O que é o método POE?

Essa técnica foi inicialmente utilizada por Champagne, Klopfer e Anderson, em

1979, com a denominação de Demonstrar – Observar – Explicar (DOE).
Posteriormente a idéia foi reformulada por dois pesquisadores australianos
construtivistas, Richard T. White e Richard F. Gunstone, em 1988, para
Predizer – Observar – Explicar (POE).
O POE, nas palavras do próprio White, “baseia-se no modelo clássico de
pesquisa onde uma hipótese é enunciada e são produzidas e testadas as
possíveis causas sobre por que a situação pode ocorrer, obtendo-se dados”.
Originalmente, a metodologia POE (Predict - Observe - Explain) foi criada com
a finalidade de ser uma ferramenta de avaliação formativa. Embora, houvesse
a possibilidade do seu emprego como um método de ensino, a sua função
primordial seria avaliar a aprendizagem dos alunos ao longo do curso, sem
atribuição de notas. Contudo, atualmente, tem sido amplamente empregada
como uma metodologia de aprendizagem ativa em ciências. Além disso,
existem pesquisas que corroboram a eficiência dessa metodologia também
com simulações computacionais e vídeos. Portanto, a metodologia POE
demanda necessariamente a demonstração de um experimento qualitativo ou
vídeo ou simulação pelo professor em sala de aula.
Caso a metodologia POE seja utilizada como avaliação formativa é
aconselhável que seja aplicada individualmente. Porém, o seu emprego como
método de aprendizagem ativa torna-se mais eficiente se os alunos
trabalharem em grupos pequenos, o que favorece a interação e troca de ideias
entre os pares. No último caso também se recomenda que antes do término da
atividade o professor realize um debate entre grupos, mediando à discussão e
buscando comparar as explicações baseadas em concepções prévias com
aquelas amparadas pelas concepções científicas.
Na primeira etapa, a da previsão, pede-se ao estudante que faça suas
previsões acerca de um determinado evento e as justifique por escrito, de
acordo com seus conhecimentos prévios. Esse procedimento visa elicitar as
concepções alternativas dos estudantes sobre o assunto, isto é, fazer com
ideias intuitivas, muitas vezes inconscientes, sejam resgatadas e expressadas
de forma organizada. Além disso, essa etapa também possibilita um registro
formal do raciocínio e do modelo mental do aluno.
Na segunda etapa, a da observação, o estudante irá realizar e/ou observar o
evento, sendo instigado a comparar as suas previsões anteriores à realização
do mesmo com o resultado observado por ele. Por último, na terceira etapa, a
da explicação, o estudante deverá tentar explicar as diferenças entre o previsto
e o observado, caso existam. Assim, espera-se que ao se aplicar a
metodologia POE, surjam discrepâncias entre as previsões do estudante e o
resultado observado daquele evento.
É lógico que aqui o que se espera é que as discrepâncias entre as previsões
do estudante e o resultado observado do experimento surjam, de modo que
possamos discutir com eles sobre as hipóteses levantadas e sobre as
concepções que o levaram a tais hipóteses. Portanto as atividades deverão ser
elaboradas de forma que essas discrepâncias apareçam causando assim um
conflito cognitivo.
Porém, ao se trabalhar com atividades que envolvam situações discrepantes,
isto é, cuja previsibilidade não seja tão óbvia, devemos tomar o cuidado de não
exagerar no número de atividades onde os estudantes não sejam capazes de
prever o que realmente irá ocorrer. Se cada vez que usarmos o método, os
estudantes forem surpreendidos pelos resultados, eles acabarão por tentar
adivinhar aleatoriamente o resultado do experimento, sem qualquer referência
às suas teorias. Assim nosso objetivo principal, que é o de levar o estudante a
pensar criticamente, não será alcançado.
Embora o POE seja uma metodologia comumente aplicada nas pesquisas da
área de ensino de ciências, na qual se trabalha com experimentos reais, é
plenamente viável fazer uma adaptação para trabalhar com os “experimentos”
virtuais abstratos ou geométricos típicos da matemática. Essa abordagem se
tornou possível com a difusão de simulações computacionais gratuitas em Java
e Flash, bem como de softwares educacionais, tais como Geogebra. Esses
“experimentos”, assim como aqueles produzidos em laboratórios de física, de
química e de biologia permitem uma imediata observação por parte do aluno
O papel da previsão no desenvolvimento do raciocínio do aluno é importante
também, pois quando os alunos preveem, eles estão psicologicamente
dispensados da necessidade de precisão e certeza. Assim, em certas
situações podem temporariamente desconsiderar os detalhes e concentrar-se
nas características essenciais e estruturais do que se deseja conhecer. Sem a
exigência do formalismo e do rigor eles ousam arriscar mais na exploração das
tarefas e na explicação das mesmas por se sentirem mais envolvidos com elas.
A metodologia POE se enquadra na categoria de métodos de aprendizagem
ativa, cujas características principais em comum, são:

 Transferir o foco da aula do professor, que descreve e explica

fenômenos, geralmente abstratos, para os próprios alunos, que se
tornam protagonistas do processo de aprendizagem;

 Estimular o interesse e a motivação dos estudantes;

 Incentivar o engajamento e a discussão em sala;

 Promover o ensino colaborativo;

 Conhecer e tornar conscientes as ideias prévias dos alunos;

 Possibilitar a aplicação de conceitos na percepção de situações reais;

 Oferecer aos estudantes novas perspectivas do problema através da

discussão dos prognósticos;

 Promover conexões entre conceitos relacionados.

PREDICT-OBSERVE-EXPLAIN

Background
There are many events that surprise us. We expect that one thing will happen,
and something else happens instead. These events are called discrepant
events. Psychological constructivists say that these events create "cognitive
dissonance". When we create cognitive dissonance for our students, they
should be ready to learn.
One interesting thing I have noticed for students with discrepant events is that,
unless you have them hypothesize what will happen first, they often don't even
notice the event is discrepant. They record what happened, don't seem to think
it is odd, and don't remember what happened. The next time you ask them to
predict what will happen, they predict what they expect to happen rather than
what they saw happen in the actual situation.
An example of a discrepant event is that most children expect that vinegar is
less dense that vegetable oil. They will pour vegetable oil and vinegar together,
and record that the vegetable oil floated on the vinegar. But, the next day, when
you ask them what happened, they will mis-remember, and tell you that the
vinegar floated on the vegetable oil, and they will give you their theory: the
vinegar is less dense, therefore it floated on the vegetable oil. Someone once
said of this phenomenon: "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it."
As a result of these observations, the predict-observe-explain teaching strategy
was developed. Richard Gunstone of Australia has done a lot of research on
discrepant events and on the use of this teaching strategy to bring about
conceptual change in children.

