Kristian Stålne

Assessing complexity in learning outcomes - a comparison between the SOLO taxonomy and the model of hierarchical complexity

An important aspect of higher education is to educate students who can manage complex relationships and solve complex problems. Teachers need to be able to evaluate course content with regard to complexity, as well as evaluate students’ ability to assimilate complex content and express it in the form of a learning outcome. One model for evaluating complexity is the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy. The aim of this analysis is to address the limitations of the SOLO taxonomy in detecting the more subtle differences of the learning outcomes and to clarify the concept of learning modes. This is done by analysing the SOLO taxonomy by means of the model of hierarchical complexity (MHC). The two models are compared by examining their respective theoretical background, the definitions and descriptions of the stages of each model, as well as through evaluating examples illustrating the SOLO levels using MHC. The two models can be viewed as compatible, with MHC also being able to put the SOLO taxonomy in an adult development context, thereby emphasising the importance of developing the students’ access to complex thinking.

Analyzing Roles and Leadership in Organizations From Cognitive Complexity and Meaning-Making Perspectives.

Organizations can be seen as social systems with hierarchical structures and roles at different levels of complexity with correspondingly different complexity of tasks. This article applies the perspectives of two theories from the field of adult development, namely, the model of hierarchical complexity (MHC) and ego development theory (EDT) to analyze stratified systems theory (SST). Although the theories are not regarded as strictly comparable and commensurable on account of differences in basic assumptions and methods of the theories, the analysis leads to the conclusion that descriptions of role complexity and individual capabilities in SST, to some extent, correspond to descriptions of developmental levels according to the MHC and EDT. Both comparisons support the notion that task and leadership complexity increases with organizational level, and thereby demonstrates support for the existence of qualitatively different levels of leadership. However, based on the methodological choices of the study, it is beyond the scope of the article to validate the key concepts, constructs in SST, as well as provide support or nonsupport for the proposed value of application in practice. Furthermore, we point out the lack of a more thorough analysis and comparison between the theories built on rich empirical material. Nevertheless, we conclude that the MHC, EDT and SST are fruitful lenses that can further the understanding of organizations as social systems with hierarchical structures.