Video Summary - Memahami Taksonomi SOLO

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons

Why taxonomy matters in lesson planning

When teachers write learning objectives, they need a structured and measurable domain (a clear “what” and “how well”).
The word “understand” is too broad unless broken into observable stages/levels.
Taxonomy helps clarify:
- what abilities are targeted,
- what evidence will prove learning,
- the quality/depth/complexity of students’ understanding, and
- how to align objectives, activities, and assessments.

What taxonomy is (general meaning)

Taxonomy = a classification system that:

groups items by characteristics/traits,
often uses a hierarchy from simpler/more specific to more complex/more general (or vice versa, depending on the model).

How taxonomy is used in education

Formulate learning objectives and indicators/criteria.
Clarify the skills/abilities and the thinking processes expected.
Provide guidelines for assessment evidence (what students must show).
Guide teachers on the quality and complexity of understanding.
Ensure “harmony/alignment” between:
- learning objectives ↔ learning activities ↔ assessments.

Concept of complexity in learning

Taxonomy isn’t only “easy–medium–difficult.” It reflects:

increasing complexity of thinking structures, and
increasing quality of understanding.

SOLO Taxonomy: what it is and what it measures

Full meaning

SOLO = Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes.

Developers

Developed by John Biggs and Kevin Collis.

Purpose

To describe the level of complexity in students’ understanding as shown through observable learning outcomes (not the mind directly).

Three key principles explained

Structure
- SOLO focuses on whether students’ responses show relationships among ideas, not just listing facts.
- More complex understanding = ideas form a connected unity (not separate points).
Observed
- SOLO measures evidence in students’ responses and products, such as:
  - written/oral answers,
  - explanations and arguments,
  - craft process actions,
  - products, prototypes, and performances,
  - documentation and reports (planning/progress/routines).
Learning outcomes
- Outcomes can be:
  - products (finished crafts),
  - designs/prototypes (drawings, initial models),
  - demonstrations (how a product works),
  - documentation/reflections,
  - presentations and solutions.

SOLO’s 5 levels (detailed)

These levels represent progressively more complex structures of understanding:

1) Pre-structural

Understanding structure not formed
Students:
- provide irrelevant or incorrect answers,
- misunderstand the task purpose,
- show misconceptions.

2) Uni-structural (One aspect)

Understanding of one relevant aspect only
Students mention/know one correct piece (limited focus).
Example pattern: only the suitability of material to the product, without other required considerations.

3) Multi-structural (Multiple aspects, not integrated)

Students know several relevant aspects, but:
- aspects remain separate (like a list),
- they do not explain relationships among them.

4) Relational (Integrated understanding)

Students connect aspects into a coherent system.
Relationships are explained, e.g.:
- material properties → appropriate techniques → tools needed → design/product outcome.
Understanding is “connected like a chain.”

5) Extended Abstract

Students transfer/generalize beyond the given context.
They:
- apply understanding to new situations,
- predict, hypothesize, generalize,
- develop new ideas/alternatives,
- modify designs/solutions when materials or conditions change.
Example pattern: re-designing products using different/recycled materials and user needs.

Example progression used in the lesson (crafts from waste)

The video illustrates complexity moving upward through typical craft-learning tasks:

Identify/recognize materials (lowest)
Explain characteristics of one material type
Compare multiple materials (needs at least a comparison basis)
Choose suitable materials for a need (requires assessing appropriateness)
Make the product (more complex process)
Evaluate the product (quality criteria: neat/functional/beautiful/needs)
Develop a new design (most complex in this example; originality beyond imitation)

Instructions / methodology for using SOLO in lesson planning (as taught)

Step-by-step guidance (lesson design sequence)

Start with learning outcomes/understanding, not with activities.
Then determine:
- (1) What students must understand (core understanding goal).
- (2) The SOLO level targeted: uni-structural, multi-structural, relational, or extended abstract.
- (3) What evidence must be shown (assessment evidence/indicators).
- (4) Activities that enable students to reach that SOLO level.

Alignment requirements (the “harmony” checklist concept)

Ensure consistency among:

Learning objectives,
Learning activities, and
Assessments.

Poor SOLO understanding causes misalignment, e.g.:

objective asks for explaining,
activities only reach making,
assessment checks something else.

Examples of SOLO-appropriate activity types (craft context)

Uni-structural
- Observing and identifying materials/waste types.
Multi-structural
- Exploring various materials, tools, and techniques.
Relational
- Experiments + analysis of relationships between material characteristics and techniques (using evidence results).
Extended abstract
- Designing/modifying/innovating solutions for user needs; problem-solving in new contexts.
- Activities include: exploration, problem identification, idea development, prototyping, testing, evaluating, revising.

SOLO-appropriate assessment design (evidence matching level)

Assessments must match the intended SOLO level.
Example given for Relational target:
- Not “name three types of materials.”
- Instead: present different materials with different characteristics and ask students to:
  - select the best technique for each, and
  - explain why (produces relational evidence).

Common mistakes explicitly mentioned

Confusing analysis with relational (analysis verbs can appear at multiple SOLO levels).
Assuming a long answer automatically means extended abstract (it may still be shallow).
Assuming “more information” automatically means higher complexity.
Mistaking a good/pretty product for extended abstract (imitation can still produce a good product without deep understanding).
Assuming extended abstract always means “creating a product”:
- Extended abstract can also show in generalizing, predicting, transferring, hypothesizing, etc.

Comparison: SOLO vs Bloom’s taxonomy (how they complement each each other)

Bloom’s taxonomy
- Focus: cognitive processes (Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create).
SOLO taxonomy
- Focus: depth/structure of learning outcomes (pre-structural → extended abstract).
They are presented as complementary, not competitors:
- Bloom can indicate what thinking process type is used,
- SOLO indicates how deep/connected the understanding becomes.

Practical takeaway / lesson closure

SOLO helps teachers design learning that:
- develops structured understanding (not just memorization),
- enables students to move from simple recognition to relational integration and beyond-context innovation,
- produces better alignment between objectives, activities, and assessments.
Teachers are encouraged to re-study SOLO and answer the reflective questions provided in the learning context.

Speakers / sources featured

John Biggs (developer of SOLO taxonomy, as stated in the video)
Kevin Collis (developer of SOLO taxonomy, as stated in the video)
Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (Indonesia) (mentioned as the policy context introducing SOLO in the independent curriculum/deep learning approach)

Memahami Taksonomi SOLO

Key takeaways