Do Your Learners Do the Thinking?

DEVELOPING LEARNERS’ HIGHER-ORDER

THINKING SKILLS

MENTOR’S GUIDE

A Professional Learning Package on the

PPST Indicators 1.5.2 and 1.5.3
IN ENGLISH/READING FOR GRADES 7, 8, 9 & 10
 i
This Mentor’s Guide in English/Reading for Grades 7, 8, 9 & 10 was developed
ii through the
Philippine National Research Center for Teacher Quality (RCTQ), a partnership between the
Philippine Normal University and the SiMERR National Research Centre--University of
New England, with support from the Australian Government.
Copyright © 2022 by the Department of Education All rights reserved
Permission to use or reproduce this publication or parts of it in hard or digital copies and for
personal or classroom use is granted free provided that the copies are not reproduced or
distributed for commercial purposes and that this notice and full citation of the Department of
Education (DepEd) appear on the first page of the reproduced copies. Otherwise, prior written
permission from DepEd is required to reproduce, republish, post online, store in a retrieval
system, or transmit this publication in any form.
Published 2022 in the Philippines by the Department of Education
The Project Team iv

Acknowledgments v

Introduction to the Mentor’s Guide vii

Mentoring Instructions viii How to use the Mentor’s Guide ix

Capacitating my Mentee on the SOLO-based Assessment Items 1

Activity 1: Organizing LAC Sessions 2 Getting Started First Time 3 An Example

from Grade 8 7 Activity 2: Introduction to the Basic SOLO Model 11 Part 1
Background to SOLO 11 Part2 Overview of SOLO 13 Part 3 Introduction to
SOLO Levels: Language and Meaning 15 Part 4 The SOLO Model and
Instruction 20 Part 5 Final Comment 21 Activity 3: LAC Session on Background
to HOTS in the Classroom 22 Activity 4: Auditing SOLO-based Lesson Plan 25
Reflection Log 31

References 32

TABLE OF
CONTENTS
iii
 Research Center for
Teacher Quality

Gina O. Gonong, PhD

Director & Project Leader

Ali G. Anudin, PhD Senior

Program Manager & Co- Project
Leader

Lizette Anne L. Carpio

Project Officer

Cristy A. Mendoza
Research Officer

Janine Rose L.
Dueñas Technical
Assistant

English Content
Writer / Reviewer

David Baxter, PhD

UNE-SiMERR National
Research Centre

UNE-SiMERR National
Research Centre

John Pegg, PhD

Director

Joy Hardy, PhD

Deputy Director

Ken Vine, PhD Principal

Research Adviser
Senior Staff
 Ma Lourdes D. Pantoja Elenor Malimata Master
Deputy Director Teacher I, Marinduque NHS,
SDO Marinduque
Levi E. Elipane, PhD Elenor Malimata Master
Senior Program Manager Teacher I, Marinduque NHS,
SDO Marinduque
vin Yana Senior Manager for Elenor Malimata Master
ommunications and Advocacy Teacher I, Marinduque NHS,
SDO Marinduque
Krupskaya M. Añonuevo
Senior Manager for Projects, Jennifer Rait Master Teacher
Planning, and Linkages II, Basud NHS, SDO Camarines
Norte
Jennifer Rait Master Teacher
Support Staff II, Basud NHS, SDO Camarines
Norte
Ma Izella D. Lampos Jennifer Rait Master Teacher
Jeanny S. Burce Ma. II, Basud NHS, SDO Camarines
Lourdes C. Dimasakat Earl Norte
Joseph M. Cruz Nicole
Ingrid M. Resuena Riza Q. Rex Ebarle Master Teacher I
Abarca Beverly E. Cebu City NHS, SDO Cebu
Estocapio Norrisa City
Opiña-Satumbaga Rex Ebarle Master Teacher I
Cebu City NHS, SDO Cebu
City
Layout and Design Rex Ebarle Master Teacher I
Cebu City NHS, SDO Cebu
Mikkey Mari M. Tuazon City
Cristy A. Mendoza
Sharwin F. Calimlim Ma. Celeste Vincoy Head
Kristine Jean Calacapa Teacher I Hilongos National
Technical Working Group Vocational School, SDO Leyte
Technical Working Group Ma. Celeste Vincoy Head
Teacher I Hilongos National
Jonalyn D. Callueng Vocational School, SDO Leyte
Assistant Principal, Cagayan
NHS, SDO Tuguegarao City Ranie Livero O. Villamin
Jonalyn D. Callueng Head Teacher I Misamis
Assistant Principal, Cagayan Occidental NHS SDO
NHS, SDO Tuguegarao City Oroquieta City
 Ranie Livero O. Villamin Master Teacher I Agusan NHS,
Head Teacher I Misamis SDO Butuan City
Occidental NHS SDO Venus Sheila O. Ayado
Oroquieta City Master Teacher I Agusan NHS,
SDO Butuan City
Divilyn M. Rodriguez Master Venus Sheila O. Ayado
Teacher II Calinan NHS, SDO Master Teacher I Agusan NHS,
Davao City SDO Butuan City
Divilyn M. Rodriguez Master
Teacher II Calinan NHS, SDO Juliet Ogana Teacher III, San
Davao City Antonio NHS, SDO Makati City

Venus Sheila O. Ayado

THE PROJECT
TEAM

Philippine Normal University

Bert J. Tuga, PhD

Australian President
Embassy-Manila
Ronald Allan S. Mabunga,
Francesca PhD Harry B. Huliganga
Lawe-Davis First Jennie V. Jocson, PhD
Secretary Lordinio A. Vergara, PhD Vice
Presidents
National Educators
Academy of the
Project Adviser Philippines

