Learning Task vs. Assessment Task

For two years, we have used SOLO Taxonomy to guide the learning at Rolleston College. The verbs have become synonymous with the level of thinking expected; the rubrics have helped learners identify where they are at, and "Where to next?"; the graphic organisers have helped learners communicate a higher level of understanding than they gave themselves credit for; and teachers have scaffolded and chunked tasks better to empower learners to succeed. I have been fortunate enough to be entrusted with supporting our staff on this journey, and they have been amazing!

This year, our establishment learners are in Year 11. We are offering NCEA in every Year 11 course. Does this mean the end of SOLO Taxonomy, and a change in vocabulary to "credits", and "Achieved, Merit or Excellence"? In my role, and from past experience, I really hope not.

Earlier this week, a member of our Senior Leadership Team led our staff briefing. Along with other reminders, she reminded us of the purpose of SOLO Taxonomy, and warned us against using credits and grades as the motivator for learning. She stressed that SOLO Taxonomy guided the learning, and the learning tasks. We were reminded that NCEA was the outcome of successful learning, not the process itself. She said everything I wanted to say to our staff, and more.

Since this staff briefing, I have been asked to help with the design of learning tasks (not assessment tasks) for Year 11 courses. These teachers have stayed true to our vision and to our desire to use SOLO Taxonomy. Their learning tasks use SOLO Taxonomy to make the learning transparent, scaffolded (or chunked) and achievable. More importantly (in my opinion), the learning tasks are more authentic. Some are actually going to lead to the creation of work that might be used as evidence for an Achievement Standard. That is exciting, but that is not the primary goal of these learning tasks.

In my role in the Science Learning Area, I have also been looking at how we will offer each Achievement Standard in the courses we offer that include an element of the Science domain. Seeing how we can guide the learning using the language of SOLO, but use NCEA terminology when we "shift" into an assessment is a positive, to my way of reckoning. This change in vocabulary can signal to our learners that we are now assessing what they have spent time learning.

We have learning that is around putting on a "magic show", using knowledge and skills from Chemistry, Mathematics and a touch of Performing Arts. No NCEA grade can measure that. A SOLO rubric can, though. Within this big task, there is the opportunity to explore rates of reaction, and this can be assessed. We can use an assessment from the Science domain and we can use an assessment from the Mathematics domain. The assessments will happen within the learning task, because learners need the skills being assessed by these Achievement Standards to succeed in the real task: putting on a magic show, getting their timings etc. correct.

I personally like this not-so-subtle difference. SOLO Taxonomy is for our learning tasks. It does not have to align to an Achievement Standard, or even a New Zealand Curriculum Achievement Objective. It can be more abstract, more integrated and/or more authentic. NCEA is for assessment. The learning has been done. Now, what evidence do you need to communicate clearly at each level of the assessment? Where, from your earlier learning, can you find that evidence?

Learning tasks and assessment tasks are separate, but linked. SOLO Taxonomy and NCEA terminology both have important places in keeping these separate, and in communicating what is required for success.