Main, P. (2021, May 24). SOLO Taxonomy: Five Levels of Understanding Explained. Structural Learning. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/what-is-solo-taxonomy
What is SOLO taxonomy?
SOLO taxonomy, developed by Biggs and Collis, describes five levels in the quality of a learner's understanding, prestructural, unistructural, multistructural, relational, and extended abstract, moving from no grasp to transferable, abstract reasoning. For teachers, it gives a shared language to judge depth of understanding and design tasks that move learners from facts to connected thinking.
Prestructuralthe response misses the relevant idea
Unistructuralone relevant aspect is identified
Multistructuralseveral relevant aspects remain separate
Relationalthe aspects form a coherent explanation
Extended abstractthe explanation supports a justified extension
A learner can write five correct facts and still be unable to say how they connect, and the two answers call for different feedback. SOLO taxonomy gives you a way to read that difference in the work itself, so you judge how well a learner connects ideas rather than how many facts they recall.
To use it, inspect what connects the ideas in a learner's answer. For a question about plants and light, check whether the learner names relevant facts, explains their relationship or just adds details. Then choose one connection to revisit.
Try this tomorrow
Year 4 science (US Grade 3), why does a plant need light? Ask each learner to write an answer, then add one sentence that joins two of their facts with "because". Pick four answers and sort them into those that list facts and those that link them.
Look for: a learner who writes "Light helps the plant make food so it can grow" instead of "Plants need light and water". Then ask which two facts the new sentence joins.
Secondary, Year 8 history (US Grade 7), why did a protest grow? Ask for two causes, then ask how one cause made the other stronger. Look for an answer that explains the link, such as rising prices making a poor harvest harder to bear.
For a teacher, the useful question is what the answer shows about this piece of learning. A learner may recall several facts about photosynthesis yet struggle to explain how they connect. That calls for different feedback from an answer that already explains the process but applies it incorrectly to a new situation.
For the wider planning context, see our guide to thinking frameworks. Use each framework for the classroom decision it helps you make.
Key takeaways
Judge the structure of this response, rather than labelling a learner.
Check subject accuracy before praising a connection.
Choose one feedback move and look for a better second attempt.
SOLO gives you a language for making that distinction. It describes one response to one task, so the label belongs to the work rather than the learner. You still judge subject accuracy yourself. Start with the curriculum content and the response you need to see.
Who developed SOLO taxonomy and what does its name mean?
SOLO stands for Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome. John B. Biggs and Kevin F. Collis presented the framework in their 1982 book, Evaluating the Quality of Learning. The focus on observed outcomes keeps your judgement tied to evidence in the work.
Why use SOLO taxonomy? Benefits for teachers and learners
SOLO gives you a shared language for the quality of a response. A learner can see why five facts and five facts joined by reasons are different answers. You can then give feedback that names the next step, such as "add the link between light and growth". The research section below sizes what the evidence supports.
What are the five levels of SOLO taxonomy?
The five levels describe increasing structural complexity within a response. They move from missing the point to using an explanation beyond the original task. The descriptions below refer to a science question about plants, but the judgement always depends on the task and the knowledge taught.
Match a learner answer to a level before you choose the next prompt.
Prestructural: the response misses the relevant idea
A prestructural response misses the point of the question. Asked why plants need light, a learner might describe the plants in their garden without explaining light's role. That answer tells you where to investigate, rather than why the learner has struggled.
Check whether they understood the question and can access the vocabulary. Then find out whether they know any relevant science. Short but accurate recall or identification belongs at the unistructural level, not here.
Unistructural: one relevant aspect is identified
A unistructural response gives one relevant idea. For the plant question, saying that light is needed for photosynthesis identifies something useful. It leaves the relationship between light, glucose production and growth unexplained.
One relevant idea may be exactly what your question requires. If you asked the learner to name the process, this response has met the task. Unistructural describes the structure of the answer, and for a recall question it can be the right one.
Multistructural: several relevant aspects remain separate
A multistructural response includes several relevant facts without organising them into an explanation. The learner might mention sunlight, leaves, water and carbon dioxide. They have material to work with, but the relationship between those facts remains unclear.
Your next prompt should ask for a connection, rather than another fact. Try, "What does light allow the plant to do with water and carbon dioxide?" This makes the missing relationship visible in the subject itself.
Relational: the aspects form a coherent explanation
At the relational level, ask what makes the explanation hold together. A learner should be able to defend the link when you ask why. Check that reasoning against your subject knowledge before accepting the response.
Connections need to be scientifically sound. An incorrect explanation stays incorrect when it uses "because" and "therefore". Check the mechanism that the learner has described, alongside the structure of their answer.
Cut a hexagon for each key idea and let learners join the ones that connect, then ask them to explain each join.
Extended abstract: the explanation supports a justified extension
An extended abstract response uses the connected explanation to reason beyond the given question. A learner might predict how reduced light would affect new plant growth. They explain their prediction and identify what would need controlling in an investigation.
Look for a principle carried across to the new case, with a defensible reason; the new example matters less than that principle. An imaginative claim about all plants, unsupported by the science, should not receive extra credit for sounding ambitious.
What is the difference between surface and deep learning in SOLO?
Unistructural and multistructural responses show surface learning: one idea, or several ideas that stay separate. Relational and extended abstract responses show deep learning, where the ideas form an explanation and then travel to a new case. Both matter, because a learner needs the facts before anything can connect.
Why should you not rush past the multistructural level?
Multistructural is where the facts get collected, so hurrying through it leaves nothing to connect. Learning also loops back, because a new topic sends learners back to surface knowledge before they connect again. Praise the facts, then ask for the link.
Five response structures. Check accuracy before choosing feedback.
One task, five responses: why do plants need light?
Use one shared question when introducing the distinctions. If each example has different content or a harder question, learners may mistake topic difficulty for response quality. The five fictional answers below keep the prompt constant: "Why do plants need light?"
One question, five answers
Why do plants need light?
Level
What a learner might write
What it shows
Prestructural
“There are flowers in my garden and my grandmother waters them.”
This misses light's role.
Unistructural
“Light is needed for photosynthesis.”
This identifies one relevant idea.
Multistructural
“Plants use light, water and carbon dioxide. Leaves contain chlorophyll.”
These ideas remain separate.
Relational
“Chlorophyll absorbs light energy. Photosynthesis uses that energy to make glucose from water and carbon dioxide. The plant can use glucose for growth.”
The answer connects the process.
Extended abstract
“If other growing conditions stay the same, reduced light may limit photosynthesis. We could compare similar plants at different light levels and explain differences in growth.”
The response transfers the explanation and proposes a qualified test.
The teaching move is to discuss what each answer contributes and what it still needs. The first answer talks about plants without addressing light. The next identifies one relevant idea, while the third gathers facts that could support an explanation.
For the relational answer, ask learners to trace the explanation rather than count the facts. Where does it state light's role? How does that connect to making glucose? What does the answer say about how the plant uses that glucose?
The extension should stay within the science learners know. Two similar seedlings grown with different light levels could provide a new case. A reasoned prediction should allow for stored reserves and other conditions, rather than claim that a plant immediately stops all growth in darkness.
Keep photosynthesis and respiration distinct. Plants respire in daylight and darkness, and can use stored substances when light is unavailable. "Plants need light to make food" is a useful starting statement, but a fuller answer needs more precise language.
Worked example: marking one Year 4 science answer
A Year 4 learner (age 8 to 9, US Grade 3) answers "Why does a plant need light?" with "Plants need light, water and soil." That is multistructural: three facts and no link. Your comment: "Which of these helps the plant grow, and how?"
The second attempt reads "Light gives the leaf energy to make food, so the plant can grow." Now the facts are joined, so check the science before you praise the link.
The same five levels apply in other subjects. The answers below are fictional, for a fractions question and an English question.
The same five levels for a fractions question and an English question (fictional answers)
Level
Fractions: why is 1/2 the same as 2/4?
English: why does the fox flatter the crow?
Prestructural
“I like sharing a pizza with my friends.”
“The story has a tree and a fox in it.”
Unistructural
“Half is one part out of two equal parts.”
“The fox wanted the cheese.”
Multistructural
“Half is one part out of two equal parts. Two quarters is two parts out of four equal parts. Both are fractions.”
“The fox wanted the cheese. He said the crow’s voice was lovely. The crow had the cheese in her beak.”
Relational
“Each half can be cut into two equal quarters, so one half and two quarters are the same amount of the whole.”
“The fox flattered the crow’s singing so she would open her beak to sing, and that made her drop the cheese for him to take.”
Extended abstract
“Any fraction can be renamed by cutting every part into the same number of smaller equal parts, so 3/6 and 4/8 are also equal to one half.”
“The story shows that flattery can be used to get something from you, and we could look for the same trick in other stories or in adverts.”
How do you use SOLO taxonomy in lesson planning?
Plan backwards from a response that would show the intended understanding. For a Grade 9 science lesson (typically UK Year 10), that could be an explanation of how light affects photosynthesis. Decide which concepts must be connected before choosing an activity or a SOLO label.
When learners need help expressing a connection, choose a temporary scaffold that supports the explanation. Remove it when you need to see what they can explain independently.
The routine in four moves
Set the subject goal and check the starting knowledgeWrite the learning goal in terms of the science: "Explain how light supplies energy for photosynthesis and how its products support growth."
Choose an activity that requires the connectionGive pairs four cards: light energy, water and carbon dioxide, glucose, and growth.
Collect an individual responseAfter the paired activity, ask each learner to answer the original question without copying the group explanation.
Add an extension only when it serves the goalOnce the explanation is secure, offer a new case: two seedlings receive different amounts of light but the same water.
Set the subject goal and check the starting knowledge
Write the learning goal in terms of the science: "Explain how light supplies energy for photosynthesis and how its products support growth." Then check that learners can identify the reactants, product and role of light. If that knowledge is insecure, teach it before asking for a connected explanation.
A short retrieval task can reveal a missing fact. For example, ask learners to identify what enters and leaves a leaf during photosynthesis. Their answers help you decide which content needs another explanation, without assuming that every error has the same cause.
Choose an activity that requires the connection
Give pairs four cards: light energy, water and carbon dioxide, glucose, and growth. Ask them to arrange the cards and write a sentence for each connection. The useful evidence is the explanation on the connection, not the neatness of the arrangement.
Listen for vague links such as "these go together". Ask, "What happens here, and why does the next part follow?" Model one precise connection, then let the pair revise another independently.
A working wall makes proposed connections visible.
Collect an individual response
A shared map can hide differences between partners. After the paired activity, ask each learner to answer the original question without copying the group explanation. Compare that response with the first attempt, looking for a more accurate connection.
Keep the assessment manageable. You might sample six responses before the next lesson and use them to choose a class explanation. If several learners list the right facts but fail to link them, revisit the relationship rather than repeat the whole topic.
Add an extension only when it serves the goal
Once the explanation is secure, offer a new case: two seedlings receive different amounts of light but the same water. Ask learners to predict a difference and explain it using photosynthesis. Discuss why temperature, plant type and the observation period also matter.
Most lessons need only some of the five levels. A lesson on naming leaf structures may have a narrower goal. Another lesson may need an extended comparison, provided the necessary subject knowledge has been taught.
How does SOLO fit constructive alignment and success criteria?
Constructive alignment is Biggs's term for lining up the learning intention, the activities and the assessment task so that all three aim at the same outcome. SOLO supplies the language for that outcome. If your learning objective is "Explain how light supports growth", the activity must make learners connect and the task must ask for the connection. Outcomes-based approaches share this logic: set the outcome first.
Turn the intention into success criteria that name the content and the structure, such as "I name light, water and glucose. I explain how they link." Learners can then check their own answer before you read it.
How do you use SOLO hexagons in class?
Write one key idea on each paper hexagon, using six to nine for a first attempt. Pairs push the hexagons together so that touching edges mark a connection, then explain each join aloud. Listen for the reason, because the layout only shows which links a pair noticed. Finish with one written sentence for the join they are most sure of.
On X, teachers mostly reach for SOLO when they write success criteria. An IB Primary Years educator uses it to tier them, and another teacher asks whether its verbs can do that job. The verbs question is answered further down this guide.
These are unedited public posts on X; we have not endorsed them.
Use the SOLO Taxonomy to create tiered success criteria for teacher question and ATLs.
Choose a concrete question and familiar content, such as why a plant needs light. Younger learners can discuss one relevant idea and a connection without learning all the technical terms. In early years, keep it spoken. Show a seed and a cup of water, ask what each is for, and listen for whether the child names one thing or joins the two. The small primary study below offers a promising example, rather than a guarantee of results.
Adapt the sequence to a history lesson
For a lower secondary history lesson, choose a question such as why a particular protest grew. Teach the events and evidence first. Ask learners to identify two causes, then explain how one cause made the other more influential.
One question, three levels
Why did a particular protest grow?
Level
The response or task
What it shows
Multistructural
A response that lists poor harvests, rising prices and public anger.
Contains useful content.
Relational
A connected answer explains how a poor harvest affected prices and why that mattered to the people involved.
Check those links against the period studied, rather than accepting a plausible story without evidence.
Extended abstract
For an extension, give a second protest with some different conditions. Ask which part of the explanation still applies and which part needs changing.
The new task tests the reach of the explanation, instead of simply demanding a longer account.
Worked example: marking one Year 8 history answer
A Year 8 learner (age 12 to 13, US Grade 7) answers "Why did the protest grow?" with "There were poor harvests, prices went up and people were angry." That lists three causes, which is multistructural. Your comment: "Which of these made another one worse?"
The second attempt reads "Poor harvests pushed prices up, and people who could not afford food became angry, so the protest grew." The causes now interact, so check the link against the sources you taught.
If you use the Structural Learning platform to plan the activity, begin with the lesson you already have. Use the SOLO lens as a prompt to review which ideas the activity asks learners to connect. Check the resulting task yourself, including the subject content, instructions and response you expect to collect.
Which verbs belong at each SOLO level?
Verbs help you phrase a task, though a verb alone seldom shows its demand. "Explain" may invite one simple statement or a connected account of several causes. The content, support and expected response determine what you are asking learners to do.
Task wording and what the teacher checks, by intended response
Intended response
Possible task wording
What the teacher checks
One relevant aspect
Identify the energy source for photosynthesis.
The learner identifies light accurately.
Several relevant aspects
Describe the inputs and product of photosynthesis.
The relevant facts are present, even if their relationships are not explained.
A connected explanation
Explain how light contributes to glucose production and growth.
The facts form an accurate chain of reasoning.
A justified extension
Predict an effect of reduced light and justify an investigation.
The explanation supports the prediction and appropriate controls.
There is no desirable "prestructural verb" for lesson planning. Missing the point is something you diagnose in a response. You would not normally set it as a learning outcome.
For a history example, "describe two causes" could produce a list. "Explain how the causes interacted" asks for a relationship. Both may use familiar vocabulary, but the second needs a different response, which your teaching must prepare learners to produce.
What question stems fit each SOLO level?
Choose the stem that asks for the response you want. For one idea, start with "What is" or "Which one". For several ideas, start with "What are the main parts of" or "List what you know about". For a connection, start with "How does" or "Why does". For an extension, start with "What would happen if" or "How could you test".
If an answer misses the point, check that the learner understood the task before you check what they know. Stems only set up the task, so the answer still needs checking for accuracy.
The same three facts, first as a list, then linked to explain why light matters.
Use the one-page set of question stems to ask for the response you want, from one idea to an extension.
How is SOLO used in assessment, rubrics and feedback?
A useful rubric (a marking grid with criteria for each level) combines the structural distinction with subject-specific evidence. A rubric that says only "relational" leaves the learner guessing what to improve. For the plant question, name the connections between light, photosynthesis, glucose and growth.
What is SOLO-based assessment?
SOLO-based assessment uses the framework to interpret the structure of a response against a task. You look for relevant ideas, the links between them and any justified extension. This still requires a subject-specific question, accurate criteria and a teacher who can judge the content.
Keep accuracy and structure visible
Use two marking questions: "Is the science accurate?" and "How are the relevant ideas connected?" An answer can sound fluent while containing a false mechanism. Another can contain correct facts but leave the explanation unfinished.
For an incorrect claim that roots absorb glucose from soil, teach the missing science first. Praise the connection only once the science behind it is sound. Feedback on structure becomes useful when the connections themselves make sense.
Evidence in the response, feedback for this task and next revision
Evidence in the response
Feedback for this task
Next revision
The answer describes plants but omits light's role.
Return to what the question asks about light.
Identify one relevant idea from the lesson.
Light is linked to photosynthesis, with no explanation.
You have named the process. Explain what light contributes.
Add light's role as an energy source.
Relevant inputs and products are listed separately.
Show how these facts belong to the same process.
Explain how light enables glucose production from water and carbon dioxide.
The process is explained accurately.
Use that explanation to reason about reduced light.
Make a justified prediction, with a relevant condition.
What does a SOLO rubric look like?
A SOLO rubric has one row per criterion and one column per structure. For the plant question, one row could be "Explains how light supports growth", with columns for "names light", "names light, water and glucose", "links them in order" and "predicts a change and says why". Write each cell in the subject's own words, so a learner can read a cell and know the next edit.
Compare samples before relying on the labels
Bring three anonymous responses to a department discussion. Ask each teacher to identify the evidence for their judgement, then compare disagreements. If one teacher rewards extra facts and another rewards connections, clarify what the question requires before marking the rest.
Keep an annotated sample beside the rubric. It can show the exact sentence where an explanation becomes connected, and the point where a claim exceeds the evidence. This is more useful for moderation (teachers comparing marked work to agree standards) than a page of generic verbs.
Let feedback lead to a second attempt
Choose one improvement the learner can make now. For a list of correct facts, ask for one explanatory connection. For a secure explanation, ask for a reasoned prediction in a new case.
Read the revised answer to see whether the change happened. A comment saying "move to relational" gives the learner nothing to do. The second response tells you whether your feedback was specific enough.
Keep this short enough for everyday marking: read for one missing connection, name it in the margin, and give learners five minutes at the start of the next lesson to revise that part. For a whole-class pattern, display an anonymous answer and improve it together, then collect a fresh individual response to see whether learners made the connection themselves, rather than only copied your wording.
How can learners assess their own answers with SOLO?
Give learners one question to ask of their own work: "Am I just listing facts, or am I explaining how they link?" The five symbols at the top of this page can sit on a display as a quick reference. Ask learners to mark the sentence where their answer first links two ideas, and to add a link if they find none.
Teacher planning mini app
Plan a relational response
Turn the knowledge learners already hold into one discussion prompt. This card helps you plan the task. It does not assess learners or assign a SOLO level.
Use the completed card as a moderation prompt with a colleague. Biggs and Collis (1982) describe the structure of an observed response. They do not describe a learner's fixed ability.
How can you judge responses fairly for learners with SEN?
Separate the knowledge you intend to assess from barriers in the response format. If the goal is a science explanation, consider whether writing difficulty is hiding what a learner with special educational needs (SEN) can explain. Use the learner's agreed support and your school's assessment arrangements.
A learner could explain an annotated diagram orally while you record the connections they describe. Another could use a word bank for scientific terms. Check that the support provides access without supplying the explanation you are trying to assess.
For example, an unlabelled arrow between light and glucose leaves the learner's meaning unclear. Ask them to explain the arrow in their own words. Record whether the connection was independent, prompted or supplied, so the judgement reflects how the response was produced.
Watch for
A short response is not automatically shallow, and a long response is not automatically connected. Limited written English, speech differences or spelling errors should not become a SOLO level by default. Keep those features separate when they are outside the learning goal.
If writing an extended explanation is the goal itself, response format is part of the task. You still need to distinguish the science from the writing demand when planning support. Diagnosing special educational needs, and judging whether an adaptation works, sit outside SOLO.
What is the difference between SOLO and Bloom's taxonomy?
