By Anne Osborne, Foster Concepts
As a classroom teacher, I tried to use the SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome), to think more carefully about the depth of learners’ understanding. Developed by Biggs and Collis (1982) (opens in a new tab), SOLO describes increasing complexity in learners’ responses: from identifying individual ideas, to connecting them into a coherent understanding, and then extending that understanding through generalisation. It offered me a way to recognise progression in the quality of understanding, although connecting that framework to the development of specific subject knowledge required further work. I could see its potential and desperately wanted to make it work, but I often struggled to connect it with subject standards and everyday planning. It sometimes felt like an additional layer, rather than something integrated into the curriculum and the students’ inquiries.
Having had time to step back and explore learning progressions more deeply, I can see why the relationship between inquiry, disciplinary learning and curriculum deserves closer attention. I remain interested in the practical question that mattered to me in the classroom: will this help students and teachers understand learning and make useful, timely decisions?
The IB has publicly announced (opens in a new tab) inquiry learning progressions for PYP teachers, addressing decision-making, observation, questioning, and role- and turn-taking. Their publication offers a timely opportunity to reflect on how learning develops.
For me, this prompts a broader curriculum question: how clearly do our subject standards describe the development of knowledge, skills and conceptual understanding over time?
The reflections below explore that question through independent research and my classroom experience. They are my professional interpretation, rather than a statement of additional IB requirements.
A curriculum can identify what learners should achieve while leaving the development towards those expectations less clear. Heritage (2008) (opens in a new tab) discusses learning progressions and draws attention to this distinction: identifying learning goals does not necessarily explain how understanding develops towards them. Progressions can help teachers see connections between earlier and later learning.
This does not mean that existing subject standards are inadequate. Some already describe development carefully. Others set broad expectations that require considerable interpretation. The question for a school is whether its curriculum documents give teachers enough clarity about what becomes more sophisticated and how learning connects.
Consider a broad expectation such as “understands forces.” As an illustrative curriculum statement, it leaves much unresolved. What knowledge does this understanding involve? What distinguishes recognising an effect from explaining it? What new reasoning might a later encounter demand?
A progression perspective encourages us to examine those relationships. Changing the verb in an outcome may leave the underlying development just as unclear. The subject knowledge and thinking need attention too.
When we read our standards across the years, can we explain what develops between them?
This also changes the questions we ask about repeated learning. Encountering a concept in several units may provide valuable opportunities for consolidation and extension. Yet its repeated appearance in curriculum documents does not, by itself, explain what each encounter contributes.
In reviewing a curriculum, I would want to ask what learners bring from earlier experiences and what a later encounter makes possible. Does it require a more precise explanation, a connection between ideas, a more demanding application or greater independence? Are there gaps that teachers must bridge without clear guidance?
These questions matter both across year levels and within a year. However, I would be cautious about describing skill development as “vertical” and conceptual depth as “horizontal.” Both skills and conceptual understanding can become more sophisticated over time. For curriculum discussions, it is clearer to distinguish development over time from connections across subjects, units and contexts.
Does our curriculum make both the development and the connections visible?
For schools working through inquiry, another question follows: how does the development of inquiry connect with the subject learning taking place?
In a science investigation, for example, the questions learners can ask are influenced by what they know about the phenomenon. An unexpected observation may reveal a gap in that knowledge and give them a reason to investigate further. I would therefore want curriculum conversations to consider inquiry and disciplinary understanding together.
Naming “questioning” in a planner may identify an intention. It still leaves room to ask what learners are becoming better able to question, what knowledge supports that development, and why it matters in that particular learning context.
Do our documents help teachers see what develops through inquiry, alongside the subject learning itself?
There is also a distinction between arranging outcomes in an order and establishing a well-founded learning progression. Shepard (2018) (opens in a new tab) emphasises the importance of subject expertise, research into learning and iterative development. A plausible sequence needs scrutiny; its usefulness cannot simply be assumed.
For schools, this suggests a thoughtful approach to curriculum refinement. Some documents may need clearer connections or examples. Others may need more substantial examination of their assumptions about how understanding develops.
My own concern is that this work should become useful within planning and teaching. Descriptions need enough precision to support professional discussion without creating documentation that teachers struggle to use. Assessment has a supporting role here: evidence from learners gives us reason to question whether our intended curriculum development reflects what is happening in practice.
The extent of any adaptation will depend on what a school already has. A coherent curriculum may need focused refinement. Elsewhere, the relationship between standards, subject sequences and unit planning may need closer attention.
This is the work that interests me through Foster Concepts: helping schools examine those relationships and identify where greater clarity would make a difference. My classroom experience has left me enthusiastic about the possibilities, and attentive to whether the resulting work is manageable for teachers.
The curriculum questions I would bring together are these:
View the four curriculum questions at full size
If we place our curriculum documents alongside one another, can we see how learning develops or are we relying on individual teachers to make the connections?
For schools exploring that question, Foster Concepts offers support with curriculum review, refinement and professional learning.
Foster Concepts | [email protected]
This article presents independent professional commentary and is not endorsed by the International Baccalaureate.
References
A small AI confession: I have plenty of ideas. Writing them beautifully is another matter. AI helped me shape, organise and polish this piece, but the thinking, experience and opinions behind it are mine. I stand behind the ideas. AI just helped me persuade the sentences to cooperate.