Authors: Spenser A Clark
Mentors: Acacia Overono
Insitution: Utah Valley University
It is not uncommon for a college student to see a list of learning objectives when skimming through a syllabus for a program or course. The goal of learning objectives is to set reasonable expectations for student learning and guide their study, as well as providing a framework for the development of teaching practices and assessment. Part of the inception of learning objectives as a means of organizing teaching and assessment in the classroom may be attributable to the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, more commonly referred to as Bloom's Taxonomy. Another taxonomy similar to Bloom's, but much less well known, is the Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy. Bloom’s taxonomy organizes learning objectives into six categories: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. The categories are structured as a cumulative hierarchy in which mastery of each level is assumed necessary for progressing to the next. The structure of Bloom’s is not derived from any specific learning theory, but a categorization of pre-existing learning objectives. Bloom’s therefore suffers from a lack of a strong theoretical foundation and may not accurately reflect how learning actually occurs. Additionally, although Bloom’s has been widely employed in the context of educational assessment, research has shown that it suffers from low interrater reliability and is inconsistent between educational contexts such as courses and topics. Unlike Bloom’s, SOLO is based upon Piaget’s Stage Development theory and categorizes learning into five distinct stages: Prestructural, Unistructural, Multistructrual, Relational, and Extended Abstract. SOLO does not suggest that learning is unidirectional or hierarchical. It also acknowledges internal cognitive processes rather than focusing solely on observable behaviors. Although very little research has investigated its reliability, it could be an attractive alternative to Bloom’s because it may more accurately reflect how learning occurs. The present work reviews the development and implementation of these two models and compares them.