Skip to main content
UNSW Sydney Logo
Teaching
Search
  • About
  • Teaching
    • New to teaching
    • Educational design
    • Assessment and feedback
    • Evaluating education
    • AI in teaching and learning
    • More...
  • Educational Technology
    • Support
    • Training
    • EdTech resources
    • Media & immersive
  • Events & News
    • Upcoming events
    • Recent news
    • Event recordings & resources
    • Subscribe to education news
  • Awards
    • Awards
    • Fellowships
    • Gathering evidence of your teaching practice
  • Professional Development
    • Beginning to Teach (BTT)
    • Teaching Accelerator Program
    • Foundations of L&T (FULT)
    • Course Design Institute (CDI)
    • Program Level Approach to Assessment
    • Self-paced learning
    • Academic mentoring
  • Contact & Support
    • Education contacts and support
    • UNSW's Teaching Commons

Breadcrumb

  1. Teaching
  2. Teaching practice
  3. Educational Design
  4. Universal design for learning

Assessing Qualitative Differences in Student Work

Overview

Providing fair, transparent, and objective assessment of students' qualitative work is challenging. Students deserve to be assessed in the same way, using the same criteria, as the rest of their cohort. However, as students progress in the sophistication of their understanding and skills, their work can shift from largely quantitative to primarily qualitative. It is up to the assessor to ensure that they guard against subjectivity and intuitive evaluation. One way to assess qualitative work fairly and transparently (that is, so that the student can see that they are being assessed in the same way as their cohort, and can understand how the assessor arrived at their mark) is the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982).

The SOLO Taxonomy

The SOLO Taxonomy (that is, a classification system for student work) is a proven framework designed to:

  • categorise student responses to open-ended questions and
  • focus on qualitative differences between students’ responses.

The taxonomy focuses on the degree to which students' responses express explicit relationships between the components that make up their answers. 

At the first level, called the "pre-structural" level (or "missing the point"), a student might give a response that does not actually address the question (perhaps by merely restating it, or by declining to answer altogether).

At the second level, called the "uni-structural" (or "single point") level, a student might give a response that addresses only one aspect or component of the question; the response might also be vague and lack depth, or have only limited relevance.

At the third level, called the "multi-structural" (or "multiple unrelated points") level, a student's response might focus on several relevant aspects, but treat them independently, without identifying relationships among them. Students at this level  may understand isolated aspects of the concept they're examining, but don't know how to look for how these aspects relate to each other.

At the fourth level, called the "relational" (or "logically related points") level, the student has shown how the different components of their response are connected:  how each affects and is affected by the others. They may also have identified overall patterns and examined the question from different perspectives.

At the fifth level, called the "extended abstract" (or "unanticipated extension") level, the student goes beyond what the original question asked for. They could, for example, offer comparisons to similar situations outside the immediate scope of the question, provide more-complex analysis of causality and consequences, or generalise their findings to a new area.

The first three levels of the taxonomy are primarily quantitative; the fourth and fifth are primarily qualitative.

Sample SOLO Assessment

Question: What causes traffic problems in Sydney?

1. First-level response:

  • The traffic is always bad.

  • The traffic problem is caused by cars.

This answer avoids the question. Repeats the question and fails to make a genuine attempt to tackle the question.

This response to the task misses the point.

 

2. Second-level response:

We have a traffic problem in Sydney because there are too many cars.

This answer is based on only one relevant aspect of the task, and its conclusion is limited and dogmatic.

This response to the task is limited to a correct single point.

 

3.Third-level response:

There are too many cars in Sydney and there are not enough roads and the Government does not control the traffic well. There is always a traffic jam.

This is still not a very satisfactory answer to the task, as it is limited to multiple unrelated points.

 

4. Fourth-level response:

  • too many cars

  • limited road space

  • poor traffic management

  • poor city planning

  • overused roads requiring regular maintenance, which further reduces usable road space.

  • poor traffic management and poor city planning, leading to inefficient road use.

This answer offers connected ideas and logically related points.

 

5. Fifth-level response:

This response includes all the connected ideas and logically related points given in the fourth-level response, but adds more:

  • Discusses the causes of the traffic problem and their interrelations.

  • Points out that like many other social problems, the key issue is proper management of limited resources.

  • Suggests research should be conducted to identify the key problem area.

  • Compares the situation in Sydney with that in Melbourne and Singapore.

This is an excellent answer not only giving a logically related response to the task, but going beyond, offering an unanticipated extension. This is could be considered a distinction or high-distinction response.

(This example used is adapted from a similar task first developed in CLEAR, Chinese University of Hong Kong.)

 

Resources

  • The who, what, when, where, and why of SOLO Taxonomy. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/nzcerpress/set/articles/who-what-when-where-an…
  • A teacher's guide to SOLO Taxonomy. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/what-is-solo-taxonomy
Aziz, N. A. A. (2022). Socratic method and SOLO Taxonomy as assessment instruments during COVID-19 pandemic. Engineering and Sciences Teaching and Learning Activities: New Systems Throughout COVID-19 Pandemics, 71-81.

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.

Svensäter, G., & Rohlin, M. (2023). Assessment model blending formative and summative assessments using the SOLO taxonomy. European Journal of Dental Education, 27(1), 149-157.

  • Educational Design
    • Integrated curriculum framework
    • Learning outcomes
    • Graduate capabilities
    • Course design model
    • Universal design for learning
      • Assessing qualitative differences
      • Getting started with UDL
      • Putting UDL into practice
      • UDL for course design
      • UDL for online teaching
      • UDL webinars
      • UDL resources
    • Designing for online learning

Events & news

Using the “Multiple-layer feedback Model”
LinkedIn: How can this platform work for you?
More
Back to top
  • Print
  • Home
  • About
  • Teaching
  • Educational Technology
  • Events & news
  • Awards
  • Professional development
  • Contacts

AUTHORISED BY PRO VICE-CHANCELLOR EDUCATION
UNSW CRICOS Provider Code: 00098G, TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12055, ABN: 57 195 873 179
Teaching at UNSW, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia Telephone 9385 5989

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY
UNSW respectfully acknowledges the Bidjigal, Biripi, Dharug, Gadigal, Gumbaynggirr, Ngunnawal and Wiradjuri peoples, whose unceded lands we are privileged to learn, teach and work on our UNSW campuses. We honour the Elders of these Nations, as well as broader Nations that we walk together with, past and present, and acknowledge their ongoing connection to culture, community and Country.
- The Uluru Statement
 


  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright & Disclaimer
  • Accessibility
  • Complaints
  • Site Map
  • Site Feedback
Page last updated: Friday 10 January 2025