Usec. Nepomuceno Malaluan John Arnold Siena

Undersecretary and Chief of Staff of Director IV
the Office of the DepEd Secretary
Anna Marie San Diego
OIC-Project Development Officer V
Professional Development Division
 School, Oriental Mindoro
Jayson Peñafiel maine Rose
Focal Person Master Teacher
nio National High
Koronadal City
Content Ex
s, PhD Education
Specialist RO –
Renalyn Lamograr Master CLMD
Teacher Samar National High Rosalie Bongon
School Catbalogan City Supervising Education
Rowena Lachica Master Program Specialist Bureau of
Teacher II San Jose Litex Learning Delivery – Central
Senior High School, Rizal Office
Nestor Paul Pingil Education Rosalie Bongon
Program Specialist RO – Supervising Education
CLMD Program Specialist Bureau of
Nestor Paul Pingil Education Learning Delivery – Central
Program Specialist RO – Office
CLMD
Ricardo Ador Dionisio
Education Program Specialist
Merelyn M. Aranas Master Bureau of Curriculum
Teacher Rizal National High Development – Central Office
School Zambonga del Ricardo Ador Dionisio
Norte Education Program Specialist
Bureau of Curriculum
Mary Jane Castillo, PhD Development – Central Office
Master Teacher I Oriental
Mindoro National High

ACKNOWLEDGEMEN
TS
v
 <This page is intentionally left blank.>
Introduction to the
Mentor’s Guide

INTRODUCTION TO THE MENTOR’S

GUIDE

Hello, dear Mentor! Welcome to this

Professional Learning Package in
English/Reading!

This Mentor’s Guide was developed to complement the Teacher’s Resource. This has
been created from the item bank and Teacher’s Resource on PPST indicators 1.5.2 and
1.5.3.

This is intended for you – master teachers and school leaders – to coach and further
support our teachers effectively and, at the same time, collaborate with them. Collaboration
among teachers and school mentors are essential to enhance the teaching and learning
process. This ‘team-up’ approach suggested in this resource aims to help build better
communication and interactions among staff as you learn from each other.

As a highly proficient practitioner, you have an important role to play in the achievement of
the intended learning outcomes stipulated in the materials. Likewise, your participation in
this endeavor will assist your mentees acquire the skills, knowledge, attitude, and values as
they advance their career level.

Note: The Teacher’s Resource in English/Reading includes 70 assessment items

involving 158 individual questions.

Both the Teacher’s Resource and this Mentor’s Guide are appropriate for use in Learning
Action Cells (LAC), classroom applications, and mentoring, among others, as
complementary materials.
vii
To assist you in the role, you may refer to these mentoring instructions:

Read the teacher’s resource. It is important to read the item bank and teacher’s resource
to understand the background upon which the material is built, and know learn the main
pointers teachers can acquire while preparing their teaching plan and dealing with their
student learners.

Set a one-on-one session. This session is simply a chance for teachers to deal with what
they have learned by sharing their thoughts and having constructive and complementary
discussions with another person.

Ideas for Mentors:

Using the items in LACs might include:

 Initially, selecting a single Item/or Item set to use to introduce the structure and features of
the package to mentees  Suggesting as small set of items around a single topic for
mentees to try before a next LAC
session, so the whole group can feedback and share ideas on the same set of items. 
Discussing the full range of HOTS strategies being modelled in the resource.  Asking
mentees to identify an item of interest t0 review, try with their students, evaluate and
then report back to their group  Leading your LACs group to identify some general strategies
that support HOTS, e.g., building
questions up in a topic from unistructural to multistructural to relational; or using
open questions and scaffolds.

Ideas for Mentees:

Using the items:

 Trying some items themselves to reflect on their knowledge and understanding  Trying
some item with their students – maybe some in early grades and some in higher grades 
Sharing some items with their school colleagues – this could be useful for collaborative
discussions; clarifying the focus the school has on the Philippine Curriculum that they are
currently implementing  Adapting or developing some items for your school’s context.

Further or complementary study:

 Reading more about HOTS  Exploring PISA competencies and PISA testing and how
they might be used in your school

Mentoring
 Instructions
MENTOR’S GUIDE

How to use the Mentor’s

Guide?

This Mentor’s Guide provides an outline of how you may support your teachers. The
following are provided in this material:

Capacitating my Mentee on the SOLO-based Assessment

Items

Provides activities and/or outlines a work plan for the master teachers, school heads,
and supervisors to coach and mentor teachers about the identified strategies in the
Teacher’s Resource.

Reflection Log

Provides opportunities for the master teachers, school heads, and supervisors to
assist teachers in reflecting on their teaching strategy, the Structure of the Observed
Learning Outcome (SOLO) model, the challenges they encountered, and how they
addressed the challenges that arose.

As a mentor, you need to make sure that the teachers who are using the Teacher’s
Resource have an understanding of its purpose and the content provided in the Philippine
Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST) Domain 1: Content Knowledge and
Pedagogy (Strand 1.5).

This is also a chance for you to undertake the following:

• Clarify important points indicated in the key learnings and the guide below.
• Provide feedback based on how teachers answered the items or activities.
• Ask for and confirm changes in teacher perspectives and teaching plans.
• Initiate and conduct individual and group discussions you think are necessary and relevant.

ix
Capacitating my mentee on the

SOLO-based
Assessment
 Activity 1. Organizing LAC
Session

Introduction The content of the Teacher’s Resource can be used to engage teachers in
collaborative learning sessions such as the Learning Action Cell (LAC). Both mentors and
teachers should be given the chance to share insights and expertise in teaching
higher-order thinking skills to learners. Similarly, it is vital that teachers share the challenges
encountered during the teaching-learning process so that, with your guidance and support,
these challenges can start to be addressed.

Being able to master the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) model
requires reading, discussion and practice. While the ideas may sound straightforward, both
you and your colleagues (mentees) require hands-on activities to help comprehend the
model.

It is interesting that as you spend more time on SOLO, new brain-based perspectives
associated with teaching and learning open up. In the following mentoring activities, you will
begin applying the SOLO model to current pen and paper questions. These can serve as
diagnostic, formative or summative activities employed in classrooms.

An important characteristic of the SOLO Model is a series of levels that measures increasing
sophistication (quality) in responses to questions directed to learned tasks. There are five
levels of response in the Basic SOLO Model, but three are most relevant to the work
undertaken in the teacher resource.

The reader is encouraged to read and analyse the work provided in the following, Activity 2,
for a much fuller appreciation of Basic SOLO and the SOLO levels. However, as an initial
introduction the three levels used to classify responses are referred to as unistructural,
multistructural and relational where:

A unistructural response involves one relevant operation or action from the

stimulus;

A multistructural response involves several relevant independent operations or

actions;

A relational response integrates all relevant pieces of information and operations from the
stimulus.

These three levels comprise a U-M-R cycle of development, and offer an important
pedagogical tool for teachers to assist them in planning instruction and assessment.
Capacitating my mentee on
the SOLO-based Assessment

Getting Started First

Time

An introduction to the HOTS Teacher’s Resource First in conversation

with the teachers choose a question from a subject area in English/Reading from
the Teacher resource. Teachers might suggest a preferred question to start.

Teachers may wish to start with an item from English/Reading and Grade 7. They
may wish to choose Item 001.

Now talk through the first page (see a copy below). This information situates the item in
the Philippine Curriculum as expected taught content and also the related PISA
competency. It also describes briefly the HOTS thinking strategy employed in the question.

Next move onto the questions. Most questions in this Resource have a STEM. A
STEM contains information necessary to be able to undertake the question. It usually
does not have a question within it.

Item 1 Grade 7 English: Sequencing of

Ideas
Instructions: Read the paragraph carefully and answer the questions that
follow.

Item 1 Eugene Dela Cruz is a young man who is beyond his years. Throughout high school,
he studies hard and works his way to always be on top of the class, champions competitions
he joins, and holds tutorial classes to make ends meet. Due to his lack of a home full of
love, warmth, and support early on in his life, he has learned to get up and look for the
circumstance he wants, and whenever he does not find it, he creates it. He capitalizes on
building his strengths as his ultimate gateway to excellence rather than dwelling on his
weaknesses. Consequently, he has repeatedly proven himself and the world – that one’s
mess of life could be turned into art – a masterpiece of battle scars!

This paragraph is the STEM for the question. This STEM sets the scene or situates the
learner in the area in which the questions are to be answered.

3
What follows in this item are three questions, Question 1.1, Question 1.2, and Question
1.3 based around SOLO levels. The expectation is that students will be able to respond
up to a certain level and after this, the student will make mistakes or be unable to
process the question adequately.

Note: All questions relate back to the STEM in some way. Also, the question difficulty (in
terms of SOLO) increases as the learner proceeds through the item.

Teachers should be given the Item and the four questions. Teachers should work with a
partner and discuss each question and write down what they think an appropriate correct
response would be provided by a student. They may also consider what incorrect
responses students might make in the different question parts.

Once all teachers, either singly or in pairs, have completed all items than teachers as a
group should work their way through the answers comparing the responses they think
students would make.

When this is done we will now go more formally through each question part and teachers
would agree on the answer for the first part. Disagreements should be clarified.

Then the SOLO level for the response and the question should be discussed and
reasons found to justify the SOLO level.

The process will now proceed to the second question part.

Capacitating my mentee on
the SOLO-based Assessment
 SAMPLE ANSWERS
6 Question 1.1 Unistructural
He is an optimistic person.
Question 1.2 Multistructural
He does not give up no matter how difficult the circumstances are, - He studies so hard
and works his way to always be on top of the class, - He champions competitions he
joins, and - He holds tutorial classes to make ends meet.
Question 1.3 Relational
The text supports the idea, “Life is full of obstacles, but if you work hard, you can be
successful.” Regardless of the circumstances, you are born within this life, your attitude
towards overcoming obstacles may determine your success in life. Based on the text,
Eugene has proven time and again that no matter what or how hard the obstacles are,
he has always believed in himself and has worked hard not only to overcome them but
to come out much better and more successful.
Capacitating my mentee on
the SOLO-based Assessment

An Example from Grade 8: Focus on the

Answer

Learning Competency: Use the appropriate reading style (scanning, skimming,

speed reading, intensive reading, etc. for one’s purpose (EN8RC-Ie-i-7).

Topic: Scanning for Information

Text STEM:

One of the specific problems discussed in India's schools today is the poor grading
system. It appears to put more emphasis on ‘pen and paper’ examination results. The
message it delivers to learners is that academic exam results matter in getting a good
education with too much focus on theories and less on the application or practical
component. Most courses or subjects offered in schools value theories more than life
skill applications, which are more permanent and beneficial for learners, especially
when they reach the stage of employment. In short, learners are tested and graded
more on their knowledge of theories.

Question 2a: Based on the text, what is the major problem currently faced by the
Indian education system?
 a. The Indian education system b.
Poor grading system c. Future
employability of learners d. Quality
of education

Sample Answer to Question

2a:

Option b, i.e., Poor grading system

Discuss the response and consider how relevant were the other (incorrect) options in the
question. The multistructural question is as follows:

Multistructural question: Question 2b What evidences provided in the text justify

that the grading system in India does more harm than good?

Sample answer to Question 2b: The following evidences are mentioned in the text:
academic exam results matter in getting a good education with too much focus on
theories and less on the application or practical component; courses or subjects
offered in schools value theories more than life skill applications; and, learners are
tested and graded more on their knowledge of theories.

Discuss the response and consider the number of separate pieces of information provided
in the question. The relational question is as follows:

7
 Relational question: Question 2c: How important is it for learners to recognize the
value of the practical application of the academic courses/subjects they learn in
school?

Sample answer to Question 2c: Understanding life skill applications, which are
more permanent and beneficial for learners, especially when they reach the stage of
employment is crucial. Theories learned in school are only as good when learners are
able to apply them in real-life circumstances. Knowledge of theories and how they
apply to different situations can help learners in the future determine a course of
action to resolve problems or anticipate better resolutions.

Discuss the response and consider why the answer is relational. How has the answer
integrated or seen relationships between different separate pieces of information provided in
the question. The sample extended abstract question is as follows:

Extended abstract question: Question 2d To what extent is getting good grades

important?

