MJFAS template


 

 
205 

Pattipeilohy et al. | JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), Vol. 8 Issue 3, 2022, 205-215 

 
                                                     RESEARCH ARTICLE 

 
 
 

The inquiry investigation group learning 
model: Improving students’ critical thinking 
skills, cognitive learning outcomes, and 
scientific attitudes 
Mery Pattipeilohya,1, Dominggus Rumahlatua,2, Sriyanti I. A. Salmanua,3, Kristin 
Sangura,4,* 

aDepartment of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Pattimura 

University, Jl. Ir. M. Putuhena, Ambon, Maluku 97233, Indonesia 

1pattipeilohymery@yahoo.com; 2dominggus_amq@yahoo.co.id; 3sriyanti_salmanu@yahoo.co.id; 

4kristin_sangur@yahoo.com 

 

 

Abstract: Innovative learning is carried out through a combination of the Investigation Group (IG) 
and Inquiry Strategy (IS) into a modified learning model namely IIG (Inquiry Investigation Group). 
This study analyzes the effect of the IIG model on critical thinking, cognitive learning outcomes, and 
scientific attitudes on Class XI High School students in West Seram Regency. The sample was 102 
students, and the data was analyzed using inferential statistics namely covariance analysis 
(ANCOVA). The results show that the IIG model has an effect on critical thinking (0.000<p=0.05), 
cognitive learning outcomes (0.000<p=0.05), and students’ scientific attitudes (0.000<p=0.05). This 
indicated that IIG consists of learning stages of orientation, conceptualization, investigation, report 
generation, and discussion-evaluation. The finding of the research recommends the application of 
the IIG model in learning other biology concepts in high school. In addition, this research can 
contribute to providing innovation in biology learning in the era of society 5.0. 

Keywords: cognitive learning outcomes; critical thinking; inquiry investigation group; scientific attitude 
 

 
 

Introduction 
 

The concept of education in Indonesia is currently undergoing development towards the era of society 
5.0. This has an effect on various fields such as health, urban planning, transportation, agriculture, and 
education (Özdemir, 2018). Therefore, students need several skills namely leadership, digital literacy, 
communication, emotional intelligence, critical thinking, as well as constructive, innovative, social, and 
spiritual attitudes (Falaq, 2020; Sajidan et al., 2020; Potočan et al., 2021). Some of these abilities are 
classified as high-level. The higher order thinking skills (HOTS) use critical, analytical, and creative 
thinking. It is the ability to master a concept and explain it in different ways, as well as making decisions 
and solutions to problems (Dewi, 2021; Yonata & H Nasrudin, 2018). Several learning models are used 
to improve the abilities of students in this era of society 5.0. One of the innovations is collaborating 
learning models with appropriate strategies, such as the Investigation Group (IG) and the Inquiry strategy 
(IS) which is known as the Inquiry Investigation Group (IIG) learning model. According to Santyasa et al. 
(2019), the IG model is oriented to the results of an investigation, analysis, and information synthesis to 
solve a problem, hence, it is suitable to be used for science learning. Astiti (2018) reported that the use 
of the IG model combined with brainstorming techniques improved cognitive learning outcomes. 
According to Komala et al. (2020), the learning model empowers students to solve problems through 
HOTS. Meanwhile, inquiry learning has been widely used in biology education. The application of inquiry 
strategies in biology learning in High School can increase students’ HOTS (Rahmat & Chanunan, 2018) 
and improve critical thinking in learning the concept of the plant world (Hasan et al., 2019). The strategies 
also improve students’ achievement with a reflective cognitive learning style (Margunayasa et al., 2019). 
Presently, the IG model and inquiry strategy have been used in and collaborated with several studies.  

*For correspondence: 

kristin_sangur@yahoo.com 

 

Article history: 

Received: 8 August 2022 

Revised: 11 October 2022 

Accepted: 14 October 2022 

Published: 24 November 2022 

 

10.22219/jpbi.v8i3.22113 

© Copyright Pattipeilohy et al. 

This article is distributed 

under the terms of the 

Creative Commons Attribution 

License  

 
 
p-ISSN: 2442-3750 
e-ISSN: 2537-6204 

mailto:dominggus_amq@yahoo.co.id*
https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v8i3.22113
https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v8i3.22113
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://u.lipi.go.id/1422867894
http://u.lipi.go.id/1460300524


 

 
206 

Pattipeilohy et al. | JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), Vol. 8 Issue 3, 2022, 205-215 

Arinda et al. (2019) found that collaborating the IG model with Phet (Physics Education Technology) 
media could improve students’ scientific attitudes. This shows that the IG learning model is suitable to 
be combined with an inquiry strategy. Listiana et al. (2016) and Listiana et al. (2020) reported that the 
combination of the GI model with Think Talk Write (GITTW) improved HOST and self-regulation in 
learning biology concepts. Listiana and Bahri (2019) also reported that the GITTW model increased high 
school students’ thinking in studying biology compared to the TTW model. Ristanto et al., (2018) 
developed CIRC integrated learning and guided inquiry into a single unit called CIRGI for developing 
scientific literacy and mastery of biological concepts. Naimnule and Corebima (2018) reported that 
INREACT (a combination of inquiry and the REACT learning model) improved critical thinking. Ningsih 
et al. (2022) reported that the GIETAL learning model (the collaboration of Group Investigation with E-
Task in Activities Learning) helped the students learn biology during the Covid-19 pandemic. Asyari et 
al. (2016) reported that PBL and GI collaboration was a learning collaboration that produced stages of 
planning, argumentation, formulation of questions and problems, as well as analyzing and providing 
solutions to environmental problems. 

