Conceptual Understanding and Perceptions of Pre-Service Science Teachers in the Predict–Observe–Explain (POE) Model: Evidence from a Mixed-Methods Study
Abstract
Purpose of the study: This study examined pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding and perceptions of the Predict–Observe–Explain (POE) model-based teaching and learning strategy. Specifically, it aimed to determine how the POE strategy enhances conceptual learning of science concepts while gauging the participants’ views towards the use of the approach.
Methodology: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was employed, involving seventy-three first-year pre-service Integrated Science teachers purposively sampled from a teacher education university. Data were collected during a twelve-week intervention using pre- and post-tests and the Cognitive Perceptions of the POE Model-Based Teaching and Learning (CPPOE) questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and normalised gain analysis, while qualitative data were thematically analysed to capture participants’ perceptions.
Main Findings: Findings revealed that the POE model enhanced participants’ conceptual understanding of selected science concepts, with an average normalised gain 〈g〉 of 0.44 indicating moderate conceptual improvement. Qualitative results also demonstrated positive perceptions with participants revealing that the strategy deepened their understanding, reduced confusion, encouraged curiosity, and helped them relate scientific ideas to everyday experiences.
Novelty/Originality of this study: This study contributes original mixed-methods evidence of the POE strategy from a Sub-Saharan African context, demonstrating its dual impact on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual learning and their perceptions. These findings underscore the potential of integrating POE into science teacher education curricula to advance inquiry-driven, evidence-based scientific reasoning and student-centred instruction. The findings are limited to a single cohort of first-year pre-service science teachers within one institution.
References
T. Tanti, D. Darmaji, A. Astalini, D. A. Kurniawan, and M. Iqbal, “Analysis of user responses to the application of web-based assessment on character assessment,” Journal of education technology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 356-364, 2021, doi: 10.23887/jet.v5i3.33590.
R. White, and R. Gunstone, Probing understanding. Routledge, 2014, doi: 10.4324/9780203761342.
X. Chen, “Prediction-Observation-Explanation (POE): An effective approach to science education. Science Insights Education Frontiers, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 4549–4551, 2025, doi: 10.15354/sief.25.co449.
N. K. Harefa, H. O. N. Harefa, S. K. Hulu, and A. Bawamenewi, “Analysis of the application of the predict observe explain learning model in improving students’ understanding of pancasila education and citizenship learning,” Journal of Educational Science, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 10185–10196, 2025, doi: 10.54371/jiip.v8i8.8992.
N. Oktavia, A. H. Odja, S. Supartin, and D. Setiawan, “The effect of the POE (Predict-Observe-Explain) learning model using a differentiation approach on student learning outcomes in the concept of temperature and heat,” Orbita, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 138, 2024, doi: 10.31764/orbita.v10i2.24270.
X. Yang, “Discussion on POE teaching strategies applied to science concept transformation teaching,” International Journal of Education and Humanities, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 92-94, 2023, doi: 10.54097/ijeh.v9i2.9718.
F. N. U. Fatimah, J. Siswanto, H. Nuroso, and M. S. Hayat, “Implementation of the education for sustainable development (ESD) based predict, observe, and explain (POE) learning module to improve critical thinking skills, Practice of The Science of Teaching Journal: Jurnal Praktisi Pendidikan, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 52-63, 2023, doi: 10.58362/hafecspost.v2i2.32.
T. Nalkiran, and S. Karamustafaoglu, “Prediction-Observation-Explanation (POE) method and its efficiency in teaching “Work, Energy, Power” concepts,” International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 7(3), 497-521, 2020, doi: 10.21449/ijate.727399.
K. G. Tsoumanis, G. Stylos, and K. T. Kotsis, “Pre-service teachers’ and primary students’ motivations and beliefs towards science,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. e2408, 2024, doi: 10.29333/ijese/14576.
J. M. Gail, and S. Park, Science Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs. In Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 1101-1122). Routledge eBooks, 2023, 10.4324/9780367855758-40.
M. A. Lekhu, and S. N. Matoti, “Pre-Service science teachers’ reflections of secondary science education: A case study of a university of technology,” Science Education International, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 150–158, 2020, doi: 10.33828/SEI.V31.I2.3.
A. Fernández Ortube, E. Panadero, and C. Dignath, “Self-Regulated learning interventions for pre-service teachers: A systematic review,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 36, no. 4, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10648-024-09919-5.
T. Shivolo, “A classroom intervention of enhancing namibian preservice science teachers’ conceptual understanding of properties of waves through mnemonics,” Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 62–76, 2024, doi: 10.70232/jrmste.v1i2.9.
V. Petermann, A. Vorholzer, and C. von Aufschnaiter, “Science teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning related to content and procedural goals,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 62, pp. 2024, doi: 10.1002/tea.22003.
A. B. Ferreira, J. M. L. Barbosa, A. L. O. Pinto, J. M. Gonçalves, and R. L. Bezerra, “Uma análise comparativa entre instrumentos avaliativos aplicados no processo personalizado de ensino e aprendizagem em cursos de tecnologia,” Revista de Sistemas e Computação-RSC, vol. 10, no. 3, 2020, doi: 10.5753/ERCEMAPI.2020.11470.
N. A. Sakyi-Hagan, “Exploring the nature of scientific explanations: An interactive predict-observe-explain model-based intervention for pre-service science teachers,” Aquademia, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1-11, 2024, doi: 10.29333/aquademia/14992.
S. R. Marcourt, E. Aboagye, E. K. Armoh, V. V. Dougblor, and T. A. Ossei-Anto, “Teaching method as a critical issue in science education in Ghana,” Social Education Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 82-90, 2023, doi: 10.37256/ser4120232058.
J. K. Amoako, Y. K. Sharma, and P. Danquah, Memorize, Reproduce, and Forget” Inclination; Students’ Perspectives: A Study of Selected Universities in Ghana (pp. 553–564), Springer, Singapore, 2021, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-7907-3_41
T. Tanti, D. A. Kurniawan, W. Sukarni, E. Erika, and R. Hoyi, “Description of student responses toward the implementation of problem-based learning model in physics learning,” JIPF (Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Fisika), vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 30-38, 2021, doi: 10.26737/jipf.v6i1.1787.
F. M. Tumbel, V. I. Y. Roring, and Y. Slamat, “Application of the POE learning model to improve biology learning outcomes in grade vii students,” Edu Cendikia Jurnal Ilmiah Kependidikan, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 75–88, 2025, doi: 10.47709/educendikia.v5i01.5698.
Y. Yatmanto, P. Rintayati, and M. Indriayu, “The effectiveness of POE (Predict-Observe-Explain) differentiated learning in science learning,” Social, Humanities, and Educational Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 51, 2025, doi: 10.20961/shes.v8i1.98837.
Z. Koyunlu Ünlü, “Effect of the Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) strategy on achievement in science education: A Meta-Analysis study,” Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 893-920, 2024, doi: 10.33711/yyuefd.1570041.
S. S. M. A. Zahra, M. P. Sari, R. E. Putri, and F. A. Zahra, “The effect of application of the poe (predict observe explain) learning model to increasing the ability of mastering the science concepts of junior high school students,” Semesta, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 58–62, 2023, doi: 10.24036/semesta/vol6-iss1/189.
J. S. Bruner, Toward a theory of instruction. Belkapp Press, 1966.
J. Piaget, Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. Heinemann, 1954.
B. Edres, A. Azizahwati, and D. Futra, “Analysis of learning motivation based on the POE (Predict-Observe-Explain) learning model in science education,” Journal of Science Education Research, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 152–159, 2025, doi: 10.21831/jser.v9i2.83831.
T. Tanti, W. Utami, D. Deliza, and M. Jahanifar, “Investigation in vocation high school for attitude and motivation students in learning physics subject,” Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE), vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 479-490, 2025, doi: 10.37251/jee.v6i2.1452.
S. Syahrial, A. Asrial, D. A. Kurniawan, R. Perdana, and R. A. Pratama, “Implementing inquiry based ethno-constructivism learning module to improve students’ critical thinking skills and attitudes towards cultural values,” Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, vol. 95, pp. 118-138, 2021, 10.14689/ejer.2021.95.7.
H. A. Mustofa, E. Sandanadas, L. E. Mohtar, and R. A. Faresta, “Identifying student prior-knowledge and conceptual changes profile on newton law using by using POE (Predict, Observe, and Explain) as probing understanding strategy,” Journal of Science and Mathematics Letters, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 80-91, 2024, doi: 10.37134/jsml.vol12.1.10.2024.
L. K. Abiatal, and G. R. Howard, “Constructivism-led assistive technology: An experiment at a Namibian special primary school,” South African Journal of Childhood Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1-12, 2020, doi: 10.4102/sajce.v10i1.794.
A. Richards, D. C. Jones, and E. Etkina, “How students combine resources to make conceptual breakthroughs,” Research in Science Education, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1119–1141, 2020, doi: 10.1007/S11165-018-9725-8.
R. R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 64-74, 1998, doi: 10.1119/1.18809.
J. P. Antony, and R. Arya, “Effect of active learning versus traditional lecturing on the learning achievement of school students in social sciences: A meta-analysis,” BSSS Journal of Education, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 48–63, 2025, doi: 10.51767/je1404.
N. W. Nkosi, and A. Motlhabane, “The impact of inquiry-based learning on learners’ understanding of chemical change: a quasi-experimental study,” UNESA Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 148–159, 2025, doi: 10.26740/ujced.v14n2.p127-138.