Sample answer to Question 2d: The main point presented in the text is valid. Of
course, putting more weight on life skills is important so that learners like me will be
able to apply things learned in school in the real world. But getting good grades or
targeting a certain grade point average is equally significant since it can help student
scholars maintain their scholarship and possibly get a new grant when they pursue a
college education. It has to be noted that grades are one of the measures for most
academic scholarship grants.

Discuss the response and consider why the answer is extended

abstract.
Capacitating my mentee on
the SOLO-based Assessment

Having teachers think about the questions and not just the
answers
Allow your mentee(s) to analyze the questions you have presented in order. Ask them to
describe it. Let them build the idea but guide them by processing the answers they will
provide.

Note: Just because a questions is designed to seek (say) a relational response from a
student, this does not mean the student might respond at that level. It is not uncommon for a
student to provide a unistructural response (focus on one thing aspect) or a multistructural
response (focus on a number of separate aspects) answer. Also, a student might not
understand the question asked at all and provide a pre-structural response (irrelevant or
completely wrong) for an answer.

Describe Question 2a? from a SOLO

perspective.

Expected Teacher Response: The question has a specific answer (a closed question) and
in SOLO terms it is unistructural. Learners are expected to provide only one correct answer.

Now, prepare a multistructural level question and present it to your mentees.

Describe Question 2b from a SOLO

perspective?

This time, allow them to analyze Question 2b and compare it with Question.
2a.

Expected Teacher Response: Unlike the original question, the revised question requires
more relevant, separate pieces of information to answer the question; thus, multistructural.
Learners can provide more than one piece of information. The number of pieces of
information will vary from teacher to teacher. Clearly a response that contains say three
correct pieces of information is better than one that contains two. Nevertheless they are
both coded as a multistructural response.

Describe Question 2c from a SOLO

perspective?

Once again, allow them time to analyze the Question 2c and compare it with the earlier
questions.

Expected Teacher Answer: The revised question is now open-ended and at the relational
level. Like the multistructural question, learners can provide multiple answers. But this time,
they must identify the connections among the aspects they presented.

This time the focus is on the extended abstract level question, Question 2d. For the last
time, allow them to analyze the question and compare it with the previous questions.

9
Describe Question 2d from a SOLO perspective and compare it with earlier
10
questions?
Acceptable answer: The question is now open-ended and at the extended
abstract level. Like the relational question, learners can link and explain several ideas
related to the topic. But this time, they can also link these to other bigger ideas and
concepts not necessarily mentioned or implied in the text.
HANDS-ON ACTIVITY
Overtime and after teachers have had experience with a number of Activities and
Questions, and tried some with their students, you will help your mentees in formulating
questions using the SOLO model.
1. As a mentor, provide a learning competency to your mentee(s). 2. Let them prepare
questions on the unistructural, multistructural, relational, and
extended abstract levels. 3. Review the questions they formulated. Provide comments
and suggestions on how
your mentee(s) can improve the questions they formulated. 4. If you are mentoring two
or more teachers, it is a good idea to have a peer review of
outputs. 5. Give them time to revise their outputs before the final review of the
questions.
Capacitating my mentee on
the SOLO-based Assessment

Activity 2. Introduction to the Basic SOLO

Model

Enclosed is a summary of the Basic SOLO Model. Teachers have access to this in the
Teacher’s Resource in Science. It is reproduced below. This will help guide your thinking as
well as establish baseline information for you and your teacher colleagues. It is worth
stressing that there is more to the SOLO model but this is designed to be an entry into
SOLO-type thinking, especially as it is related to ideas about learning quality – in particular,
a practical classroom based operational thinking related to lower-order and higher-order
thinking.

This Introduction, in four Parts, to the basic SOLO Model was written by Professor John
Pegg of the SiMERR National Research Centre in Australia. The aim is to situate the
reader within the early, and still highly relevant, research and thinking that has been
undertaken on SOLO so as to provide a stronger base for the reader in assessing learner
responses. This is particularly relevant in the case of explaining lower-order and
higher-order thinking.

Part 1 Background to
SOLO

The SOLO Model (the SOLO Taxonomy) of John Biggs and Kevin Collis ( Biggs & Collis
1982, 1991; Pegg 2003, 2020) is a cognitive (brain-based) developmental framework that
offers a useful tool to explore the quality of a learner response in a specific context. The
notion of ‘quality’ is not unfamiliar in Education discussions, its importance is seldom
challenged. However, trying to tie down a meaning for quality and what it means
operationally has shown not to be so easy.

At its basis, SOLO is interested in describing the nature of a learner response to a question
or stimulus. This information offers insights into what a learner knows, understands and can
do, as well as directions along which instruction may most profitably proceed.

When asked the ‘quality’ of a student’s learning, a common response is to mention the
number of facts or pieces of relevant information a person knows something about.
This information might be further supported by citing scores on a recent examination,
or the number of correct items a person has achieved in some test/quiz.

Such descriptions of ‘quality’, definitely offer a perspective on learning performance – a view

that knowledge creation is about acquiring more and more pieces of information. In terms of
operationalizing ‘quality’, this description can result in predictable and routine approaches to
instruction involving drill and practice. However, this view can also limit a breadth of
practices in teaching involving more demanding higher-order practices such as analysis,
explanation, and synthesis, and that may lead to unfortunate long-term consequences for a
learner.

