SOLO lesson outcomes and formative assessmnet

On Twitter, I recently received sort of valid point about the ability of SOLO taxonomy to provide useful "feed forward".

I sort of agree with this, a bit. And, only if you don't plan out the content that is to be learned.

One of the inherently beautiful things about SOLO Taxonomy is the incorporation of content knowledge. Unlike the pillars of baroque villas, the columns that give SOLO its recognisable facade have structural integrity. The taxonomy is not a bolt accessory to learning, it structures it in a clear and purposeful way.

However, the linear route learning takes appears to be considered axiomatic. Learning is messy, and therefore sometimes takes a linear path, some time not. Hoorah!. That said planning learning and being able to see ( or measure) learning in a linear way certainly helps teachers.  This is why SOLO taxonomy is such a useful tool in the design of lessons. I hope this simple example will allow me to illustrate this.

Take these examples from the new year 8 Science module currently being planned.

1. define an element
2. define a compound
3. define a mixture

Each one appears to be unistructural until each definition is dissected. 

1. An element is  made from one type of atom. 

can and should be considered unistructural but 

2. A compound is made from two types of atoms that are joined together.

is clearly multistructural, and now has a clear progression for students to follow. The feedback is already in place for those that give only one part to this answer. 

The final one is probably best considered multistructual too, but again their is scope for the development of knowledge here this time to a relational level. 

3. A mixture is made from two or more elements or compounds that are easily separated.

Since, you need to know what the previous two outcomes, the linear nature of this content becomes apparent. Although, the response above is clearly multistructural their is potential for relational. The situation bellows for the use of a hinge question, to explore the relational links at hand.

Something along the lines of "How are the atoms arranged in a mixture? " , could give the ideas that

"mixtures have atoms that may be on their own in elements while in compounds they are joined. The atoms in the compounds of a mixture are separate to each other."

This response gives a contrast and a chance to apply previous learning and is potentially relational.. Most importantly it gives a knowledge base on which to decide the order of introducing these concepts. Mixtures are on some levels the easiest to get your head around, but to have a real understanding of them requires knowledge of elements and compounds and their atoms first. 

SOLO taxonomy reveals that to truly to understand these outcomes, relational thinking is necessary. The linear nature of a taxonomy and the centrality of content knowledge in SOLO allows the hidden concepts in what is to be taught. The analysis of these outcomes has already improved these as yet unwritten lessons, with clearer more reasonable outcomes. Simply by  aiming for

Distinguish between compounds and mixtures

will lead the learner to consider the nature of atoms in both.

It appears that we have reached the end of the linear progression through SOLO without reaching Extended Abstract.  I'm sure some content will end here quite contentedly, although, there is more to this particular content.

To get to extend abstract, on this occasion will allow students to deepen their understanding of not only these outcomes but also in future study.It is therefore worthwhile doing. To get there a parallel bit of content knowledge is required, again reinforcing the usefulness of the SOLO visuals. At first the new knowledge appears excessive and bolted on. It being

4. define a molecule. 




On the surface, this is benign but this is the start of what Victorian Essential Learnings (VELS) website  called Critical Teaching Ideas. The concepts that allow a deeper understanding to be developed.

Again, an unistructural  response could be " two or more atoms joined together." Although this is a difficult concept to grasp , as it hinges on the importance of an omission. It does not say two types of atoms as used in defining compounds, but simply two atoms.a vital distinction. It is now relational, as it requires distinctions to be made. Again, this leads to a hinge question.

"Which of the following form one kind of molecule: elements, compounds or mixtures?"

Since molecules can be made from two (or more) atoms joined together, they may be the same type and therefore an element, they may also  be made from two (or more) different atoms joined together and therefore a compound. However a mixture may have different  molecules (as either elements and/or compounds) but the different ones remain separate,

The underline parts are generalisations and therefore Extended Abstract. The parallel content has now converged to lead to a greater understanding. The VELS website also has some excellent concept maps showing the messiness of these concepts and also some logical routes through it for teacher planning.

Finally this is where I see the point originally made , that the jumps made in this final jump appear large, albeit they are now visible, and planned for. Firstly by changing the outcome to

4. Distinguish between the molecules in  elements, compounds and  mixtures

and secondly by now planning the lesson that will allow the development of these concepts, letting the content determine the task.  

The structure of SOLO taxonomy allows for meaningful and coordinated  lesson outcomes, with planned formative assessment points. Some of the leaps may be big, but are clear and the critical teaching ideas made distinct. Imagine trying to do this with SOLO taxonomy.

Now to plan the lessons.....

Hinge Questions. A Clarification.

I have just Google searched the term "hinge questions" and to my horror one of my previous posts is the second on the list and the first to mention "Hinge Questions", and to be honest it's a bit naff. I feel I need to do this important strategy justice.