S. A. Cahayu, J. Siburian, and A. Hamidah, “The effect of problem based learning (PBL) model based on local wisdom to improve students’ critical thinking skills,” Integrated Science Education Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 82–90, 2024, doi: 10.37251/isej.v5i2.985.
J. S. Goodwin, “What’s the difference? A comparison of student-centered teaching methods,” Education Sciences, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 736, 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14070736.
K. Leekhot, W. Payoungkiattikun, and T. Thongsuk, “The results of inquiry-based learning management on critical thinking and academic achievement of grade-8 students,” Integrated Science Education Journal, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 161–167, 2024, doi: 10.37251/isej.v5i3.901.
N. Martín‐Alguacil, and L. Avedillo, “Student-Centered active learning enhances performance in solving higher-level cognitive questions in health sciences education,” Int. Med. Educ, vol. 3, pp. 346-362, 2024, doi: 10.20944/preprints202406.1970.v1.
V. O. Adeyele, “Inquiry-based science approach in kindergarten: A systematic review,” Al-Mudarris, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 160–179, 2023, doi: 10.32478/al-mudarris.v6i2.1853.
M. D. W. Ernawati, H. Haryanto, H. Harizon, Y. Yusnidar, N. N. Qoidah, and M. Udhiyah, “Analysis of teacher response to problem based learning model and scaffolding model in science subjects,” Integrated Science Education Journal, 4(3), 123–127, 2023, doi: 10.37251/isej.v4i3.733.
M. Salawu-Deen, “Reconceptualising educator preparation for inclusive learning environments: Evidence from a Ghanaian teacher education institution,” International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT), vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 2480–2484, 2025, doi: 10.38124/ijisrt/25aug1461.
D. A. Rostikawati, A. Widodo, R. Riandi, D. Rochintaniawati, and W. Sopandi, “Professional development program on innovative teaching strategies for novice science teachers,” Pedagogia: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 59–64, 2024, doi: 10.55215/pedagogia.v16i2.15.
A. Srinivasacharlu, “Continuing professional development (CPD) of teacher educators in 21st century,” Shanlax International Journal of Education, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 29-33, 2019, doi: 10.34293/education.v7i4.624.
D. C. Mirabueno, and E. E. Paderna, “The taxonomy of Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) as a teaching strategy and thinking process of chemistry stakeholders,” International Journal of Studies in Education and Science, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 390–403, 2024, doi: 10.46328/ijses.106.
N. Safitri, D. N. Agnafia, and Q. Anfa, “The effect of the predict observe and explain learning model on critical thinking ability of junior high school students on environmental pollution,” Bio-Inoved: Jurnal Biologi-Inovasi Pendidikan, vol. 6, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.20527/bino.v6i1.16268.
I. D. Hastuti, M. Nizaar, and S. Syaharuddin, “Predict observe explain learning model: Implementation and its influence on students’ critical thinking ability and learning outcomes (A Meta-Analysis Study),” Jurnal Kependidikan, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 706, 2023, doi: 10.33394/jk.v9i2.7388.
E. Erdem Özcan, and G. Uyanık, “The effects of the “Predict-Observe-Explain (POE)” strategy on academic achievement, attitude and retention in science learning,” Journal of Pedagogical Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 103-111, 2022, doi: 10.33902/jpr.202215535.
S. Karamustafaoğlu, and R. Mamlok-Naaman, “Understanding electrochemistry concepts using the predict-observe-explain strategy,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 923-936, 2015, doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1364a.
M. D. Rahmawati, “Application of POE (Predict, Observe, Explain) learning model to improve understanding of concepts,” Science Education and Application Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 27–33, 2024, doi: 10.30736/seaj.v6i1.1021.
R. Y. Adhikari, and T. P. Timsina, “An educational study focused on the application of mixed method approach as a research method,” The OCEM Journal of Management, Technology, and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 94–109, 2024, doi: 10.3126/ocemjmtss.v3i1.62229.
J. W. Creswell, and V. L. Plano Clark, Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications, 2018.
P. G. Hewitt, Conceptual physics (13th Ed.). Pearson Education, 2022.
J. Navarrete, V. Giaconi, G. Contador, and M. Vázquez, “Another reason why normalised gain should continue to be used to analyze concept inventories (and estimate learning rates),” 2024, doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2407.07730.
R. H. Nacion, “Development and validation of an assessment tool for measuring innovative thinking in STEM students,” International Journal of Studies in Education and Science, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2024, doi: 10.46328/ijses.120.
D. F. Polit, and C. T. Beck, “The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations,” Research in Nursing & Health, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 489-497, 2006, doi: 10.1002/nur.20147.
Copyright (c) 2026 Nelly Adjoa Sakyi-Hagan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and acknowledge that the Integrated Science Education Journal is the first publisher licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citation of published work.
.png)
.png)
