According to Haysom & Bowen (2012), one of the prevalent pedagogical strategies in teaching science is the Predict-Observe-Explain (POE). In Perver’s study (2015), the use of POE improved not just the students’ prediction, observation, and explanation abilities in science, but also their ability to adapt their prior knowledge to the learning scenario.
In light of the foregoing discussions about POE, Vadapally (2014) recommended further understanding of the pattern of student achievement in chemistry using POE by factoring the nature of students’ thinking skills and the teacher’s instructional strategies, as well as creating a learning environment where students are actively thinking and learning. To address this gap, the study extended the discussion of POE not only as pedagogical strategy but also as a thinking and process skill of chemistry stakeholders (students, teachers, and chemistry teachers) through their conduct of experimentation using POE. With this, the study aimed to map out the taxonomy of each stakeholder and establish a POE taxonomy based on the demonstrated mutual patterns.
Science Process Skills and Thinking Skills in Chemistry
Cognitive thinking is the use of mental activities and skills to perform tasks such as learning, reasoning, understanding, remembering, paying attention, and more
("What are Cognitive Skills?," 2021). Cognitive thinking is a foundational skill that allows man to function as a member of society (Elder & Paul, 2010), and transferable abilities in various science disciplines and are reflective of the behavior of scientists (Padilla, 1990). Moreover, Neumann (2010) enumerated that the cognitive thinking skills are: prediction, modeling, experimentation, evaluation, diagnosis, planning, causation, judgment, influence, teamwork, negotiation, and describing. Therefore, cognitive thinking skills and science process skills interweave scientific content and skills because they put structure and process on how one thinks.
Science Process Skills in Chemistry Teaching
The low-quality education is mostly being attributed to a lack of effective instructional materials because of the government’s insufficient budget allocation
(Gernale, Arañes, & Duad, 2015), mismatched teaching strategies that do not meet the needs of the learners in meeting global standards (Kibirige, Osodo, & Tlala, 2014), and under-qualified science teachers (Mthembu, 2001). In the course of educational development, science teaching dramatically metamorphosed in terms of content and pedagogical intervention (Gernale, et al., 2015; Kibirige, et al., 2014). The development is contributed to the engagement of measuring student achievements and attitudes toward science learning, however, science teachers are challenged by their personal self-concepts in the content and manner to teach the subject. This negative conception of science teachers is echoed by Gernale, et al. (2015), that teachers do not like to teach science, and they express a lack of confidence in their ability to teach science. Through these attitudes to science teaching, teachers affect students’ attitude toward science which is why setting proper attitudes towards the subject is necessary.
The aforementioned factors lead to the students’ poor understanding of science concepts. Thus, improving the quality of education using a learner-centered approach is a global direction (Kibirige, et al., 2014). The primary concern of the change is to adapt to the ever-changing needs of the learners in meeting the present standards through the development of critical thinking skills.
As students’ prior knowledge ideas, beliefs and attitudes affect how they interpret new observations and accommodate new knowledge in the science classroom; what is learned is not always what the teacher intended. One way that teachers can address this issue is to incorporate strategies into their teaching repertoires that overtly provide insights into students’ understanding of the phenomenon being examined (Treagust & Liew, 1988, p. 68).
Innovation in teaching strategies is important in addressing the need of the students to learn science and do a scientific inquiry effectively. Combined with 21st-century learning skills, stakeholders can expect great achievement in science, especially in the conceptual understanding of chemistry. According to Hanover Research Analysis, (“A Crosswalk of 21st Century Skills,” 2011) one important 21st-century skill is critical thinking where the abilities to predict, observe, and explain are being used in exercising one’s critical thinking skills. Science, as a discipline, anchored these contemporary critical thinking skills to six basic process skills namely: observation, communication, classification, measurement, inference, and prediction.
Science process skills and cognitive thinking skills are being developed and enhanced in the science curriculum using three major cognitive processes that are evidently being practiced by students during experiment and any scientific investigation: prediction, observation, and explanation; “[s]tudents concentrate on following recipes, collecting and recording data in the laboratory guide which is including list of tasks for students in the environment” (Şeşen & Mutlu, 2016, p. 186).
