Teaching and Learning: Tales from the Ampersand

  • Pam Hook


Focusing on the relationship between teaching and learning and being skeptical about claims often made about the ‘learning’ potential of new technologies, this paper explores the use of The Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) Taxonomy and the way it is used to address the needs of diverse students in technologically mediated environments. SOLO is a model of learning that makes learning outcomes visible to all regardless of age, gender, culture or socio-economic background. When used within the Differential Curriculum Model of New Zealand it is able to provide diverse students with an explicit common language for learning outcomes, for self-assessment and peer-assessment. Students learn to synthesise and integrate information; identify learning experiences and learning interventions aligned to their intended learning outcomes; choose relevant technology-mediated environments in which to learn; and build knowledge to create new understandings. In this way diverse students become versatile learners with ownership and control of their learning outcomes, ready to live well with others in whatever contexts their futures might offer.


Learning Outcome Information Communication Technology Diverse Student Cognitive Complexity Student Learning Outcome 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Thanks to Professor John Biggs for his encouragement of Hooked on Thinking consultancy’s work using SOLO Taxonomy and to the many New Zealand schools and teachers who have provided examples of their students learning outcomes. Special thanks to ­colleague Julie Mills (Hooked on Thinking) for ongoing discussion and suggestions.


  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Buckingham Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. What the student does (3rd ed.). Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bigum, C. (2004). Rethinking schools and community: The knowledge producing school, using community informatics to transform regions. In S. Marshall, W. Taylor, & Y. X. Huo (Eds.), Using community informatics to transform regions (pp. 52–66). Hershey: Idea Group Inc (IGI).Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, B. S. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Labour. (2009). National monitoring series. Youth in the New Zealand labour market – At a glance – Labour market reports. Retrieved from
  8. Harpaz, Y. (2005). Teaching and learning in a community of thinking. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 20(2), 136–157.Google Scholar
  9. Hattie, J. A. C., & Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Cognitive processes in asTTle: The SOLO taxonomy (asTTle Technical Report #43). Auckland: University of Auckland and Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  10. Middleton, S. (2010). School looks good but is it engaging? Keynote address to Learning at School 2010 Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  11. Ministry of Education. (2003a). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Retrieved from
  12. Ministry of Education. (2003b). ICT strategy document – Digital horizons. Learning through ICT. A strategy for school, 2002–2004 (Rev. ed.). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  13. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum for English-medium teaching and learning in years 1–13. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  14. Ministry of Education. (2008). Te Marautanga o Aotearoa curriculum for Maori-medium settings years 1–13. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  15. Ministry of Education. (2010a). Statement of intent 2010–2015. Retrieved from
  16. Ministry of Education. (2010b). Ngā Haeata Mātauranga – The annual report on Māori education, 2008/09. Education Information and Analysis Group/Group Māori [Ministry of Education]. Retrieved from
  17. Ministry of Education. (2010c). New Zealand schools: Ngā Kura o Aotearoa. Retrieved from
  18. New Zealand Transport Agency. (2010). Curriculum. The big event. Retrieved from
  19. Riley, T., Bevan-Brown, J., Bicknell, B., Carroll-Lind, J., & Kearney, A. (2004). The extent, nature and effectiveness of planned approaches in New Zealand schools for providing for gifted and talented students. Report to the Ministry of Education. Palmerston North: IPDER/Massey University.Google Scholar
  20. Roberts, J. L., & Roberts, R. A. (2001). Writing units that remove the learning ceiling. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 213–252). Waco: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  21. Simon, N. (2009). The participatory museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0.Google Scholar
  22. Taylor, S. (2001). Gifted and talented children. A planning guide. Christchurch: User Friendly Resources, Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. Turkle, S. (Ed.). (2008). The inner history of devices. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. UNICEF. (2002). A league table of educational disadvantage in rich nations (Innocenti Report Card No.4, November 2002). Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science +Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hooked on Thinking: Educational ConsultancyAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations