The Application of SOLO Taxonomy in Secondary Science Education: A Scoping Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v5i5.8599Keywords:
Cognitive progression, Conceptual Understanding, SOLO Taxonomy, Secondary Science Education, Scoping ReviewAbstract
The SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes) Taxonomy is a widely used framework for characterizing the structural complexity of student understanding, yet no systematic mapping of its application in secondary science education currently exists. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesize the literature on SOLO’s application in secondary science education: where it has been studied, for what purposes, and with what reported cognitive and conceptual impacts. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines and a Population-Concept-Context (PCC) eligibility framework, this review searched ERIC, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, yielding 2,826 unique records for empirical studies involving secondary students (Grades 7–12) who used SOLO in science education. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were charted and synthesized narratively and thematically. The evidence base was geographically and disciplinarily concentrated: most studies originated from Asia (48.3%), Europe (24.1%), and Oceania (20.7%), with one study each from North and South America and none from Africa. Some disciplines’ evidence bases were concentrated within a small number of countries rather than independent replication. SOLO was used most often to evaluate pedagogical interventions’ impact on cognitive-level gains, followed by qualitative coding, instrument development, formative/summative assessment, and curriculum alignment. Targeted interventions were consistently associated with reported gains in SOLO-classified reasoning, though progression frequently plateaued at the relational level, with the extended-abstract level rarely reached, a recurring “relational ceiling.” Some studies reported persistently lower-order reasoning despite instruction, and found curriculum documents were not always structured to support higher-order progression. SOLO-based practices are associated with genuine, though bounded, gains in cognitive progression, particularly when activities emphasize conceptual integration; however, this synthesis reflects what study authors reported rather than an independent appraisal of study quality. Given this concentration, findings characterize the contexts where SOLO has been most studied, rather than establishing its general applicability across secondary science education.
Downloads
References
Arceo, K. M. M. (2024). Structure of observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy based teaching on the students’ cognitive learning outcome and performance. International Journal of Research Publications. https://doi.org/10.47119/ijrp1001491520246512
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the observed learning outcome). Academic Press.
Çabuk, C., & Özyürek, C. (2026). An analysis of the science curriculum within the Türkiye century education model based on the SOLO taxonomy. Pedagogical Perspective, 5(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.29329/pedper.2026.136
Chi, M., Zheng, C., & He, P. (2024). Assessing high school students’ chemical thinking using an essential questions-perspective framework. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25(4), 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1039/d4rp00106k
Chubko, N., Morris, J. E., McKinnon, D. H., Slater, E. V., & Lummis, G. W. (2019). SOLO taxonomy as EFL students’ disciplinary literacy evaluation tool in technology-enhanced integrated astronomy course. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-019-0095-6
Damopolii, I., Nunaki, J. H., Nusantari, E., & Kandowangko, N. Y. (2020). The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning to train students’ thinking skill based on SOLO taxonomy. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1567(4), 042025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1567/4/042025
Damopolii, I., Nusantari, E., Kristianto, D. D., Nunaki, J. H., & Kandowangko, N. Y. (2021). The effect of inquiry-based science learning on students’ level of thinking. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1731(1), 012089. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1731/1/012089
Davies, O., & Mansour, N. (2022). Exploring the use of cognitive science approaches alongside SOLO taxonomy as a pedagogical framework to build deeper knowledge in science and foundation subjects at primary schools in UK. Education Sciences, 12(8), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080523
Eskilsson, O. (2008). The quality of lower secondary students’ discussions during labwork in chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75346
Fägerstam, E., & Blom, J. (2013). Learning biology and mathematics outdoors: effects and attitudes in a Swedish high school context. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 13(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2011.647432
Fan, Y., Tian, P., Ma, Y., & Wu, L. (2025). Evaluating students’ chemistry quantitative reasoning skills (QRSC) in lower-secondary schools. International Journal of Science Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2025.2540619
Guzman-Lenis, A. R., Perez-Mesa, M. R., & Porras-Contreras, Y. A. (2025). The impact of learning approaches and performance levels on pro-environmental behavior in inquiry contexts. International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 13(5), 1064–1082. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.5697
Haka, N. B., Ningsing, D. W., Pratama, A. O. S., Masya, H., & Rakhmawati, I. (2025). Mapping high level thinking abilities using SOLO taxonomy in Class VIII students in middle schools in Bandar Lampung City. ISEJ Indonesian Science Education Journal, 6(3), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.62159/isej.v6i3.2087
Jones, B. L., Collis, K. F., & Watson, J. M. (1993). Towards a theoretical basis for students’ alternative frameworks in science and for science teaching. Research in Science Education, 23(1), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02357053
Kışoğlu, M. (2025). Analysis of the learning outcomes of the Türkiye Century Education Model high school biology course curriculum according to SOLO taxonomy. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 10(4), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.24331/ijere.1751884
Kõlamets, L., Kasuk, H., Holbrook, J., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2023). The relevance of learning outcomes included in Estonian grade 7-9 science subject curricula associated with the concept of energy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 22(4), 653–667. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/23.22.653
Lake, D. (1999). Helping students to go SOLO: teaching critical numeracy in the biological sciences. Journal of Biological Education, 33(4), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1999.9655664
Lebo, N., Eames, C., Coll, R., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2013). Toward ecological literacy: A permaculture approach to junior secondary science. University of Waikato. http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/7392
Luo, X., Wei, B., Shi, M., & Xiao, X. (2020). Exploring the impact of the reasoning flow scaffold (RFS) on students’ scientific argumentation: based on the structure of observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(4), 1083–1094. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00269c
Mahanani, I., Rahayu, S., & Fajaroh, F. (2020). The effect of inquiry-based learning with socioscientific issues context on critical thinking skills and scientific explanation. Jurnal Kependidikan Penelitian Inovasi Pembelajaran, 3(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.21831/jk.v3i1.20972
Minogue, J., & Jones, G. (2009). Measuring the impact of haptic feedback using the SOLO taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1359–1378. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801992862
Padiotis, I., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2010). Using SOLO to evaluate an educational virtual environment in a technology education setting. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 233–245. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220374666_Using_SOLO_to_Evaluate_an_Educational_Virtual_Environment_in_a_Technology_Education_Setting
Panizzon, D., Arthur, D., & Pegg, J. (2006). ESSA: Developing and scoping a test to explore scientific literacy and achievement in NSW. RUNE (Research UNE). https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/4276
Rundgren, C., Hirsch, R., Rundgren, S. C., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2012). Students’ communicative resources in relation to their conceptual understanding—The role of non-conventionalized expressions in making sense of visualizations of protein function. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 891–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9229-2
Salimpour, S., Tytler, R., Doig, B., Fitzgerald, M. T., & Eriksson, U. (2022). Conceptualising the cosmos: Development and validation of the Cosmology Concept Inventory for high school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(1), 251–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10252-y
Salimpour, S., Tytler, R., Fitzgerald, M. T., & Eriksson, U. (2023). Is the universe infinite? Characterising a hierarchy of reasoning in student conceptions of cosmology concepts using open-ended surveys. Journal for STEM Education Research, 6(1), 102–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00088-8
Siregar, R., Ubaidah, Huda, Z., Romadon, & Lubis, A. (2025). Practicality of an inquiry-based module on atomic structure and nanomaterials to enhance relational understanding in vocational high school students. Tadris Jurnal Keguruan Dan Ilmu Tarbiyah, 10(2), 835–844. https://doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v10i1.28930
Soobard, R., & Rannikmäe, M. (2015). Examining curriculum related progress using a context- based test instrument - a comparison of Estonian grade 10 and 11 students. Science Education International, 26(3), 263–283. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1074874.pdf
Soobard, R., Rannikmäe, M., & Reiska, P. (2015). Upper secondary schools students’ progression in operational scientific skills – A comparison between grades 10 and 12. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 177, 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.342
Sudaria, C. M., & Sanchez, J. M. (2024). SOLO-based formative assessments in teaching and learning earthquakes. Science Education International, 35(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v35.i4.11
Tian, P., Fan, Y., Sun, D., & Li, Y. (2024). Evaluating students’ computation skills in learning amount of substance based on SOLO taxonomy in secondary schools. International Journal of Science Education, 46(15), 1578–1600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2291691
Toh, K., Boo, H., & Woon, T. (1999). Students’ perspectives in understanding light and vision. Educational Research, 41(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188990410203
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., . . . Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Neil Bryant I. Lucas, Lilibeth G. Abrogena, Jayferson G. Panilo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
