling and mastering a range of tasks. It can therefore be used to identify and define curriculum objectives which describe performance goals or targets; as well as for evaluating learning outcomes, so that the levels that individual students are performing or operating at can be identified.

Evaluation

The SOLO taxonomy enables teachers to identify the complexity and quality of thinking expected of and produced by students. It is particularly helpful when applied to challenging aspects of learning such as the understanding of concepts and problem-solving (Collis and Romberg, 1991). Provided that the underlying logic of student responses can be reliably inferred by others, the taxonomy can be used to improve learning outcomes by enhancing the quality of feedback. When understood and internalised by students it can also be usefully applied when planning work and in self-assessment.

Biggs and Collis do not concern themselves with the social nature of interactions or with the influence of affective and conative factors on thinking, because their focus is on student performance (in particular contexts at particular times). SOLO taxononomy users must therefore assume that the tasks selected are understood by students and offer effective contexts for assessment.

The key SOLO terms and definitions have remained the same for over 20 years. The taxonomy sets out a developmental progression of a student’s cognitive responses, based on Piaget’s theory of genetic epistemology. It therefore makes implicit assumptions about the nature of knowledge and is open to some of the common criticisms of stage theories (in terms of the relationships between, and progression through, the stages). However the concept of ‘multi-modal’ thinking allows that learners may sometimes use a less sophisticated approach or perform at a higher cognitive level than the situation requires. While Biggs and Collis do not assume learning to be unidirectional they do consider it to be relatively predictable.

Instructional design	89

There are links between the approach of Biggs and Collis and other work on learning, such as Sa¨ljo¨’s conceptions of learning (Sa¨ljo¨, 1979a; 1979b), and Bateson’s levels of learning (Bateson, 1973). Unistructural and multistructural levels are equivalent to surface level and relational and extended abstract to deep level processing.

The SOLO taxonomy has proved effective as a means of planning and developing curricula based on the cognitive characteristics of the learners. It has been used in a wide range of studies to evaluate learning, from LOGO (Hawkins and Hedberg, 1986) to higher education (Boulton-Lewis, 1995); for an overview and summary of research see Prosser and Trigwell, 1999). The wide and effective application of the taxonomy by educational researchers, curriculum designers and teachers at all levels of education and across a wide range of subjects indicates its practical value and the ease with which it can be understood, especially in the context of assessment. With relatively little practice and feedback, most teachers can use at least the lower levels of the SOLO taxonomy to identify appropriate curriculum objectives which will help move students on to the next stage of their learning. However, those professionals whose own thinking and written expression is at the multistructural level or lower may struggle in applying it at relational or extended abstract levels.

Summary: Biggs and Collis

				Relevance for teachers
Purpose and structure		Some key features		and learning
Main purpose(s):		Terminology:		Intended audience:
•	to assess the structural	•	clear definitions	•	curriculum planners
	complexity of learning		and explanations	•	examiners
	outcomes using five		of technical terms	•	teachers and students
	levels of development
Domains addressed:		Presentation:		Contexts:
•	cognitive	•	accessible to a	•	education
			wide readership	•	work
		•	good use of tables	•	citizenship
			and graphs	•	recreation