Traditionally, teachers have predominantly favored the content-based approach to teaching. However, the implementation of outcomes-based education (OBE) in higher education (HE) has shifted the focus towards course outcomes and learners specialization areas. The Philippine Commission on Higher Educations (CHED) Handbook on Typology, OBE, and Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA) (2014) emphasizes the necessity for Filipino students to be globally competitive through high-quality education that equips them with essential competencies and attitudes. Consequently, the government initiated the transition from input-based to outcomes-based education in higher education in 2014, placing students at the forefront of educational planning. As educational reform progresses, theres also a push for standards-based reform in mathematics education, aiming to elevate academic standards for all students. A notable issue in Filipino mathematics education is the students tendency to perceive the subject as a collection of disconnected facts and procedures rather than a coherent system of ideas and operations reflecting real-world patterns and relationships. This underscores a global shift in the perception of mathematics.

Furthermore, various factors, including teaching and evaluation methods, have contributed to students limited success and performance in mathematics. Reports indicate high failure rates, poor understanding of mathematical concepts among students, and the adverse effects of exams (Conn, 2017). Additionally, researchers have observed a stigma surrounding mathematics, which fosters negative attitudes towards learning the subject. These negative perceptions persist in students minds and can lead to psycho-somatic reactions, indicating that the stigma is deeply ingrained (Corpuz & Saldanan, 2015). Consequently, students may develop a desire for math-related activities or discussions to conclude quickly, reflecting their aversion to the subject. On the contrary, students often lack opportunities to demonstrate their own understandings and outputs in mathematics courses, as assessment typically relies on conventional paper-and-pencil tests. These tests often present difficulties in a decontextualized manner, reinforcing the perception of unrelated concepts. Meeting the predetermined criteria is the sole focus for passing these tests, rather than understanding the underlying reasoning behind problem-solving methods. Consequently, students tend to mimic the problem-solving processes demonstrated by their teachers rather than engaging in critical thinking. In some cases, students may leave questions blank if they differ even slightly from what theyve encountered before, indicating a lack of adaptability and critical thinking skills. To address these issues, outcomes-based education (OBE) provides support for math educators to implement teaching strategies that emphasize not only how to teach but also what methods to use, what learning experiences to provide, and what assessment tools to employ to connect abstract concepts to real-life applications. The primary rationale for adopting OBE is to enhance learning outcomes, leading to initiatives such as CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 40 Series of 2012, which shifts recognition and accreditation standards in higher education institutions (HEIs) from an input-based to an outcomes-based approach.

Moreover, the Commission on Higher Education has revised the general education curriculum, significantly reducing the number of course units from 63 to 36, with Mathematics in the Modern World being one of the core courses (Valencia, 2015). This course emphasizes the practical application of algebra in everyday scenarios encountered by students, aiming to cultivate an appreciation for mathematics across various professions and endeavors (DLSU, 2015). The overarching goal of Mathematics in the Modern World is to provide students with problem-solving opportunities that demonstrate the relevance and utility of mathematics in diverse contexts. To enhance the teaching and learning experiences within the course, it is imperative to evaluate its impact on both students and teachers while aligning instructional practices with the intended course outcomes. OBE necessitates effective instruction and innovative instructional materials to ensure that students are achieving these outcomes. Furthermore, students proficiency in mathematics is essential for enhancing their performance in the subject and applying it in everyday life and future endeavors. Developing mathematical skills not only boosts confidence but also fosters the ability to interpret mathematical concepts, utilize technology, critically analyze issues, and solve problems effectively. Problem-solving, in particular, is a fundamental mathematical skill that holds significant importance. Therefore, its crucial to assess the extent to which students have mastered these skills. Educational frameworks such as the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) Taxonomy and Blooms Taxonomy are valuable tools for evaluating students mathematical skills and performance. 

The SOLO Taxonomy provides a systematic and understandable framework for assessment, accessible to both teachers and students. It categorizes students skill levels into five hierarchical categories: pre-structural, uni-structural, multi-structural, relational, and extended abstract (Putri et al., 2017). This taxonomy not only aids in assessment but also highlights cognitive diversity and students responses to different levels of thinking. Conversely, the updated version of Blooms Taxonomy emphasizes higher-order thinking skills such as analyzing, evaluating, and creating. It posits that lower-order thinking skills are foundational for higher-order thinking skills (Agarwal, 2019). Adhering to the Revised Blooms Taxonomy (RBT) levels when creating assessment materials promotes inclusivity and enhances students capacity for higher-order thinking in mathematics.

