SOLO Taxonomy (structure of observed learning outcomes) provides a simple, reliable and robust model for three levels of understanding – surface deep and conceptual (Biggs and Collis 1982).

At the prestructural level of understanding, the task is inappropriately attacked, and the student has missed the point or needs help to start. The next two levels, unistructural and multistructural are associated with bringing in information (surface understanding). At the unistructural level, one aspect of the task is picked up, and student understanding is disconnected and limited. The jump to the multistructural level is quantitative. At the multistuctural level, several aspects of the task are known but their relationships to each other and the whole are missed. The progression to relational and extended abstract outcomes is qualitative. At the relational level, the aspects are linked and integrated, and contribute to a deeper and more coherent understanding of the whole. At the extended abstract level, the new understanding at the relational level is re-thought at another conceptual level, looked at in a new way, and used as the basis for prediction, generalisation, reflection, or creation of new understanding (Hook and Mills 2011).

HookED uses a unique classroom based approach to SOLO Taxonomy. Pam’s work has been endorsed by John Hattie (refer foreword in First Steps with SOLO Taxonomy) and John Biggs. In this approach SOLO becomes a powerful mental model for students – and is capable of changing the way they think about their own learning outcomes. With SOLO, students understand that declarative and functioning learning outcomes are the result of effort and the use of effective strategies rather than luck or fixed abilities. They are able and motivated to monitor their own progress in a learning task and to make smart decisions on their next steps. Schools using SOLO, report improvements in student learning outcomes; a raise in student confidence and increases in student engagement in learning.

Your slideshare presentations really delve into the application of SOLO at a level in Primary especially that we didn’t go into at all.

“Learning to learn” requires the learner to think about the strengths and weaknesses of their own thinking when they are learning and to make thoughtful decisions on what to do next. Students of all ages can use SOLO levels, rubrics and frameworks to answer the following questions:

What am I learning?

How is it going?

What do I do next?

HookED uses SOLO to help students think about the strengths and weaknesses of their own thinking, to “learn to learn” and to help schools develop a common, school wide approach to making learning and learning outcomes visible to students. HookED uses SOLO to help schools develop a school-wide understanding of:

2. The language of learning used in schools. (SOLO learning verbs);

3. Learning intentions and learning outcomes (SOLO differentiated learning experiences and WALT statements);

4. Self Assessment of the learning process (SOLO differentiated student self assessment rubrics);

5. Interventions (Thinking interventions and e-learning interventions) that enhance the conditions of value when learning (SOLO differentiated interventions).

SOLO is used to:

Plan for differentiation;

Give and receive feedback;

Develop self-assessment resources;

Design innovative curriculum;

Reflect on learning processes and products;

Undertake research and student led inquiry;

Integrate e-learning and thinking strategies;

Establish a school wide common language for learning.

Pam Hook (Director) developed a unique classroom based approach to SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs and Collis 1982).

When using SOLO Taxonomy in classrooms the focus is on the complexity of the structure of the student response, rather than on a categorisation of the student themselves. Students use SOLO as a model to self-assess the depth of their learning outcomes for different tasks.

Uni-structural – The student's response only focuses on one relevant aspect.

Multi-structural – The student's response focuses on several relevant aspects but they are treated independently and additively. Assessment of this level is primarily quantitative.

Relational – The different aspects have become integrated into a coherent whole. This level is what is normally meant by an adequate understanding of some topic.

Extended abstract – The previous integrated whole may be conceptualised at a higher level of abstraction and generalised to a new topic or area.

SOLO是英文“Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome”首字母的缩写，意为“可观察到的学习结果的结构”，是一种以等级描述为特征，重视实践， 关注学习过程和质量的质性评价方法。SOLO 分类法评价理论是由澳大利亚著名的教育心理学家比格斯和他的同事克里斯在1982 年出版的《评价学习质量—— SOLO分类法》中最早提出的。

SOLO分类评价理论以皮亚杰的认识发展理论为基础，该理论认为：个体从出生到成熟的发展过程中，认知结构在与环境的相互作用中不断重构，从而表现出具有不同质的不同阶段。根据这个特点，皮亚杰将儿童和青少年的认知发展划分为四个阶段：感知运动阶段、前运算阶段、具体运算阶段和形式运算阶段， 而比格斯和他的同事通过不断地分析和研究实例，发现学生的学习过程具有阶段性，是从量变到质变的一个过程。虽然学习行为是不能被测量的，但是学生学习行为的结果变化是可以观察和被评判的。

针对学生在学习过程中的思维处于哪个层次这个问题，比格斯和他的同事根据学生的学习状态、能力、思维操作、一致性与收敛、应答结构五个方面，把学生的思维层次划分为五个思维水平。

二、SOLO分类评价理论在教学中的应用优势

（一）为学习质量的评价提供质性的评价方式

SOLO 分类评价理论中的五个学习水平组成一个复杂的层级结构，由简单向复杂、由低级向高级递进，促进学生用整体和联系的思路去分析、探究问题，并且重视“量”的评价，同时更加重视“质”的评价， 这是一种质性的评价方式，它的特点不是要求死记硬背知识点，而是极大地鼓励学生进行拓展思维，探究性学习，为课程质量的评价提供一个更加有效的、质性的评价方式。