Bloom's revised taxonomy describes cognitive processes such as remembering, understanding, applying and analysing (Krathwohl, 2002). SOLO describes the structure of an observed response. They ask different questions about the same work, so there is no fixed conversion between their levels. For all six Bloom's levels, see our list of Bloom's taxonomy verbs. Related frameworks include Fink's taxonomy, Marzano's new taxonomy and higher-order thinking skills.
What SOLO and Bloom’s taxonomy each describe
What you compare
SOLO taxonomy
Bloom’s taxonomy
What it describes
The structure of an observed response.
Cognitive processes such as remembering, understanding, applying and analysing (Krathwohl, 2002).
Applied to “Explain why plants need light”
Distinguishes the learner who identifies one idea from the learner who connects the process to growth.
Describes the intended process as understanding through explanation.
How the levels relate to the other framework
No fixed conversion to Bloom’s levels.
No fixed conversion to SOLO levels.
Can the verb alone show a task’s demand?
No. Learners’ prior knowledge, the support available and the evidence required all affect the work you see.
No. The same three things affect the work you see.
Most worksheets need only one set of labels. Use the distinction that resolves your planning problem. If learners keep listing facts instead of explaining relationships, make the required connection explicit in the task and feedback.
What does research say about SOLO taxonomy?
Biggs and Collis (1982) built SOLO to describe the quality of a response. Evidence on teaching with it is thinner than evidence on describing responses. The three studies below involve different ages, subjects and teaching methods.
Davies and Mansour (2022) studied 18 children aged 8 to 11 across three primary classes over seven weeks. Teachers combined SOLO with retrieval practice (recalling facts from memory) and spaced learning (revisiting content over time). The findings were promising, though the combined approach leaves SOLO's own share of the gain unknown.
Prakash, Narayan and Sethuraman (2010) gathered medical undergraduates' views and made a small comparison of scores. Learners generally found explicit discussion of SOLO useful. Scores were similar whether the advice included that discussion or left it out.
Svensäter and Rohlin (2023) described an assessment model across three dental learner cohorts. It used a modified SOLO framework. It also used formative and summative assessment, with individual feedback. Later responses often reached higher levels, although the design gives no way to isolate SOLO as the cause.
A systematic review of 62 studies in mathematics education found that SOLO levels reflect learners' outcomes and that performance tracks SOLO level (Adeniji et al., 2022). It also found gaps between theory and classroom practice. The studies were mostly small, so the review supports SOLO as a way to describe responses. Whether teaching with SOLO raises attainment remains open.
What this means for classroom use
These studies support a cautious classroom trial of clearer expectations and feedback. No study here gives a reliable effect size for a secondary science class, and none shows that teaching taxonomy labels is necessary. Judge your own use by accurate responses, useful revisions and the time spent.
Separate what a learner does straight away from what they still understand later. A stronger answer after a model may depend on that support. Revisit the concept later with a different question before you decide the learner can use it alone.
Limitations: what should teachers watch for?
The main risk is letting the framework displace the subject. A learner who cannot explain photosynthesis needs the relevant science and a clear model. Repeating "be relational" does not supply either.
Watch for
Treating levels as learner identities. Describe this response to this task. Review new evidence when the content or support changes.
Rewarding length. Check the relationships between ideas. More sentences may simply add more disconnected facts.
Skipping knowledge. Teach the concepts required for an explanation. Connections between inaccurate ideas need correction.
Forcing an extension. Choose a new case only when it serves the curriculum goal and learners have enough knowledge.
Using generic rubrics. State what a valid connection looks like in this subject and question.
Assuming a permanent progression. A familiar question and a novel question may produce different structures from the same learner.
Keep the language learners need proportionate to the task. "Explain how these ideas connect" may be enough for a first lesson. Introduce the technical terms when they help learners discuss and improve their work, rather than turning them into another memory test.
What are the main criticisms of SOLO taxonomy?
Raters can disagree on borderline responses. Chan et al. (2002) compared three taxonomies on higher-education work and found that finer categories did not remove SOLO's conceptual ambiguity. They recommend a panel of judges, so compare samples as described above.
The levels are also generic: a level says little about whether the science, history or mathematics is right, so every task needs its own criteria. Tan et al. (2024) propose adding interest to the levels in a STEM study, because standardised tests miss motivation and self-regulation.
Teacher voices
The questions teachers raise
Teachers on social media describe how learners connect ideas and question how concepts are taught. The useful classroom question is what makes a connection defensible.
Do learners explain why the ideas connect?
Students had to decide the connections between hexagons and be able to explain them in TL!
The post names a French 3/AP vocabulary activity. A useful adaptation is to ask for the reason in the language being learnt. Check that reason before treating the arrangement as evidence of connected understanding.
Does the teaching make the abstraction accessible?
My point was the problem is pedagogy; not concepts.
This reply concerns how abstract concepts are taught. It does not reject SOLO taxonomy. In your lesson, check what examples and explanations learners need before expecting them to make a generalisation.
How does discussion become an individual response?
Students listened, spoke, read, and wrote as they found similarities and connected their hexagons.
The post reports several ways of expressing connections. An individual explanation after the discussion would let you inspect each learner's reasoning. That follow-up is our suggestion, rather than a step verified in the post.
Use these activities to prompt an explanation, then listen for an accurate relationship. The reported classroom examples below offer starting points for a task you can adapt.
Classroom practice
Two classroom adaptations
The posts below report connection activities. These suggested classroom steps adapt those ideas; they are not accounts of the teachers' full lesson sequences. Use them to prompt a short discussion followed by an explanation.
Ms Eldridge described a psychology activity connecting research-methods vocabulary. Use familiar terms from the lesson so learners can focus on the relationships between them.
Choose familiar terms. Put vocabulary from taught research-methods content on hexagons.
Arrange possible connections. Ask learners to connect terms they can relate.
Explain one relationship. Collect a reason for one connection and check its subject accuracy.
The SOLO-informed move is the final explanation. A layout can prompt it, but the teacher still needs evidence that the relationship is accurate.
The Atascocita High School account described an English class applying an activity it called Crossover Hexagonal Thinking to validate ideas. Select ideas from the content your class has studied.
Select ideas from taught content. Prepare a small set of terms or ideas for discussion.
Propose a connection. Ask learners to arrange the ideas and state a relationship.
Test the reason. Ask learners to support or revise the connection using evidence from the lesson.
Do not infer the learner's SOLO level from this school post. In your own lesson, collect the explanation that justifies the connection before making an assessment judgement.
Next lesson, give learners one question they can answer from taught content. Then ask them to revise one missing connection, and read the revisions to see which link to teach next.
Frequently asked questions about SOLO taxonomy
What are the 5 levels of SOLO Taxonomy?
The five levels are prestructural, unistructural, multistructural, relational and extended abstract. Use the five-level guide to compare what each response contributes to the plant question.
What does SOLO stand for in pedagogy?
SOLO stands for Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome. The name and origins section explains the term and its focus on observed outcomes.
Who presented SOLO Taxonomy?
John B. Biggs and Kevin F. Collis presented SOLO taxonomy in their 1982 book Evaluating the Quality of Learning. See the original book attribution and the publisher reference below.
What is solo-based assessment?
SOLO-based assessment judges the structure of a response against a task. The assessment definition explains what the framework contributes and what still requires teacher judgement.
What are the key differences between the SOLO taxonomy and Bloom's taxonomy?
SOLO describes the structure of an observed response, while Bloom's taxonomy describes the cognitive process a task intends. The two-framework comparison applies both to one science question without a fixed conversion between levels.
How is solo used in assessment?
Teachers use SOLO to read the structure of a response, name one missing connection and set a revision. Use the rubric and feedback examples to identify one change a learner can make to an answer.
If you want to explore the Structural Learning platform, bring one lesson and a clear subject goal. Review how each proposed activity helps learners make the connection you want to assess.
Paul Main is an educator and metacognition researcher who founded Structural Learning in 2017. With a psychology degree from the University of Sunderland and a career spent helping schools embed thinking skills, he bridges the gap between educational research and classroom practice. Fellow of the RSA and Chartered College of Teaching, with 128+ Google Scholar citations. More at paulmain.com.
