The Effectiveness of PhET-Assisted Inductive Thinking

Learning Model towards Students’ Critical Thinking Skill

and Curiosity Attitude
Wildan Navisa Barra1, a) and Supahar*2, b)
1
Teacher Professional Education Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Widya Mandala Surabaya
Catholic University, Surabaya, Indonesia
2
Magister Mathematics Education Study Program, Faculty of Mathematics and Sciences, Yogyakarta State
University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
a)
wildanbarra.2017@student.uny.ac.id
b)
supahar@uny.ac.id*

Abstract. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning model towards
students' critical thinking skill and curiosity attitude. This study is a quasi-experimental research using a pretest-posttest
control group design. The research population is all students (160 students) in the first grade of mathematics and sciences
program of State Senior High School 1 (X-MIPA of SMA Negeri 1) Jetis in Bantul, Yogyakarta. We used cluster random
sampling technique in this study. For data collection we used test and questionnaire techniques using description
questions. Then, General Linear Model was used as data analysis technique. The results obtained from this study show
that the PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning model: (1) effectively improves students' critical thinking skill and
curiosity attitude simultaneously with great effect size; (2) effectively improves students' critical thinking skill with great
effect size; and (3) does not have great effect on students’ curiosity attitude. In addition, judging from the improvement
of critical thinking skills and students' curiosity attitudes, the inductive thinking learning model is more effective with a
large effect size.

Keywords: inductive thinking learning model, PhET, critical thinking skill, curiosity attitude

INTRODUCTION

The development of education affects economic growth. And, generally, economic growth in a country is
followed by the success of its citizens’ education. Moreover, education is crucial for a country as a means to
improve people’s welfare and economic growth [1]. Education can improve citizens’ life quality that has positive
effect on economic growth [2]. Government of Indonesia also attempts to improve its people life quality through
education. In hope, education will help them to improve their social position, obtain higher income, be happier and
have better physical health.
Education has an important role in ensuring future generation to be able to manage the challenges in 21st
century. Today, students have become active learners and are good at using digital technology, electronic devices,
and utilize internet accessibility as their learning tools [3]. Therefore, teachers must be able to respond to these
changes, meet the needs of students, establish social interactions with students, and use information and
communication technology in teaching—to successfully educate their students to be science-capable, able to use
technology, communicate effectively, think critically, and able to work together [4]. Students are equipped with a
variety of knowledge, skills, and educated to have good characters so they become highly competitive human
resources and can adapt to a complex and fast-changing environment.
 One of skills needed in 21st-century for student as successor of Indonesia nation is critical thinking. It is a skill
to have in depth and logical thinking process in which it needs a thorough analysis of all obtained information
(Parlan & Fernanda, 2021:1). Edward Glaser defines critical thinking skill as a person's response to see and solve
problems wisely by using reasoning and logical inquiry based on experience [5]. Atabaki Khestiaray and
Yamohamma (2015: 94) explain that critical thinking skill as a person’s skill in judging and reflecting a certain
condition influenced with a person’s intellectuality development. Moreover, critical thinking skill is a skill of
thinking by seeing from different perspectives based on rational analysis and logical investigation based on
knowledge, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation in decision making [6]. Critical thinking skill requires a
thorough analysis of existing information [7]. Therefore, critical thinking skills are thinking skills by reviewing
problems based on different perspectives, then conducting logical investigations and analyzing information
thoroughly so that a person can make decisions appropriately. Critical thinking skill consists of four aspects: 1)
providing basic explanations with indicators of asking questions and analyzing arguments; 2) establishing basic skill
with indicator of assessing the credibility of data sources; 3) making conclusion with indicator of deduction or
induction and; 4) providing advanced explanations with indicator of identifying assumptions or conjectures [8-10].
Critical thinking skills are crucial and needed by students in life with society, thus teachers must provide
teaching focusing on student interaction. But ironically, student’s critical thinking skill in Indonesia is still low [11,
12]. According to results of research conducted by Sulisworo, Daimah, Toifur, and Suryadi at State Senior High
School 1 Jetis in Bantul, Yogyakarta show that the average score of student's critical thinking skill in physics class is
still below 70, thus it still needs improvement [13]. Student’s low critical skill is caused by lacking argumentation
skill in critical analysis, feeling embarrassing to ask and lacking skill in problem solving [14]. In addition, education
system in Indonesia has been slow in responding to the changing environment and still emphasizes information
transfer over skills development [15]. Therefore, it needs further action in improving student’s critical thinking up to
its standard level.
After interviewing and observing one of the physics teachers in State Senior High School 1 Jetis, named Mrs.
Daimah, M.Pd, we obtained information that physics teachers use a learning model stimulating students to be active
in activities mandated by the 2013 curriculum (two stay and two self-learning model). Students are formed in
groups, after the teacher explains the subject of physics. Then some of the students in each group talk to each other
and exchange ideas. The group learning model is implemented during physics class because students often feel
embarrassing to ask their teachers regarding studied materials in class when they find difficulty. Thus, in hope, this
learning model can bridge the knowledge transfer among students. However, the obstacle found in this group
learning model is that during discussion, some students have different capabilities in explaining and teaching other
students. Moreover, when they about want to change their discussion partner the discussion time is up. Although,
this group learning model is implemented based on student activity, it cannot facilitate students in developing their
curiosities in studying physics. In physics learning, curiosity attitude is needed so that science in the field of physics
continues to develop. Alger defines curiosity attitude as an action that is accompanied by an impulse to explore
without having a purpose that still highlights the human side in terms of science [16]. Hardy, Ness, and Mecca argue
that curiosity attitude will force individuals to adopt a focus attention to expand the information horizon for students
in forming their ideas and turn their potentials into skills [17]. Hochberg, Kuhn, and Müller define curiosity attitude
as the human act of seeking new information or experiences whose results can be satisfactory or unsatisfactory and
correlate with the efforts that the individual makes [18]. Thus, curiosity attitude is an individual responses involving
the five senses, will and mental in order to know something.
There are four aspects of curiosity: 1) searching for information with indicators of reading, asking, and
discussing; 2) observation to learn with indicators of observing objects, phenomena, behaviors, or situations in a
focused manner; 3) enthusiastic in learning with indicators of enthusiasm to find answers or solutions to problems
and; 4) interest with indicators of having an interest or willing in learning activities [19, 20]. Curiosity attitude
should be encouraged and formed in school. Teachers need to know how their students’ curiosity attitudes during
studying in school and outside school in order to achieve education goals.
In this digital era, a teacher is demanded to be able to operate technology products, thus students have digital
skills. Some software can be used as a medium for learning in Physics class by teachers, for example, Physics
Education of Technology (PhET). This PhET uses a simulation medium by implementing Virtual Physics
Laboratory in learning. By using PhET students can enjoy their fun in learning physics and encourage their
curiosities to conduct various self-experiments [21]. Animation in PhET simulations presents Physics phenomena
that can captivate students to trigger their curiosity attitudes by encouraging students to conduct investigations
through virtual experiments [22].
 In addition, the results of study conducted by Stiawan, Liliasari, and Rohman show that learning using PhET
media can improve students' critical thinking skills showed in indicators of creating induction and considering
induction results, focusing on statements, and analyzing arguments [23]. Other studies have shown that students who
are taught using PhET-assisted learning media tend to have better critical thinking skills [24]. Students perform
scientific activities such as hypothesizing, experimenting and synthesizing in solving problems relating to physical
phenomena. Thus, the use of PhET in physics class facilitates the improvement of students' critical thinking skills
and curiosity attitudes.
One of teacher's efforts in forming students' critical thinking skills and curiosity attitudes is using inductive
thinking learning model. This inductive thinking learning model is designed to improve student’s critical thinking
skill because the student is educated to be more critical in problem solving by observation, comparison, inference
and generalization [25]. Inductive thinking learning model directs students to implement principles through
formation of concepts ranging from special things to general things. The inductive thinking learning model is
characterized by giving special cases to students to be solved and the solution can be generalized and applied to
solve other similar cases. The implementation of inductive thinking learning model activities is carried out
sequentially consisting of 3 phases: concept formation; data interpretation; and principle application [26, 27]. The
implementation of these three phases is as follow: 1) concept formation is carried out by data collection activities—
grouping data obtained from observation; 2) data interpretation is carried out in 3 stages: a) data testing; b)
analyzing the relationship between information; and c) concluding in the form of concepts, principles, laws or
theories; and 3) the application of principles is carried out by applying principles, laws, concepts or theories in
solving problems or analyzing certain circumstances.
This study aims to determine the effectiveness of the PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning model towards
student’s critical thinking skill and curiosity attitude. The advantages of this study include theoretical and practical
advantages. Theoretical advantage of this study is to be reference source for other researchers intending to conduct
similar researches relating to inductive thinking learning model, PhET, critical thinking skill and curiosity attitude.
Practical advantage that can be obtained is creating and obtaining fun and meaningful physics learning experiences,
thus it will improve critical thinking skill and curiosity attitude. Also, for teachers it can be taken into consideration
as a way to improve learning quality in school.

METHODS

We used quantitative approach with quasi-experimental type using pretest-posttest control group design. We
chose control group design as to carry out random assignments. These random assignments minimized the
possibility of group differences before pretest treatment. Research subjects were selected randomly among all
students in the first grade of mathematics and sciences program study then grouped into two experiment groups
(control 1 and control 2). Table 1 is an overview of the research design. This study was conducted in State Senior
High School 1 Jetis in Bantul, Yogyakarta. We conducted the study during even semester. The population in this
study is all first grade students of mathematics and science program study consisting of five classes and each class
consisting of 32 students (total 160 students). We used random sampling method in selecting samples in this study.
During designing this study, there were 3 groups selected from 5 groups randomly based on whether the population
was homogeneous or not. Population homogeneity was determined from the result of variance test on final value of
population. The phases of inductive thinking learning activities found in the experiment group using the PhET-
assisted inductive thinking learning model can be seen in Table 2.

TABLE 1. Research Design

Group Pretest Treatment Posttest
Experiment S1-1 X1 S1-2
First Control S2-1 X2 S2-2
Second Control S3-1 X3 S3-2

Descriptions:
S1-1 The pretest value of experiment group.
S2-1 The pretest value of first control group.
S3-1 The pretest value of second control group.
 X1 Learning with a PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning model.
X2 Learning with an inductive thinking learning model.
X3 Two stay and two self-learning model.
S1-2 The posttest value of experiment group.
S2-2 The posttest value of first control group.
S3-2 The posttest value of second control group.

TABLE 2. Phases of PhET-Assisted Inductive Thinking Learning Model.

Phase Learning Activity
1. Concept 1. Observation and data collection.
formation Students were given the opportunity in groups to observe physical phenomena and
collected data through simulations contained in PhET media, according to the
instructions in student worksheet. This activity’s goal is to formulate the concept of
physics in students’ minds through the discovery relationship patterns among data
that will be further analyzed.
2. Interpretation 2. Data testing.
of data Students compared the magnitude physics data obtained from PhET observation
simulation with the calculation data. Then, they started to build critical relationship
between mental processes by comparing the observation data with the calculation
data. Students were allowed to analyze the data again if the results differed
significantly.
3. Relationship analysis.
Students analyzed how the relationship between variables or concepts in physics after
observing the data obtained. Thus, there is a mental process experienced by students
in determining the causal relationship. Next, students transformed the concept of
causality relationships using several data from the observation results.
4. Conclusion formulation.
Students formulated conclusions in the form of principles, concepts, theories, or laws
about physics.
3. 5. Verification
Application of Students applied the principles, laws, or concepts of physics that have been studied
principles by analyzing and solving physics problems. Furthermore, students proved their
temporary answers validities by finding information such as physics formulas from
various sources. In the end of activity, students presented the results of the
discussion.

Data was collected using test and non-test techniques (questionnaires). The data tests of the question items and
questionnaires were analyzed using the QUEST software with Partial Credit Model (PCM) to obtain items that are
suitable (fit) with the model. The values are said to fit with the model when the INFIT MNSQ value is in the range
from 0.77 to 1.30 [32]. To find out the difficulty level of the question items, it can be seen from the thresholds
values. The question items are said to be good if the difficulty index ranges from -2.0 to +2.0 [33]. Meanwhile, for
the reliability analysis of question items and questionnaires we used Cronbach's alpha. The values arranged are said
to be reliable if the value of Cronbach's alpha ranges from 0.67 to 1.00 [34].
Subsequently, the data analyzed with General Linear Model using SPSS. The data analyzed using General Linear
Model was the values of students' critical thinking skills and curiosity attitudes before (pretest) and after (posttest)
treatments. However, the curiosity attitude data was transformed first from ordinal data into interval data using the
Successive Interval Method (MSI). We also conducted normality and homogeneity tests before analyzing the data.
We searched for the values of effective contribution (effect size) of the treatments in each research group to improve
students' critical thinking skills and curiosity attitudes. The effect size was obtained using Cohen's f equation using
partial eta square values in output General Linier Model for each research group. Cohen's equation f is formulated in
equation 1 [35]. The interpretation of Cohen's f values can be seen in Table 3 [36]. We found that treatments are said
to be effective if the effect size value is classified as a medium or large.
 (1)

Table 2. Interpretation of Effect Size Cohen’s f

No. Cohen’s f Interpretation
1. No Effect
f
2. Small
3. Medium
4. Large
f

(Source: Vaughn & Lomax, 2020:18)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis with Levene Statistic from the Test of Homogeneity of Variances shows value of Sig. 0.78 > 0.05.
It means that the research population is homogeneous, thus research sampling using cluster random sampling
technique can be implemented. Furthermore, the results of cluster random sampling show that: (1) the first grade
students in class 5 of mathematics and science program study becoming experiment group were given treatment
with a PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning model. (2) the first grade students in class 4 of mathematics and
sciences program study becoming first control group were given treatment with inductive thinking learning model.
(3) the first grade students in class 2 of mathematics and science becoming second control group were given
treatment with two-stay and two-self learning model. We analyzed empirically 6 trial question items and 12
questionnaire items using the QUEST program and obtained the results that: (1) INFIT MNSQ value in the trial
question items is 0.81-1.09. (2) INFIT MNSQ value in the trial questionnaire items was 0.78-1.25. It shows that the
question items and questionnaires arranged fit PCM model. Meanwhile, the difficulty level of the question item s is
obtained from the thresholds value (-1.69-1.31). It means that the question items are arranged in good categories.
Meanwhile, the values of Cronbach's alpha obtained from analysis of 6 questions and 12 questionnaire items are
0.717 and 0.723. It shows that the question items and the questionnaires are reliable. The result of normality test in
multivariate and univariate manners can be seen in Table 4 and 5. Meanwhile, the resultsof the homogeneity test in
multivariate and univariate manners can be seen in Table 6 and 7.

TABLE 4. Mardia mKurtosis Test Result

Group Test Mardia mKurtosis Prob>chi2
Pretest 8.303 0.830
Experiment
Posttest 8.892 0.528
Pretest 8.115 0.935
First Control
Posttest 7.950 0.972
Pretest 7.300 0.621
Second Control
Posttest 6.410 0.261

TABLE 5. Shapiro-Wilk Test Result

Dependent Variable Group Test W Prob>z
Pretest 0.969 0.485
Experiment
Posttest 0.954 0.198
Pretest 0.954 0.190
Critical Thinking Skills First Control
Posttest 0.967 0.431
Pretest 0.967 0.442
Second Control
Posttest 0.953 0.173
 Pretest 0.960 0.284
Experiment
Posttest 0.963 0.340
Pretest 0.940 0.077
Curiosity Attitudes First Control
Posttest 0.958 0.255
Pretest 0.964 0.369
Second Control
Posttest 0.952 0.173

TABLE 6. Box’s M Test Result

Box’s Test of Covariance Matrice Equality

Test
Box’s M F Approx Sig.
Pretest 9.343 1.509 0.171
Posttest 7.000 1.130 0.341

TABLE 7. Levene Test Result

Levene’s Test of Error Variance Equality
Dependent Variable Test
F Sig.
Pretest 2.013 0.139
Critical Thinking Skills
Posttest 2.146 0.123
Pretest 1.927 0.151
Curiosity Attitudes.
Posttest 2.129 0.125

The result of the normality test with the Mardia mKurtosis test shows that all Prob>chi2 values are greater than
0.05. Thus, it can be seen that the distribution of pretest or posttest data is normally multivariate for each group.
Meanwhile, the Shapiro-Wilk test result shows that all Prob>z values are greater than 0.05. This means that the
distribution of pretest or posttest data is normally distributed univariately. Based on Table 6, we can see the Sig.
pretest and posttest values in the Box's M test are > 0.05. Thus, the variant-covariant matrix on the pretest and
posttest data is homogeneous. Levene test result shows that all scores of Sig. are > 0.05, meaning the variance of
pretest and posttest data for students' critical thinking skills or curiosity attitudes in all three groups is homogeneous.
After all the prerequisite tests met the standard criteria, then normality and homogeneity tests were conducted
and the analysis can be continued by testing the hypothesis. The result of hypothesis tests in a multivariate and
univariate manners with General Linear Model is presented in Table 8 and 9. While, the result of the Bonferroni test
is presented in Table 10.
TABLE 8. Multivariate Hypothesis Test Result
Multivariate Test F Sig.
Pillai’s Trace 7.126 0.000
Wilks’ Lambda 7.645 0.000
Time*Group
Hotelling’s Trace 8.158 0.000
Roy’s Largest Root 16.499 0.000

TABLE 9. Univariate Hypothesis Test Result

Univariate Test F Sig.
Sphericity Assumed 8.922 0.000
Greenhouse- Geisser 8.922 0.000
Critical Thinking Skills Time*Group
Huynh-Feldt 8.922 0.000
Lower-bound 8.922 0.000
Sphericity Assumed 6.510 0.002
Greenhouse- Geisser 6.510 0.002
Curiosity Attitudes Time*Group
Huynh-Feldt 6.510 0.002
Lower-bound 6.510 0.002
 TABLE 10. Bonferroni Test Result
Dependent Variable (I) Group (J) Group Mean Difference (I-J) Sig.
First Control 8.50 0.000
Experiment
Second Control -7.81 0.001
Experiment -8.50 0.000
Critical Thinking Skills First Control
Second Control -16.31 0.000
Experiment 7.81 0.001
Second Control
First Control 16.31 0.000
First Control -2.07 0.129
Experiment
Second Control 1.34 0.565
Experiment 2.07 0.129
Curiosity Attitudes First Control
Second Control 3.41 0.003
Experiment -1.34 0.565
Second Control
First Control -3.41 0.003

Based on the information shown in Table 8, it is obtained that the significance value (Sig.) of the Wilks' Lambda
test is 0.000 < 0.05. This means that there are differences in improving students' critical thinking skills and curiosity
attitudes among groups provided different treatments (PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning, inductive thinking
learning and two stays and two self-learning models). Furthermore, based on Table 9 it is shown that the values of
Sig. on the Greenhouse- Geisser test for (1) critical thinking skills is 0.000 < 0.05 and; (2) curiosity attitudes is 0.002
< 0.05. This suggests that the change in students' critical thinking skills or curiosity attitudes from pretest to posttest
among groups taught using PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning, inductive thinking learning and two stays and
two self-learning models is significantly different.
The Bonferroni test shows the result of students' critical thinking skills between: (1) the experiment group and
the first control group; (2) experiment group and second control group; and (3) first control group and second
control group are significantly different (Sig. < value is 0.05). Whereas, students' curiosity attitudes between: (1)
experiment group and first control group and; (2) experiment group and second control group do not differ
significantly (Sig. > value 0.05). In contrast, there was a significant difference in students' curiosity between the first
control group and the second control group (Sig. < 0.05). The improvement of students' critical thinking skills and
curiosity attitudes in each research group can be seen in Figures 1 and 2 below.

FIGURE 1. Estimated Improvement on Students' Critical Thinking Skills

 FIGURE 2. Estimated Improvement on Students' Curiosity Attitudes

Based on the information from Figures 1 and 2, it can be concluded that the improvement of students' critical
thinking skills and curiosity attitudes for first control group who are taught with inductive thinking learning model is
better than in the other two research groups. The effect size of the treatment given for each research group is
presented in Tables 11 and 12 below.

TABLE 11. Effect Size Analysis Results - Multivariate

Group Partial Eta Squared Cohen’s f Value Interpretation
Experiment 0.600 1.22 Large effect size
First Control 0.702 1.53 Large effect size
Second Control 0.382 0.79 Large effect size

TABLE 12. Effect Size Analysis Results - Univariate

Partial Eta
Dependent Variable Group Cohen’s f Value Interpretation
Squared
Experiment 0.582 1.18 Large effect size
Critical Thinking Skills First Control 0.660 1.39 Large effect size
Second Control 0.381 0.78 Large effect size
Experiment 0.055 0.24 Small effect size
Curiosity Attitudes First Control 0.221 0.53 Large effect size
Second Control 0.000 0.00 No effect size

The results of this research show that the inductive thinking learning model is effective in improving students'
critical thinking skills and curiosity attitudes with large effect size. Meanwhile, the PhET-assisted inductive thinking
learning and the two stay and two self-learning models are only effective in improving students' critical thinking
skills with large effect size.
 PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning model is effective in improving students' critical thinking skills with
large effect size. The three phases in this learning activity consist of (1) concept formation; (2) interpretation of data
and (3) application of principles. The first phase is concept formation which is implemented by observing
phenomena and objects from PhET animation. Then, the virtual experiment data is recorded in the student
worksheet. PhET presents information in mathematical, verbal, and visual forms so the information is easier
remembered by students [37]. According to Dasilva, using PhET during physics learning helps students to focus
more on observation because of its attractive visualization in forming concepts more strongly [38]. The use of PhET
in inductive thinking learning model helps the formation of critical thinking skills through information technology
approach. The use of PhET can lead students to obtain meaningful learning. Meaningful learning trains students to
construct knowledge and stimulate them to think more critically by assessing the information obtained from the
observation of physical phenomena in simulations. According to the results of research conducted by Sulisworo,
Handayani, and Kusumaningtyas students who are taught using PhET in learning Physics have better critical
thinking skills [24].
The second phase is data interpretation consisting of three activities: (1) data testing; (2) relationship analysis of
physics, and; (3) conclusion formulation. First, the activity of testing data is implemented by comparing the large
physics data obtained from observation with data through calculation method. Data testing activity aims to train
students to assess the data credibility obtained from information source to improve thinking skills in assessing
information [39]. Second, relationship analysis among subject materials of physics provides an opportunity for
students to develop themselves in analyzing cause-and-effect relationship. One form of efforts in training students'
critical thinking skills is to analyze and make connections between the information that students obtain [40]. Thus,
understanding the relationship between each piece of information, concept or idea can train students' critical
thinking [41]. A person with good critical thinking skills can understand the logical relationship between the
information obtained. Students are also asked to describe the relationship between the large physics data in the form
of graphs to facilitate students' mental processes in understanding concepts. Third is conclusion formulation in the
form of laws, principles, or concepts of physics. Conclusion formulation is a cognitive activity in conveying the
essence of what is being investigated and requires logical reasoning so that others can easily understand what to be
conveyed from the results of the analysis is. A person’s skill to formulate conclusion shows that that person thinks
critically [42]. Therefore, these three phases in data interpretation is one aspect of critical thinking skills.
Third, the application of principles is implemented by solving physics problems using physics concepts,
formulas, or laws. This activity trains students to do critical analysis when solving physics problems, starting from
making conjectures to testing the truth of their conjectures. It aims to train students' skills in estimating or predicting
through information analysis. Students verify the information by applying the principles, laws, or concepts of
physics they have studied. We found that, in this study two stay and two self-learning model is effective in
improving students' critical thinking skills with a relatively large effect size. This result is supported by the findings
in Apriakanti, Kusuma, and Nurhayati’s research stating that the two stay and two self-learning model is effective in
improving students' critical thinking skills [43]. The two stay and two self-learning model trains students to analyze,
synthesize, argue, communicate and work together during discussion and meeting activities to improve students’
critical thinking skills [44]. We found that the effect size value of the two stay and two self-learning model in
improving critical thinking skills (0.79) is smaller than the other two learning models (1.22 and 1.53). This is
because the two stay and two self-learning model needs a lot of time, especially for discussion activity. Therefore,
teachers must be skilled in allocating the time between teaching the subject, discussion, and meeting activities [45].
Meanwhile, the inductive thinking learning model is more effective in improving students' critical thinking skills
compared to PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning and the two stay and two self-learning models. Although the
homogeneity test results in the pretest of students' critical thinking skills showing homogeneity, the average pretest
score for the first control group (41.54) is lower than the other two experiment groups (52.34) and (64.39)-first
control and second control groups subsequently. Meanwhile, the posttest results of critical thinking skills in the
experiment group (77.60), first control group (71.42) and second control group (81.18) are not highly much
different. From this result we can see that the improvement of students' critical thinking skills in the first control
group is higher than in the other two experiment groups. The inductive thinking learning model is more suitable to
be applied to students who have low critical thinking skills because the task load is not too much. This makes
students able to organize needs, evaluate them, and infer information obtained during learning better [46]. Inductive
thinking learning model can be a good solution to improve students' critical thinking in schools.
The results of this research support the results of previous studies, conducted by Kosmita and Muliana stating
that inductive thinking learning models improve students' critical thinking skills [28, 29]. Mondal explains that the
inductive thinking learning strengthens cognitive structures through cognitive processes referring to the processes in
which knowledge emerges and is maintained [47]. Students learn to reconsider critically ideas they have learned,
evaluate their opinions themselves and thereby, it improves students' critical thinking skills towards the subject
materials being studied [41].
PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning model improves students' curiosity attitudes. However, the increase is
relatively small. Thus, the PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning model does not have a great effect
(ineffectively) in improving students' curiosity attitudes. The obstacle to implement PhET-assisted inductive
thinking learning model is students are not used to operating PhET so they still have to adapt. Students still need
instructions in performing the installation and steps to operate PhET. This process took 1-2 meetings for students to
get used to use PhET. As stated by Ni’mah and Wardani, the difficulty of students in using PhET is that students are
confused, especially when operating the buttons providing in the application [48]. This also supports the findings in
Malik, Khasanah, Agustina, and Zakwandi’s research stating that many students do not understand the features
available in PhET simulations resulting in students being easily oversupply information, and then it causes passive
response when conducting virtual experiments. This reduces students' interests when collecting data using PhET,
resulting in lack of improvement in students' curiosity during learning [49]. The anticipation for this problem is that
students who have personal computers at home, they can practice by installing and operating PhET software first.
Another problem found in the experiment group is repeating the collection of experiment data when using PhET.
Thus, operating PhET still requires guidance from teachers so that it makes more learning time needed for repeating
virtual experiments [50]. The inaccuracy when collecting experimental data using PhET simulations make students
in the discussion group have to repeat the experiment several times and spend more time [51]. Differently with the
experiment group, in the first control group, the treatment was given using inductive thinking learning model.
Students in first control group have better mastery in learning compared with those in experiment group. The
inductive thinking learning model is better when it is regarding the improvement of students' curiosity attitudes
compared with the other two learning models. The inductive thinking learning model is more effective in improving
students' curiosity attitudes with effect size that is classified as "large". In addition, the task load in group discussion
for the first control group was lighter than in the experiment group. This makes students in the first control group to
be more interested in learning activities and increase their curiosity attitudes.
The inductive thinking learning model has 3 phases: concept formation, data interpretation and application of
principles. In the first phase, concept formation is carried out by identifying data and grouping data that have similar
characteristics. The data obtained, is then recorded in the table based on the similarity of units of physics. This
activity develops the ability to be logical by placing objects of the same category. To achieve this goal, students
must seek information from books, and the internet or ask teachers or peers to encourage the formation of students'
curiosity attitudes, especially in the aspects in searching for information and observation. This supports the results of
research conducted by Listyaningrum, Sajidan, and Suciati stating that inductive thinking learning model trains
students to observe and organize data such as images, cases, or videos to encourage the formation of curiosity
attitudes [31].
The second phase is data interpretation. This phase consists of three stages: data testing, relationship analysis of
physics, and conclusion formulation. First, students were asked to test the data or information obtained so that
students were trained in assessing the credibility of data from information sources. Second, students were asked to
analyze the causality relationship of the massive physics studied that was presented in a narrative form or
represented in graphic form. Third, students formulated conclusions from the activities carried out in the form of
concepts, principles, or laws. Activities in this phase improve students’ logics, and train students' ability to find
information by asking, discussion with friends, teachers, or reading books. This activity encourages students'
curiosity attitudes in the aspect of searching for information.
The third phase is the application of principles carried out by solving physics problems using the principles and
laws of physics to cover knowledge gaps [52, 53]. Listyaningrum, Sajidan, and Suciati explain that this phase of
application of principles increases students' curiosity attitudes toward aspects of enthusiastic learning and interest
because students are challenged to think at complex phases [31]. This phase educates students to not be embarrassed
with asking questions, learning to work together, and respecting their friends’ opinions [30, 54]. This is supported by
the findings in Sawangsri’s research stating that activities in the inductive thinking learning model make students
feeling freer in learning activities thus encourage an increase students' curiosity attitudes [55]. Moreover, the two
stay and two self-learning model do not increase students' curiosity attitudes because during learning process, more
time was spent for discussing in one group than transferring knowledge in meeting activities. In addition, the
characteristic of the second control group is that the students are not used to studying in groups.
 CONCLUSION

We concluded that PhET-assisted inductive thinking learning model implemented in this study as follow: (1)
effectively improves students' critical thinking skills with large effect size; and (2) does not have significant effect
on increasing students' curiosity (effect size is relatively small). In addition, this study also obtained result that
inductive thinking learning model is more effective in improving students' critical thinking skills and curiosity
attitudes with large effect size.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors would like to show gratitude to the principal of State Senior High School 1 Jetis in Bantul, Yogyakarta
for providing permission to conduct study in the school. Also we express gratitude to Mrs. Daimah, M.Pd as a
Physics teacher and all students participating in this study. Lastly, we are deeply grateful to Dr. Supahar, M.Si from
Yogyakarta State University for his support on this study.

REFERENCES
1. C.-H. Lu, Econ. Theory 69, 637-666 (2020).
2. N. Powdthavee, W.N. Lekfuangfu, and M. Wooden, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 54,
10-21 (2015).
3. D.F. Antiado, M.I.M. Tawadrous, and R.P. Sergio, IJLTER 20, 275-291 (2021).
4. Y.S. Sari, M. Selisne, and R. Ramli, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1185, 012096 (2019).
5. J. Haber, Critical Thinking (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2020), pp. 102.
6. A.M.S. Atabaki, N. Keshtiaray, and M.H. Yarmohammadian, International Education Studies 8, 93-102
(2015).
7. P. Parlan and O.D. Fernanda, “Profile of 11 th grade students’ critical thinking skills in the reaction rate topic
and their relationship with learning outcomes,” in The 4th International Conference on Mathematics and
Science Education (ICoMSE) 2020, AIP Conference Proceedings 2330. (AIP Publishing, Melville, NY, 2021),
pp. 020034-1–020034-7.
8. D. Rear, “Critical thinking, language and problem-solving: scaffolding thinking skills through debate,” in
Essential Competencies for English-Medium University Teaching, 1st ed., edited by R. Breeze and C. Sancho
Guinda (Springer International Publishing : Imprint: Springer, Cham, 2017), pp. 51-64.
9. S.Y. Seventika, Y.L. Sukestiyarno, and S. Mariani, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 983, 012067 (2018).
10. Y. Hidayati and P. Sinaga, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1402, 044075 (2019).
11. A.R. As’ari, A. Mahmudi, and E. Nuerlaelah, Journal. Math. Edu. 8, 145-156 (2017).
12. S.S. Nurhijah, A.R. Wulan, and S. Diana, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1521, 042021 (2020).
13. D. Sulisworo, S. Daimah, M. Toifur, and A. Suryadi, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1088, 012065 (2018).
14. S. Wahyuni, I.G.M. Sanjaya, E. Erman, and B. Jatmiko, Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 14, 98-110 (2019).
15. T. Tang, V. Vezzani, and V. Eriksson, Thinking Skills and Creativity 37, 100696 (2020).
16. B.E. Alger, Defense of the Scientific Hypothesis: From Reproducibility Crisis to Big Data (Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, 2020), pp. 249.
17. J.H. Hardy, A.M. Ness, and J. Mecca, Personality and Individual Differences 104, 230-237 (2017).
18. K. Hochberg, J. Kuhn, and A. Müller, J Sci Educ Technol 27, 385-403 (2018).
19. D.N.S.P. Ernawati Khumaedi Ani Rusilawati, Phen 6, 10-17 (2016).
20. N. Haryanti, I. Wilujeng, and S. Sundari, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1440, 012045 (2020).
21. N. Hilalliati, Jumadi, I. Wilujeng, and H. Kuswanto, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1233, 012050 (2019).
22. P.S. Mahulae, M. Sirait, and M. Sirait, IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 7(5), 24-29 (2017).
23. E. Stiawan, L. Liliasari, and I. Rohman, JPMIPA 19, 257-265 (2014).
24. D. Sulisworo, T. Handayani, and D.A. Kusumaningtyas, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1157, 032003 (2019).
25. I.A.A.L. Putri, I.K. Ardana, and N.N. Ganing, Jurnal Mimbar PGSD Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, 2(1), 1-
11 (2014).
26. Bindu, Science Education: Techniques and Methods (Laxmi Book Publication, Solapur, Maharashtra, 2019),
pp. 209-210.
27. S.K. Mangal, Learning and Teaching (PHI Learning Private Limited, Patparganj, Delhi, 2019), pp. 428-429.
28. Muliana, Yusiran, Agustinasari, Asriyadin, E. Susilawati, F. Sarnita, Siswanto, S. Gumilar, Gustina, A.
Erwinsyah, L. Utami, A. Amiruddin, and Syahrir, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1280, 052035 (2019).
29. S. Kosmita, S. Sukarno, and S. Salamah, Indones. j. Integr. Sci. Educ. 2, 63-74 (2020).
30. Zulhelmi and M. Nur, Journal of Educational Sciences 1(1), 56-68 (2017).
31. R.I. Listyaningrum, Sajidan and Suciati, Pendidikan Biologi, 4(1), 56-67 (2012).
32. R.J. Adam and S.T. Khoo, Acer quest version 2.1 (The Austrian council for education research, Ltd,
Camberwell, Victoria, 1996), pp. 28.
33. H. Retnawati, Teori Respon Butir dan Penerapannya (Nuha Medika, Sorowajan Baru, 2014), pp. 17.
34. B. Sumintono and & W. Widhiarso, Aplikasi Pemodelan Rasch pada Assessment Pendidikan (Trim
Komunikata Publishing House, Cimahi, 2015), pp. 35.
35. S.H. Abu-Bader, Using Statistical Methods in Social Science Research: With a Complete SPSS Guide, Third
edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021), pp. 443.
36. D.L. Hahs-Vaughn, R.G. Lomax, and D.L. Hahs-Vaughn, Statistical Concepts: A Second Course, Fifth edition
(Routledge, New York, NY, 2019), pp. 18.
37. S. Astutik and B.K. Prahani, INT J INSTRUCTION 11, 409-424 (2018).
38. B.E. Dasilva, H. Kuswanto, I. Wilujeng, and Jumadi, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1233, 012044 (2019).
39. B. St. Jean, U. Gorham, and E. Bonsignore, Understanding Human Information Behavior: When, How, and
Why People Interact with Information (Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, 2021), pp. 52.
40. D. Hansen, E.D. Bernstorf, and G.M. Stuber, The Music and Literacy Connection, Second edition (Rowman &
Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, 2014), pp. 152.
41. A. Bailey, M. Zanchetta, D. Velasco, G. Pon, and A. Hassan, Nurse Education in Practice 15, 524-529 (2015).
42. A.C. Saputri, Sajidan, Y, Rinanto, Afandi., and N.M. Prasetyanti, INT J INSTRUCTION 12, 327-342 (2019).
43. D. Apriakanti, M. Kusuma, and M. Nurhayanti, Journal of Science Education Research, 4(1), 40-43 (2020).
44. D. Sutrisno, D.,& H. Retnawati, PYTHAGORAS: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 10(1), 15-27 (2015).
45. R. Hamdi, M.A. Jamal, and S. An’nur, BIPF 2, 265-273 (2014).
46. F. Hadi Santosa, U. Umasih, and S. Sarkadi, JTP 20, 13-27 (2018).
47. B.C. Mondal, International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(3), 10-20 (2013).
48. N. Ni’mah and S. Wardani, J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 1, 15-19 (2021).
49. A. Malik, U. Khasanah, R.D. Agustina, and R. Zakwandi, Educ. Sci. 11, 264-278 (2019).
50. K. Ndihokubwayo, J. Uwamahoro, and I. Ndayambaje, EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed 16, em1897 (2020).
51. C.E. Rustana, W. Andriana, V. Serevina, and D. Junia, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1567, 022011 (2020).
52. R. Rahmatian and F. Zarekar, IES 9, 254-267 (2016).
53. B. Rott, Educ Stud Math 106, 117-132 (2021).
54. A. Thedpitak and M. Somphong, LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network,
14(1), 370-398 (2021).
55. B. Sawangsri, Ujer 4, 1924 (2016).