SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde Yeni Yaklaşımlar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

Fostering academic intrinsic motivation through PDEODE-based chemistry laboratory activities

TaTGA destekli kimya laboratuvarı etkinlikleri yoluyla akademik içsel motivasyonun güçlendirilmesi

Nehir Özbulut0000-0002-9651-5118
Melis Arzu Uyulgan(Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi)0000-0002-2815-2642
Pages
33–48
Publication Date
2025-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicated that PDEODE activities significantly enhance students' academic intrinsic motivation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the impact of the PDEODE (Predict-Discuss-Explain-Observe-Discuss-Explain) method on academic intrinsic motivation in science education.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research was conducted with 38 pre-service science teachers at a public university in Türkiye.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicated that PDEODE activities significantly enhance students' academic intrinsic motivation.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Akademik içsel motivasyon · kimya laboratuvar uygulamaları · PDEODE yöntemi

Abstract

This study examines the impact of the PDEODE (Predict-Discuss-Explain-Observe-Discuss-Explain) method on academic intrinsic motivation in science education. The PDEODE method fosters a meaningful and engaging learning environment through enhancing students' interactions with science. The research was conducted with 38 pre-service science teachers at a public university in Türkiye. Over six weeks, students participated in chemistry laboratory activities based on the PDEODE method, and their motivation levels were assessed before and after implementation using the Academic Intrinsic Motivation Scale (AIM). The findings indicated that PDEODE activities significantly enhance students' academic intrinsic motivation. Statistically significant improvements were detected in the motivational dimensions of need for achievement, perceived expertise, and social acceptance. Additionally, laboratory activities facilitated the improvement of students’ experimental skills, reinforced their self-confidence, and encouraged a more positive attitude toward failure. The discussion stages were found to encourage students to express their thoughts more confidently, thereby strengthening their motivation. In conclusion, the PDEODE method emerges as an effective instructional model that not only enhances students’ scientific thinking skills but also increases their motivation. This study highlights PDEODE as an innovative method to science education and offers insights into developing teaching strategies that enhance students' engagement with scientific concepts.

Özet

Bu çalışma, TaTGA (Tahmin Et-Tartış-Açıkla-Gözlemle-Tartış-Açıkla) yönteminin fen eğitiminde akademik içsel motivasyon üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. TaTGA yöntemi, öğrencilerin fen bilimleriyle etkileşimini artırarak anlamlı ve etkili bir öğrenme ortamı oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma, Türkiye'deki bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 38 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Altı hafta süresince öğrenciler, TaTGA yöntemine dayalı kimya laboratuvar etkinliklerine katılmış ve motivasyon seviyeleri uygulama öncesinde ve sonrasında Akademik İçsel Motivasyon Ölçeği (AİM) kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, TaTGA etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin akademik içsel motivasyonunu önemli ölçüde artırdığını göstermektedir. Özellikle başarı ihtiyacı, uzmanlık algısı ve sosyal kabul boyutlarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı gelişmeler tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, laboratuvar etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin deneysel becerilerini geliştirdiği, öz güvenlerini pekiştirdiği ve başarısızlığa karşı daha olumlu bir tutum geliştirmelerini teşvik ettiği belirlenmiştir. Tartışma aşamalarının, öğrencilerin düşüncelerini daha özgüvenli bir şekilde ifade etmelerini sağladığı ve böylece motivasyonlarını güçlendirdiği tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, TaTGA yöntemi, öğrencilerin bilimsel düşünme becerilerini geliştiren ve motivasyonlarını artıran etkili bir öğretim modeli olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışma, TaTGA yöntemini fen eğitiminde yenilikçi bir yöntem olarak vurgulamakta ve öğrencilerin bilimsel kavramlarla etkileşimini güçlendiren yenilikçi öğretim stratejilerinin geliştirilmesine yönelik önemli çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özbulut, N., Uyulgan, M. A. (2025). Fostering academic intrinsic motivation through PDEODE-based chemistry laboratory activities. Eğitimde Yeni Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.70325/eyyad.1652272

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035-1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21036
  2. Abrahams, I., Reiss, M. J., & Sharpe, R. M. (2013). The assessment of practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 209-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.858496
  3. Adebayo, F., & Olufunke, B. T. (2015). Generative and predict-observe-explain instructional strategies: Towards enhancing basic science practical skills of lower primary school pupils. International Journal of Elementary Education, 4(4), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeedu.20150404.12
  4. Akkılık, E. (2016). The predict-observe-explain instruction coupled with reflective journal writing for teaching electricity and magnetism: A quasi-experimental study with grade 10 students [Unpublished master's thesis]. Boğaziçi University, Institute of Science, İstanbul.
  5. Astiti, D. T., Ibrahim, M., & Hariyono, E. (2020). Application of POE (Predict-Observe-Explain) Learning Strategies to Reduce Students’ Misconceptions in Science Subjects in Elementary School. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 5(7), 437– 445. https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt20jul478
  6. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347-370. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20186
  7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2013). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (18. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  8. Chimmalee, B., & Anupan, A. (2024). The influence of an interactive learning model based on the PDEODE strategy with cloud technology on students’ self-regulation in mathematics learning. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 14(7), 936-944. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.7.2120
  9. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.
  10. Çırakoğlu, N., Toksoy, S. E., & Reisoğlu, İ. (2022). Designing, developing, and evaluating an interactive e-book based on the predict-observe-explain (POE) method. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 6(2), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-022-00071-3
  11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
  12. Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students' motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68, 586-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002
  13. Dipalaya, T., & Corebima, A. D. (2016). The effect of PDEODE (predict-discuss-explain-observe-discuss-explain) learning strategy in the different academic abilities on students’ critical thinking skills in senior high school. European Journal of Education Studies, 2(5), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.154455
  14. Dipalaya, T., Susilo, H., & Corebima, A. (2016). Pengaruh strategi pembelajaran PDEODE (predict-discuss-explain-observe-discuss-explain) pada kemampuan akademik berbeda terhadap keterampilan komunikasi siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan, 1(9), 1713-1720. http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/jp.v1i9.6723
  15. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016
  16. Gernale, J., Duad, D., & Arañes, F. (2015). The effects of predict-observe-explain (POE) approach on the students’ achievement and attitudes towards science. The Normal Lights, 9(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.56278/tnl.v9i2.122
  17. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
  18. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
  19. Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105-107. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90003A
  20. Karaduman, N., & Uyulgan, M. A. (2021, May 28-29). Evaluation of the relationship between students' online learning motivation and academic intrinsic motivation in distance education [Paper presentation]. The 2nd International Symposium on Science, Education, Art, and Technology, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
  21. Kearney, M., & Treagust, D. (2001). Constructivism as a referent in the design and development of a computer program which uses interactive digital video to enhance learning in physics. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 64-79. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1773
  22. Kolari, S., & Savander-Ranne, C. (2004). Visualization promotes apprehension and comprehension. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 484–493. https://www.ijee.ie/articles/Vol20-3/IJEE1510.pdf
  23. Kolari, S., Savander-Ranne, C., & Tiili, J. (2005). Enhancing engineering students’ confidence using interactive teaching methods - Part 2: Post-test results for the force concept inventory showing enhanced confidence. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 4(1), 15-20. http://www.wiete.com.au/journals/WTE&TE/Pages/Vol.4,%20No.1%20(2005)/03-Kolari2.pdf
  24. Lathifa, U. (2018). Correcting students’ misconception in acid and base concept using PDEODE instruction strategy. Unnes Science Education Journal, 7(2), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.15294/usej.v7i2.23202
  25. Lord, T. R. (2001). 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 63(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2001)063[0030:RFUCLI]2.0.CO;2
  26. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  27. Nalkıran, T., & Karamustafaoğlu, S. (2020). 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. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1265082
  28. Napier, J. D., & Riley, J. P. (1985). Relationship between affective determinants and achievement in science for seventeen-year-olds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(4), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220407
  29. Rose, S., Spinks, N., & Canhoto, A. I. (2015). Management research: Applying the principles. Routledge.
  30. Samsudin, A., Afif, N. F., Nugraha, M. G., Suhandi, A., Fratiwi, N. J., Aminudin, A. H.,. & Costu, B. (2021). Reconstructing students' misconceptions on work and energy through the PDEODE*E tasks with Think-Pair-Share. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(1), 118-144. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.56
  31. Sreerekha, S., Arun, R. R., & Swapna, S. (2016). Effect of predict-observe-explain strategy on achievement in chemistry of secondary school students. International Journal of Education & Teaching Analytics, 1(1), 1–5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322505408
  32. Sobral, D. T. (2009). Padrão de motivação e desfechos de progresso acadêmico: Estudo longitudinal com estudantes de medicina. ETD: Educação Temática Digital, 10, 228–248. https://doi.org/10.20396/etd.v10in.esp.943
  33. Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C., & Shieh, S. H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students' motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323737
  34. Uyulgan, M. A. and Akkuzu, N. (2014). An overview of student teachers’ academic intrinsic motivation, Educational Sciences: Theory ve Practice, 14(1), 24-32. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.2013
  35. Uyulgan, M. A., & Akkuzu, N. (2018). Educational short videos to utilize in the biochemistry laboratory: Opinions of university students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(3), 496-523. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.496
  36. Wang, F., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). The effects of a web-based learning environment on student motivation in science education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0638-2
  37. Widyanigrum, D., Bintari, S. H., & Rahayuningsih, M. (2018). Scientific attitudes, activities and learning outcomes of students in material of fungi using Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) model based on bioedutainment. Journal of Biology Education, 7(3), 327–331. https://doi.org/10.15294/jbe.v7i3.25815
  38. Widyastuti, F., Helsy, I., Farida, I., & Irwansyah, F. (2019). Implementation of PDEODE (Predict, Discuss, Explain, Observe, Discuss, Explain) supported by PhET simulation on solubility equilibrium material. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1155(1), 012071. http://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1155/1/012071
  39. Wulandari, T., Amin, M., Zubaidah, S., & IAM, M. (2017). Students' critical thinking improvement through "PDEODE" and "STAD" combination in the nutrition and health lecture. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 6(2), 110–117. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v6i2.7589
  40. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (10. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  41. Yıldırım, N., & Maşeroğlu, P. (2016). Predict-Observe-Explain-Based activities in the association of chemistry with the daily life and student views. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 7(1), 117–145. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.47585
  42. Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative research methods, 5(14), 359–386.
  43. Samsudin, A., Afif, N. F., Nugraha, M. G., Suhandi, A., Fratiwi, N. J., Aminudin, A. H.,. & Costu, B. (2021). Reconstructing students' misconceptions on work and energy through the PDEODE*E tasks with Think-Pair-Share. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(1), 118-144. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.56
  44. Sobral, D. T. (2009). Padrão de motivação e desfechos de progresso acadêmico: Estudo longitudinal com estudantes de medicina. ETD: Educação Temática Digital, 10, 228–248. https://doi.org/10.20396/etd.v10in.esp.943