Skip to main content

Mastering Understanding: A Deep Dive into the SOLO Taxonomy Mental Model

Have you ever struggled to truly grasp a complex topic? Or found it difficult to articulate the depth of your understanding beyond just recalling facts? In a world drowning in information, developing clear, structured thinking is paramount. We don't just need to consume knowledge; we need to process it, connect it, and use it effectively. This is where mental models come in – frameworks that help us simplify complexity and navigate reality.

One such powerful framework, particularly insightful for understanding how we build knowledge and solve problems, is the SOLO Taxonomy. While it originated in education, its principles extend far beyond the classroom, offering a universal lens through which to examine the quality of our thinking and the depth of our understanding in any domain. It helps us move from superficial engagement with ideas to a rich, interconnected comprehension.

The SOLO Taxonomy, which stands for Structure of Observed Learning Outcome, provides a simple yet profound hierarchy for classifying the complexity of understanding. It describes five distinct levels of thinking, showing how our understanding of a subject evolves from basic recall to sophisticated, generalized insight. By understanding these levels, you gain a valuable tool for self-assessment, problem-solving, and communicating your knowledge more effectively. It's not just about what you know, but how you know it – the structure and connections within your knowledge. This model is crucial for anyone looking to improve their learning, critical thinking, and decision-making processes.

Historical Background: From Classrooms to Cognitive Frameworks​

The SOLO Taxonomy wasn't born out of a desire to build a general mental model for thinking, but rather from a very practical need in the field of education. Its origins lie in the work of two Australian educational psychologists, John B. Biggs and Kevin Collis, during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Biggs and Collis were focused on developing a systematic way to assess the quality and complexity of students' learning outcomes. Traditional grading often simply marked answers as right or wrong, or assigned grades based on quantity of information. However, they observed that students' understanding of a topic varied significantly in its structure and depth, not just its accuracy. Some students could list facts but not connect them, while others could synthesize information and even apply it to new situations.

Their goal was to create a robust method for describing this qualitative difference in understanding. They analyzed thousands of student responses across various subjects to identify common patterns in how understanding progressed. This empirical work led to the identification of the distinct levels that form the core of the SOLO Taxonomy. It provided educators with a language and framework to move beyond simply measuring how much students knew, to assessing how well they understood.

Initially developed as an assessment tool, particularly for criterion-referenced assessment (measuring performance against a standard, not against other students), the power of SOLO Taxonomy became increasingly apparent. It wasn't just useful for teachers evaluating students; it was valuable for students reflecting on their own learning and for anyone trying to structure their thinking about a complex issue. Over time, its application expanded beyond formal education. Researchers and practitioners in various fields recognized that the hierarchical description of understanding was a fundamental cognitive process applicable to problem-solving, skill acquisition, and knowledge building in any domain. It evolved from primarily an assessment framework into a widely recognized model for understanding cognitive development and the quality of thinking outcomes.

Core Concepts Analysis: The Five Levels of Understanding​

At its heart, the SOLO Taxonomy describes five hierarchical levels of increasing cognitive complexity. Think of it less like rungs on a ladder and more like different structures you can build with the same set of blocks – some are simple piles, others are intricate models. These levels describe the structure of the response or the thinking process observed, revealing the depth of understanding achieved.

Let's break down these levels:

  1. Prestructural: At this level, the learner or thinker has not engaged with the task or information in a meaningful way. Responses might be irrelevant, contradictory, based on misinformation, or simply demonstrate a lack of understanding or engagement. It's like having a pile of Lego bricks but not knowing what they are or what to do with them. You might pick one up randomly or try to eat it – showing no relevant understanding of its purpose. There is no structure to the thinking related to the topic.

  2. Unistructural: The learner or thinker focuses on only one relevant aspect of the information or task. They can identify a single piece of information or make one simple connection. It's a good start, but the understanding is isolated. Imagine picking up one red Lego brick and saying, "This is red." You've identified a relevant attribute, but that's all. You can recall a single fact or perform one simple step.

  3. Multistructural: Here, the learner or thinker focuses on several independent relevant aspects. They can identify multiple pieces of information or perform several steps, but they don't see the relationships between them. It's like having several different Lego bricks (red, blue, yellow) and saying, "This one is red, this one is blue, this one is yellow." You have several relevant pieces of information, but you haven't connected them or built anything with them. You can list facts or follow multiple procedures, but you don't integrate them into a coherent whole.