11
Being told that a student obtained a score of 73% on a test tells us very little about
12
the quality
of the learning, except that the student probably knows more than someone
who achieved 63% on the same test and not as much as someone who scored 83%.
However, little can be interpreted if the comparison was with a person who achieved
70-72% OR 74-75%.
Data are clear that tests are often limited in their ability to discriminate meaningful
student learning on scores within a few percentage points of one another. The impact of
misguided interpretations of learning is even more dramatic when scores hover around
the 50% mark. A mark which usually holds an unprecedented and undeserved
importance by society.
Also, there are often issues interpreting student scores when students obtain the same
score. Do similar scores on a test mean that students have the same questions correct
or incorrect? Ideas of equivalence can be misleading. It is possible, for example, that
one student earned their marks on the most straightforward questions across the test,
while another respondent might be able to achieve correct responses on some quite
difficult questions in certain areas and perform poorly in other areas.
It would seem quite likely that a student who is able to respond to some more difficult
questions is likely to be able to advance more quickly with support, than a student who
is only able to undertake the more basic questions correctly.
Further, and more importantly, numeric descriptions of quality do little to explain:
▪ what a learner knows or understands;
▪ in what directions a teacher, or the learner themselves, might move to improve or
advance their learning; and, as importantly,
▪ how might this notion of ‘quality’ link to how the brain learns.
SOLO offers help in addressing these concerns. The focus of the SOLO categorization
is on cognitive processes in addressing an issue or question rather than the
end-products alone. SOLO offers a framework that enables explorations and
descriptions of the quality of ‘how well’ learning has progressed in different contexts.
This provides a genuine balance to more typical approaches, mentioned earlier, that
describe ‘how much’ is known.
The application of SOLO to the analysis of learner responses enables insights into
learner cognitive development as well as understandings of possible cognitive
blockages associated with the pattern of ideas that are impacting on leaner growth. As
such, SOLO offers teachers insights into learner thinking and subsequent teaching
actions.
Capacitating my mentee on
the SOLO-based Assessment

Part 2 Overview of
SOLO

Over the past 40 plus years, since the late 1970s, SOLO has built a substantial evidence
base involving many thousands of research studies resulting in many hundreds of
published articles. Now, SOLO has an extensive and growing universal following.

SOLO has emerged out as a consequence of describing learning through the eyes of a
learner involving two separate but related activities. This involves:
▪ the acquisition or development of relevant ideas, facts, skills, concepts, processes and
strategies; and
▪ the use of this acquired information in some form such as to solve problems, apply
understanding, or explain or interpret meaning.

This reflects the two main ideas in Part 1 above concerning describing quality as ‘how
much’ and ‘how well’.

In terms of this current publication, this dual approach to thinking about ‘quality’ linked to
SOLO, offers a realistic and practical description of what lower-order and higher-order
thinking looks like as demonstrated in a learner’s response.

In particular, SOLO enables teachers to distinguish between skills, knowledge and content
that may be considered as lower-order functioning (or the result of surface learning) and
those described as higher-order functioning (or the result of deep learning). SOLO
supports teachers with ways to identify the practical meaning of lower-order and
higher-order quality, and ways to identify examples in different contexts.

Such practical advice on applying decision skills, to distinguish lower- and

higher-order functioning is achieved by describing an operationalized balance
between:
 (i) the degree of complexity of how responses are structured by the brain; and (ii)
relevant information associated with the content/context.

As lower-order skills and understandings are necessary pre-requisites for higher-order

thinking, the ability of teachers to efficiently and effectively separate lower- and higher-
order categorizations is a critically important skill. SOLO offers a structure upon which
such decisions can be made.

13
This significant strength of the SOLO model lies in its links with neuroscience and
14
how the
brain learns, i.e., the cognitive (brain) processes. These brain-based ideas
behind SOLO are linked to:
▪ information processing capacity, such as, working memory demands;
▪ the creation of neural pathways/networks through deliberate practice;
▪ the amount of information able to be retained by the learner in a particular domain;
and,
▪ features specific to learning tasks or activities.
Overall, despite the obvious importance of the notion of ‘quality’ to education,
descriptions of what is meant by quality have not received the attention, or use in
practice, it deserves. SOLO offers an alternative to traditional assessment counts of
‘how many’, by placing SOLO center stage in learning and teaching. Teachers who
learn to apply SOLO routinely in the classroom find that it is relevant and useful to
understanding learning situations in all subject areas.
Further, when used correctly, SOLO can help teachers not only apply more objective
and systematic assessment techniques, but it can help clarify developmental learning
pathways to inform lesson and syllabus development, as well as strengthen
formative-assessment approaches.
There are four main aspects to modern descriptions of SOLO. These are:
▪ SOLO levels
▪ the SOLO modes
▪ SOLO levels within modes
 ▪ SOLO cycles.
All four aspects are important for completeness, but initially, it is sufficient for the reader
to become familiar with the meaning, use and application of the concepts around SOLO
levels (Section Part 3 below). This feature is the one most prominent in early general
discussions. Also, when information about SOLO is provided, say on the Web, the
information provided on SOLO levels is usually the sole focus.
MENTOR’S GUIDE

Part 3 Introduction to SOLO Levels: Language and

Meaning

Biggs and Collis (1982) believe the way the brain structures learnt material, ‘structural
organization’ of knowledge, is the difference between well learned from poorly learned
material. It is this structural aspect of knowledge in the brain that underpins descriptions
of quality. They (Biggs and Collis):

believe that there are ‘natural’ stages in the growth of learning any complex
material or skill...in certain important aspects these stages are similar to, but not
identical with, the developmental stages in thinking described by Piaget and his
co-workers. (Biggs & Collis, 1982, p. 15)

SOLO Levels SOLO Levels are the most well-known aspect of the SOLO model. The
SOLO levels describe the increasing sophistication (the increasing quality) of responses in
handling certain tasks/questions relevant to a particular activity or domain. The levels are
given specific names that every teacher needs to acquire and use accurately and
consistently.

In the 1982 version of SOLO there are five levels of response. They represent a
developmental continuum beginning from a level that describes an irrelevant or incorrect
understanding, through a series of three levels describing how the brain structures
understanding to an acceptable degree, to a fifth and final level where a response extends
beyond what might typically be expected as an acceptable response.

Unistructural, Multistructural and Relational levels In what follows the middle three
levels are described first, and the first and last of the five levels are considered second. The
three middle levels have the names unistructural, multistructural and relational. The names
 are almost self-explanatory. Their level descriptions are:

A unistructural (U) response is one where the focus is on a single attribute. It might involve
writing a single sentence with one main idea, or undertaking one algorithm, or providing
one reason or suggestion, or identifying one relevant piece of information from the
stimulus, etc. The key to this level is in the name. The prefix ‘uni’ stands for ‘oneness’. So,
the ‘structure’ of the response is a single aspect that is relevant to the question or activity.