In addition, Gunawan et al. (2020) also explained that the inquiry strategy combined with the Advance 
Organizer could help empower students’ higher-order thinking skills in studying biology so that they could 
find solutions for solving biology in everyday life. Brown (2010) reported that the POGIL (Process-
oriented guided-inquiry learning) learning model was able to empower students’ critical thinking in 
studying biology through a series of questions. Ravista et al. (2021) also reported that the use of an 
electronic module based on an inquiry strategy accompanied by a virtual laboratory could improve 
students’ critical thinking in learning biology. Inquiry strategies could also improve biology learning 
outcomes through a series of combinations of techniques or methods and modifications. Akanbi and 
Kolawole (2014) reported that a combination of inquiry and discovery strategies and independent 
learning techniques could improve students’ cognitive learning outcomes so that learning achievement 
in biology could be efficient. Kencanawati et al. (2021) modified inquiry learning in biology into 7 steps 
namely analyzing problem, formulating hypotheses, collecting data, comparing communication between 
groups, making conclusions, communicating results, and reviewing them through critical analysis.  

Some studies show that the inquiry strategy is suitable to be used in studying biological concepts in 
schools to improve critical thinking skills, cognitive learning outcomes, and scientific attitudes. It 
emphasizes the discovery activities carried out by students, hence, it requires intense activity. According 
to Matson and Parsons (2006), the inquiry strategy requires the active participation of students in 
learning. Keys and Bryan (2001) stated that through inquiry activities with discoveries, they were able to 
develop scientific process skills and improve cognitive learning outcomes effectively. Scientific attitude 
is a way of behaving in the learning process through experiments that improve thinking skills. Therefore, 
it affects students’ cognitive processes (Ozden & Yenice, 2014; Ilmi & Sunarno, 2020).  

Based on previous studies and the explained theory, the IG model focuses on the process of inquiry and 
student collaboration, while the inquiry strategy focuses on the investigation and activity of students. 
Therefore, the two can be combined into a single unit called Group Investigation Inquiry Learning or 
abbreviated as the IIG model. The application of IIG is carried out on class XI students in studying the 
circulatory system. In this concept, students are invited to conduct constructivist-based investigations to 
understand the human circulatory system and develop critical thinking skills and scientific attitudes. In 
addition to having high-level thinking skills, students also need to be equipped with a scientific attitude, 
indicating the results of their investigations can be scientifically justified. Marlina (2013) found that using 
the environment as a laboratory shaped scientific attitudes in studying biology. Previous studies found 
that the environment can be used as an external laboratory to shape scientific attitudes. Students who 
study the concept of the circulatory system also form a scientific attitude through investigation and 
discovery. Therefore, this study analyzes the effect of applying the IIG model on the critical thinking, 
cognitive learning outcomes, and scientific attitudes on Class XI High School students, West Seram 
Regency.  

 

Results and Discussion 
 

This is a quasi-experimental study, and the independent variables are the IG and IIG learning models, 
while the dependent variables are critical abilities, cognitive learning outcomes, and scientific attitudes. 
Furthermore, the design of the study used pre-test and post-test control group design (Table 1). This 
was conducted in the odd semester of the 2021/2022 academic year. 

 

Table 1. The study design for IIG and IG classes 

Pre-test Group Post-test 

O1 X1 O2 
O1 X2 O2 

 

Where: O1 (Pre-test in IIG and IG classes); O2 (Post-test in IIG and IG classes); X1 (Class using the IIG 



 

 
207 

Pattipeilohy et al. | JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), Vol. 8 Issue 3, 2022, 205-215 

learning model); X2 (Class using IG learning model). 

The population was class X students of SMA Negeri 1 Kairatu, Madrasah Aliyah Al-Ikhlas Kairatu, and 
Madrasah Aliyah West Seram. The selection of schools uses the technique of drawing school names to 
get public high schools and private high schools. Furthermore, the sample was students from two classes 
of the schools. Each class had 17 students, hence, the total number of the sample was 102. Each class 
only had a small number of students to comply with the COVID-19 protocol. The school allowed face-to-
face teaching and learning activities but the attendance of students was limited to a small number. 

The study stage began with the following activities: (1) initial test (measuring critical thinking and 
cognitive learning outcomes), (2) application of the IIG model to class X1 and IG to class X2 (Table 2), 
and (3) final test (measuring critical thinking and cognitive learning outcomes). The learning material 
taught was the human circulatory system. Observation sheets were used to measure students’ scientific 
attitudes at the beginning and end of learning.  

 
Table 2. Stages of integration of the IIG learning model 

Investigation Group (IG) 
Inquiry Strategy 

(IS) 
IIG Learning Model Integration Stages 

1. Identifying the topic 
2. Planning learning 

assignments 
3. Carrying out investigations 
4. Compiling reports 
5. Presenting reports 
6. Conducting evaluation 
 

1. Orientation 
2. Conceptualization 
3. Investigation 
4. Discussion 
5. Conclusion 

 

1. Orientation: organizing students into 
study groups, identifying topics, 
formulating titles 

2. Conceptualization: formulating 
questions and hypotheses, seeking 
information, formulating stages of 
investigation 

3. Investigations 
4. The creation of final report 
5. Discussion 
6. Evaluation 

 
The test instrument of the essay consists of 5 questions that have validity and reliability values as shown 
in Table 3. 

 

Table 3. Specifications of essay questions equipped with validity and reliability scores 

Question 
Number 

Cognitive 
Level 

HOTS/
LOTS 

Validity Reliability 

Significant Interpretation Significant Interpretation 

1 C4 

Meets 
HOTS 
Criteria 

0.750 (*) 

Valid 0.945 (*) Excellent 

2 C4 0.147 (*) 
3 C4 0.277(*) 

4a C4 0.180 (*) 
4b C4 0.400 (*) 
5a C5 0.147 (*) 
5b C5 0.466 (*) 
5c C5 0.356 (*) 
5d C5 0.393 (*) 

*) Significance at p ≥ 0.05 

 
The significance value of each question shows p≥0.05, which means that each question has met the 
criteria of validity and reliability so that it can be used in the learning process.  

An essay is used as the instrument to measure critical thinking and cognitive learning outcomes. The 
two types of instruments have different ratings as seen in Table 4 and Table 5.  

 
Table 4. Description of the assessment of cognitive learning outcomes 

Question 
Number 

Score Description of the assessment of cognitive learning outcomes 

1 5 The answer can link the questions of blood group, antigen, and blood cells 
into a true narrative 

2 10 The answer can solve cases about differences in blood groups of pregnant 
women and fetuses that connect the concept of the circulatory system 

3 10 The answer can relate the concept of the circulatory system to hypertensive 
disorders in patients 

4a 10 
 

The answer contains the concept of cause and effect when there is a blood 
transfusion between different groups 

4b 10 The answer contains reasons that are connected with the concept of the 



 

 
208 

Pattipeilohy et al. | JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), Vol. 8 Issue 3, 2022, 205-215 

Question 
Number 

Score Description of the assessment of cognitive learning outcomes 

circulatory system 
5a 5 The answer contains an assessment of the case 
5b 10 

 
The answer contains an assessment of the case accompanied by the 
concept of a supportive circulatory system 

5c 15 The answer contains suitable criteria to prove the title of the investigation 
activity 

5d 15 The answer contains criteria that are suitable for the process of investigating 
the circulatory system 

 

Table 5. Description of critical thinking skills 

Score Critical thinking description 

5 The answers contain all correct, clear, and specific concepts; the description of the answers 
is supported by strong and clear arguments; the answers have good and interrelated flow of 
thinking; the answers are presented with good and correct grammar 

4 The answer contains some correct, clear, and less specific concepts; the description of the 
answers is supported by clear but less specific arguments; the answers have good lines of 
thinking and some interrelated concepts; the grammar of the answers is good and correct 

3 The answers contain a small number of correct and clear concepts; the description of the 
answers is supported by unclear arguments; the flow of thinking is quite good, with only a 
small number of related concepts; the answers are delivered with quite good and correct 
grammar but with some spelling errors 

2 The answers contain unclear and dubious concepts; the description of the answers is 
supported by arguments; the flow of thinking is not good and the concepts are not related to 
each other; the answers are presented with quite good and correct grammar but with 
incomplete sentences 

1 All answers contain incorrect concepts; the description of the answer does not contain 
arguments; the flow of thinking is not good; the grammar of the answers is not good 

0 No answer or wrong answer 

Adapted from the instrument of Zubaidah et al. (2015) 
 

Furthermore, the essay test was developed to measure critical thinking skills and cognitive learning 
outcomes on the human circulatory system material. Meanwhile, the scientific attitude was developed 
using indicators to measure students’ scientific ability in learning biology as seen in Table 6.  

 

Table 6. Description of students' scientific attitude 

Scientific 
attitude indicator 

Rating indicator 

Rubric 

3 2 1 

1 Curiosity 1. Students ask the teacher 
about the topic of identification 
and the selection of the 
investigation title 

Students 
are very 

enthusiastic 
 
 
 

Students are 
less 

enthusiastic 
 

Students 
are not 

enthusiastic 
 

2. Students formulate questions 
and hypotheses, seek 
information, and formulate 
stages of investigation 

2 Critical 1. Students critically respond to 
the findings/investigations of 
other groups 

Students 
are very 
critical 

Students are 
less critical 

Students 
are not 
critical 

2. Critical students answer 
questions from other groups 

3 Perseverance 3. Students are diligent in carrying 
out investigations 

Students 
are very 
diligent 

Students are 
less diligent 

Students 
are not 
diligent 4. Students are diligent in 

presenting the results of the 
investigation 

4 Honest 5. Students report investigative 
data as is 

Students 
are very 
honest 

Students are 
less honest 

Students 
are not 
honest 



 

 
209 

Pattipeilohy et al. | JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), Vol. 8 Issue 3, 2022, 205-215 

Scientific 
attitude indicator 

Rating indicator 

Rubric 

3 2 1 

5 Open minded 6. Students appreciate a friend’s 
answer 

Students 
really 

appreciate 

Students less 
appreciate 

Students do 
not 

appreciate 
6 Cooperation 7. Students actively cooperate 

with other group members in 
conducting investigations 

Students 
are very 
active 

Students are 
less active 

Students 
are not 
active 

Adapted from Rumahlatu et al. (2019) 

 
The data analysis was carried out using inferential statistics (ANCOVA) to determine the effect of 
applying the learning model on critical thinking, cognitive learning outcomes, and students’ scientific 
attitudes. The results of the initial tests of critical thinking and cognitive learning outcomes, as well as 
the initial observations of scientific attitudes were used as covariates. Before carrying out the inferential 
analysis, the data were first tested for homogeneity and normality. The homogeneity test used Levene, 
while the normality used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Table 7). This data analysis technique used an 
excel application and SPSS for Windows version 18.0. 

 
Table 7. Analysis of normality and homogeneity of the dependent variable 

Variable Significant Desc. Significant Desc. 

Cognitive learning outcomes .756 Homogeneous .270 Normal 
Critical thinking . 121 Homogeneous .615 Normal 
Scientific Attitude .479 Homogeneous .300 Normal 

*) Significance at p ≥ 0.05 

 
Each variable has a significance value of p≥0.05, which means that each variable has met the 
homogeneity and normality criteria so that it can be analyzed using ANCOVA statistics. 

 

Results and Discussion 
 

The influence of the learning model on students’ critical thinking 
The ANCOVA test showed that the independent variable of the learning model had a significant value of 
0.000 <p = 0.05. This means that the learning model has an influence on students’ critical thinking in 
studying the circulatory system as presented in Table 8. To know the differences between the IIG and 
IG models, a further LSD test was carried out as shown in Table 9.  

 

Table 8. ANCOVA on students’ critical thinking skills 

Source 
Type III Sum of 

Squares 
df Mean Square F Sig. 

Corrected Model 2459.601a 2 1229.801 28.945 .000 
Intercept 10031.722 1 10031.722 236.111 .000 
Critical_thinking_initial 1668.856 1 1668.856 39.279 .000 
Learning_model 868.215 1 868.215 20.435 .000* 
Error 4206.242 99 42.487   
Total 88776.000 102    
Corrected Total 6665.843 101    

*) Significance at p ≤0.05 

 
Table 9. Further LSD test on students critical thinking skills 

Learning model Mean LSD Notation 

IIG 31.1569 a 
IG 25.5882 b 

 
According to Table 9, further test of LSD showed notational differences between grades IIG and IG. This 
indicates that students who are taught using the IIG model have a higher average value of critical thinking 
than those taught with IG. Critical thinking is the ability to solve problems using a different way than 
usual. Persky et al. (2019) explained that the factors influencing these abilities were students’ 
perceptions, metacognitive skills, ways of thinking, automatic thinking skills, and the effort of each 



 

 
210 

Pattipeilohy et al. | JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), Vol. 8 Issue 3, 2022, 205-215 

student.  

Bezanilla et al. (2019) reported that there was a close relationship between the learning methods used 
by teachers and students’ critical thinking skills. IIG learning is the development of an inquiry-based and 
constructivist approach which is done by empowering students to investigate problems related to the 
human circulatory system. This study and discovery activity take place on the topics of the observation 
of human circulatory system using the torso, blood group analysis in pregnant women, the creation of 
artificial circulatory system, and the observation of Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever (DHF) patients and those 
with low and high blood pressure at PUSKESDES. Meanwhile, GI learning is only investigation-based 
which is oriented to observation topics in IIG class. There are differences between the two classes, in 
which the IG class does not go through the orientation and conceptualization stages such as the IIG. 
Research using IG and IIG learning provides opportunities to train and familiarize students with 
investigation activities directly related to the concept of the circulatory system. However, there is an 
additional stage in class IIG, a combination of stages of inquiry strategies such as orientation and 
conceptualization. According to Pedaste et al. (2012), the stages of the inquiry strategy are Orientation 
and Conceptualization (formulation of the questions and hypotheses), Investigation, Discussion 
(communication and reflection), and Conclusions. The orientation and conceptualization are part of the 
constructivist stage. Constructivist learning is the condition of empowering students to develop with 
teams to find solutions to questions that have been formulated (Khalaf & Zin, 2018). The constructivist 
basis consists of formulating questions and hypotheses, testing the hypotheses, as well as making and 
analyzing observations (Pedaste et al., 2012). Therefore, it can be concluded that inquiry and 
constructivist activities can empower students’ critical thinking skills. This is based on the opinion that 
constructivism enhances the ability to develop ideas and thinking by asking various questions 
(Topolovčan & Matijević, 2017; Kwan & Wong, 2015; Tunca, 2015; Lunenburg, 2011). 

 

The effect of learning models on cognitive learning outcomes  
The ANCOVA test showed that the independent variable of the learning model was significantly 
0.000<α=0.05 (Table 10). This means that the learning model influences students’ cognitive learning 
outcomes in studying the circulatory system. The next stage was conducting a further LSD test to 
determine the differences in the learning model used (Table 11). 

 
Table 10. ANCOVA on cognitive learning outcomes 

Source 
Type III Sum of 

Squares 
df Mean Square F Sig. 

Corrected Model 3125.940a 2 1562.970 16.813 .000 
Intercept 14617.706 1 14617.706 157.244 .000 
Cognitive_initial 149.459 1 149.459 1.608 .208 
Learning_model 3075.101 1 3075.101 33.079 .000 
Error 9203.207 99 92.962   
Total 639937.000 102    
Corrected Total 12329.147 101    

 
 

Table 11. Further LSD test on students’ cognitive learning outcomes 

Learning model Mean LSD Notation 

IIG 83.8431 a 
IG 73.0392 b 

 
The further LSD test in Table 11 showed that there was a notational difference between the IIG and the 
IG. The classes taught using the IIG learning model have a higher average score than those in the IG. 
This proves that students who are taught using the IIG have better cognitive learning outcomes. 
Yulianawati et al. (2021) and Indrawati et al. (2021) also reported the same result that implementing the 
GI-GI model (Group Investigation Inquiry) would effect cognitive outcomes in learning science concepts. 
This shows that the combination of both models and strategies can improve students’ cognitive 
outcomes. 

The outcomes increase with the application of the IIG model formed through a cognitive way of thinking. 
According to Redifer et al. (2019), cognitive thinking is referred to as a load that is formed through 
working memory. Therefore, the combined stages of IIG provide opportunities for students to have time 
to form cognition. This is carried out through Orientation (organizing students into study groups, 
identifying topics, and formulating titles) and Conceptualization (formulating questions and hypotheses, 
seeking information, and formulating investigation stages). Rahayu et al. (2018) developed inquiry 
learning which showed that each stage could improve cognitive learning outcomes on all biology 
concepts for junior high school students. Interesting and varied experiences when applying inquiry are 



 

 
211 

Pattipeilohy et al. | JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), Vol. 8 Issue 3, 2022, 205-215 

also a factor in improving cognitive learning outcomes (Kwon et al., 2017; Glackin & Harrison, 2017). 
This was also described by Lachowsky and Murray (2021) and Vlasenko et al. (2020) that inquiry-based 
learning and discovery based on transformative pedagogy built students’ understanding through the way 
of scientists during the learning process. Through the investigation, they will transform the results into 
what was learned at the orientation and conceptualization stages.  

Af’idayani et al. (2018) explained that discovery-based inquiry learning is based on constructivism theory, 
hence, students can construct their understanding of the material being studied. Meanwhile, Sudria et 
al. (2018) clarified that conceptual understanding was formed through a combination of inductive 
reasoning namely abstract conceptualization, observation, and concrete experience. This is 
strengthened by deductive reasoning namely verifying and generalizing concepts that have been 
experienced in the previous stages. This implies that the cognitive outcomes of those who are taught 
using the IG and IIG models are formed through inductive (investigation and discovery) and deductive 
reasoning (generalization of the investigation result). However, there are differences between the two 
learning models. The IIG model has the stages of inquiry learning for conceptualizing concepts through 
formulation of problem, hypotheses and data collection, and the formulation of the stages of investigation 
in a sequential step. Meanwhile, in IG, the students directly conduct investigations without undergoing 
the stages of conceptualizing their way of thinking. According to Alshehri (2016), cognitive thinking is 
formed through learning models that help improve the way of thinking. Stender et al. (2018) added that 
the various skills acquired during inquiry learning helped students construct their knowledge. 

 

The influence of the learning model on students’ scientific 

attitudes 
The ANCOVA test showed that the independent variable of the learning model had a significance of 
0.000 <p=0.05. This means that the learning model has an influence on the scientific attitude of students 
in studying the circulatory system as shown in Table 12. To know the differences between the two 
models, the LSD further test was carried out as presented in Table 13.  

 
Table 12. ANCOVA on students’ scientific attitude 

Source 
Type III Sum of 

Squares 
df Mean Square F Sig. 

Corrected Model 145.957a 2 72.979 25.199 .000 
Intercept 181.332 1 181.332 62.613 .000 
Scientific_attitude_initial .036 1 .036 .012 .912 
Learning_model 144.503 1 144.503 49.896 .000 
Error 286.710 99 2.896   
Total 96358.000 102    
Corrected Total 432.667 101    

 
Table 13. Further LSD test on students’ scientific attitude 

Learning Model Mean LSD Notation 

IIG 31.861 a 
IG 29.472 b 

 
The LSD test analysis in Table 13 shows that the difference in notation between IIG and IG classes. This 
indicates that students who are taught using the IIG model have a higher average scientific attitude than 
those taught using the IG. Astuti et al. (2020) explained that the attitude was an activity to train scientific 
skills through study activities. This shows that the IIG model empowers scientific attitudes more than the 
IG for SBB District High School students in studying the circulatory system. Hadiati et al. (2019) also 
revealed that different learning models affected the attitudes differently because various methods would 
bring up ways of thinking which affect their attitudes. Alam (2017) described that the attitude of scientific 
students also had an effect on their success in learning science. Learning with the IIG and IG models 
can empower students to conduct investigations according to the theme of each group. However, in IIG 
learning, students are first taught to identify investigative ideas, as well as formulating titles, questions 
and hypotheses, and stages. The stages in the IIG class are different from the IG which directly conducts 
investigations. The stages in the IIG can empower students’ scientific attitudes better, hence, they can 
identify investigative ideas, as well as developing curiosity and critical thinking. Nugraha et al. (2020) 
reported that students’ interest in formulating new ideas could improve their attitudes. 

To carry out investigative activities, students will develop an attitude of perseverance. To work together 
in groups, they need to be open-minded and work cooperatively. According to Lacap (2015), those with 
high scores in openness tend to behave, respect, and listen to other people’s ideas well. Also, they 
accept criticism and are willing to learn and admit new information, while honesty is built during data 



 

 
212 

Pattipeilohy et al. | JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), Vol. 8 Issue 3, 2022, 205-215 

reporting on the results of investigations and findings. An attitude of openness is one of the 
characteristics of a researcher (Mulhall et al., 2017; Salman & Al-Hamidawi, 2022). Honesty is very 
important for students in learning because it plays a role in their ability to explain concepts using 
knowledge they have earned through direct observation or theories (Jancirani et al., 2012). The attitude 
of openness and honesty is interconnected and must be owned by students in empowering their scientific 
attitude as researchers. Hanifah et al. (2016) stated that scientific attitude referred to activities carried 
out by students such as scientists. According to Sakliressy et al. (2021), the better the learning process 
and positive responses from students are, the better their scientific attitude is. Furthermore, Sari et al. 
(2018) showed that scientific attitudes were the basis for students to determine their reactions to 
environmental conditions. This attitude is one of the factors to manage the way of thinking and behave, 
hence, it affects cognitive learning outcomes and critical thinking when studying the concept of the 
human circulatory system. 

 

Conclusion 
 

The results showed that integration of the IIG learning model has an effect on students’ critical thinking, 
cognitive learning outcomes, and scientific attitudes in studying the human circulatory system. The 
stages in the model can empower critical thinking skills, cognitive learning outcomes, and scientific 
attitudes. This finding recommends the application of the IIG model in learning other biology concepts in 
high school. In addition, this research can contribute to teachers in designing innovative biology learning 
in the era of society 5.0. 

 

Acknowledgment 
 

The authors are grateful to the Dean of the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Pattimura 

University for funding this study with the Contract Number: 1086/UN13/SK/2021. 

 

Conflicts of Interest 
 

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper. 

 

Author Contributions 
 

M. P. and D. R: methodology and analysis; S. I. A. S: review and editing; and K. S: all sections. 

 

References 
 

Af’idayani, N., Setiadi, I., & Fahmi, F. (2018). The effect of inquiry model on science process skills and 
learning outcomes. European Journal of Education Studies, 4(12), 177–182. 
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1344846 

Akanbi, A. A., & Kolawole, C. B. (2014). Effects of guided-discovery and self-learning strategies on 
senior secondary school students’ achievement in biology. Journal of Education and Leadership 
Development, 6(1), 19–42. 

Alam, Q. (2017). Impact of the school outreach tour program of citizens archive of Pakistan on 
students’ perceptions and attitudes. International Journal of Instruction, 10(1), 289–306. 
https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.10118a 

Alshehri, A. M. (2016). Employing active learning and the flipped classroom model in developing 
countries: opportunities and challenges. Handbook of Research on Active Learning and the 
Flipped Classroom Model in the Digital Age, 272–285. 

Arinda, Y., Wilujeng, I., & Kuswanto, H. (2019). The application Group Investigation (GI) learning model 
assisted phet to facilitate student scientific work skills. International Journal of Educational 
Research Review, 4(2), 254–261. 

Astiti, K. A. (2018). The effect of group investigation learning model with brainstroming technique on 
students learning outcomes. SHS Web of Conferences, 42(1), 00122. 
https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184200122 

Astuti, T. N., Sugiyarto, K. H., & Ikhsan, J. (2020). Effect of 3D visualization on students’ critical 
thinking skills and scientific attitude in chemistry. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 151–
164. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13110a 

Asyari, M., Al Muhdhar, M. H., Susilo, H., & Ibrohim. (2016). Improving critical thinking skills through 
the integration of problem based learning and group investigation. International Journal for 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1344846
https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.10118a
https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184200122
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13110a


 

 
213 

Pattipeilohy et al. | JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), Vol. 8 Issue 3, 2022, 205-215 

Lesson and Learning Studies, 5(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-10-2014-0042 
Bezanilla, M. J., Fernández-Nogueira, D., Poblete, M., & Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2019). 

Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher’s view. 
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584 

Brown, P. J. (2010). Process-oriented guided-inquiry learning in an introductory anatomy and 
physiology course with a diverse student population. Advances in Physiology Education, 34(3), 
150–155. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00055.2010 

Dewi, R. K. (2021). Innovation of biochemistry learning in welcoming the super smart society 5.0 era. 
INSECTA: Integrative Science Education and Teaching Activity Journal, 2(2), 197–208. 
https://doi.org/10.21154/insecta.v2i2.3507 

Falaq, Y. (2020). Education of citizenship in higher education as a fortress of nation characters in 
facing era society 5.0. Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(4), 802–812. 
https://doi.org/10.31258/jes.4.4.p.802-812 

Glackin, M., & Harrison, C. (2017). Budding biology teachers: what have botanical gardens got to offer 
inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 52(3), 283–293. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1357648 

Gunawan, G., Harjono, A., Nisyah, M., Kusdiastuti, M., & Herayanti, L. (2020). Improving students’ 
problem-solving skills using inquiry learning model combined with advance organizer. 
International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13427a 

Hadiati, S., Kuswanto, H., Rosana, D., & Pramuda, A. (2019). The effect of laboratory work style and 
reasoning with Arduino to improve scientific attitude. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 
321–336. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12221a 

Hanifah, D. P., Marwoto, P., & Sugianto, S. (2016). Pengaruh kemampuan kognitif, kreativitas, dan 
memecahkan masalah terhadap sikap ilmiah siswa SD [The influence of cognitive abilities, 
creativity, and problem solving on the scientific attitude of elementary school students]. Journal of 
Primary Education, 5(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.15294/JPE.V5I1.12887. 

