Programming task
Original student code
Observed error / problem
Use the shared context to judge what is relevant. You do not need to repair the code.
Independent SOLO classification
Same Error, Different Learner / independent review
Learn the levels.
Match the reasoning.
Explore the SOLO graph, try a quick matching exercise, then classify the learner statements one problem at a time.
11problem boards
88statements in total
4reusable SOLO labels
These are hypothetical, researcher-authored explanations, not quotations from the students who wrote the code.
01 / See the structure
From separate facts
to connected reasoning.
Explore P, U, M and R in the graph. SOLO describes this response’s structure, not a learner’s permanent ability. Length and correctness alone do not decide the level.
The response atlasChoose any example
Same age program. Different explanations.
Four intended response structuresStructure of this explanationPrestructural
Inspect a component
K1: input() returns a string.
× irrelevant● given○ hypotheticalgreen = used · red arcs = integrateddashed = attempted / inconsistent
P / Prestructural
Missing the relevant idea
“Maybe print() doesn't work properly when the result is a number.”
The explanation focuses on an irrelevant feature rather than the cause of this problem.
A cue is linked to an irrelevant idea. The relevant pieces have not been used.
Recorded study condition · researcher-authored reasoning
Compare response structures. This is not a fixed linear learning path.
← → to explore · Home / EndThis age-input example is outside the review packet. The graph illustrates the framework, rather than revealing answers to the study statements.
The framework and its source
Biggs & Collis (1982), Evaluating the Quality of Learning, Chapters 2, 4, 8–9. In Chapter 4, pp. 73–75, the same numerical answer can follow counting, separate procedures, or reasoning that relates reversible operations. This is a paraphrase; the graph uses researcher-created programming illustrations.
Judge relevance to the question and the relationships actually stated. Several relevant facts do not automatically form a coherent explanation. Extended Abstract is outside this review.
02 / Practice only
Match each level
to its meaning.
Choose a SOLO label on the left, then its definition on the right. This warm-up gives feedback; the research boards will not.
SOLO level
Definition
0 / 4 matched
For the real review
Each problem has a board of randomized statements. Select a statement and assign a SOLO label. Labels can be reused as often as needed. Flag uncertainty when appropriate, and keep your judgments independent.
03 / Independent classification
Problem board
0 / 88statements saved
Show this problem’s task, code & error Reference if needed
Choose a statement, then choose its SOLO level.
Learner statements
Jump to a problem
Reopen the SOLO graph
A teaching example outside the research pool.
The response atlasChoose any example
Same age program. Different explanations.
Four intended response structuresStructure of this explanationPrestructural
Inspect a component
K1: input() returns a string.
× irrelevant● given○ hypotheticalgreen = used · red arcs = integrateddashed = attempted / inconsistent
P / Prestructural
Missing the relevant idea
“Maybe print() doesn't work properly when the result is a number.”
The explanation focuses on an irrelevant feature rather than the cause of this problem.
A cue is linked to an irrelevant idea. The relevant pieces have not been used.
Recorded study condition · researcher-authored reasoning
Compare response structures. This is not a fixed linear learning path.
← → to explore · Home / EndAll statements saved.
Review your choices, then submit to lock your independent classifications.
Thank you for
your careful reading.
Your 88 classifications have been saved and locked. Other reviewers cannot see your judgments.