15
Figure 1: Unistructural level
16 A multistructural (M) response is one that includes
several relevant independent pieces of information from the stimulus or comprises a
number (i.e., more than 1) usually sequential actions, explanations, algorithms, etc. The
key to this level is in the name. The prefix ‘multi’ stands for ‘many’. So, the structure of
the response contains more than one aspect that is relevant to the question or activity.
Further the different aspects are seen to be independent of one another. There is no
integration of pieces of information or seeing inter-related aspects.
Figure 2: the Multistructural level
A relational (R) response is one that integrates all relevant pieces of information or data
from the stimulus. These aspects in the stimulus are now linked to one another resulting
in an overall coherence, a pattern, to the data presented and any approach to be
undertaken. There is no inconsistency within the known system.
MENTOR’S GUIDE
Figure 3: The Relational level

These three levels are often referred to as a SOLO

unistructural–multistructural–relational cycle or a SOLO UMR cycle.

The three levels described above offer descriptions of increasing complex structures of thinking
by the brain in which higher levels are directly built upon preceding levels, i.e., the mutlistructural
response contains the unistructural response, a relational response identifies the relationships
among the separate elements of the multistructural response. Taken together, the three levels
represent a SOLO UMR cycle.

Prestructural and Extended Abstract levels Two other SOLO levels can be found in the
literature. They are most relevant to and used when people talk about the SOLO Taxonomy
 based around the 1982 book. The names of the two levels are prestructural and extended
abstract.

The prestructural level, as the word indicates, occurs ‘pre’ or ‘before’ the structure starts and so
it is used to code responses that fail to address a relevant feature. Such a response is
described as:

17
A prestructural level (Pre) of response is one that does not focus on the relevant
18
question or
activity. Usually, the answer is quickly given with little thought. The answer is
likely to be irrelevant or simply repeat information already provided in the question or
activity.
Figure 4: The Prestructural level
The extended abstract level, as the word meaning indicates, occurs after a relational
response. So, it is used to identify a response that goes beyond what might typically be
expected. In such cases the answer would have a deeper perhaps more abstract feel,
hence, the name.
An extended abstract (EA) response is one that goes beyond what was expected at the
relational level. In school situations it can involve deduction, ability to close on situations
not experienced. Answers can be held open or qualified to allow for logical alternatives.
Figure 5: The Extended Abstract level
The two outer levels, one below and one above the middle three levels, respectively,
are named prestructural and extended abstract.
Finally, a useful question is: What are the variables that determine or underpin the level
of response given by a learner? There are five.
MENTOR’S GUIDE

The Degree of Abstractness: The first level (pre-structural) is personal to the learner and
not the topic. The next three levels (unistructural, multistructural and relational) are
relevant to the area of focus and share similar characteristics. The last level (extended
abstract) is more general and extends beyond the previous levels in an appropriate
abstract way.

Number of Organizing Dimensions: The first level does not have an organizing
dimension relevant to the activity or question. For the next three levels the organization is
based on one dimension, several independent dimensions, and an integration of the
independent dimension. The final level moves beyond the previous by adding an
overarching general framework encompassing the earlier work.

Consistency: The first level is the most inconsistent. This encompasses the information
provided and the response provided. The next two levels provide growing consistency as
more elements are used in determining a response. The relational level response is
consistent within the internal or provided context of the learner. The extended abstract level
response not only is able to work within the internal context but can also consider external
principles or other contexts providing a much deeper and often more nuanced response.

Openness of Conclusion: The list of levels demonstrates a graduation of thinking from

‘closed’ to ‘open’. ‘Closed’ is where learners respond very quickly to an activity or stimulus,
sometimes without even understanding the question. As a learner offers increasing levels of
response, there is more time and consideration provided, i.e., the response becomes more
‘open’ so as to enable more room for considered interpretations. This ‘openness’ is
maximized for extended abstract responses.

Sequence of Levels: The levels are developmental with an earlier level being a building
block for the next level. A unistructural response is within the related multistructural
response. A relational response integrates the elements of the earlier multistructural
response. An extended abstract response has within it the relational response but
extends it through embedding the response within a broader external environment or
through incorporating broader principles or theoretical positions.

19
 Part 4 The SOLO Model and
Instruction

The strength of the SOLO model is the linking of the hierarchical nature of cognitive
development through the modes (not mentioned in this Summary) and the cyclical nature
of learning through the levels.

In terms of SOLO levels, each level provides building blocks for the next higher level.
SOLO also provides teachers with a common and shared language that enables them to
describe in a meaningful way their observations of student performance. This is particularly
important when teachers try to articulate differences between lower-order and higher-order
skills and understandings.

Emerging from careful research work of SOLO is the observation that while the lower levels
in the SOLO model can be taught in the traditional sense. The shift to developing learner
higher- order skills and for them to be able to respond to questions with higher-order
responses requires a quality in the thinking of the learner that cannot be guaranteed by
explicit teaching alone.

There appears to be certain teaching approaches and strategies that might be better
applied when students are identified as responding at one SOLO level than when at
another. Knowledge of this pattern can better help teachers develop a rationale for their
actions and help inform the nature of their instruction to targeted groups.
MENTOR’S GUIDE

Part 5 Final Comment

Overall, it has been clear that for the great majority of teachers, assessment in subjects
taught in school are dominated by a focus on content (in the form of facts) and skills
(associated with computational techniques), and the ability of learners to reproduce these
on demand. This narrow focus can have a sterile effect upon innovations and developments
in the English/Reading curriculum and even on what it means for a person to think.

The issue here for teachers is about

 (i) interpreting the quality of the learning in terms of ‘how well’ material is understood
(Biggs & Collis, 1982; 1991); and, (ii) selecting the most appropriate strategies,
procedures or teaching activities for their
students at their SOLO response level.

Higher-order goals of learning, such as judgement formation, solving relevant problems,

and on developing understanding, must encompass not only the content, but also the
interrelationships between various processes and procedures.

Nevertheless, these more demanding skills and developments must be built on

fundamental lower-order knowledge, skills and understandings. Quality education,
instruction and learner outcomes, must embrace the full range of abilities as described and
categorized through the SOLO model in the topics identified.

21
 Activity 3 LAC Session on Background to HOTS in the
Classroom

LAC Objectives: At the end of this 1.5-hour LAC session, teachers would be
able to:
a. summarize the PISA 2018 results of Filipino learners; b. define higher-order thinking
skills (HOTS); c. identify which strand in the PPST promotes HOTS; and d. appreciate
how the assessment items in the teacher’s resource can help promote
higher-order thinking skills.

BEFORE THE
SESSION

✓ Inform teachers about the schedule, topic, and objectives of the session and ask
them
to read the Executive Summary of https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/PISA-2018-Philippine-National-Report.p
df;

✓ Confirm who will serve as the documenter, preferably on a rotating basis;

✓ Prepare the venue and necessary equipment, such as a laptop and/or projector (if
face
to face);

✓ Ensure that the seating arrangement during the LAC session complies with
physical
distancing protocols (if face-to-face). Alternatively, an agreed platform can be set up if
the session will be conducted online. Make sure that the selected platform is
accessible to all LAC members;

✓ If the LAC session is online, make sure to share guidelines for conducting
online
meetings (e.g., find a quiet place in your home where you can focus, mute your
mic when not speaking, etc.). Prepare slides needed for the session.
Capacitating my mentee on
the SOLO-based Assessment
 DURING THE
SESSION

1. Pulse check (10 minutes)

• 8 minutes: Start the LAC session with the following check-in questions: What is
something that worries you about your students as learners? How do you deal with
that worry?

• 2 minutes: Check/summarize if there are common worries and common ways of

dealing with them.

2. Introduction of topic (5 minutes)

• Ask teachers who among them have read the Executive Summary of PISA 2018:
National Report of the Philippines. If most of them have read the Executive
Summary, ask them to pair up and share with each other how they felt while
reading the Executive Summary. If only a few have read it, ask them to pair up and
quickly go over the summary together.

3. Activity (65 minutes)

• 5 minutes: Given what they read, ask the teachers to reflect: Since the PISA
does not assess how well learners remember facts but how they are able to
interpret texts, solve mathematics problems, or explain phenomena scientifically
using their knowledge and reasoning skills (higher-order thinking skills (HOTS)),
how do we define HOTS as teachers? Given our HOTS definition/s, what do we
need to do as teachers to help our learners develop their HOTS?

• After teachers reflect on their own, views show these definitions from the PPST
Resource Package Module 3 (on the board, manila paper or on a slide):

• CREATIVE THINKING SKILLS: These are thinking skills that involve

exploring ideas, generating possibilities and looking for many right
answers rather than just one.

• CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS: These are high level thinking skills such
as analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of information and
application of creative thought to form an argument, solve a problem, or
reach a conclusion.
 • HIGHER-ORDER THINKING SKILLS: These are complex thinking
processes which include analysis, evaluation, synthesis, reflection and
creativity.

• 25 minutes: Ask the teachers to discuss the following in groups of 4 to 5: Are the
definitions of creative thinking skills, critical thinking skills, and HOTS from the
PPST Resource Package similar to our their own definitions? What are the
similarities and differences? Given the HOTS definition/s, what do we need to do
as teachers to help our learners develop their HOTS?

23
 • 10 minutes: Ask a representative from each group to quickly share the highlights
of the group discussion. Limit each sharing to a few minutes.

• 5 minutes: Summarize the group sharing. Connect comments to PPST Strand

1.5 (Strategies for developing critical and creative thinking, as well as other
higher-order thinking skills) and on what teachers need to do to develop learners’
HOTS. Emphasize that teachers need to apply a range of strategies for developing
HOTS not just to improve PISA scores but also to ensure that learners are able to
“build a reliable compass and the navigation tools to find their own way through an
increasingly volatile, uncertain and ambiguous world” (Schleicher, 2019). By
developing learners’ HOTS, we help learners think for themselves and collaborate
with others meaningfully, in work and citizenship.

• 5 minutes: Introduce the Teacher’s Resource by saying that the resource “is
designed to set up instructional support for you to assist the effective
implementation of teaching strategies in helping learners develop higher-order
thinking skills through the PPST Strand 1.5” by providing items or activities that can
be used as examples when explaining/reviewing a concept or as test items.

• 5 minutes: Distribute the Teacher’s Resource and ask the teachers to go through
the first three items for the grade level they are teaching.

• 5 minutes: Ask the teachers about their impressions of the items. Tell them,
“Don’t mind the terms unistructural, multistructural, and relational for now. We will
discuss that in another LAC session.”

• 5 minutes: Ask the teachers whether they think the items can help develop
learners’ HOTS and why they think so/don’t think so.

• Mention that in the next LAC session, teachers will consider more items and you
will be introduced to how the items are structured and what “unistructural,
multistructural, and relational” mean. As homework, please read the Introductory
pages of the Teacher’s Resource.

• Close the session by thanking the teachers for their contributions and active
participation. Say that you hope to have that same level of enthusiasm in the next
LAC session.

AFTER THE
SESSION

✓ Remind teachers to read Introductory pages of the Teacher’s Resource (from the cover
 to What teachers can expect from this Resource Material) a few days before the second
LAC session.

✓ Remind teachers of the schedule (and modality) of the next LAC session and give
them
the necessary details should the session be
online.
MENTOR’S GUIDE

Activity 4. Auditing SOLO-based Lesson

Plan

After guiding your mentee(s) in formulating SOLO questions, it’s time to help them integrate
those questions into lesson delivery using the approaches mentioned in the Teacher’s
Resource.

In the succeeding suggested activity, you will guide your mentees in auditing SOLO-based
lesson plans while applying the QAR strategy in teaching. This may include (1) determining
the type of questions based on the QAR strategy; (2) determining the level of questions
based on the SOLO model, and (3) assessing the plan based on the characteristics of the
QAR approach (Duke & Pearson, 2002).

This figure summarizes the explicit teaching model as described by Duke & Pearson
(2002).
 Figure 1. Explicit Teaching Model
Dreams by Lan

Competency old fast to dreams For if

The learners should be abledreams die Life is a
oken-winged bird That
gle text in order to retrieve target information made of a cannot fly.
es, or numerical values. K to 12: Scan for needed
0RC-IId-1.5.2)

Text

Hold fast to dreams

For when dreams go
Life is a barren field
Frozen with snow.

25
 Procedure Annotation
(HOTS – Ap
SOLO)
Level of
Questions in QAR

Explicit Description of the Strategy:

(Explain when and how to use the
strategy when reading)

1. Ask the students to read and analyze

the given text/graph. Ask the students
to create and write down questions that
are related to the text.
uctions: Read carefully the
m, Dreams, written by
gston Hughes, and answer
questions that follow.

structural) 1. The answer is

ne particular place in the text.
can look for key words used
e question.
1. Right There
1. Right There

2. Start introducing QAR with the

different question types (Right There,
Think and Share, Author and Me, and
On My Own Questions)

Also, incorporate the QAR strategy to

the HOTS SOLO.
ltistructural Approach) 2.
answer may be found in
e than one place in the text.
e is a need to put the
information together. mple using the HOTS SOLO
oach.
(Relational Approach) 3. The
answer may not be entirely
found in the text. You need to Using the given text “Dreams” give
think about what you already different types of questions using the
know, what the author tells you, QAR strategy.
and how it fits together.
2. Think and Search Explain how to come up with the
2. Think and Search answers for each question type (Right
ple Question:

hat happens when dreams

(Unistructural)
1. Right There
1. Right There

There, Think and Share, Author and

Me, and On My Own Questions).
(Exte
numerate the two
answaphors on life stated in the
textm.
a (Multistructural)
own 2. Think and Search
help 2. Think and Search
4. On My Own

3. How does the

images of the b
Modeling: (Demonstrate for learners to make the arg
how to use the strategy; start with the without dreams
teacher only models; add student living? (Relation
modeling)
4. Suggest othe
poet could use t
3. Provide an example.
idea of the poem
Demonstrate to the learners what
Abstract)
they must do. Give clear and
systematic instruction on what
and how to do it, by giving an
4. On My Own
 Procedure Annotation
(HOTS – Ap
Level of
Questions in QAR

Guided practice:

4. After learners have been introduced

to the QAR concepts, provide them
with another reading passage, “The
Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost. (You
may refer to the Teacher’s Resource for
the copy of the text.)

Give questions using the sample items

that are incorporated with the HOTS
SOLO approach.

Let the learners answer the questions,

and identify the type of question used.
The learners can use their answers in
the questions for them to be able to
identify the type of question used.

You can either ask learners to do this

activity individually or in a group.

Encourage learners to explain their

thinking and should continue to give
immediate feedback.
stions/Activities:

etermine which line in the

m best portrays the author's
d to make a choice.
structural)

entify lines from the poem

wing that the traveler has
difficulty choosing which path to
take. (Multistructural) Assign this activity by pair or by dividing
the class into smaller groups.
3. What particular attitude of the
author is implied in the following
Each pair/group should make or
lines, “I took the one less traveled
answer the given activity/questions
by, and that has made all the
uctions:
difference?” Justify your answer.
(Relational)
ead and understand the
4. If you were to choose n passage with your
between the roads, which path p/partner.
would you take? (Extended
Abstract) rite down four questions
1. Right There ut the passage following the
1. Right There R strategy incorporating the
TS SOLO Approach.

3. Write also the

question. Categ
2. Think and Search QAR relationsh
2. Think and Search SOLO Approac
explanation of it

3. Author and Me
3. Author and Me

4. On My Own
4. On My Own

Independent use:

5. Give your learners another reading

passage.
 Text

Procedure Annotation
(HOTS – Ap
Level of
Questions in QAR

Explicit Description of the

Strategy:

Mentoring Points
Ask your mentee/s to work on the matrix.

Competency
• The competencies used are for Grade 10.
• Advise your mentee(s) that this can be taught to a
lower level, Grade 8, for instance, by simplifying the
text and the level of difficulty of the
questions/activities.
• This illustration utilized QAR Strategy.
• Combined with SOLO, they may also consider
applying other teaching strategies like Guided
Reading, especially for lower grade levels,
contextualizing their activities.

HANDS-ON
ACTIVITY

29
 Procedure Annotation
(HOTS – Ap
SOLO)
Level of
Questions in QAR

Modeling:

Guided practice:

Independent use:
Ask your mentee to reflect on his/her experiences in adapting the SOLO. Use the following
guide:

1. Describe your understanding of the SOLO

model?

2. Describe your experiences in integrating SOLO in your teaching practice? Discuss

any
positive experiences.

3. What challenges have you encountered in integrating SOLO in your

practice?
4. How did you address those
challenges?
Capacitating my mentee on
the SOLO-based Assessment

REFLECTION
LOG
31
Biggs J, Collis K (1982) Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO Taxonomy.
Academic Press,
New York

Biggs J, Collis K (1991) Multimodal learning and the quality of intelligent behaviour. In
Rowe H
(ed) Intelligence, Reconceptualization and Measurement, Laurence Erlbaum Assoc,
New Jersey, p 57–76

Department of Education, PISA 2018 National Report of the

Philippines.

DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2017. National Adoption and Implementation of the
Philippine
Professional Standards for Teachers. Department of
Education

DepEd Order No. 024 s. 2020. National Adoption and Implementation of the
Philippine
Professional Standards for School Heads. Department of
Education

Duke, N., and D. Pearson. (2012) "Effective practices for developing reading comprehension
In Farstrup, A. & Samuels, S.(Ed.) What research has to say about reading instruction (pp.
205-242)." New York: Delaware: International Reading Association

Schleicher, Andreas. (2019) PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. OECD

Publishing.

Pegg J (2003) Assessment in Mathematics: a developmental approach. In: Royer JM

(ed)
Advances in Cognition and Instruction. Information Age Publishing Inc, New York, p
227– 259

Pegg J. (2020) Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) Model. In:
Lerman S.
(eds) Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer,
Cha

REFERENCE
S