（二）为教学质量提高提供一个更加有效的方法

SOLO 分类评价理论一方面可以为教师全面了解学生的学习情况提供依据，也可以根据其实际所处的学习层次水平，结合存在的问题，有针对性地提出解决的办法。另一方面SOLO 分类评价理论不仅要求进行深层次的探究，而且对教学水平也提出了更高的要求， 需要教师不断提高自己的教学水平，拓展自己的思维，成为元学习专家。

（三）为开放性题目提供依据

过去课程的开放性题目多采用“采点式”的评价方式，把问题的正确答案设置为很多细的采分点，依据采分点给分，仅仅以正确答案为标准，不能区分学生的思维层次，而开放性的题目往往最体现开放性思维，很多教师仍然是让学生死背知识点，然后叙述一遍，并没有体现学生在这个知识点方面的思维层次。因此，为了使学生进行更加深层次的探究学习，光有开放性的题目是不够的，还必须有开放性的评价方式，而SOLO 分类评价理论是通过分析思维能力的方式，提高开放性题目的信度和效度，使其真正地“开放”。

三、SOLO分类评价理论在“教学系统设计”课程教学中的设计案例

针对教学系统设计这门课程，本文分别从课堂教学、课后测评、综合实践三个环节来介绍基于SOLO 分类评价理论在教学系统设计中的教学应用，通过采用“过程性评价”“总结性评价”“诊断性评价+ 总结性评价”这三种不同的教学评价，全面深入地了解学生的学习过程，促进其学习能力的提高，具体如图1 所示。

（一）课程分析

教学系统设计作为教育技术学课程体系中的核心课程，是以解决教学中产生的问题，优化学习为目的的学科，是实践性质强、应用范围广的一门系统课程。该课程涵盖丰富的理论，实践操作复杂，对学生的“学” 和教师的“教”都提出了巨大的要求，具体表现在以下几个方面。

1. 学习难度加大。由于教学系统设计这门课程所涉及的理论多且复杂，对学习能力的要求增大，容易造成学生在学习过程中抓不住重点，理解混乱，学习质量下降的情况。

2. 学习效果评测难度加大。由于课程要求学生理论与实践相结合，测评的题目多为主观题和开放题，如何设置一个测评标准来真实地体现出学习效果，也成为了摆在教师面前的一个难题。

3. 课堂教学难度加大。教学系统设计的课程教学要求高，必然增加了课堂教学的难度，教师必须花更多的时间去熟悉教学内容。如何评价学习效果，对教师也提出了一个挑战[12]。

（二）课堂教学的应用

课堂教学是教学系统设计课程的基本形式和重要环节之一，通过教师和学生的双向互动，使学生掌握教学相关的知识点，完成课前设定的学习目标。学习“教学系统设计”这门课程，一方面是不断地将课堂所授知识内化的过程，另一方面是通过对课堂上出现的问题思考与解答，知识不断外显的过程，需要教师时刻关注学生的学习情况，及时地根据学生思维层次的变化，调整策略。教师首先可以要求学生，结合自己的生活学习经历，描述运用先行组织者教学策略进行教学的过程，然后根据学生的反应水平，确认其所在的认知思维层次，从而评价学生在这门课程上的学习质量和所具备的认知思维能力。

（三）课后测评的应用

在课堂教学结束后，教师进行测评，发现问题， 解决问题，以巩固、评估学习效果，这种课后测评的方式是教学的重要组成部分，是评估学生学习质量的重要环节之一。教学系统设计要求学生能理解和掌握各种理论，形成一套系统的教学设计思维，并能结合实际情况，运用到具体的教学当中，是理论与实践并重的一门课程，而教学系统设计课程的课后测评多为主观题，且没有固定的答案。因此，基于SOLO 分类评价理论在这里运用是比较实用的，例如：对于学完《教学系统设计》第4 章“教学模式与策略的选择和设计”课程的学生而言，课堂测评中经常会出现这样的一个问题：“常用的教学测量有哪些？如何才能有效运用这些策略？”教师根据学生的回答，通过归类和分析，能较为准确地分析出学生的思维能力和学习效果。在课后评测中，SOLO分类评价法不是以所答对题目数量为衡量标准，而是着重考量学生回答问题所达到的思维层次，促使其思维必须更加开放， 客观地体现出知识水平和能力。

（四）综合实践的应用

综合实践是教学系统设计的重要组成部分，旨在培养学生在真实的教学环境下，教学设计和分析解决问题的能力，因此具有质性、层次性和更加有效性特点的SOLO分类评价理论对于综合实践有着重要意义。

在教学设计实践结束之后，教师可以使用之前预评估的学生学习状况与实际的学习状况进行对比，通过分析前后学习水平结构层次的不同，发掘出影响学生学习层次变化的因素，然后结合出现的具体问题，找出应对的办法。同时，学生也可以根据自己学习水平结构的不同，对自己的学习状况有一个清晰的认识， 结合具体情境，改善学习方法，弥补在教学系统设计课程上某个知识点的不足，从而提高教学设计的能力。

SOLO 分类评价理论是分析、评价教学系统设计的综合性的理论。教师可以通过分析教学设计实践开始之前和教学设计实践结束之后学生学习情况的变化，找出原因，从而提高学生的学习质量。

（1）要根据实践课程任务、教学目标、能力要求、本班学生具体情况来制定教学系统设计评价维度表。

（2）对评价要进行实践测量，进行适当的修改, 在需要一定区分度的考试中，上述五个等级之间还可以进一步细化，提高可信度，或者根据实际情况的变化，设为3 个或者4 个等级，体现测试的效度[14]。

（3）教学设计评价维度表里面的指标要尽量开放， 同时，教师要考虑课程任务的难度值、效度问题。

现实教学当中，SOLO 分类评价理论在历史、化学等很多领域已经得到了运用，并且有了很好的反馈，而在教育技术学相关课程的评价方面，这个方法也为我们提供了开放式、质性的评价思路和方法，能否进一步地在更多的课程当中运用，也需要我们不断地进行尝试和探索。香港大学比格斯教授通过研究皮亚杰认知发展阶段理论并进行大量实践研究后提出，根据学生的回答能力、回答思路、回答的一致性和相对收敛程度、整体结构这四个特征，可将学生回答问题由低到高划分为五个层次。其中回答能力指记忆的量和注意的广度，回答思路即思维操作，指把线索和回答联系起来的方式，回答的一致性和相对收敛程度指达到某种结论的要求和如何保持结论的一致性，整体结构，则取决于前三方面的相互作用。基于这种理论的以等级描述为基本特征的质性评价方法，就是SOLO分类评分法。

Published books, papers and articles

Hook, P., Booth, N., Fobister, L., and Price A. (2019). SOLO Taxonomy in Music Education. Growing high quality musicians through a reflective learning environment. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

Hook, P. (2018). The who, what, when, where, and why of SOLO Taxonomy. Q &A Pam Hook with Josie Roberts. In SET Research information for Teachers. pp. 48 -53, No. 2 2018

Hook, P. J. (2018). How do you design quality rubrics to accompany the AA. In Tay, H.Y. Designing Quality Authentic Assessments. In series: Assessment in Schools: Principles in Practice. Tay,H.Y., Tan, H.K.K.,and V. Klenowski (Eds.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Hook, P., Ipsen, S., and McCombe M. (2017). Using SOLO Taxonomy in Student Inquiry. Bk 1. How student inquiry can develop creative and critical thinking. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

Hook, P., and Tolhoek, W. (2017). Using SOLO Taxonomy to Think Like a Scientist. How to develop curious minds with the science capabilities. The Material World. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

Hook, P. (2017). On making progress visible with SOLO.  In I. Wallace and L. Kirkman (Eds), Best of the Best. Progress. Crown House Publishing. UK.

Hook, P., (2016) SOLO Taksonomien I Praksis. Dafolo Folag.

Hook, P., and Van Schaijik, S. (2016). SOLO Taxonomy and English Language Learners. Making second language learning visible. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

Hook, P., and Perry, C. (2016). SOLO Taxonomy in the Social Sciences. Strategies for social inquiry. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

Hook, P., Wall, S. and Manger, R. (2015). An Action Research Project with SOLO Taxonomy. Book 1. How to introduce and use SOLO as a model of learning across a school. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

Hook, P., Gravett, C., Howard, M., and John, E. (2014). SOLO Taxonomy in Maths. Strategies for thinking like a mathematician. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

Hook, P. and Richards, N. (2013). SOLO Taxonomy in Physical Education Book 1. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

Hook, P. and Richards, N. (2013). SOLO Taxonomy in Physical Education Book 2. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

Hook, P. and Cassé, B. (2013). SOLO Taxonomy in the Early Years. Making connections for belonging, being and becoming. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

McNeill, L. and Hook, P. (2012). SOLO Taxonomy and Making Meaning. Book 2. Language features, structure and organisation. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

Hook, P. and Mills, J. (2012). SOLO Taxonomy: A Guide for Schools. Book 2. Planning for Differentiation. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.

Hook, P. (2011). What kind of assessment for learning is appropriate in the age of Google and Wikipedia? Facebook and You Tube? Smart phones and text messaging? Twitter and blogging? Refereed paper presented at Symposium on Assessment and Learner Outcomes 2011 1–3 September 2011 Rutherford House, Wellington, New Zealand.

Hook, P. (2011). “What happens next?” is what happens next. (Student led assessment). Refereed paper presented at Symposium on Assessment and Learner Outcomes 2011 1–3 September 2011 Rutherford House, Wellington, New Zealand.

Hook, P. (2006). Artichoke Wiki – A collaborative conversation with educators from around the world to discuss knowledge building and innovation and the role ICTs may play.

Hook, P. (2006). Designing for Differentiation (e-learning version). HOT Wiki May 2006.

Hook, P., Jordan, C., Stannard, P. and Williamson K. (1998). Science World for the New Zealand Curriculum 9. Macmillan Publishers.