Practicalities
To carry out Predict-Explain-Observe-Explain lessons, first select a discrepant
event that has to do with the unit you are working on. You might use a really
good, fun, discrepant event that has little to do with the unit, just to get your
students thinking.
Usually, the discrepant events are done as demonstrations, whole class
activities. When the event is done as a demonstration, you can control the
action so that students have to hypothesize and explain their hypotheses before
carrying out the experiment. Important: for at least half of the predict-explain-
observe-explain demonstrations you do, what your students predict should
actually happen. In other words, at least half of the activities should be non-
discrepant events. If every time you use the method the children are surprised
by the results, the children will begin to guess randomly, without any reference
to their theories. They will not be engaging in critical thinking, which is what we
want them to do.
Step 1: Predict:
Describe to the students what you are going to do. Then ask them to predict
what will happen.
For example, you are going to pour water into a cup, just like this (show them
how you pour the water), and then you are going to pour the water into another
cup, just like this, and what will happen when you pour it back into the first cup?
The students then tell you what they think will happen. (This activity is so simple
that students will almost certainly second guess. They will assume the water will
not pour out, but the reason I call this strategy predict-explain-observe-explain
will now become apparent.)
Even if all the students suggest what you expect them to, ask them why they
believe that. It is important in science that students put words to their beliefs.
Many of our theories are innate (we are unaware of what we actually believe
until we are pushed to describe them). An important part of science is to make
our ideas and theories explicit. The most common form of communication we
use is language. And the easiest form of language to use in the classroom is
talk. So - ask the students to tell you why they believe what they believe.
In the above example, if the students tell you the water will pour out of the cup,
that is what you would expect them to say, but you would still ask them to
explain why they believe that. If they know that you are somehow going to trick
them, you asking them what they expect to happen will be even more important.
Why do they think the water won't pour into the first cup again? (I think that the
answer "We think you are going to trick us somehow" is a good answer.
Especially in this case, where I am tricking the students.)
Step 2: Observe:
You now carry out the activity. The students watch as you do what you told
them you would do (for example - try pouring the water into the first cup again).
They note what happens.
If the water pours out, this is what should happen. If the water doesn't pour out,
then their little faces should register surprise - even if they knew you were
somehow going to trick them. If they knew you were going to trick them, they
want to know how you tricked them.
Step 3: Explain:
You ask the students to hypothesize about why things happened the way they
did. Why did the water not pour out of they cup? (How did you trick them?) Their
hypotheses are really what you want. You want them to attempt to construct
some sort of new theory, something beyond their usual experiences. (Of course
- you all know why the water didn't pour out of the cup!)
Debrief
Here is another trick - burning money. Holding a paper dollar (there are no more
Canadian ones or twos, so you have to risk a five for this) with tongs, I dip it in
water, and then dip it in rubbing alcohol. I ask the students what they think will
happen if I light it on fire. The students have only seen two beakers that look
like water. The bill is now soggy, so they are likely to assume that the bill,
because it is wet, won't burn. Then a volunteer comes up and lights a match
and holds it to the bottom corner of the bill. If you do things right, flames will
burn, and then the flames will go out. You will have a nicely dried bill. (Add a
little copper sulfate to the rubbing alcohol before you dip the bill in it, otherwise
the students won't be able to see the flames. The copper sulfate will make the
flames burn blue. Also, advise the student who is lighting the match to keep the
match away from the beakers. Have a pail of water ready to dip the bill into in
case it does not go out. Explain the safety procedures to the students as you do
the experiment.)
Then I tell the students that one beaker contained water and one contained
rubbing alcohol. This removes the trick part from the activity. I ask the students
to explain why the flames went out.
Then I have each group discuss how they could test their hypothesis. When
they have written a procedure for testing their hypothesis, I invite that group to
tell the class what their hypothesis is, and invite them to test it in front of the
other students. Every group has to take into account all prior groups'
observations. A major hint with this event is that when you have your students
try out their tests, don't use money. You would be broke in no time. Just use
ordinary paper. Also, advise them that rubbing alcohol if very flammable, and
they should move the rubbing alcohol onto another table when they are lighting
their matches. Also, have a beaker of water to douse their paper into if it doesn't
go out. Because working with rubbing alcohol and open flame is dangerous, this
is definitely an activity done with one group at a time.
Hints (for the method, not for why the water did not pour out of the cup, or why
the bill did not burn - which we hope it didn't.)
As already mentioned, at least half of the predict-explain-observe-explain
events you use in your class should be non-discrepant. You want your students
to make reasonable predictions, not wildly bizarre ones. You want them not to
think that you will always be trying to trick them.
It is better to choose events which are normally discrepant, not like the water
one which is a trick.
As always, if you are having your students try out these discrepant events, think
of all the possible dangers and discuss them in advance. It is better if your
students tell you how to ensure their safety than if you tell them.