Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 35 no. 9 (2025)

Learner’s Diagnostic Achievement and Teacher’s Readiness Towards Solo Taxonomy-Based Learning Guide in Chemistry

Jhuvie Apryle Ann Sumagaysay | Anamarie Valdez

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The study examines challenges in science education, emphasizing collaborative learning, teacher preparedness, and systemic barriers that affect student outcomes. Collaborative activities enhance conceptual understanding but are often hindered by rigid schedules prioritizing curriculum coverage over deeper engagement. Diagnostic tools identify learning risks and misconceptions, but this study innovates by developing a SOLO Taxonomy-Based Learning Guide tailored to the Philippine context. The guide, validated as of very high quality, addresses weaknesses in higher-order thinking (e.g., in chemistry concepts) and bridges gaps in teacher readiness for abstract reasoning. This study addresses gaps in Philippine science education by developing context-specific tools and strategies, aiming to enhance both instruction and learning outcomes. This study focused on developing a SOLO Taxonomy-Based Learning Guide for the subject of chemistry. It evaluated learners' diagnostic achievement in science and teachers' readiness to use the SOLO Taxonomy for instructional tasks. A descriptive method was employed, with respondents comprising twenty (20) Grade 9 students and twenty-five (25) selected teachers in the South Cotabato division who attended the SOLO Taxonomy training. The data were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, and ANOVA. The findings revealed a significant difference in students' mean scores across the Chemistry subject and a significant difference in teachers' readiness across the five SOLO Taxonomy levels. Some topics exhibited significantly lower performance, indicating areas requiring additional support. While learners generally performed well and demonstrated a strong understanding of most science concepts, Module 8 showed weaker performance, suggesting the need for targeted interventions. Teachers demonstrated strong competence in basic teaching tasks; however, their readiness for higher-order thinking and abstract reasoning exhibited lower performance, highlighting the need for professional development. In the research questions, which of the topics in chemistry is significantly low, and which of the SOLO Taxonomy levels is significantly low? A one-way ANOVA confirmed significant differences in both learner performance and teacher readiness, emphasizing the necessity for focused instructional strategies. Additionally, the evaluation of the SOLO Taxonomy-Based Learning Guide in Chemistry revealed that it was of very high quality, with strong content, organization, and mechanical features. It provided well-rounded educational resources, though minor improvements could further enhance its effectiveness.



References:

  1. Al-Amin, H. (2024). Culturally responsive teachers of English language learners: A qualitative case study (Doctoral dissertation, American College of Education).
  2. Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (2016). Declarative and dynamic pedagogical content knowledge as elicited through two video-based interview methods. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1259–1286. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21271
  3. Abualhaija, N. (2019). Using constructivism and student-centered learning approaches in nursing education. Int J Nurs Health Care Res, 7, 093. https://doi.org/10.29011/IJNHR-093.100093
  4. Ayado, S., & Berame, J. (2022). Effectiveness of supplementary modular learning materials to grade 9 students’ academic performance in chemistry. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 35(10), 110–123.
  5. Bosire, A. M. (2022). Towards a curriculum for global education integration and implementation in sub-Saharan Africa: An analysis of Rwanda’s secondary school curriculum. U.Porto.
  6. Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2005). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique, and utilization (5th ed.). W.B. Saunders.
  7. Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2017). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407.
  8. Caniglia, J. C., & Meadows, M. (2018). An application of the SOLO taxonomy to classify strategies used by pre-service teachers to solve “one question problems”. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n9.5
  9. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.
  10. Doğan, Y., & Batdı, V. (2021). Revisiting brainstorming within an educational context: A meta-thematic analysis. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 8(3), 541–556. https://doi.org/
  11. Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & Travers, J. F. (2000). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  12. Estrada Molina, O., Fuentes-Cancell, D. R., & García-Hernández, A. (2022). Evaluating usability in educational technology: A systematic review from the teaching of mathematics. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 12(1), 66–82.
  13. European Proceedings. (2021). Teachers’ readiness for inclusive education: Cognitive component analysis. https://www.europeanproceedings.com/article/10.15405/epsbs.2021.06.03.54
  14. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Pearson Education.
  15. Hagos, T., & Andargie, D. (2023). Effects of formative assessment with technology on students’ meaningful learning in chemistry equilibrium concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RP00340F
  16. Hung, Y. H., Chen, C. H., & Huang, S. W. (2017). Applying augmented reality to enhance learning: A study of different teaching materials. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(3), 252–266.
  17. Hickey, S., & Correia, A.-P. (2024). Centering the learner within instructional design: The evolution of learning design and the emergence of learning experience design (LXD) in workforce training and development. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 52(4), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395231226094
  18. Johnson, C. E., Boon, H. J., & Thompson, M. D. (2020). Curriculum alignment after reforms: A systematic review with considerations for Queensland pre-and in-service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 45(11), 34–55.
  19. Kaviti, L. K. (2018). The new curriculum of education in Kenya: A linguistic and education paradigm shift.
  20. Khalil, M. K., & Elkhider, I. A. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2015
  21. Konstantinidou, A., & Nisiforou, A. (2022). Assuring the quality of online learning in higher education: Adaptations in design and implementation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology.
  22. Kruit, P., Oostdam, R., van den Berg, E., & Schuitema, J. (2020). Performance assessment as a diagnostic tool for science teachers. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 1093–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9717-8
  23. Kurt, S. (2016). Kemp design model. Educational Technology. https://educationaltechnology.net/kemp-design-model/
  24. Macale, A., Lacsamana, M., Quimbo, M. A., & Centeno, E. (2021). Enhancing the performance of students in chemistry through flipped classrooms with peer instruction teaching strategy. University of Helsinki, Finland. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.9.1.1598
  25. Merabet, Y., Mourabit, M., & Lougman, A. (2024). Challenges and didactic obstacles in science education: A study of teaching methods and resources. International Organization of IOTPE.
  26. Ma, X., Zhang, Y., & Luo, X. (2023). Students’ and teachers’ critical thinking in science education: Are they related to each other and with physics achievement? Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(2), 734–758.
  27. Nikolopoulou, K. (2022). Purposive sampling in educational research: Strategies for identifying information-rich cases. Journal of Qualitative Methods in Education, 15(3), 45–60.
  28. Nakiboğlu, C., & Karakoç, Ö. (2016). Prospective chemistry teachers’ understanding of models and modeling in chemistry and their implications for teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00136A
  29. Pejaner, M., & Mistades, V. N. (2020). Culturally relevant science teaching practices among indigenous peoples in Cotabato. Science Education International, 31(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i2.8
  30. PMC. (2021). Cognitive returns to having better-educated teachers: Evidence from the China Education Panel Survey. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8706271/
  31. Riskiani Yustika Rahayu, R., & Sutrisno, H. (2019). The analysis of analogy use in chemistry teaching. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1233.
  32. Saavedra, J., & Clarke, M. (2020). What PISA for development results tell us about education access and learning levels in developing countries. Education for Global Development.
  33. Safaee, M., Eshraghi Samani, R., Talebzadeh, H., & Moeini Sam, M. S. (2024). Evaluation and comparison of the results of the Alvarado scoring system with acute inflammatory response score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis based on the pathological evidence. Nickan Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.34172/ipp.2024.40606
  34. Sibomana, A., Karegeya, C., & Sentongo, J. (2021). Effect of cooperative learning on chemistry students’ achievement in Rwandan day-upper secondary schools. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(4), 2079–2088. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.4.2079
  35. Siraj, I., Melhuish, E., Howard, S. J., Neilsen-Hewett, C., Kingston, D., De Rosnay, M., ... & Luu, B. (2023). Improving quality of teaching and child development: A randomised controlled trial of the leadership for learning intervention in preschools. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1092284.
  36. Smirnov, E. (2022). Components of teacher’s readiness to manage student’s complex systems and knowledge development. Psychology and Behavioral Science International Journal. https://doi.org/10.19080/PBSIJ.2022.19.556012
  37. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2021). Five strategies for optimizing instructional materials: Instructor- and learner-managed cognitive load. Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7940870/
  38. Tarraya, H. (2023). Teachers’ workload policy: Its impact on Philippine public school teachers. Puissant, 4. https://puissant.stepacademic.net/puissant/article/view/246
  39. Tawafak, M., & Shakir, M. (2021). Aligning and assessing teaching approaches with SOLO taxonomy in a computer programming course. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.20211001.oa5
  40. Trif-Boia, A. E. (2022). Instructional design in education. IJAEDU-International E-Journal of Advances in Education, 8(24), 219–224. http://ijaedu.ocerintjournals.org/
  41. Tomperi, P. (2016). The three-factor model: A study of common features in students’ attitudes towards studying and learning science and mathematics in the three countries of the North Calotte region. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 8(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.8.1.1369
  42. Van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., & Walma van der Molen, J. H. (2022). Primary teachers’ attitudes towards using new technology and stimulating higher-order thinking in students: A profile analysis. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9651889/
  43. Williams, M. (2023). John Dewey in the 21st century. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education.
  44. Zhang, L., Wang, L., & Treagust, D. (2021). Discipline-specific cognitive factors that influence grade 9 students’ performance in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00352B
  45. Zydziunaite, V., Kaminskiene, L., & Jurgile, V. (2021). Teachers’ abstracted conceptualizations of their way in experiencing the leadership in the classroom: Transferring knowledge, expanding learning capacity, and creating knowledge. Education Sciences, 11(12), 782. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120782

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic