Fostering academic intrinsic motivation through PDEODE-based chemistry laboratory activities

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Academic intrinsic motivation
• chemistry laboratory activities
• PDEODE method
• science education
• university students

Etik Beyan

Ethical Statement This study is based on the master's thesis entitled Evaluation of Academic Achievement Performance and Academic Intrinsic Motivation of University Students Through PDEODE Tasks, submitted under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Melis Arzu Uyulgan on January 31, 2023. Ethics Committee Approval 30/03/2021 dated and numbered E-87347630-640.99-36366 was given by Dokuz Eylül University Rectorate Legal Consultancy.

TaTGA destekli kimya laboratuvarı etkinlikleri yoluyla akademik içsel motivasyonun güçlendirilmesi

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Akademik içsel motivasyon
• kimya laboratuvar uygulamaları
• PDEODE yöntemi
• fen eğitimi
• üniversite öğrencileri.

Kaynakça

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.