An analogy to illustrate the SOLO levels of understanding

Imagine a course where the teacher wants to train the students how to use construction tools, like a saw, hammer & nails, a drill, and screwdriver & screws.

The context is to build a small bridge, and the assessment objective criteria is that it must be able to support a weight of 50 kg, and perhaps some subjective assessment of “joint build quality”.

Each student can design their bridge in any way they want.

Unit 1: the teacher shows them various bridge designs, and after this unit perhaps they can IDENTIFY selected bridge designs.

Unit 2: they review and discuss various ways to join wood together and they practice making structural joints using a technique the instructor demonstrates.   After this unit the students should be able to LIST joint types and DESCRIBE how wood can be joined together, COMBINE techiques to design a joint, and they are assessed on their ability to PERFORM SERIAL SKILLS (or follow a procedure) to create joints using their tools and the wood supplied.

Unit 3: the students CREATE their first bridge designs, ANALYZE each other’s designs, COMPARE AND CONTRAST them with their groupmates in CRITICAL feedback, and are assessed on their ability to RELATE the use of various joints to the overall design of each bridge.

At this point most of the students can only create bridge designs which are very similar to what they saw in the slideshow or textbook.   A FEW students may already be capable of original creative work, and they design bridges using their own unique designs.   These students are starting to GENERALIZE THEIR LEARNING TO A NEW DOMAIN, so they have reached the Extended Abstract level.   They have GONE BEYOND the domain of bridge designs they were shown, and are applying their understanding to create new designs they have never seen before.

Unit 4: the teacher asks the students to REFLECT on their prior learning, and HYPOTHESIZE a new unique bridge design based on the concepts, materials, and principles supplied.   The students are assessed on their ability to CREATE actual wooden bridges by ANALYZING their prior designs and APPLYING THE SERIAL SKILLS to build their new bridge designs.

The students are assessed on whether their bridge can hold up 50 kg, and the teacher evaluates the quality of their joint construction.

Typically almost all of the students can pass the course at Multi-structural and Relational levels, and some of the students can now create original designs.   A few might even apply their understanding to create designs which are even outside of the domain of bridge design, such as designing a SHOPPING MALL which doubles as a bridge, or a BOAT which can motor along the river and then transform itself into a bridge!

Should Relational level be assigned a “B” grade or an “A”?    (is this an introductory or advanced bridge design class?)

Note that the top students can create designs which makes summative assessment difficult: how do you reward innovation and still require the basics?   What if it’s a great shopping mall and only a mediocre bridge?

Can the teacher expect ALL of the students to create original designs, beyond what they have been shown or taught?    (Isn’t this the requirement for PhD level work: “an original contribution to the field”?)

This is why typically the Extended Abstract level is considered to be “outside of the learning cycle”, as this level of performance demonstrates understanding BEYOND what the teacher has taught.