International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS)
IJMECS Vol. 6, No. 3, 8 Mar. 2014
Cover page and Table of Contents: PDF (size: 341KB)
Extending the SOLO Model for Software-Based Projects
Full Text (PDF, 341KB), PP.1-10
Views: 0 Downloads: 0
Author(s)
Ilana Lavy
1,*
Aharon Yadin
1
Index Terms
Higher education, peer assessment, the SOLO taxonomy, student perceptions, student performance
Abstract
In the process of assessing learning outcomes, educators use constructive tools for evaluating students' understanding and performance. In the present study MIS students were engaged in a full life cycle project as part of a Software Analysis and Design workshop. For evaluating their performance, we used the SOLO (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes) taxonomy. However during the various stages of the workshop we encountered some inherent limitations of the taxonomy that led us to the understanding that the SOLO taxonomy should be enhanced. This paper elaborates on these missing but required enhancements.
Cite This Paper
Ilana Lavy, Aharon Yadin, "Extending the SOLO Model for Software-Based Projects", International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS), vol.6, no.3, pp.1-10, 2014. DOI:10.5815/ijmecs.2014.03.01
Reference
[1]Griffiths, M. (2007). Agile suitability filters. Retrieved January 2013 from http://leadinganswers.typepad.com/leading_answers/files/agile_suitability_filters.pdf.
[2]Biggs, J.B., & Collis, K.F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). New York: Academic Press.
[3]Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
[4]Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
[5]Furst, E. (1994). Bloom's taxonomy: Philosophical and educational issues. In L. Anderson & L. Sosniak, (Eds.), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective (pp. 28-40). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.
[6]Chan, C.C., Tsui, M. S., Chan, M. Y. C., & Hong, J. H. (2002). Applying the structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student’s learning outcomes: An empirical study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 511-527.
[7]Hattie, J., & Purdie, N. (1998). The SOLO model: Addressing fundamental measurement issues. In B. Dart & G. M. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
[8]Chick, H. (1998). Cognition in the formal modes: Research mathematics and the SOLO taxonomy. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10 (2), 4-26.
[9]Lake, D. (1999) Helping students to go SOLO: Teaching critical numeracy in the biological sciences. Journal of Biological Education, 33(4), 191-198.
[10]Van Rossum, E. J., & Schenk, S. M. (1984) The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73-83.
[11]Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., Whalley, J. L., & Prasad, C. (2006). Not seeing the forest for the trees: Novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Bologna, Italy, June 26–28, 2006. ITICSE ’06. ACM Press, New York, NY, 118-122.
[12]Topi, H., Valacich, J. S., Wright, R. T., Kaiser, K., Nunamaker, J. F., Sipior, J. C., & de Vreede, G. (2010). IS 2010: Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in information systems. Communications of the AIS, 26(18).