Go to the Students section
Go to the Staff section
Go to the Alumni section
Go to the Study here section
Go to the International section
Go to the About section
Go to the Research section
Go to the Business and Employers section
Go to the Support us section
Frances Quinn University of New England
Tuesday 4 September 2007, 09.00-10.00
Themes: Better understanding of the discipline,
Exploring qualitative differences in students’ understanding of complex concepts is central to a better understanding of learning and teaching in tertiary biology. Both phenomenography and the SOLO taxonomy have been argued as suitable for this purpose (Hazel et al., 2002, p. 748), and further research into the use of SOLO in the tertiary context advocated (Boulton-Lewis, 1995, p. 216). It has also been argued, though, that the “recurrent problem” of differences in meaning within SOLO structural levels (Biggs & Collis, 1982, p. 203) is a limitation of SOLO, and that phenomenography is therefore a preferable alternative measure of learning outcome (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999, p. 120; 1991, p. 273).
Given this background, this paper will:
The paper will briefly describe the changes in SOLO model (e.g., Biggs & Collis, 1991; Pegg & Davey, 1998), especially the most recent two-learning-cycles version (as described in, e.g., Pegg & Davey, 1998; Pegg & Tall, 2002, 2005). The hierarchically related levels of SOLO show some similarities to the structural differences and logical relations found between categories of description in phenomenography. Definitions of both phenomenographic “conceptions” and SOLO levels emphasise structural aspects defined by the number and combination of focal “elements” in the response/description. The phenomenographic “knowledge object” (Entwistle & Marton, 1994, p. 168) also has its SOLO parallel in the “knowledge entity” which forms the transition from a relational to a more complex unistructural form of understanding in a further cycle (Pegg & Tall, 2001, cited in Pegg, 2003, p. 247; Pegg & Tall, 2002, 2005).
Students’ understanding of meiosis was explored by categorising 575 written responses to target meiosis questions in unit assessment tasks, using the most recent two-cycle per mode version of the SOLO model. The categories of response and their groups are described in detail in Quinn (2006), Quinn, Pegg and Panizzon (in prep.), and will be summarised in this paper. The students’ written responses fell into three broad groups, which were consistent with the two-learning-cycle per mode SOLO model.
The paper will describe the relationship between structure and meaning found in the SOLO levels, and discuss these in relation to the equivocal results of the only other study in tertiary science using the two-cycle per mode version of SOLO (described in Panizzon, 2003; Panizzon & Pegg, 2002).The relationship between meaning and structure of SOLO levels may relate both to the nature of the concept under investigation and to the finer-grained model of SOLO being used. The fine-grained use of SOLO, though time-consuming, may have advantages where structure reflects meaning, particularly in facilitating organisation of elements within student descriptions of complex scientific phenomena.
(Reference list available on request)