Taking inspiration from these common thinking skills, Champagne, Klopfer, & Anderson (1979) tried to probe the thinking of first-year physics students at the University of Pittsburg and designed a strategy called “Demonstrate-Observe-Explain.” Then, White and Gunstone (1992) revisited and enhanced the strategy and introduced a constructivist teaching strategy as “Predict-Observe-Explain.” This consists of three tasks such as prediction, the phase that helps students construct their own predictions in given tasks; observation, the part when students describe and note details of comments during a demonstration of an experiment or investigation; and explanation, the segment that aids students to resolve any discrepancy in their own prediction and observation.
Mthembu (2001) showed that teachers can use a constructivist strategy such as POE in designing learning activities because it considers the students’ point of view which is aligned with the constructivist theory of including the prior knowledge of the students in the equation of learning acquisition.
Furthermore, the POE strategy also embraces the idea that aside from knowledge, feelings are important to the acquisition of knowledge which is why Gernale et al. (2015) included humanistic learning theory as the coinciding theoretical framework of POE.
In the process of POE implementation, explanation is part of communication in science process skills. POE is observed as the set of common skills being practiced by chemistry students because by just reading the procedures indicated on the laboratory activity sheet before the actual experiment, the student’s mind starts to work by predicting the outcome of the experiment using his/her prior knowledge or schema (Freedman, 1997; Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982; Thompson & Soyibo, 2002).
Although there are several skills that students need to use to accomplish the experiment, observation is one of the most important thinking skills to study since doing a quality observation means gathering excellent data.
Besides students' having opportunities in a laboratory environment, it has been discussed that students can enhance their conceptual understanding and positive attitudes if laboratory activities are carried out in an appropriate manner. In a traditionally cookbook laboratory setting, students only follow the directions given and the experimental procedure. Students concentrate on following recipes, collecting and recording data in the laboratory guide which is including list of tasks for students in the environment (Şeşen & Mutlu, 2016, p.186).
Lastly, to make sense of the data gathered, explanation is another skill that needs to be scrutinized as this gives the essence of why an experiment needs to be done.
POE is an powerful strategy, however, it is revealed that in POE strategy can lead to extreme results, learners can either become dissatisfied with their existing knowledge or find the new knowledge plausible, intelligible, and fruitful or accommodate, assimilate, or reject the new knowledge (Kibirige, et al. 2014).
Students’ existing ideas are often strongly held; they may undergo instruction in a particular science topic yet, they do not change their original ideas pertaining to the topic even if these ideas are in conflict with the scientific topic they are taught.” (Mthembu, 2001, p. 7).
Thus, the independence given to the students by POE in processing information at some point creates the dilemma of unsuccessful processing of knowledge. It emphasizes that the teacher must be able to assist the students to reconcile the inconsistency between the students’ predictions and observations by encouraging students to take charge of their learning and for the curriculum makers to improve the learning materials suitable for POE strategy implementation.
Kibirige, et al. (2014) revealed that despite the considerable increase of student competency in learning about dissolved salts where they overcame initial misconceptions about the concept, the study also identified two new misconceptions: salt dissolves in water when it is in ‘fine’ grains, and sodium chloride is not an ionic compound.
Furthermore, considering POE as an e-teaching strategy, Dalziel (2010) articulated that the two types of POE: the synchronous (in real-time) in a computer lab in school contexts, and asynchronous uses between two face to face classes have disadvantages.
[If it is synchronous,] online discussion ends when lab session ends, it may limit the chances of students to explore ideas; and [if it is asynchronous,] rich discussion in the explanation phase needs students to reach this stage at the same time and log in regularly, otherwise, it loses momentum”(Dalziel, 2010 p. 21).
It only means that, when the attention of students was lost from the instructions and information, the process collapsed, so the process needs intricacy and delicacy.
Prediction, observation, and explanation are now used as science process skills. Indeed, POE effectively addresses the needs of the learners in science. Yet, aside from bridging learning gaps, the researchers forward to include how POE is aligned to the existing established competency standards from different government agencies.