A Definition

I read a great quote on twitter from David Wees which went something like this.

" Grades are not precise measures of learning. Repeat: Not Precise!. Act accordingly" .

This encapsulates why hinge questions are so important . They are simply a tool to help the teacher and learner what the learner needs to do next, by helping them identify what alternative conceptions they hold on a particular ideas/concept/ item of learning. They are often multiple choice questions ( or at least these are easier to design) but can be more open ended in nature. But, either way the purpose of the question is to illicit what the learner understanding is in a clear and unambiguous way, and not confusing it with a level or a grade. It is the student understanding that matters, not where that understands on some arbitrary ( yet, important) measure, and this decides whether you can move forward "hinges" upon student thinking.

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)

PCK can be simply be defined as the way in which content knowledge is used in teaching situations. For example improvising, making connections, drawing analogies, defining, redefining, and the ability to teach the same thing in different ways. A huge part of this is the ability to identify what is important in a topic and focusing the learner attention and focus upon this. PCK is also laden with the "mistakes" that are going to be made by learners. From this it's importance in hinge questions becomes apparent, just how do you start reconstructing student preconceptions?

The clearest explanation can be found here by its pioneer Lee Shulman.

Culture

I believe the first step is placing a value on identifying them for the student. This is a cultural manoeuvre, placing what were once perceived as a mistake or a wrong answer into a new category of "that's where I've been going wrong, what do I need to do about it!". To do this I vindicate the use of a making clear the pedagogical purpose of such questions every time I use them. I appeal for honesty (even down to a request not to guess).

This relies on a lot of trust not only of the teacher but also of themselves and their peers. So a long term consistent strategy is best, for example the use of a no hands up policy at appropriate time ( of course sharing the purpose of doing this) or celebrating mistakes and using them as a teachable moments. (Great blog post here from my esteemed colleague @saidthemac). The beauty of PCK is that you can (almost) plan for these moments.

Timing

It seems obvious but hinge questions should allow learners time to refocus on the important aspects. This brings about two main notions. Firstly, focusing on critical learning concepts as opposed to ideas that are not essential for further progression, this can be a difficult decision and relies on a sound PCK. A Key Stage 3 Science example could look something like this. When teaching about Photosynthesis the students prior learning would involve the identification of plant cell organelles. Important as these are, especially the chloroplasts (which are the site of photosynthesis), but at this level students understanding is not enhanced with more information than this. So any subsequent hinge questions would be better served on the process of photosynthesis, for example distinguishing between raw materials and products, or the affects of higher or colder temperature.

Secondly, there should be ample time to respond to the information at hand. This could be at the start of the lesson, with specific tasks to follow different hinges. Or toward the middle of the lesson to modify or clarify an emerging understanding or even at the end of a lesson, but only if you are planning the next lesson around these.

Some deconstructed example hinge questions.
1. Name the following –
Na
Cl
H2O
Fe
NaCl
CuSO4
CaO

Common mistakes are just naming the elements, and describing what they are made from. The first two are straight forward test that the symbols have a meaning, a scientific way of communicating as does water ( which is a compound). NaCl tests if they can follow a convention of placing the metal first and non metal second and changing the –ine ending to –ide CaO confirms this. The CuSO4 is more complex but can be completed by memory, hence the lower emphasis.

2. Choose the best answer
An element is made of
1. all types of atoms
2. one type of atom
3. one type of atom joined together in a pair
A compound is
1. at least 3 types of atom joined by a chemical bond
2. more than one element near another.
3. Two or more elements bonded together

Students often confuse atoms, elements molecules and compounds. This question makes this apparent. 1 is a misnomer 2 is the correct answer and 3 is a molecule which could be an element.

These are a little more complex, and students are instructed to pick the best answer. For example the Lungs responses are The site of respiration a "alternative conception" easily picked up when studying the respiratory system ! For breathing with is another easily acquired alternative conception. Breathing is a physical process and therefore involves the diaphragm and intercostal muscles and the ribcage, which affect the lung volume. The site of gas exchange is the correct and abstract answer.

So, there you go, I hope this is a slightly more comprehensive and therefore useful discussion of hinge questions. It would be great if you could post comments with deconstructed examples from your subject areas.

Hinge Questions

For a better description of hinge questions please read this post

I love the simplicity of Hinge questions. My students can have a go of these in the first ten minutes of next lesson. But, behind this simplicity there is a little thought, each question is testing a key learning intention from the past two lessons. I have intentionally sought to mislead or place red herrings in their way. I want their mistakes manifest.

This will give me a chance to respond, either through some differentiate activities or a targeted teacher input for the next part of the lesson. I have also differentiated these by SAT level so that certain questions will hint at student progress.

To get these right, I have rewrote them and deleted others. I've probably spent too long on writing what is essentially four questions, but my next lesson depends upon them