SOLO分类法在教学评价中的应用

SOLO分类法是一种新的评价理论,它在教学评价中的应用值得深入研究。通过研究,在阐述其理论的基础上,探讨了SOLO分类法对学习理论的贡献：把“阶段”观念迁移到具体的学习任务,使之能应用到教学实践;解释了功能方式的转换,克服了布鲁姆教育目标分类学的理论困难。教学评价中的应用：为评价学习的质量提供了一种更为有效的方法;为不同学科的教学评价构建了一个比较学习质量的共同平台;为开放性试题的评分提供了理论依据。     

SOLO在显微镜技能教学中的应用

基于新课程改革评价既要强调关注学生学习结果,也要关注其学习过程,特别是对学生思维过程的评价,文中介绍了一种在国外已有深入研究与实践、可运用于学生思维评价的质性评价方法——SOLO分类评价法在显微镜技能教学与管理中的应用。它能帮助教师评价、照顾学生异质性、改进教学方法与技能评价等。     

Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula

During 2007 all Danish university curricula were reformulated to explicitly state course objectives due to the adoption of a new Danish national grading scale which stipulated that grades were to be given based on how well students meet explicit course objectives. The Faculties of Science at University of Aarhus and University of Southern Denmark interpreted “course objectives” as “intended learning outcomes” (ILO) and systematically formulated all such as competencies using the SOLO taxonomy that operates with five numbered progressive levels of competencies. We investigate how the formulation of ILOs using the SOLO taxonomy gives information about competence progression, educational traditions, and the nature of various science subjects. We use all the course curricula (in total 632) from the two faculties to analyze and compare undergraduate and graduate courses within each department, and different departments with each other.     

The ABC's of Classroom Discipline

The authors have been engaged in research focused on students' depth of learning as well as teachers' efforts to foster deep learning. Findings from a study examining the teaching practices and student learning outcomes of sixtyfour teachers in seventeen different states (Smith et al. 2005) indicated that most of the learning in these classrooms was characterized by reproduction, categorizing of information, or replication of a simple procedure. In addition to these and other findings, in this article, the authors provide a definition of surface and deep learning and describe the structure of the observed learning outcome taxonomy, which was used to evaluate depth of learning. The authors also provide implications for practitioners interested in fostering deep student learning.     

The Community of Inquiry framework meets the SOLO taxonomy: a process‐product model of online learning

This paper presents both a conceptual and empirical investigation of teaching and learning in online courses. Employing both the Community of Inquiry framework (CoI) and the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy, two complete online courses were examined for the quality of both collaborative learning processes and learning outcomes. The study examines evidence beyond learner reported satisfaction and learning, instead measuring both learning inputs and outcomes. Analysis of input includes quantitative content analysis of discussions using the CoI framework. Analysis of outcomes looks at both the quality of student learning artifacts such as case studies using the SOLO taxonomy as well as instructor‐assigned grades of specific related assignments. Results suggest that understanding of online instructional effort, processes, and learning outcomes can be improved through this more comprehensive, conceptually driven approach.     

Straddling rows and columns: Students’ (mis)conceptions of an assessment rubric

Abstract

Assessment rubrics intend to make criteria explicit to students. However, an understanding of assessment criteria requires tacit knowledge about which students may not be aware. The lack of such knowledge is notable in undergraduate health science students taking a compulsory course in the social sciences. This study performed a content analysis of how 1^st year health sciences students interpret a SOLO assessment rubric for a sociology ‘reflection piece’ essay. The findings suggest that empiricism, standardisation and lack of tacit knowledge limit students’ ways of reasoning about the rubric. These limitations manifest in a methodical difference between students’ expectations and lecturers’ intentions of using a rubric. This difference is illustrated by the students’ need for procedural knowledge and the lecturer’s expectation of conceptual knowledge. These differences have implications for teaching, learning and assessment in health sciences undergraduate education. The findings also justify a dialogical approach to assessments through facilitating students’ epistemological development.     

SOLO分类理论及其在教学中的应用

SOLO分类理论作为新皮亚杰主义的代表,融合了信息加工理论和皮亚杰认知发展理论的优点,基于对大量学科领域学生对问题的反应特点,概括了具体学科领域学生认知能力发展的规律。该理论对教学实践有重要的应用价值。     

以SOLO分类为基础的学生学习质量评价初探

以SOLO分类为基础的学生学习质量评价,将教育目标表述为对学生学习能力的要求,以测验的方式了解学生解决问题时表现出的认知发展水平。它不局限于考察学生掌握知识的量和类型,而是重视评价学生学习效果的质量。SOLO分类用结构特征解释学生对问题的五种结构反应,通过学生的反应与教师预设的教学目标的比较,分析影响学生学习效果的因素,为教师改进教学提供依据,帮助不同认知水平的学生在他们自身的基础上提高。     

学习概率中认知的发展

SOLO模型致命伤简单到复杂有5个基本思维作用方式：感觉运动方式、表象方式、具体符号方式、形式方式和超形式方式，按SOLO分类法，学生对不可能事件，可能事件和必然事件的区分，对机会值的解释等问题的回答可分为5个水平，研究表明：在2个没有学过概率的6年级和8年级中，学生对概率的理解水平几乎没有变化，学生对概率的认识不能随年龄而自然增长、因此，学校概率教育对加深学生理解概率本质有着更为重要的作用。     

SOLO理念与实施

SOLO理论起源于皮亚杰的发生认识论,是一种以等级描述为基本特征的质性评价方法;具有结构形态严谨、信度效度高、适应教学与改善教学、一致等效的通用性、广泛的适用性等优势,也有应用中的要求与准备繁琐、不便于推广、忽视情感目标和难见成效等局限;SOLO理论在基础教育的考评中应用较深入,应注意正确理解与SOLO评价相关的概念、正确解读封闭教学情境、不要与其他质性评价方式对立、以及正确看待SOLO所不具有的周期性或固定的时间性等。     

国际视野下的本科生学习结果评估——对“评估什么”和“如何评估”的分析与思考

当前,世界发达国家都很关注本科生的学习结果评估,并陆续开发出各种评估工具,推进评估实践。就评估的内容而言,各种评估工具主要关注学生学习的认知结果与非认知结果,并且因评估形式的不同,在评估内容的指向上存在着差异。就评估的机制而言,各国在组织、频率、参与者及结果使用等方面也表现一些共性与个性的特点。     

Learning theories and assessment methodologies – an engineering educational perspective

This paper attempts to critically review theories of learning from the perspective of engineering education in order to align relevant assessment methods with each respective learning theory, considering theoretical aspects and practical observations and reflections. The role of formative assessment, taxonomies, peer learning and educational policy as regards promoting the learning of engineering is discussed. It is suggested that an integrated learning method in which cognitive levels, social factors and teamwork and behaviouristic elements are integrated will optimise the learning process on an engineering course. Moreover, assessment of learning should not be isolated from views of teaching and the learning methods employed by the university teacher.