Predict-observe-explain (POE) as a Teaching Strategy
The Philippines’ K-12 curriculum targets to offer concepts and skills mastery, lifelong learners development, tertiary education preparation, and middle-level skills development (Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, n.d.). Indonesia’s 2013 curriculum aims to make individuals and citizens become creative, critical, and functional members of the society (Syamsiana, Suyatno & Taufikurohmag, 2018); Laos’s revision of their education in 2008 intends to provide necessary knowledge for continuing education or profession (Khanthavy & Yuenyong, 2009). The curricular revisions of these educational systems aspire to make learners become critical and creative thinkers and competent in knowledge and skills. The curricular paradigm is to focus on significant and long-term change as the educational energy is to go beyond students’ knowledge (Sales, Avilla & Camacho, 2015); to depict the sentiment of modernizing the society by developing Science and Technology; and to help develop all-rounded learners who can actively participate in the economic reconstruction of the society (Sreerekha, Arun Raj & Swapna, 2016). An important curricular consideration is to integrate high levels of technological and proficiency in scientific understanding as academic enrichment. The scientific-oriented thinking process needs to use scientific concepts that will explain the observation to further reinforce new knowledge (Teerasong, Chantore, Ruenwongsa, & Nacapricha, 2010). Through these efforts of enhancing and innovating pedagogy that adapts to the present needs of society and learners, POE teaching strategy addresses this objective. It is effective in improving conceptual understanding based on students’ cognitive development (Syamsiana et al., 2018; Baltaci & Yildiz, 2018). POE highly demands active and creative participation from students during the learning process because the POE allows students to explore initial ideas, generate dialogue between students and teacher, investigate concepts, and awaken curiosity (Irfan, 2017).
The POE strategy enhances the understanding of scientific ideas in two ways: common sense interpretation where learners use sensed impressions and form interconnecting concepts and interpretation to explain the world around them (“Using POE Sequences,” n.d.). By performing experiments enforced by POE strategy, a problem is presented in which learners are asked to provide possibilities, probe the truth by experimentation, and explain the phenomenon (Irfan, 2017; Hilario, 2015). Hence, POE allows learners to explore prior knowledge and actively navigate learning during the learning process.
The first phase of the POE strategy is prediction that allows students to elaborate on how they make sense of the situation or event. It uncovers students’ predictions and their reasons about the phenomenon being examined (Sreerekha et al., 2016; Costu, Ayns, & Nïaz, 2012; Syamsiana et al., 2018). This phase is done by students initially listing all their predictions and then selecting the most sensible and reasonable prediction (Hilario, 2015). Prediction happened when students become dissatisfied with their present knowledge about the phenomena (Cinici and Demir, 2013). The generation of students’ ideas is important for the teachers and the students in building academic rapport; insights into how students think, while students will be conscious of their thinking (“Using POE Sequences,” n.d.); neurons communicate with each other and create an understanding (Syamsiana et al., 2018); and recognize that nonscientific conceptions have potential impacts on learning (Cinici & Demir, 2013). Thus, prediction becomes a cognitive structure that is placed when prior information is invested in connection to the new information.
The second phase of the POE strategy is observation wherein the students describe, build, and discover new concepts based on what they have seen in the demonstration-observation practice, and read in books (Sreerekha et al., 2016; Costu et al., 2012; Syamsiana et al., 2018). They record observations and repeat the activity when necessary to identify if their prediction is correct or otherwise (Hilario, 2015). In particular, students are trying to verify the intelligibility, awareness of the new concept and plausibility, and capacity of the new concept to answer the problem (Cinici & Demir, 2013). They perform the experiment in groups to help their groupmates understand the science concept. According to John, there are two levels of cognitive development: the level of actual development, the ability to independently finish tasks; and the level of potential development, the ability to dependently finish tasks with peers (as cited in Syiamsiana, 2018). If there is a demonstration of the experiment, teachers are encouraged to let students help out and write their observations (“Using POE Sequences,” n.d.).
The third phase of the POE strategy is explanation wherein students must reconcile the conflict between prediction and observation to explain the event (Sreerekha et al., 2016; Costu et al., 2012; Syamsiana et al., 2018), and deconstruct the process that happened (Khanthavy & Yuenyong, 2019). They detail the changes in the variables, and point out discrepancies between what was initially predicted and what occurred (Hilario, 2015). These student explanations are either field experience or research findings in which the former focuses on the conducted field testing while the latter traces resemblances between the experience and findings (“Using POE Sequences,” n.d.). For students, the explanation phase is a reconfiguration of sensing the world, which is also called accommodation, a process that involves replacement or reorganization of learners’ concepts to more scientific ones (Cinici & Demir, 2013). Perceptions are questioned and tested by an environment that allows exploration not only by himself but also with others. This is fruitfulness, the final condition of conceptual change (Cinici & Demir, 2013). For teachers, the explanation phase is the scientific explanation established by scientists. The inclusion of information from students’ short and long-term memory is necessary to organize their self-conceptual understanding (Syamsiana et al., 2018).