How to make the Kessel Run in less than 12 par secs An introduction to using SOLO Taxonomy to develop relational and extended abstract thinking

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy

SOLO - Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes What is SOLO taxonomy? SOLO - Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes "a means of classifying learning outcomes in terms of their complexity, enabling us to assess students’ work in terms of its quality not of how many bits of this and of that they got right." (Biggs)

SOLO in the classroom Developing discussion amongst students during group tasks Making links between concepts and ideas Classification Scholar evidence Compare and contrast HOTS: Hypothesis, evaluation, prediction

The Prestructural level 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). (Hook and Mills 2011).

The Unistructural level 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. (Hook and Mills 2011).

The Multistructural level 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. (Hook and Mills 2011).

The Relational Level At the relational level the aspects are linked and integrated, and contribute to a deeper and more coherent understanding of the whole. (Hook and Mills 2011).

Relational thinking task Link as many hexagons as you can together and explain each link to show your understanding of the relationships between each component of the theodicies. Swinburne argued that if God was like an over-arching parent who always intervened, our world would be like a ‘toy world’ in which no-one would ever feel pain. We would not be able to develop morally because we would lack free will to choose good actions over evil actions. Free will Defence Intervene If we lived in a ‘Toy world’, we would not be truly free to choose our own actions because… Toy World Swinburne

The extended abstract level in the Mark Scheme 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).

Research and further reading Pam Hook http://pamhook.com/solo-taxonomy @arti_choke John Biggs http://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/solo-taxonomy Darren Mead http://pedagogicalpurposes.blogspot.co.uk @DKMead Global Solo http://globalsolo.wordpress.com/ @Globalsolo

Planning a successful structured debate The debate should be planned to be the culmination of 2-3 lessons of work on a particular area of focus. Lesson 1 - Gather Introduction to the topic – students should gain an understanding of key terms associated and be in a position where they have a basic understanding of the topic. Lesson 2 – Process Hexagonal learning – students are given the statement that will be the focus of the debate. They complete the SOLO taxonomy tasks to build up a body of knowledge to support their arguments / opinions. Lesson 3 – Apply Students should be allocated roles so that all areas of the debate are covered. However, at the end of the debate they should have the opportunity to offer their own justified opinion.

Using SOLO Hexagons for structured debate Unistructural Students write down a very basic opinion based on the statement. Multistructural Students then gather arguments that support their opinion. Relational Students could now link arguments together e.g. Christian arguments , secular arguments, arguments linked to God. Extended abstract Students could consider opposing arguments or they could begin to categorise arguments in terms of which are the strongest/weakest. They should return to their basic opinion and develop this with evidence.

Debate Preparation checklist: Select the issue to debate Research the topic and prepare logical arguments for and against (Hexagonal Task) Establish the rules of the debate Prepare room for debate. Establish expectations, if any, for assessment of debate.

Should Christians accept the use of Genetic Engineering? KNOWLEDGE: Identify the arguments for and against the use of genetic engineering SKILLS: Explain why some Christians and non-religious people accept the use of genetic engineering. Explain why some Christians and non-religious people do not accept the use of genetic engineering. EXTENDED THINKING: Formulate your own opinion and support this with at least two Christian and two secular reasons

Representatives from the Catholic Church Genetic Engineers from Newcastle’s Centre for life Representatives from families suffering from genetic disease Liberal Christians – Modern Protestant attitude Government Ethics Committee

This entitles you to offer one argument. Use it wisely! Voucher This entitles you to offer one argument. Use it wisely! Each allocated group will be given 10 vouchers. Each student must use at least one voucher throughout the lesson. The remainder of vouchers can then be used within the group if they wish to add further arguments.