From Taxonomies to Rubrics: SOLO-based Formative Assessment to Improve Understanding of Population Dynamics
Keywords:
SOLO taxonomy; formative assessment; rubrics; population dynamics.Abstract
This study investigates the design and implementation of a SOLO-based (structure of observed learning outcomes) formative assessment rubric to enhance upper secondary students’ conceptual understanding of population dynamics in Geography. Employing a reflective qualitative design, data were collected through document analysis, students’ written work, classroom observations, and teacher reflections to examine how the rubric was adapted, operationalized, and interpreted in practice. The rubric was developed by translating the SOLO hierarchy into domain-specific criteria aligned with the intended learning outcomes, thereby ensuring coherence between instructional goals and assessment practices. The findings indicate a clear progression in students’ cognitive responses, evidenced by movement from multistructural recall to relational explanations and, in some instances, extended abstract reasoning. The rubric also promoted metacognitive engagement, enabling students to identify their current level of understanding and regulate their learning. For teachers, it functioned as a diagnostic tool for delivering process-oriented and criterion-referenced feedback. While the study’s scope was limited to a single class and the topic constrains wider generalizability, the results underscore the pedagogical potential of SOLO-based formative assessment to cultivate higher-order thinking and conceptual depth in Geography education. Further research involving broader samples and longitudinal designs is recommended to validate and extend these insights.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.25.1.25
References
Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103(3), 152–153. https://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010
Adeniji, S. M., Baker, P., & Schmude, M. (2022). Structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) model: A mixed-method systematic review of research in mathematics education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(6), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12087
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete edition). Longman.
Atwa, H. S., Potu, B. K., Fadel, R. A., Deifalla, A. S., Fatima, A., Othman, M. A., Sarwani, N. A. L., & El-Din, W. A. N. (2024). Implementing formative assessment in human anatomy practical sessions: medical students’ perception and effect on final exam performance. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 15, 551–563. https://doi.org/10.2147/amep.s465384
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. Academic Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Boulton?Lewis, G. M. (2006). The SOLO taxonomy as a means of shaping and assessing learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 14(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436950140201
Brookhart, S. M., & Chen, F. (2015). The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educational Review, 67(3), 343–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2014.929565
Buck, E., Braga, P. V., & Granero, C. M. (2023). Effective assessment in a block pedagogy. Journal of Block and Intensive Learning and Teaching, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.15209/jbilt.1280
Caro, M. F., Flórez, E. P., & Muñoz, I. C. (2025). A formal model for assessing the learning outcomes of academic programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102644
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000020282
Chen, L., & Qi, Y. (2023). An exploration of English discourse teaching in primary schools based on the SOLO taxonomy. Journal of Education and Educational Research, 6(3), 205–211. https://10.54097/b9kf6z63
Dargan, S., Kumar, M., & Ayyagari, M. R. (2020). A survey of deep learning and its applications: A new paradigm to machine learning. Arch Computat Methods Eng, 27, 1071–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09344-w
Den Boer, A. W., Verkoeijen, P. P., & Heijltjes, A. E. (2020). Comparing formative and summative cumulative assessment: Two field experiments in an applied university engineering course. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 20(1), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725720971946
Dharmasaroja, P. (2023). The use of SOLO taxonomy in medical education training for medical teachers. Ramathibodi Medical Journal, 46(2), 54–63. https://doi.org/doi:10.33165/rmj.2023.46.2.262412
English, N., Robertson, P., Gillis, S., & Graham, L. (2022). Rubrics and formative assessment in K-12 education: A scoping review of literature. International Journal of Educational Research, 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101964
Evangelou, F., & Kotsis, K. (2023). Implementation of a Teaching scenario for fifth-grade students using the software “MATHEMA” as a teaching tool: The phenomenon of light reflection. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 4(2), 261–266. https://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.2.643
Fateme, R., & Fatemah, A. K. (2025). Assessing students’ understanding of the concept of electric potential difference based on the SOLO taxonomy in upper- secondary students for a targeted assessment. Physics, Education, arXiv, 2507.13723. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.13723
Fatima, N., & Usmani, A. (2023). Expectation and satisfaction level of students with impact of formative assessment on the scores of summative assessments in the subject of dental materials—a study from private dental college Karachi Pakistan. JPDA, 31(4), 165–169. https://10.25301/jpda.314.165
Golovko, V. A. (2017). Deep learning: An overview and main paradigms. Opt. Mem. Neural Networks, 26, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3103/S1060992X16040081
Gurunath, R., Samanta, D., Dutta, B., & Kureethara, J. V. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012
Hachoumi, N., Eddabbah, M., & Rhassane El adib, A. (2025). Enhancing teaching and learning in health sciences education through the integration of Bloom’s taxonomy and artificial intelligence. Informatics and Health, 2, 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoh.2025.05.002
Halliday, S., & Callaghan, P. (2024). Best practice assessment methods for the undergraduate psychology program: A narrative review of the literature. Australian Journal of Psychology, 76(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2024.2395521
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Haugen, H. J., & Lange, T. de. (2024). Multiple choice as formative assessment in dental education. European Journal of Dental Education, 28(3), 707–864. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.13002
Ilhan, M., & Gezer, M. (2017). A comparison of the reliability of the Solo- and revised Bloom’s taxonomy-based classifications in the analysis of the cognitive levels of assessment questions. Pegem E?itim ve Ö?retim Dergisi, 7(4), 637–662. https://dx.doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2017.023
Kariri, K. A., Cobern, W., & Al Sultan, A. A. (2022). Investigating high school science teachers’ readiness for implementing formative assessment practices. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(12), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12589
Malik, S. I., Tawafak, R. M., & Shakir, M. (2021). Aligning and assessing teaching approaches with SOLO taxonomy in a computer programming course. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.20211001.oa5
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane?Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self?regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Nithyanandam, G. K. (2020). A framework to improve the quality of teaching-learning process—A case study. Science Direct, 172, 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.013
Nor, N. M., & Idris, N. (2010). Assessing students’ informal inferential reasoning using SOLO taxonomy based framework. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 4805–4809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.774
Pang, T. Y., Kootsookos, A., Fox, K., & Pirogova, E. (2022). Does an assessment rubric provide a better learning experience for undergraduates in developing transferable skills? Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 19(3), 1–27. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316
Patterson, B. (2020). Analyzing student understanding of cryptography using the SOLO taxonomy. Cryptologia, 45, 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/01611194.2020.1755746
Reddi, S., & Javidi, D. (2025). A critical narrative review of medical school curricula: Teaching methods, assessment strategies, and technological integration. Medicine Education, 17. https://10.7759/cureus.82015
Rembach, L., & Dison, L. (2016). Transforming taxonomies into rubrics: Using SOLO in social science and inclusive education. Perspectives in Education, 34(1), 68–83. https://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v34i1.6
Saito, D., Kaieda, S., Washizaki, H., & Fukazawa, Y. (2020). Rubric for measuring and visualizing the effects of learning computer programming for elementary school students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 19, 203–227. https://doi.org/10.28945/4666
Sluijsmans, D., & Seegers, C. (2018). Toetsrevolutie; naar een feedbackcultuur in het hoger onderwijs. Phronese.
Svensäter, G., & Rohlin, M. (2022). Assessment model blending formative and summative assessments using the SOLO taxonomy. European Journal of Dental Education, 27(1), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12787
Tomperi, P., & Aksela, M. (2014). In-service teacher training project on inquiry-based practical chemistry. Chemistry, Education, 215–226. https://10.31129/LUMAT.V2I2.1075
Triana, H., Abustang, P. B., Utomo, E., Rakhman, G. G. F., & Fahrurrozi. (2023). Assessment evaluation using Solo taxonomy for measuring levels of critical thinking skills: PYP International Baccalaureate case study. Prisma Sains: Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu Dan Pembelajaran Matematika Dan IPA IKIP Mataram, 11(2), 581–595. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v11i2.7894
Tuckman, B. W. (1998). Using tests as an incentive to motivate procrastinators to study. Journal of Experimental Education, 66(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220979809601400
Vera, N., Young, L., & Sweet, L. (2019). Assessing the alignment of pharmacotherapeutics course outcomes with topic outcomes. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(3), 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2023.11051
West, J. (2023). Utilizing Bloom’s taxonomy and authentic learning principles to promote preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100620
Zhou, Y.-F., Yang, H.-L., Li, J.-J., & Lin, Y.-D. (2024). Automata for knowledge assessment based on the structure of observed learning outcome taxonomy. Information Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.120058
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fika Ariani, Suyanto Suyanto, Lia Yuliana, Asriyah Asriyah , Laily Rahmah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
