Implementation of PhET-Supported Inquiry Learning to Support Elementary School Students' Learning Motivation in Simple Electric Circuits
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30605/cjpe.9.4.2026.9644Keywords:
Learning Motivation, Phet Simulation, Simple Electric Circuits, Classroom Action ResearchAbstract
This study is urgent because there is a need to enhance elementary students’ learning motivation in understanding simple electric circuits through interactive PhET-supported inquiry learning. This study aimed to describe the implementation of PhET-supported inquiry learning, changes in student activity and adaptation across cycles, and changes in learning motivation while learning about simple electric circuits. The study employed a two-cycle Classroom Action Research design based on the Kemmis and McTaggart model and involved 19 fifth-grade students at a private Islamic elementary school in Cirebon Regency, Indonesia. Data were collected through teacher and student activity observations, a 20-item learning motivation questionnaire, field notes, collaborative reflection, and documentation. In Cycle I, student activity reached 80%, while the mean learning motivation score was 71.84, with 47.37% of students reaching at least the high-motivation category. Reflection on Cycle I indicated that some students were still adapting to the simulation and required technical guidance and support during the inquiry process. Cycle II therefore included more systematic PhET instructions, clearer worksheet procedures, adjusted time allocation for experimentation and discussion, and more targeted teacher support. Following these refinements, student activity reached 100%, the mean motivation score increased to 86.18, and all students (100%) were classified in the high or very high motivation categories. All five motivation indicators also showed higher values in Cycle II. These findings suggest that PhET-supported inquiry learning can support student engagement and learning motivation when the simulation is integrated with structured activities, scaffolding, reflection-driven refinements, and sufficient opportunities for adaptation. The findings are not interpreted as evidence of an isolated causal effect of PhET because the study did not include a control group or a quantitative motivation measure before Cycle I.
References
Aditomo, A., & Klieme, E. (2020). Forms of inquiry-based science instruction and their relations with learning outcomes: Evidence from high and low-performing education systems. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1716093
Almasri, F. (2022). Simulations to teach science subjects: Connections among students’ engagement, self-confidence, satisfaction, and learning styles. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 7161–7181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10940-w
Azzahra, S., & Kaniadewi, N. (2025). Building vocabulary in primary school students using contextual teaching learning model. Celebes Journal of Primary Education, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.30605/cjpe.8.2.2025.6459
Banda, H. J., & Nzabahimana, J. (2021). Effect of integrating physics education technology simulations on students’ conceptual understanding in physics: A review of literature. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2), 023108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023108
Banda, H. J., & Nzabahimana, J. (2023). The impact of Physics Education Technology (PhET) interactive simulation-based learning on motivation and academic achievement among Malawian physics students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(1), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10010-3
Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999
Cairns, D. (2019). Exploring the relations of inquiry-based teaching to science achievement and dispositions in 54 countries. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9639-x
Cao, X., & Hsu, Y. (2023). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of virtual experiments on students’ learning effectiveness. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), 7433–7454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2072898
Chang, C.-J., Liu, C.-C., Wen, C.-T., Tseng, L.-W., Chang, H.-Y., Chang, M.-H., Chiang, S.-H. F., Hwang, F.-K., & Yang, C.-W. (2020). The impact of light-weight inquiry with computer simulations on science learning in classrooms. Computers & Education, 146, 103770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103770
Cheng, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2019). A case study of immersive virtual field trips in an elementary classroom: Students’ learning experience and teacher-student interaction behaviors. Computers & Education, 140, 103600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103600
Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T., & Fischer, F. (2020). Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544
Daza, S. L. C., & Castillo-Daza, C. A. (2026). Impact of technological pedagogical innovations on physics education: An umbrella review. Educational Research Review, 52, 100807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100807
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An experiential learning theoretical analysis. Computers & Education, 135, 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.001
Ferreira, D. M., Sentanin, F. C., Parra, K. N., Bonini, V. M. N., de Castro, M., & Kasseboehmer, A. C. (2022). Implementation of inquiry-based science in the classroom and its repercussion on the motivation to learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(2), 578–591. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00287
Fukuda, M., Hajian, S., Jain, M., Liu, A. L., Obaid, T., Nesbit, J. C., & Winne, P. H. (2022). Scientific inquiry learning with a simulation: Providing within-task guidance tailored to learners’ understanding and inquiry skill. International Journal of Science Education, 44(6), 1021–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2062799
Heppt, B., Henschel, S., Hardy, I., & Gabler, K. (2023). Instructional support in inquiry-based elementary school science classes: How does it relate to students’ science content knowledge and academic language proficiency? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38(4), 1377–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00653-6
Isra, I., Ismail, I., & Rahmat, R. (2025). The Implementation of the STAD Learning Model Assisted by Live Worksheets to Improve the Critical Thinking Skills of Third-Grade Students at SD 182 Angin-Angin. Celebes Journal of Primary Education, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.30605/cjpe.8.2.2025.5673
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Deakin University Press.
Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Walker, A. E. (2018). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for STEM education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1
Koç, A., & Kanadlı, S. (2025). Effect of interactive learning environments on learning outcomes in science education: A network meta-analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 34(4), 681–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-025-10202-7
Krüger, J. T., Höffler, T. N., Wahl, M., Knickmeier, K., & Parchmann, I. (2022). Two comparative studies of computer simulations and experiments as learning tools in school and out-of-school education. Instructional Science, 50(2), 169–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09566-1
Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L., Firestone, J., & Etopio, E. (2018). A meta-analysis with examination of moderators of student cognition, affect, and learning outcomes while using serious educational games, serious games, and simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.040
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Makamu, G., & Ramnarain, U. (2022). Physical Sciences teachers’ enactment of simulations in 5E inquiry-based science teaching. Education Sciences, 12(12), 864. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120864
Meulenbroeks, R., van Rijn, R., & Reijerkerk, M. (2024). Fostering secondary school science students’ intrinsic motivation by inquiry-based learning. Research in Science Education, 54, 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10139-0
Mutlu, A. (2020). Evaluation of students’ scientific process skills through reflective worksheets in the inquiry-based learning environments. Reflective Practice, 21(2), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1736999
Ningrum, S. A., Rohman, I., Gumilar, G. G., Mudzakir, A., Hana, M. N., & Nais, M. K. (2026). Effectiveness of PhET simulations on learning outcomes in science and chemistry education: A systematic review. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 10(7), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti10070069
Ogegbo, A. A., & Ramnarain, U. (2022). Teaching and learning physics using interactive simulation: A guided inquiry practice. South African Journal of Education, 42(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v42n1a1997
Rayan, B., Daher, W., Diab, H., & Issa, N. (2023). Integrating PhET simulations into elementary science education: A qualitative analysis. Education Sciences, 13(9), 884. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090884
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Solé-Llussà, A., Aguilar, D., & Ibáñez, M. (2022). Video-worked examples to support the development of elementary students’ science process skills: A case study in an inquiry activity on electrical circuits. Research in Science & Technological Education, 40(2), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1786361
Sun, Y., Yan, Z., & Wu, B. (2022). How differently designed guidance influences simulation-based inquiry learning in science education: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(4), 960–976. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12667
Toma, R. B. (2022). Confirmation and structured inquiry teaching: Does it improve students’ achievement motivations in school science? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 22, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-022-00197-3
Uno, H. B. (2023). Motivation Theory and Its Measurement: Analysis in the Field of Education. Bumi Aksara.
Wen, C.-T., Liu, C.-C., Chang, H.-Y., Chang, C.-J., Chang, M.-H., Chiang, S.-H. F., Yang, C.-W., & Hwang, F.-K. (2020). Students’ guided inquiry with simulation and its relation to school science achievement and scientific literacy. Computers & Education, 149, 103830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103830
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nanda Ikrimah Margaret, Susilawati Susilawati, Dewi Yulianawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
License and Copyright Agreement
Authors who publish with CJPE agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- 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 acknowledgement 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, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
