Dr Katy Bloom reflects on developing a framework that moves student teachers away from traditional taxonomies toward more evidence-based approaches to curriculum design, and discusses how it could be used for Higher Education teaching and learning.
What began as a simple planning support resource for YSJ Initial Teacher Education (ITE) students gradually evolved into something far more substantial – a comprehensive toolkit that challenges the conventional practice about learning outcomes and assessment design. Originally conceived to help student teachers create varied and effective Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs), this framework has grown to address fundamental questions about how we plan, teach, and assess in higher education.
The timing couldn’t be more relevant. With Ofsted increasingly critical of Bloom’s Taxonomy use in schools (and ITE training), and mounting evidence questioning its theoretical foundations, we needed an alternative approach grounded in robust educational research. Enter the SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome) by Biggs & Collis (1982) – a framework that, unlike Bloom’s hierarchy, has been formally evaluated within educational contexts (Boulton-Lewis, 2006) and continues to inform best practice in constructive alignment (Biggs, Tang & Kennedy, 2022) within HE programmes, now in its 5th edition of Teaching for Quality Learning at University.
The power of starting with the end in mind
The marriage of two powerful educational concepts is central to this toolkit: Backwards Design (Wiggins & McTigue, 2005) and Constructive Alignment (Biggs, Tang & Kennedy, 2022). This isn’t merely theoretical positioning – it’s a practical response to the complexity of modern curriculum design. As a young teacher, one of the best pieces of advice ever received was ‘Have nothing in your lesson plan that doesn’t give you an outcome. If it doesn’t, what is it doing in there?’ Many teachers begin with the activity itself – what the students will be doing, rather than the learning. However, Backwards Design’s three-stage process provides the structural foundation and has this in reverse:
- Identify desired results – What should students know, comprehend, and be able to do?
- Determine acceptable evidence – How will we know when students have achieved these outcomes?
- Plan learning experiences and instruction – What activities will support students in achieving these goals? The ‘doing’ is therefore the last bit to plan.
This naturally dovetails with constructive alignment’s emphasis on coherence between Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs), Teaching & Learning Activities (TLAs), and Assessment Tasks. But here’s where it gets even more interesting – and complicated.
Navigating the complexity of different learning types
One size definitely doesn’t fit all when it comes to learning outcomes. The toolkit recognises categories of these, each requiring different pedagogical approaches:
Knowledge-based ILOs tend to dominate and span a cognitive spectrum from basic recall to more sophisticated evaluation and synthesis. This is the movement through the SOLO Taxonomy from Pre-structural (not knowing) to Unistructural (knowing one facet); Multistructural (knowing several facets); Relational (putting the facets together and using linking language, for example, saying why); and finally Extended Abstract (being able to transfer relational knowledge to a different domain – the test of transfer. Knowledge-based ILOs encompass factual knowledge (what), conceptual understanding (why), procedural knowledge (how), and crucially, metacognitive awareness (knowing about knowing). Each type demands different teaching strategies and assessment methods.
Skill-based ILOs require progressive development through multiple practice opportunities within authentic contexts. Think of clinical skills in healthcare education or practical teaching skills in ITE programmes – these can’t be developed through lectures alone but need carefully scaffolded experiential learning.
Attitudinal and Values-based ILOs present perhaps the greatest challenge. How do you assess professional values or ethical reasoning? These outcomes often require subtle, long-term approaches that operate across extended timeframes, demanding reflection and innovative assessment strategies that move beyond traditional testing.
Cognitive scaffolding through visual organisation
The toolkit’s strength lies in its systematic approach to cognitive complexity. The Toolkit is arranged for increasing cognitive complexity across the framework, with constructive alignment of thinking level (command verbs), possible learning ‘products’ as measurable outcomes, graphic organisers (GOs) and question stems within the same column.
Both the GOs and thinking level provide cognitive scaffolding from recall to more complex creation, allowing students to develop stronger foundations before blending thinking in more challenging tasks. The inclusion of (hand drawn) GOs aren’t mere decorative additions but powerful cognitive tools, which are essentially a way of structurally organising information and enhancing learning by:
- Making abstract concepts visible and concrete through spatial relationships and visual patterns
- Reducing cognitive load by organising information in easily ‘digestible’ formats
- Facilitating active engagement as students create and manipulate the visuals
- Enabling students to see connections and relationships between ideas more clearly
- Supporting both analysis (breaking down concepts) and synthesis (combining ideas), since they are particularly effective for complex topics, comparison tasks, and hierarchical relationships
Acknowledging the limitations
No framework is perfect; the very term “toolkit” can be problematic, potentially suggesting a mechanistic “teacher as technician” approach where tutors simply select appropriate tools. This risks oversimplifying the nuanced, responsive nature of effective teaching. Teachers typically need to respond dynamically to student needs, prior knowledge, learning contexts, student engagement levels, and these are responsive factors that the framework cannot fully anticipate. While the toolkit provides valuable theoretical scaffolding for cognitive development, it cannot replace professional judgment and adaptive expertise.
The Pedagogy-Andragogy Paradox
The use of the term pedagogy is an interesting paradox in higher education, where andragogical approaches tend to dominate, so we seem to use the wrong word by convention. It reflects how universities can sit at this fascinating intersection where we are teaching adults, but we are also teaching them to teach themselves. This creates what I call the “pedagogy-andragogy paradox.” I hope to argue that this framework can sit between both, as whilst the structured nature of backward design might seem pedagogical (very tutor-directed and systematic), the way it actually functions in higher education is deeply andragogical.
When ILOs and their alignment are made explicit, adult learners gain self-direction to understand and take control of their own learning journey. They can see the map of where they’re going. Good constructive alignment in HE often involves creating space for learners to bring their experiences into the learning process, especially in how they demonstrate achievement of ILOs. The very process of ensuring alignment helps make learning relevant, so that adults can see why they are learning what and how they are learning, and this supports both metacognitive knowledge and regulation. Additionally, clear alignment between outcomes, activities, and assessment supports intrinsic motivation by making the purpose transparent.
So, while the toolkit framework itself might appear pedagogical in its structure (and be named so), its implementation in HE can be deeply andragogical, since it is less about controlling the learning process and more about creating transparent pathways for self-directed adult learners.
Moving Forward: Implementation and Impact
As we move away from poorly evidenced taxonomies toward research-informed practice, this toolkit represents more than just another planning framework. It embodies a commitment to evidence-based education that respects both the complexity of learning and the professionalism of teachers.
For ITE programmes specifically, it offers student teachers a sophisticated understanding of curriculum design that goes beyond superficial objective-writing. It encourages deep thinking about the relationship between learning, teaching, and assessment – exactly the kind of professional reflection we want to develop.
The challenge now is implementation. How do we ensure this framework enhances rather than constrains professional practice? How do we maintain its theoretical rigour while preserving the flexibility essential for responsive teaching?
These questions remind us that educational frameworks, however well-designed, are tools for thinking rather than rigid prescriptions for action. They work best when they support professional judgment rather than replace it. The whole poster can be downloaded from https://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/11182/
What frameworks have influenced your approach to curriculum design? How do you balance structure with flexibility in your teaching practice?
Dr Katy Bloom is an Associate Professor in Initial Teacher Education at York St John University, with particular interests in curriculum design, assessment, and evidence-based pedagogical approaches.
References
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Biggs, J., Tang, C. & Kennedy, G. (2022) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education (UK)
Boulton-Lewis, G. M. (2006). The SOLO Taxonomy as a Means of Shaping and Assessing Learning in Higher Education. Higher Education Research & Development, 14(2), 143-154.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development