Originally designed for assessment purposes, these frameworks are invaluable for evaluating students readiness and performance. By observing students responses, educators can gauge the quality of learning. Recognizing the significance of these frameworks, researchers and mathematics educators have conducted studies using Blooms and SOLO Taxonomy to measure students performance in courses like Mathematics in the Modern World. Utilizing these frameworks enables educators to develop mathematical tasks that not only assess but also enhance students higher-order thinking abilities and performance effectively. In general, the objectives of the study are to evaluate student performance in the Statistical Analysis and Software Application course utilizing Blooms and SOLO Taxonomies. Specifically, the aims are to:

1. Determine the distribution of student learning outcomes according to the thinking levels outlined in Blooms and SOLO Taxonomies.
2. Align the items of the major examination with the thinking levels delineated in Blooms and SOLO Taxonomies.
3. Determine whether students achieve the anticipated level of thinking as indicated by the results of major examinations and performance tasks.

This action research utilized a descriptive design incorporating documentary analysis and testing methods. The researchers analyzed the approved syllabus for the Mathematics in the Modern World course and aligned the student learning outcomes (SLOs) with the thinking levels outlined in Blooms and SOLO taxonomies. The final examination, comprising 50 multiple-choice items with four options each, was employed to assess the attainment of the SLOs. The examination was designed based on the approved table of specifications. A total of 1239 students participated in the study, representing various programs including Engineering (N=818, 66.02%), CAMS (N=47, 3.79%), BSN (N=181, 14.61%), and CTHM (N=193, 15.58%). They undertook the proctored examination simultaneously for 1.5 hours and were permitted to use mathematical formulas and calculators. Attainment levels were determined using the index of mastery, calculated as the ratio of students who correctly answered a particular item/question to the total number of students who took the test. 

Data analysis was conducted using frequency count and percentage. Test papers and answer sheets were retained by professors/ instructors in accordance with university guidelines for examinations. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, only test scores and item analytics were retained for subsequent analysis.

Student Learning Outcomes, Blooms and SOLO Taxonomy of Thinking Levels

Table 1: Distribution of Student Learning Outcomes of the Mathematics in the Modern World Course to the Blooms and SOLO Taxonomy Levels

Note: K-Knowledge, C-Comprehension, Ap-Application, An-Analysis, S-Synthesis, E-Evaluation, US-Uni-Structural, MS-Multi-Structural, R-Relational, EA-Extended Abstract

Table 1 illustrates the distribution of student learning outcomes in the Mathematics in the Modern World course across different thinking levels of the Blooms and SOLO taxonomies. It is noteworthy that the majority of the learning outcomes (N = 18, 68.23%) are situated beyond the comprehension level, targeting application (N = 10, 38.46%), analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (N = 8, 30.77%) levels.

This suggests that the course emphasizes higher-order thinking skills in various activities and assessments provided to students. However, it is observed that the learning outcomes are not evenly distributed across the different levels of the Blooms taxonomy, and not all topics include the development of higher-order thinking skills (Sokhandan A., 2024).

Furthermore, the distribution of student learning outcomes in the course does not adequately cover the various levels of thinking in the SOLO taxonomy. The majority of outcomes target the multi-structural (N = 8, 30.77%) and relational (N = 10, 38.46%) levels. It is observed that certain SOLO levels are not addressed in some course topics. This observation is supported by a study conducted by Saidat et al. (2020), which concluded that the SOLO and Blooms models effectively represent students learning outcomes.

Table 2: Distribution of Major Examination Questions to the Bloom's and SOLO Taxonomy of Thinking Levels.

Note: K-Knowledge, C-Comprehension, Ap-Application, An-Analysis, S-Synthesis, E-Evaluation, US-Uni-Structural, MS-Multi-Structural, R-Relational, EA-Extended Abstract

Source: Mathematics Department, Table of Specification for Mathematics in the Modern World, 2022

However, the study also highlighted a direct correlation between students performances and their SOLO levels. Additionally, it was suggested that the SOLO and Blooms models could elucidate various developmental theories and aid in the development of mathematics curricula.

Students Attainment of the Learning Outcomes

Table 3: Attainment Levels of the Student Learning Outcomes.

Legend: 0.96-1.00 mastered, 0.86-0.95 closely approximating mastery; 0.66-0.85 moving towards mastery, 0.35-0.65 average, 0.15-0.34 low, 0.05-0.14 very low, 0.00-0.14 absolutely no mastery.

Mapping of Major Examination with the Blooms and SOLO Taxonomy of Thinking Levels

Table 2 Distribution of Test Items/Questions in the Major Examination of Mathematics in the Modern World Course According to Blooms and SOLO Taxonomies. Table 2 displays the distribution of test items/ questions in the major examination of the Mathematics in the Modern World course according to Blooms and SOLO Taxonomies. 

It is evident that certain thinking levels are not assessed in the examination instrument. The majority of items/questions target comprehension (N = 15, 30.00%), application (N = 21, 42.00%), and analysis (N = 14, 28.00%) in the Blooms taxonomy, while multi-structural (N = 17, 34.00%) and relational (N = 33, 66.00%) levels are emphasized in the SOLO taxonomy. However, the assessment instrument used does not provide insight into students performance or attainment in other thinking levels such as knowledge, synthesis, evaluation, unistructural, and extended abstract. This finding resonates with the studies conducted by Atasoy & Konyalihatipoglu, (2019) and Easdown et al. (2019), who argued that the SOLO model effectively assesses students mathematical understanding across various grade levels. However, it was also noted that the SOLO model may not accurately represent students knowledge when multiple-choice questions are utilized, as the responses may contain limited information.

Based on the data collected, the researchers drew several conclusions from the study. Firstly, the distribution of learning outcomes in Blooms taxonomy appears to be skewed, with a predominant focus on application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels. Conversely, in the SOLO thinking levels, the distribution is also uneven, with the majority of outcomes targeting the multi-structural and relational levels, indicating a lack of balance across various cognitive domains. Secondly, upon mapping the items in major examinations, it became evident that the assessment predominantly emphasizes comprehension, application, and analysis in the Blooms taxonomy, aligning closely with multi-structural and relational levels in the SOLO taxonomy. However, other thinking levels such as knowledge, synthesis, evaluation, unstructured, and extended abstract are not adequately addressed in the assessment instrument. Lastly, despite satisfactory performance observed in certain learning outcomes, students appear to struggle with attaining the expected level of thinking as measured by the assessment instrument. This limitation in assessment effectiveness is particularly notable in its inability to provide evidence of performance or attainment in the aforementioned thinking levels, potentially hindering a comprehensive evaluation of students mastery of the subject matter. To enhance the instructional delivery of the Mathematics in the Modern World course, several recommendations are proposed. Firstly, a comprehensive review and revision of the course syllabus are essential to ensure an equitable distribution of learning outcomes across various thinking levels. This will help address the current imbalance observed in the distribution of outcomes within Blooms taxonomy. Secondly, it is imperative to target different thinking levels within each course topic to promote a more holistic approach to learning. By incorporating activities and assessments that cater to a range of cognitive domains, students will have opportunities to develop their critical thinking skills more effectively. Thirdly, the assessment instruments used, particularly major examinations, should be carefully designed to include questions or items that effectively measure each thinking level. It is crucial to ensure that questions are evenly distributed across all thinking levels to provide a comprehensive evaluation of students understanding and mastery of the subject matter. Lastly, mapping other learning activities and assessment instruments against the various thinking levels is essential to gauge students attainment levels comprehensively.  This will allow instructors to assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods and tailor their teaching strategies accordingly to address any gaps in student understanding across different cognitive domains. Overall, implementing these recommendations will contribute to a more balanced and effective instructional approach in the Mathematics in the Modern World course.

The researchers extend their sincere gratitude to Dr. Priscilla Mizpah P. Santillana, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, for her invaluable guidance and unwavering support throughout the entirety of the research process. The researchers acknowledge with thanks all individuals who, in any capacity, directly or indirectly, contributed to the completion of this research endeavor.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to this research study.