Guided Inquiry-Based Biology Learning Tools To Improve Students' Creative Thinking

Ability

Abstract
The ability to think creatively is a very important aspect to be developed in students. This
ability needs to be used as a foothold in curriculum development by promoting contextual
learning. For this reason, teachers need to seriously design and create learning that is
creative in nature. Creative thinking skills can be developed through learning activities.
This study aims to develop effective guided inquiry based learning tools to improve
students' creative thinking skills. The subjects of this study consisted of 60 class X students
in one of the West Lombok Senior High Schools, NTB. The research method used is
development research referring to the 4D model. [Perlu ditambahkan metode penelitiannya,
bahwa pada tahap develop dilakukan ujicoba terbatas menggunakan 2 kelas.] This study
used two classes, namely the experimental class and the control class. The experimental
class was taught using guided inquiry-based learning tools, while the control class was
taught using conventional learning tools. Based on the research results, it was found that the
creative thinking ability of the experimental class increased with high criteria, while the
control class gained an increase with moderate criteria. The indicator of creative thinking
skills "fluency" obtained the highest average score increase compared to other indicators
such as "flexibility", "elaboration" and "originality". The "originality" indicator obtained
the lowest average score of improvement compared to other indicators. In conclusion,
guided inquiry based learning tools developed are effective to improve students' creative
thinking skills, especially on the "fluency" indicator.

Keywords: Biology Learning Tools, Guided Inquiry, Creative Thinking Ability

INTRODUCTION
Education in Indonesia is dynamically changing continuously to improve the quality
of education. One of the efforts that has been made is the formation of attitudes, knowledge
and skills in an integrated manner and it is hoped that students will have the competence to
face the challenges of the 21st century in society. Sudarisman [1] states that the 21st
century is characterized by a relationship in the world of science as a whole and the
integration of technology in education, helping to accelerate the synergy of knowledge
across scientific fields, one of which is biology.
Based on the results of a preliminary study conducted by researchers at one of the
SMAN [Perhatikan konsistensi dalam menulis istilah, misal: SMA ataukah senior high
school] West Lombok, NTB, Indonesia, it is known that the biology learning process is still
teacher-centered where teacher activity is more than students, so that it has an impact on
student learning outcomes after learning. The results of interviews conducted by
researchers with biology subject teachers found that the learning tools in the lesson plan
used the 2013 curriculum format but had not developed teaching materials that could
facilitate students to develop higher-order thinking skills. Evaluation of learning in class X,
out of 121 students, only 56 students achieved the Minimum Completeness Criteria for
biology subjects that have been determined by the school, namely 75. In giving evaluations
conducted by teachers to stimulate students' creative thinking abilities, it has not been
applied as long as learning. As a result, a number of students lack the ability to think
creatively to generate many ideas or ideas, because the teacher's role is lacking in training
creative thinking skills, both in the learning process and in question exercises. The teacher's
lack of effort in developing the ability of students to think, meaning that students do not
only get patterned concept information, but how thinking patterns are left to each student,
convergent thinking or divergent thinking, so that many ideas or ideas will arise in learners
themselves [2]. Second, the lack of the ability of students to suggest various solutions or
approaches to problems because the teacher's role in learning situations does not create a
learning process in finding problem solutions.
Several research results indicate that the implementation of the guided inquiry
model makes a significant contribution to improving students' abilities in science learning.
For example, it was stated by Sadeh & Zion [3] that the implementation of guided inquiry
caused students to be more involved in research projects, interaction between students was
more intense, and students' understanding of science was deeper than students who applied
guided inquiry. Rahmat & Chanunan's research results [4] state that the application of
guided inquiry learning encourages students to learn independently and be actively
involved in learning activities. The results of other studies also show that the
implementation of guided inquiry is effective in developing cognitive, procedural skills,
and more critical and scientific thinking [5]. This study aims to develop effective guided
inquiry-based teaching materials to improve students' creative thinking skills.

METHOD
This research is included in the type of development research. Development
research is a research method used to produce certain products and test the effectiveness of
these products [6]. The development model in this research is adapted to the development
of the 4-D model by Thiagarajan, Semmel and Semmel [7]. This model consists of 4
development stages, namely: Define, Design, Develop, Disseminate. The development of
learning tools using the 4-D model is a more continuous and simple model. In this
development research, researchers used the 4-D model to the Development stage which
consisted of 3 development stages. The research trial design used in Trial II was the One
Group Pretest-Postest design to determine the increase in the degree of achievement of the
goals of the Biology learning device based on the guided inquiry model, namely the
increase in creative thinking skills and student learning outcomes. The One Group Pretest-
Postest design can be described as in Table 1
Tabel 1. Research design

School Pretest Treatment Postest

1 O1 X O2
O3 Y O4

This research was conducted at a high school (SMA) on the island of Lombok, NTB,
Indonesia. The subjects of this study were the experimental class and the control class, each
of which amounted to 32 students, so that the peak was 64 students. The critical thinking
skills test instrument consists of 15 multiple essay questions according to the indicators
according to Munandar [8], namely fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. The
improvement of students' creative thinking skills was analyzed using a normalized gain
score [9]. The scoring technique for creative thinking skills is given a score of 0-4, giving a
score of 0 for those who do not answer or give wrong answers, 1 for mentioning / writing
one idea, suggestion, or alternative answer, 2 for mentioning / writing several ideas,
suggestions or alternative answers that are not much different, 3 to mention / write three
different ideas, suggestions or alternative answers 4 to mention / write five or more
different ideas, suggestions or alternative answers [10][Tekhnik penilaian baru dijelaskan
skor 1-4, belum dijelaskan cara memperoleh data dalam bentuk persentase sehingga
diperolwh data pada Tabel 2.]
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings
Data on creative thinking skills were collected using an instrument in the form of an
essay test. Based on the results of the analysis that has been carried out, the overall value of
creative thinking of students is shown in Table 2
Table 2: N-Gain Test Results for Creative Thinking Ability

N-Gain
Average N-Gain
Group average (%)
criteria
Pre-Test Post-test
Experimental 24,78 75,47 71 High
Control 26,59 66,75 65 Medium

Based on Table 2, the experimental class obtained an average value of improvement

with high criteria, while the control class obtained an average value of improvement with
moderate criteria. These results indicate that the increase in the average score of students'
creative thinking skills in the experimental class is higher than that of the control class
students.
Indicators of creative thinking skills in this study use 4 indicators consisting of
flexibility, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The results of the creative thinking skills
analysis of indicators are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. N-Gain results per indicator of creative thinking skills

Based on Figure 1. It shows that the fluency indicator gets a higher value than the
flexibility, originality, elaboration indicators. Originality indicator gets lower value than
other indicators. This shows that the students' ability on the originality indicator is low.
[Gambar tidak terlihat (Figure 1). Dicek lagi penulisan tanda baca, misal penulisan tanda
titik (.) di akhir kalimat. Cara penulisan judul tabel juga perlu dicek, sesuai template. Pada
bagian kesimpulan/penutup boleh ditambahkan saran/rekomendasi.]
Discussion
The application of integrated biology teaching materials with guided inquiry learning
models in the learning process in the experimental class shows an increase in the ability to think
creatively with a high category. The control class applies learning with the conventional model to
get an increase in the low category. This is in line with the research results of Ramdani, et al., [11]
showing that the use of inquiry-based science teaching materials can be considered as an effective
way to improve students' thinking skills compared to conventional teaching materials combined
with conventional learning models.
Furthermore, Ramdani & Artayasa [12] stated that the experimental class who was taught
using the inquiry model obtained a higher mean score of creative thinking skills than the average
score of the control class. In addition, Maknun [13] stated that the experimental class obtained a
higher average score than the control class. The research instrument was a critical thinking skill
test with an average increase of 0.71 in the high category for the experimental class and 0.28 in the
low category for the control class. The results showed that the application of the guided inquiry
learning model had the ability to significantly improve critical thinking skills in school students
compared to conventional learning. this is because the guided inquiry model provides the
opportunity for students to independently build concepts through problem presentation, hypothesis
formulation, data collection, analysis, and conclusions.
Students' different creative thinking skills require learning conditions that involve learning
experiences, so that the potential for creative thinking can develop [14]. Creative thinking can be
incorporated into learning by the teacher, so that the teacher must be able to carry out the mandate
to develop students' creative thinking skills. This is in accordance with the opinion of Wheeler, et
al. [15] which states that the teacher's job is to provide the best conditions for students to acquire
relevant thinking skills. Creative thinking skills are considered very important for students [16].
Learning using a guided inquiry model, an educator provides encouragement to students to
find their own answers to problems faced either through experiments or recording information by
utilizing environmental sources. Through guided inquiry, students get direct experience in
constructing the knowledge they already have. In inquiry learning, students are encouraged to be
actively involved in finding as much information as possible through experiments so that learning
becomes meaningful, the teacher only provides instructions as needed. Students who are actively
involved in learning can show the creativity of students to continue learning to find new things.
This is marked by freedom of thought and imagination without the ties of conventional thinking
rules. The ability to think creatively is a process of three dimensions of intellectual abilities and its
elements that operate through divergent thinking with the materials that form images, symbols,
language, behavior, or a combination thereof [17]. Creative thinking is divergent thinking which
emphasizes the search for answers through freedom of thought that is scattered in all directions to
find various alternative answers to a problem [18].
The inquiry learning model emphasizes the activities of students maximally to seek and
find with teacher guidance [17]. Students are placed as learning subjects, in the learning process
students do not only act as recipients of the lesson through verbal teacher explanations, but they
play a role in finding their own essence of the subject matter itself by utilizing the environment as
a learning resource [18]. This will help students remember long-term knowledge which of course
will also affect student learning outcomes.
The teaching and learning process with conventional learning models emphasizes the
teacher's function as information givers. Students only passively listen to the teacher's explanation
without being actively involved in learning [19]. In addition, conventional learning only
emphasizes cognitive and the knowledge obtained by students is memorizing. So that knowledge
tends not to last long. Learning is only about transferring knowledge to students so that students do
not gain meaningful learning experiences. The conventional learning model is more dominated by
the role of the teacher than the role of students. Students become passive and do not construct their
own knowledge [20]. Students do not seek solutions to a problem by making direct observations
so that students will feel bored and not interested. Students do not find their own answers to the
problems they face, so they do not raise and develop students' interest in learning [21].
The indicator of creative thinking ability "fluency" obtained the highest average
score increase compared to other indicators such as "flexibility", "elaboration" and
"originality". The "originality" indicator received the lowest average score increase
compared to other indicators. This is in line with the research of Arisanti, et al. [22] which
shows an increase in better creative thinking skills in the experimental class, but the
increase is not significant. In the first indicator, student fluency has been able to provide
many answers, but the answers given are less diverse or not flexible. The third indicator of
authenticity and control of students' abilities is still very low because students do not have
the confidence and courage to have different answers from their peers. Furthermore, Antika
& Nawawi [23] stated that the per-indicator analysis showed an increase (N-gain) of the
experimental class on the high category Fluence indicator, the Flexibility and Originality
indicators were medium criteria, and the Elaboration indicator had low criteria. These
results are supported by student learning activities in the experimental class which is higher
than the control class, besides that the student response questionnaire shows positive results
on the application of the learning model.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, guided inquiry based learning tools developed are effective to
improve students' creative thinking skills, especially on the "fluency" indicator. The
indicator of the creative thinking skills "fluency" obtained the highest average score
increase compared to other indicators such as "flexibility", "elaboration" and "originality".
The "originality" indicator obtained the lowest average score improvement compared to
other indicators.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank the principal, teachers, education staff who have helped and
facilitated this research, so that this research can be carried out well.

REFERENCES [Tata tulis daftar pustaka perlu diperbaiki, terutama penulisan nama]
[1] Sudarisman, Suciati. "Memahami hakikat dan karakteristik pembelajaran biologi
dalam upaya menjawab tantangan abad 21 serta optimalisasi implementasi kurikulum
2013." Florea: Jurnal Biologi dan Pembelajarannya 2.1 (2015)
[2] Purwaningrum, Jayanti Putri. "Mengembangkan kemampuan berpikir kreatif
matematis melalui discovery learning berbasis scientific approach." Refleksi
Edukatika: Jurnal Ilmiah Kependidikan 6.2 (2016).
[3] Sadeh, Irit, and Michal Zion. "Which type of inquiry project do high school biology
students prefer: Open or guided?." Research in Science Education 42.5 (2012): 831-
848.
[4] Rahmat, Irwandi, and Skonchai Chanunan. "Open Inquiry in Facilitating
Metacognitive Skills on High School Biology Learning: An Inquiry on Low and High
Academic Ability." International Journal of Instruction 11.4 (2018): 593-606
[5] Zion, Michal, and Ruthy Mendelovici. "Moving from structured to open inquiry:
Challenges and limits." Science Education International 23.4 (2012): 383-399
[6] Van den Akker, Jan, et al., eds. Educational design research. Routledge, 2006.
[7] Thiagarajan, Sivasailam, Dorothy S. Semmel, and Melvyn I. Semmel. "Instructional
development for training teachers of exceptional children." (1974).
[8] Munandar, Utami. "Kreatifitas Pengembangan Anak Berbakat." Jakarta: Rineka
Cipta (2009).
[9] Hake, Richard R. "Analyzing change/gain scores." Unpublished.[online] URL:
http://www. physics. indiana. edu/~ sdi/AnalyzingChange-Gain. pdf (1999).
[10] Zubaidah, Siti, et al. "Improving creative thinking skills of students through
differentiated science inquiry integrated with mind map." Journal of Turkish Science
Education 14.4 (2017): 77-91.
[11] Ramdani, Agus, et al. "Increasing Students’ Metacognition Awareness: Learning
Studies Using Science Teaching Materials Based on SETS Integrated Inquiry."
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology 29.5 (2020): 6708- 6721
[12] Ramdani, Agus, and I. Putu Artayasa. "Keterampilan Berpikir Kreatif Mahasiswa
dalam Pembelajaran IPA Menggunakan Model Inkuiri Terbuka." Jurnal Pendidikan
Sains Indonesia (Indonesian Journal of Science Education) 8.1 (2020): 1-9.
[13] Maknun, Johar. "Implementation of Guided Inquiry Learning Model to Improve
Understanding Physics Concepts and Critical Thinking Skill of Vocational High
School Students." International Education Studies 13.6 (2020): 117-130.
[14] Yusnaeni, Corebima, and Susilo AD. "H., & Zubaidah, S.(2017). Creative thinking of
low academic student undergoing search solve create and share learning integrated
with metacognitive strategy." International Journal of Instruction 10.2 (2017): 245-
 262.
[15] Wheeler, Steve, Sue J. Waite, and Carolyn Bromfield. "Promoting creative thinking
through the use of ICT." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18.3 (2002): 367-
378.
[16] Baker, Matt, Rick Rudd, and Carol Pomeroy. "Relationships between critical and
creative thinking." Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research 51.1 (2001):
173-188.
[17] Bakır, Selda, and Esra Öztekin. "Creative thinking levels of preservice science
teachers in terms of different variables." Journal of Baltic Science Education 13.2
(2014): 231.
[18] Abas, R. "Implementation of inquiry-based learning to improve understanding the
concept of electric dynamic and creative thinking skills (An empirical study in class
IX Junior High School Students State 4 Kendari)." International Journal of Science
and Research 5.3 (2016): 471-479.
[19] Asadi, Kavosh. "Strengths, weaknesses, and combinations of model-based and model-
free reinforcement learning." Department of Computing Science University of Alberta
(2015).
[20] Lam, Debbie. "Problem-based learning: An integration of theory and field." Journal
of Social Work Education 40.3 (2004): 371-389.
[21] Karagiannakis, G. N., Baccaglini-Frank, A. E., & Roussos, P. (2016). Detecting
strengths and weaknesses in learning mathematics through a model classifying
mathematical skills. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 21(2), 115-141.
[22] Arisanti, Wa Ode Lidya, Wahyu Sopandi, and Ari Widodo. "Analisis Penguasaan
Konsep dan Keterampilan Berpikir Kreatif Siswa SD Melalui Project Based
Learning." EduHumaniora| Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Kampus Cibiru 8.1 (2016): 82-
95.
[23] Antika, Rindi Novitri, and Sulton Nawawi. "Pengaruh model project based learning
pada mata kuliah seminar terhadap keterampilan berpikir kreatif mahasiswa." Jurnal
pendidikan biologi Indonesia 3.1 (2017): 72-79.