  4. Relational: This is a significant leap. The learner or thinker integrates several relevant aspects into a structured whole. They see the relationships between the pieces of information and how they connect to form a complete picture. It's like taking your different coloured Lego bricks and building a small, simple house. You see how the bricks fit together, how the walls support the roof, creating a meaningful structure. At this level, you can explain causes and effects, integrate different ideas, and see the overall meaning of a concept or solution. You move from listing facts to explaining concepts.

  5. Extended Abstract: The highest level. The learner or thinker generalizes the structure of understanding to new situations or broader concepts. They can go beyond the given information, make predictions, theorize, or apply the understanding to entirely new domains. It's like looking at your small Lego house and then using the principles of construction you learned to design a whole city, or applying the concept of structural support to building with different materials. You can think creatively, generate new hypotheses, and see the implications of your understanding in a wider context. This level demonstrates deep insight and the ability to transfer knowledge.

The progression through these levels isn't always linear or automatic. It depends on the complexity of the topic, prior knowledge, and the thinking strategies employed. The power of SOLO lies in identifying where your understanding (or someone else's) currently sits, allowing you to target strategies to move towards deeper levels.

Let's look at some examples:

Example 1: Understanding Climate Change

  • Prestructural: Saying "The weather is weird," or "I don't believe in it" without engaging with the topic.
  • Unistructural: Stating "The Earth is getting warmer." (Focus on one aspect - rising temperature).
  • Multistructural: Listing several facts about climate change: "The Earth is getting warmer. Ice caps are melting. Sea levels are rising. There are more extreme weather events." (Multiple relevant points, but not connected).
  • Relational: Explaining how increased greenhouse gases trap heat (warming), causing ice caps to melt (relationship), leading to sea level rise (consequence), and disrupting weather patterns (interconnected effects). You see the system at play.
  • Extended Abstract: Discussing the potential economic and social implications of climate change, proposing policy solutions, comparing it to past climate shifts, or applying the concept of feedback loops learned from climate science to other complex systems (like economic or social systems).

Example 2: Solving a Business Problem (e.g., Declining Sales)

  • Prestructural: Ignoring the problem or blaming external factors without analysis ("It's just the economy").
  • Unistructural: Identifying one possible cause: "Sales are down because our prices are too high."
  • Multistructural: Identifying several potential causes independently: "Our prices are high. Our marketing isn't effective. Our competitors have a new product. Customer service is poor." (Multiple factors, but not seeing how they interact).
  • Relational: Analyzing how high prices might impact customer service complaints, how ineffective marketing fails to justify the price, and how competitors' actions exploit these weaknesses. You see the interconnected issues forming the problem.
  • Extended Abstract: Developing a new business model or strategy that addresses the root causes in an integrated way, predicting future market trends based on this analysis, or applying the problem-solving framework to a different challenge (like operational inefficiency).

Example 3: Explaining How a Car Engine Works

  • Prestructural: Saying "It makes the car go," or giving incorrect information.
  • Unistructural: Mentioning one component: "It has pistons."
  • Multistructural: Listing several components: "It has pistons, cylinders, spark plugs, valves, a crankshaft." (Multiple parts, but no explanation of their function or interaction).
  • Relational: Explaining the four-stroke cycle: how the piston movement, valve timing, and spark plug ignition work together in sequence within the cylinder to convert fuel into motion. You see the integrated process.
  • Extended Abstract: Comparing different engine types (e.g., combustion vs. electric), explaining the thermodynamic principles involved, discussing future engine technologies, or applying the concept of converting energy through cycles to other machines.

These examples show how SOLO Taxonomy provides a granular way to describe the development of understanding, moving from fragmented pieces to integrated wholes and ultimately to transferable insights. It's a powerful tool for diagnosing the quality of thinking outputs.

Practical Applications: SOLO Taxonomy in Action​

The SOLO Taxonomy, while rooted in education, offers valuable insights and practical applications across numerous domains. Its ability to clarify the depth and structure of understanding makes it a versatile mental model.

Here are five specific application cases:

  1. Education (Core Use): Teachers use SOLO Taxonomy extensively to design learning objectives at different levels, create assessment tasks that elicit responses at various levels of complexity, and provide targeted feedback to students. For instance, instead of just asking students to "describe" a concept, a teacher might ask them to "explain the relationships" between concepts (Relational) or "propose a solution" based on their understanding (Extended Abstract). Students can also use it for self-assessment, identifying where their understanding is weak and what kind of thinking they need to do to deepen it. It transforms assessment from merely grading to a tool for fostering deeper learning.

  2. Business and Management: When analyzing complex business problems, launching new initiatives, or developing strategies, SOLO Taxonomy helps teams ensure everyone is thinking at the necessary depth. Are team members just listing facts about the market (Multistructural)? Or are they seeing the interconnected dynamics between market trends, customer behaviour, competitor actions, and internal capabilities (Relational)? Using SOLO can help facilitate discussions, identify gaps in collective understanding, and ensure that solutions proposed are not just reactive (Unistructural/Multistructural) but address the systemic issues (Relational/Extended Abstract). It's useful for framing discussions about root causes and developing comprehensive plans.

  3. Personal Development and Learning: Whether you're learning a new skill, trying to understand a complex personal challenge, or grappling with philosophical ideas, applying SOLO Taxonomy to your own thinking can be incredibly insightful. When learning to code, are you just memorizing syntax (Multistructural)? Or do you understand how different functions interact (Relational) and can you apply programming principles to build novel applications (Extended Abstract)? For personal challenges, are you just listing symptoms (Multistructural)? Or can you identify underlying patterns and relationships causing the issues (Relational) and develop strategies that address the root causes (Extended Abstract)? It empowers you to identify your current level of understanding and consciously work towards deeper engagement.

  4. Technology and Problem Solving: In technical fields, problems often require understanding complex systems. Diagnosing an IT network issue might start by observing isolated symptoms (Multistructural). A deeper understanding requires seeing how different components (servers, routers, software) interact and how a failure in one area impacts others (Relational). Designing innovative tech solutions demands moving to the Extended Abstract level – seeing how existing technologies can be combined in new ways, predicting future needs, or applying principles from one tech domain to another. SOLO helps articulate the progression from symptom recognition to root cause analysis and finally to innovative solution design.

  5. Decision Making: Effective decisions, especially high-stakes ones, rely on a thorough understanding of the factors involved and their potential consequences. A superficial understanding (Unistructural/Multistructural) might lead to decisions based on limited information or isolated pros and cons. A relational understanding allows you to see how different factors interact and anticipate more complex outcomes. An extended abstract understanding enables you to consider long-term implications, generalize lessons learned from past decisions, and think strategically about how the decision fits into a larger context. Using SOLO can help frame the analysis phase of decision-making, ensuring that all relevant connections and potential broader impacts are considered before choosing a course of action.

In each of these areas, SOLO Taxonomy provides a common language to discuss the quality of thinking and understanding, helping individuals and groups identify their current level and strategize for deeper engagement.

The landscape of mental models offers various frameworks for understanding cognition, learning, and problem-solving. While SOLO Taxonomy provides a unique lens focusing on the structure of outcomes, it shares common ground and also differs significantly from other models. Let's compare it with a couple of related frameworks:

  1. SOLO Taxonomy vs. Bloom's Taxonomy: Perhaps the most frequent comparison is with Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, particularly the revised version by Anderson and Krathwohl.

    • Bloom's Focus: Bloom's Taxonomy categorizes cognitive processes or types of thinking activities – Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create. It's about what the learner does with the knowledge.
    • SOLO's Focus: SOLO Taxonomy categorizes the structure or complexity of the observable outcome of thinking or learning. It's about the quality of the resulting understanding or response.
    • Relationship: They are highly complementary. Bloom describes the actions (e.g., Analyze, Evaluate) that can lead to different qualities of understanding described by SOLO (e.g., Relational, Extended Abstract). You might use Bloom's levels to design tasks that require students to think relationally or abstractly. Conversely, you can use SOLO to assess the depth of understanding achieved when learners engage in Bloom's higher-order thinking processes.
    • When to Choose SOLO: Use SOLO when you want to specifically describe, assess, or improve the depth and interconnectedness of understanding or the structure of a response. It's particularly useful for self-assessment ("How well do I really understand this?") and providing feedback focused on qualitative improvement. Use Bloom's when you want to define and encourage specific types of cognitive activities.

  2. SOLO Taxonomy vs. First Principles Thinking: First Principles Thinking involves breaking down complex problems into their fundamental components or "first principles."

    • First Principles Focus: This is a method or strategy for analysis and problem-solving, emphasizing reductionism to uncover fundamental truths.
    • SOLO's Focus: SOLO describes the outcome of understanding.
    • Relationship: Engaging in First Principles Thinking can lead to a deeper level of understanding that can be described using the SOLO levels. Breaking down a complex system into fundamentals might represent a sophisticated Multistructural understanding. Reassembling those fundamentals to see how they interact aligns with a Relational understanding. Using those principles to derive new solutions or apply them elsewhere demonstrates Extended Abstract thinking. SOLO can help you evaluate how well you've understood the first principles and built upon them.
    • When to Choose SOLO: Use SOLO when you want to classify the quality of the outcome of a First Principles analysis or any other deep dive into a topic. Use First Principles Thinking as a method to achieve a deeper understanding that might then be classified as Relational or Extended Abstract.

While other models like Systems Thinking also relate to seeing connections (similar to SOLO's Relational level), SOLO remains distinct in providing a clear, stepwise hierarchy for categorizing the structure of observed understanding, from minimal engagement to sophisticated generalization. It offers a unique perspective on how knowledge is built and connected in our minds.

Critical Thinking: Limitations and Potential Misuse​

Like any mental model or framework, the SOLO Taxonomy is a simplification of reality and comes with its own set of limitations and potential pitfalls. Understanding these helps us use the model more effectively and avoid misapplying it.

One key limitation is the subjectivity in application. While the level descriptions provide clear criteria, judging exactly where a piece of work or a thought process falls, especially between levels like Multistructural and Relational, can sometimes be subjective. Different assessors might interpret the "seeing relationships" criterion slightly differently. This is less of an issue when used for self-reflection but can be a challenge in formal assessment settings if not carefully calibrated.

Another point is that SOLO is primarily descriptive, not prescriptive. It tells you what deep understanding looks like, but it doesn't explicitly tell you how to achieve it. Knowing you're at a Multistructural level helps you identify the need to see connections, but the model itself doesn't provide the strategies (like asking "why," looking for patterns, mapping relationships) needed to move to the Relational level. It diagnoses the level of understanding but requires other strategies for development.

There's also a risk of viewing the levels as a rigid, linear staircase that everyone must climb one step at a time. In reality, learning and thinking can be messy. People might demonstrate Relational thinking in one context but only Unistructural in another, even on related topics. They might jump levels or even regress if their understanding isn't consolidated. Applying the model too rigidly can ignore the dynamic and context-dependent nature of cognition.

Potential misuse cases often arise from oversimplification or using the model punitively. Using SOLO simply as a tick-box grading system without providing feedback on how to improve is a misuse. The goal should be to foster deeper understanding, not just categorize existing understanding. Another misuse is applying it inappropriately to tasks that don't involve building understanding or complexity – for example, simple recall tasks might only ever elicit Unistructural responses, making the higher levels irrelevant.

To avoid common misconceptions:

  • It's about quality, not quantity: A long response isn't necessarily Extended Abstract; a concise one showing deep insight could be. Focus on the structure and interconnectedness of the ideas.
  • It describes the outcome, not the person: Being at a Unistructural level on one topic doesn't mean someone is a "Unistructural thinker" overall. Understanding is topic-specific and develops over time.
  • Higher levels aren't always necessary: The required level of understanding depends on the task. For some simple problems, a Multistructural understanding might be perfectly adequate. Aiming for Extended Abstract on every topic is neither realistic nor necessary.

By being aware of these limitations and potential misuses, we can apply the SOLO Taxonomy more thoughtfully, using it as a valuable diagnostic and developmental tool rather than a rigid classification system.

Practical Guide: Applying SOLO Taxonomy to Your Thinking​

Putting the SOLO Taxonomy into practice can significantly sharpen your thinking and improve the quality of your understanding. It's a tool for self-reflection and deliberate learning. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to start applying it:

Step-by-Step Operational Guide:

  1. Identify the Focus: Choose a specific concept, problem, or piece of information you want to understand better or analyze. This could be anything from "the reasons for inflation" to "how my company's marketing team interacts with the sales team" or "the plot of a complex novel." Be clear about the specific scope.
  2. Articulate Your Current Understanding: Write down, speak aloud, or sketch out everything you currently know or think about the chosen focus. Don't filter yourself initially. Just get your current understanding out. This is your "observed learning outcome."
  3. Analyze Your Outcome Using SOLO Levels: Compare your articulated understanding against the descriptions of the five SOLO levels. Ask yourself:
    • Prestructural: Is my response completely off-topic, irrelevant, or based on fundamental misunderstandings? (If yes, you need to start with basic, accurate information).
    • Unistructural: Have I identified just one main point, idea, or fact related to the topic? (e.g., "Inflation means prices go up.")
    • Multistructural: Have I identified several main points or facts, but treated them separately, without showing how they relate? (e.g., "Prices are going up. The government printed money. There are supply chain issues.")
    • Relational: Have I connected the main points, explaining relationships, causes, or effects to form a coherent picture? (e.g., "Prices are going up because the government printed more money and supply chain issues mean there's less stuff available, leading to too much money chasing too few goods.")
    • Extended Abstract: Can I generalize this understanding? Can I apply it to a new situation (like inflation in a different country or time period)? Can I make predictions or theorize based on this understanding? Can I connect it to broader concepts (like economic theory or historical patterns)? (e.g., "This current inflation fits the pattern of monetary inflation seen historically, but the supply chain issues add a unique constraint, suggesting we might see different effects than purely demand-driven inflation.")
  4. Identify Your Current Level: Based on your analysis, determine the SOLO level that best describes your current understanding of this specific topic at this moment.
  5. Determine the Next Step: If you want to deepen your understanding (which is often the goal!), look at the description of the next SOLO level. What are you missing? What do you need to do to move from your current level to the next?
    • From Prestructural: Find basic, accurate information.
    • From Unistructural: Identify more relevant points.
    • From Multistructural: Find the relationships and connections between the points you've identified. Look for patterns, causes, and effects.
    • From Relational: Think about the implications of this understanding. How does it apply elsewhere? What predictions can you make? How does it fit into a bigger picture?
  6. Plan and Act: Based on the next step, devise a plan to improve your understanding. This might involve further research, asking clarifying questions, discussing the topic with others, or actively trying to find connections and broader applications. Then, take action!
  7. Repeat: As you learn more or think differently, repeat the process. Your understanding of a complex topic is likely to evolve through the SOLO levels over time with deliberate effort.

Practical Suggestions for Beginners:

  • Start Simple: Don't pick the most complicated topic imaginable first. Practice with something relatively straightforward to get a feel for the levels.
  • Focus on Connections: When you're trying to move beyond Multistructural, actively look for words like "because," "causes," "leads to," "is related to," "impacts," "is a part of." These signal relationships.
  • Use Analogies: Creating your own analogies (like the Lego one) can help solidify Relational understanding. Applying the concept to different situations (like climate change principles applied to a business system) helps reach Extended Abstract.
  • Explain it to Someone Else: Trying to explain a concept to another person (or even an imaginary person) forces you to structure your thinking and identify gaps in your understanding, pushing you towards higher levels.
  • Don't Be Afraid of Being "Low" Initially: The point is to honestly assess where you are so you know how to improve. It's a map for learning, not a judgment.

Simple Thinking Exercise/Worksheet:

Topic: Explain the concept of "Supply and Demand."

Instructions:

  1. My Initial Explanation: Write down everything you know about Supply and Demand. (Use the space below or a separate piece of paper).

    • Write your explanation here...

  2. Analyze Your Explanation using SOLO: Read your explanation and compare it to the SOLO levels.

    • Do I have any relevant points? (Yes/No) - If No, Prestructural.
    • Have I mentioned just ONE relevant idea (e.g., "It's about how much stuff there is")? (Yes/No) - If Yes, Unistructural.
    • Have I mentioned SEVERAL separate ideas (e.g., "It's about how much stuff there is and how much people want it")? (Yes/No) - If Yes, Multistructural.
    • Have I explained the RELATIONSHIP between supply and demand (e.g., "When supply goes up and demand stays the same, price goes down")? (Yes/No) - If Yes, Relational.
    • Can I generalize this idea (e.g., "This applies not just to goods, but also to labour markets") or think about implications (e.g., "Understanding this helps predict price changes")? (Yes/No) - If Yes, Extended Abstract.

  3. My Current SOLO Level: Based on your analysis, circle the level that best describes your explanation: Prestructural | Unistructural | Multistructural | Relational | Extended Abstract

  4. How to Reach the Next Level? What would you need to do or add to your explanation to move it to the next level? (e.g., Need more points? Need to explain the connections? Need to think about broader applications?)

    • My next steps:

  5. Try Again (Optional): Based on your steps, rewrite or improve your explanation, aiming for a higher SOLO level.

This exercise helps make the abstract concept of SOLO concrete and immediately applicable to assessing and improving your own understanding.

Conclusion: The Power of Structured Understanding​

In an age overflowing with information, the ability to process, synthesize, and truly understand is more valuable than ever. The SOLO Taxonomy provides a remarkably elegant and practical mental model for achieving this. By outlining the progression from superficial engagement to deep, generalized insight, it gives us a map for navigating the landscape of knowledge.

We've explored its origins as an educational assessment tool, its evolution into a broader framework for thinking, and the distinct characteristics of its five levels: Prestructural, Unistructural, Multistructural, Relational, and Extended Abstract. We've seen how this hierarchy isn't just theoretical but applies across diverse fields, from solving business problems and making personal decisions to diagnosing technical issues. Understanding where your thinking sits on this scale allows you to identify gaps and strategize for deeper, more interconnected comprehension.

While acknowledging its limitations, such as potential subjectivity and its descriptive rather than prescriptive nature, we highlighted the importance of using SOLO as a developmental tool. It's not a rigid judgment but a guide to improving the quality of your thinking outcomes. By comparing it to models like Bloom's Taxonomy and First Principles Thinking, we see how SOLO uniquely focuses on the structure of understanding, complementing other cognitive frameworks.

Incorporating the SOLO Taxonomy into your thinking processes empowers you to ask better questions about what you know, to assess the quality of information you encounter, and to communicate your ideas with greater clarity and depth. It encourages you to move beyond simply collecting facts towards building robust, connected, and transferable knowledge. We encourage you to use the practical guide and exercises provided to begin applying this powerful model in your daily life. Embrace the journey from scattered pieces of information to a richly structured understanding – the rewards for your learning, problem-solving, and decision-making will be significant.

Frequently Asked Questions​

Q1: Is the SOLO Taxonomy only useful for students in school?

No, absolutely not. While it originated in education, the SOLO Taxonomy is a universal model for describing the complexity of understanding any concept or solving any problem. It's highly applicable in professional settings, personal learning, decision-making, and critical thinking in general.

Q2: How is SOLO Taxonomy different from Bloom's Taxonomy?

Bloom's Taxonomy categorizes cognitive processes or what you do with knowledge (e.g., remembering, analyzing, creating). SOLO Taxonomy categorizes the structure of the outcome or how well you understand and can organize the knowledge (e.g., isolated facts, connected ideas, generalized principles). They are complementary frameworks.

Q3: Do you have to go through the SOLO levels in order (Prestructural -> Unistructural -> ... -> Extended Abstract)?

The levels represent an increasing complexity that is typical of how understanding develops. However, progress isn't always strictly linear. You might jump between levels depending on the task or your prior knowledge, and understanding can even fluctuate. The levels describe the quality of the outcome, not a fixed stage for an individual.

Q4: Is reaching the Extended Abstract level always necessary or the goal?

Not always. The required depth of understanding (SOLO level) depends on the task or purpose. For a simple task, a Multistructural understanding might be perfectly sufficient. Aiming for Extended Abstract on every single piece of information you encounter would be impractical. The goal is to achieve the appropriate level of understanding for the context.

Q5: How can I use SOLO Taxonomy to improve my own learning or thinking?

You can use it for self-assessment. When learning something new or tackling a problem, articulate your understanding or proposed solution. Then, use the SOLO levels to analyze its complexity. Identify which level you're currently at and what you would need to do (find more information, look for connections, consider broader implications) to move to a deeper level. This makes your learning process more conscious and targeted.

Resources for Advanced Readers​

For those interested in diving deeper into the SOLO Taxonomy and its applications, consider exploring the foundational works and related resources:

  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press. (The original, in-depth explanation of the model).
  • Biggs, J. B. (1999, 2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. (This later work integrates SOLO Taxonomy into a broader model of teaching and learning - "Constructive Alignment").
  • Academic Databases: Search for research papers using "SOLO Taxonomy" in your specific field of interest (e.g., business, healthcare, engineering education) to see how it's been applied and researched in various contexts.
  • Educational Theory Resources: Many educational websites and texts discuss SOLO Taxonomy in detail, often providing further examples and links to assessment design.

Think better with AI + Mental Models – Try AIFlow