Hasan, R., Lukitasari, M., Utami, S., & Anizar, A. (2019). The activeness, critical, and creative thinking 
skills of students in the Lesson Study-based inquiry and cooperative learning. Jurnal Pendidikan 
Biologi Indonesia, 5(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i1.7328 

Ilmi, A. M., & Sunarno, W. (2020). Development of TPACK based-physics learning media to improve 
HOTS and scientific attitude. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1440 01204. 
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1440/1/012049 

Indrawati, Mahardika, I. K., Prihatin, J., Supeno, Astutik, S., Sudarti, & Wicaksono, I. (2021). The effect 
of the group investigation-guided inquiry (GI-GI) learning model to improve students’ collaboration 
and science process skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2104 012027. 
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2104/1/012027 

Jancirani, R., Dhevakrishnan, R., & Devi, S. (2012). A study on scientific attitude of adolescence 
students in Namakkal District. International Educational E-Journal, 1(4), 2–8. 

Kencanawati, I., Johari, A., Asra, R., & Syaiful. (2021). Analysis of procedure and process of expert 
assessment of modification of inquiry models on biology learning. International Journal of 
Scientific & Technology Research, 10(2), 131–134. 

Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential 
research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631–645. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1023 

Khalaf, B. K., & Zin, Z. B. M. (2018). Traditional and inquiry-based learning pedagogy: A systematic 
critical review. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 545–564. 
https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11434a 

Komala, R., Lestari, D. P., & Ichsan, I. Z. (2020). Group investigation model in environmental learning: 
An effect for students’ higher order thinking skills. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 
8(4A), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081802 

Kwan, Y. W., & Wong, A. F. L. (2015). Effects of the constructivist learning environment on students’ 
critical thinking ability: Cognitive and motivational variables as mediators. International Journal of 
Educational Research, 70, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.006 

Kwon, K., Shin, S., Brush, T. A., Glazewski, K. D., Edelberg, T., Park, S. J., Khlaif, Z., Nadiruzzaman, 
H., & Alangari, H. (2017). Inquiry learning behaviors captured through screencasts in problem-
based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(6), 839–855. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1419496 

Lacap, M. P. (2015). The scientific attitudes of students major in science in the new teacher education 
curriculum. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(5), 7–15. 

Lachowsky, N. J., & Murray, J. (2021). Group processing: Students reflections on the experience and 
impact of group processing. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 1–21. 
https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jpblhe.v0i0.2883 

Listiana, L., & Bahri, A. (2019). Empowering student’s creative thinking skill in biology classroom: 
potential of group investigation combined with think talk write (GITTW) strategy. Humanities & 

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-10-2014-0042
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584
https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00055.2010
https://doi.org/10.21154/insecta.v2i2.3507
https://doi.org/10.31258/jes.4.4.p.802-812
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1357648
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13427a
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12221a
https://doi.org/10.15294/JPE.V5I1.12887
https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i1.7328
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1440/1/012049
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2104/1/012027
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1023
https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11434a
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081802
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.006
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1419496
https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jpblhe.v0i0.2883


 

 
214 

Pattipeilohy et al. | JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), Vol. 8 Issue 3, 2022, 205-215 

Social Sciences Reviews, 7(3), 477–48. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7370 
Listiana, L., Raharjo, & Hamdani, A. S. (2020). Enhancing self-regulation skills through group 

investigation integrated with think talk write. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 915–930. 
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13159a 

Listiana, L., Susilo, H., Suwono, H., & Suarsini, E. (2016). Contributions of metacognitive skills toward 
students’ cognitive abilities of biology through the implementation of GITTW (Group Investigation 
combined with Think Talk Write) strategy. Proceeding of International Conference on Teacher 
Training and Education, 411–418. 

Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Critical thinking and constructivism techniques for improving student 
achievement. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, 21(3), 1–9. 

Margunayasa, I. G., Dantes, N., Marhaeni, A. A. I. N., & Suastra, I. W. (2019). The Effect of Guided 
Inquiry Learning and Cognitive Style on Science Learning Achievement. International Journal of 
Instruction, 12(1), 737–775. 

Marlina, R. (2013). Pemanfaatan lingkungan lokal dalam kegiatan laboratorium berbasis inquiry 
terhadap sikap ilmiah mahasiswa calon guru biologi. Jurnal Visi Ilmu Pendidikan, 10(1), 1052–
1060. http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/jvip.v10i1.2064 

Matson, J. O., & Parsons, S. (2006). Misconceptions about the nature of science, inquiry-based 
instruction, and constructivism: Creating confusion in the science classroom. Electronic Journal of 
Literacy through Science, 5(6), 1–10. 

Mulhall, P. J., Smith, D. V, Hart, C. E., & Gunstone, R. F. (2017). Contemporary scientists discuss the 
need for openness and open-mindedness in science and society. Research in Science Education, 
47(5), 1151–1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9554-6 

Naimnule, L., & Corebima, A. D. (2018). The correlation between metacognitive skills and critical 
thinking skills toward students’ process skills in biology learning. Journal of Pedagogical 
Research, 2(2), 122–134. 

Ningsih, S. R., Suryani, A. I., & Maulana, I. T. (2022). The implementation of group investigation e-task 
in activities learning (gietal) in higher education. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 20(2), 120–133. 
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.2.2066 

Nugraha, I., Putri, N. K., & Sholihin, H. (2020). An analysis of the relationship between students’ 
scientific attitude and students’ learning style in Junior High School. Journal of Science Learning, 
3(3), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v3i3.22873 

Özdemir, V. (2018). Birth of industry 5.0: Making sense of big data with artificial intelligence,“the 
internet of things” and next-generation technology policy. Omics: A Journal Of Integrative Biology, 
22(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2017.0194 

Ozden, B., & Yenice, N. (2014). An analysis of the secondary education students ’ scientific attitudes. 
International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 1(2), 86–97. 

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapuu, T. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry skills through 
reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning, 9, 81–95. 

Persky, A. M., Medina, M. S., & Castleberry, A. N. (2019). Developing critical thinking skills in 
pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(2), 161–170. 
https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7033 

Potočan, V., Mulej, M., & Nedelko, Z. (2021). Society 5.0: Balancing of industry 4.0, economic 
advancement and social problems. Kybernetes, 50(3), 794–81. 

Rahayu, A. B., Hadi, S., Istyadji, M., Zaini, M., Sholahuddin, A., & Fahmi, F. (2018). Development of 
guided inquiry based learning devices to improve student learning outcomes in science materials 
in middle school. European Journal of Alternative Education Studies, 3(2), 107–117. 

Rahmat, I., & Chanunan, S. (2018). 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), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11437a 

Ravista, N., Sutarno, & Harlita. (2021). Validity and practicality of guided inquiry-based e-modules 
accompanied by virtual laboratory to empower critical thinking skills. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan 
IPA, 7, 331–339. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v7iSpecialIssue.1083 

Redifer, J. L., Bae, C. L., & DeBusk-Lane, M. (2019). Implicit theories, working memory, and cognitive 
load: Impacts on creative thinking. Sage Open, 9(1), 1–16. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019835919 

Ristanto, R. H., Zubaidah, S., Amin, M., & Rohman, F. (2018). From a reader to a scientist: Developing 
cirgi learning to empower scientific literacy and mastery of biology concept. Biosfer: Jurnal 
Pendidikan Biologi, 11(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.v11n2.90-100 

Rumahlatu, D., Sangur, K., & Liline, S. (2019). Complex Instruction Team Product (CITP) learning 
model: Improving student’s scientific attitudes and learning outcomes. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan 
Biologi Idnonesia), 5(2), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i2.8367 

Sajidan, S., Perdana, R., Atmojo, I. R. W., & Nugraha, D. A. (2020). Development of science learning 
model towards society 5.0: A conceptual model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1511 
012124. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1511/1/012124 

https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7370
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13159a
http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/jvip.v10i1.2064
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9554-6
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.2.2066
https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v3i3.22873
https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2017.0194
https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7033
https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11437a
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019835919
https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.v11n2.90-100
https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i2.8367
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1511/1/012124


 

 
215 

Pattipeilohy et al. | JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), Vol. 8 Issue 3, 2022, 205-215 

Sakliressy, M. T., Sunarno, W., & Nurosyid, F. (2021). Students scientific attitude in learning physics 
using problem based learning model with experimental and project methods. Jurnal Ilmiah 
Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 10(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v10i1.8347 

Salman, S., & Al-Hamidawi, R. M. (2022). The extent to which middle school science teachers possess 
active open-minded thinking skills. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(5), 5735–5751. 

Santyasa, I. W., Kanca, I. N., Warpala, I. W. S., & Sudarma, I. K. (2019). Group investigation and 
explicit learning models in learning physics at senior high schools. Jurnal Penelitian & 
Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika, 5(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.21009/1.05216 

Sari, P. M., Sudargo, F., & Priyandoko, D. (2018). Correlation among science process skill, concept 
comprehension, and scientific attitude on regulation system materials. Journal of Physics: 
Conference Series, 948, 012008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/948/1/012008 

Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Härtig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science 
learning visible: the influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided 
inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1812–1831. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504346 

Sudria, I. B. N., Redhana, I. W., Kirna, I., & Aini, D. (2018). Effect of Kolb’s learning styles under 
inductive guided-inquiry learning on learning outcomes. International Journal of Instruction., 11(1), 
89–102. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1117a 

Topolovčan, T., & Matijević, M. (2017). Critical thinking as a dimension of constructivist learning: Some 
of the characteristics of students of lower secondary education in Croatia. Center for Educational 
Policy Studies Journal, 7(3), 47–6. 

Tunca, N. (2015). The regression level of constructivist learning environment characteristics on 
classroom environment characteristics supporting critical thinking. Eurasian Journal of 
Educational Research, 15(60), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.60.11 

Vlasenko, K. V, Rovenska, O. H., Lovianova, I. V Kondratyeva, O. M Achkan, V. V, & Tkachenko, Y. M 
Shyshkina, M. P. (2020). The implementation of inquiry-based learning in the organization of 
students’ research activities on Mathematics. Proceedings of the Syposium on Advances in 
Educational Technology, 2, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010929700003364 

Yonata, B., & H Nasrudin, H. (2018). Laboratory activity worksheet to train high order thinking skill of 
student on surface chemistry lecture. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 947 012027. 
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012027 

Yulianawati, R., Sutarto, S., & Budiarso, A. S. (2021). Pengaruh model pembelajaran GI-GI (Group 
Investigation-Guided Inquiry) pada materi pencemaran lingkungan terhadap hasil belajar dan 
sikap ilmiah siswa SMP [The effect of the GI-GI (Group Investigation-Guided Inquiry) learning 
model on environmental pollut. Pancasakti Science Education Journal, 6(2), 57–68. 

Zubaidah, S., Corebima, A. D., & Mistianah. (2015). Asesmen berpikir kritis terintegrasi tes essay 
[Integrated critical thinking assessment essay test]. Symbion: Symposium on Biology Education, 
200–213. 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v10i1.8347
https://doi.org/10.21009/1.05216
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/948/1/012008
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504346
https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1117a
https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.60.11
https://doi.org/10.5220/0010929700003364
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012027