Feasibility of Learning Devices with Guided Inquiry Model to Develop Senior High School Students’ Science Process Skills

This research aims to produce learning devices with guided inquiry models that are valid, practical, and effective, making them worth using to practice students' science process skills. This development research uses the ADDIE model. Developed the device in a trial to grade XI students at one of the State High Schools in Banjarmasin. Data collection uses learning device validation sheet instruments, lesson plan implementation, observation sheets, and learning outcome tests. The results showed that the learning tools developed: (1) valid based on the assessments of academics and practitioners, (2) practical based on the implementation of the lesson plan, and (3) effective with medium categories based on N-gain results of learning outcomes. Concluded that learning devices with guided inquiry models deserve to be used to practice students' science process skills. This learning device can be one of the alternatives, especially in temperature and heat materials at the High School level.


INTRODUCTION
publishers provided by schools, (4) learning devices used by teachers are also not optimal, for example still using lesson plan implementation which is commonly used for all schools, (5) The contents of the high school printed book used are also not following the needs of students, (6) The depth and clarity of teaching materials contained in the printed book are still not very clear, and there are still many that are not following the syllabus.
Alternatives are used to achieve learning goals, and several ways are needed, namely by developing a learning device. Learning devices are a set of media or means that can help and facilitate learners in the teaching and learning process to achieve predetermined goals (Ayuningtyas et al., 2015;Nusantari et al., 2021;Zainuddin & Misbah, 2021). Learning tools are needed to support the teaching and learning process in lesson plan implementation, teaching materials, student worksheets, and learning outcome tests. Therefore, researchers developed learning devices using guided inquiry models to train students' SPS. The role of the teacher in the guided inquiry learning model is quite dominant, the teacher guides the student in conducting investigations through initial questions, then deploys students to discuss (Agustina et al., 2017;Mills et al., 2014;Pamenang et al., 2020). Students are stimulated to participate actively and be directly involved in the learning process to improve students' ability to understand the material learned. In addition, train students' abilities in science process skills and be able to obtain information independently, practice behaving honestly, disciplined, responsible, cooperate and communicate well (Hidayat et al., 2016;Maknun, 2020;Ural, 2016). The inquiry learning model involves all students' ability to the maximum to seek and investigate systematically, critically, logically, and analytically so that students can formulate their findings (Ballesta-Claver et al., 2021;Handayani et al., 2017). Through guided inquiry learning, it can teach students to have individual responsibilities and responsibilities in groups (Almuntasheri & Wright, 2016;Ambarsari & Santosa, 2013;Koksal & Berberoglu, 2014). This is in line with several studies conducted by those showing that students' science process skills improve after applied learning with a guided inquiry model (e.g., Karim et al., 2016;Komariah et al., 2017;Nnorom, 2016;Pratono et al., 2018;Sabahiyah & Marhaeni, 2013;Subekti & Ariswan, 2016). The research developed a learning device with guided inquiry models on temperature and heat materials to practice students' science process skills. Therefore, the general purpose of this study is to produce a physics learning device with a guided inquiry model on temperature and heat matter that is feasible to practice students' science process skills.

RESEARCH METHOD
The model used in this research and development is the ADDIE model. The ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development or Production, Implementation or Delivery, and Evaluation) was developed by Dick and Carry (1996) to design a learning system that can be used for various forms of product development, one of which is a learning device. Peterson (2003) Explains that there are five stages of ADDIE, consisting of frameworks with different goals and functions in the development process. The five stages of the ADDIE development model are (1) Analysis, in this phase, researchers identify the cause of the learning problem. (2) Design, this design phase uses the output results of the analysis phase that has been done to design strategies for developing learning devices. (3) Development or Production, This development phase aims to produce the necessary learning tools in the learning process. (4) Implementation or Delivery, this implementation phase is the phase of implementing learning tools that have been created to determine the feasibility of learning devices, and (5) Evaluation, in this evaluation phase, researchers determine the feasibility of the learning device developed based on the validity, practicality, and effectiveness and achievement of student SPS, then re-repair the learning device developed if needed.

Participants
The test subjects in this study were in the grade XI students of one of Banjarmasin State High Schools for the 2019/2020 school year, with 22 students. Purposive sampling used to get the participants.

Research Instruments
The research instruments used include: (1) the validity of the learning device reviewed from the learning device validation sheet assessed by three validators, namely two academics and one physics learning practitioner; (2) the practicality of the learning device is reviewed from the observation sheet on the implementation of lesson plan assessed by two observers; and (3) the effectiveness of the learning device is reviewed using student learning outcome test sheets to measure students' cognitive learning outcomes. The validity of learning devices is obtained based on the average score for each aspect of the learning device assessment and is assessed by three validators. The valid category of learning devices is determined by comparing the scores of the assessment results obtained with the validity criteria of the learning device (Widoyoko, 2016). If tested valid, the following data is calculated reliability, and the results of the reliability calculation are then adjusted to the assessment criteria by Arikunto (2013).
The assessment of the observation sheet for the implementation of the lesson plan is calculated by the average value of the total score of each component and adjusted to the criteria for assessing the performance of the lesson plan (Widoyoko, 2016). If tested practically, the following data is calculated reliability as a score equalization involving two observers using the coefficient of agreement formula H. J. X Fernandes and the results of reliability calculations are then adjusted to the assessment criteria by Arikunto (2014). The effectiveness of learning devices can be measured based on the improvement of the student's learning outcome test results in the form of pre-tests and post-tests given at the beginning and end of the learning process. According to Hake (1998), the magnitude of the increase is calculated using the normalized gain (N-gain).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Validity of Learning Devices
This research developed a learning device with a guided inquiry model to train students' SPS. the products produced in this development research are learning tools in the form of lesson plan implementation, teaching materials, student worksheets, and learning outcome tests. Lesson plan implementation refers to core competencies and basic competencies, then elaborated into indicators of competency achievement and learning goals compiled based on the revised 2013 curriculum. The teaching materials developed are tailored to the content of the material with the needs of students for the high school level and following the school syllabus. The content of the teaching material itself is collected from several literary sources. The teaching material developed consists of front cover, foreword, concept map, keywords, teaching material information, indicators of primary competencies achievement (as a learning goal), temperature and heat learning materials, examples of questions at each meeting, science figures, training questions at each meeting, a summary of materials at each meeting, and bibliography. Student worksheets developed are adapted to the learning model used, namely the guided inquiry model. The guided inquiry model is applied to students to conduct experiments independently but still under the guidance of teachers, both through the instructions for filling in student worksheets and direct assistance by teachers during the teaching and learning process. Learning outcome tests in the form of essay questions refer to the purpose of learning to determine students' cognitive abilities. Learning outcome tests contain as many as ten questions adjusted to the number of learning goals based on the predetermined basic competencies.

The Validity of Learning Devices
The lesson plan implementation validity test consists of several aspects of assessment. The results of the lesson plan implementation validity test calculation are in Table 1. The validity of lesson plan implementation results in Table 1 show that the formulation aspect of learning goals has a very valid category; language aspects have valid categories; aspects of the contents of lesson plan implementation have valid categories, and the time aspect has valid categories. The average result of all aspects obtains a valid category. This valid category of validity illustrates that the lesson plan implementation developed has met the standard of suitable lesson plan implementation components. The assessment by the three validators of this lesson plan implementation has a high level of confidence. Thus, the lesson plan implementation developed deserves to be used in learning to train SPS students. The validity test of teaching materials consists of several aspects of assessment, namely characteristics of content feasibility, the feasibility of presentation, language feasibility, and feasibility of infographics. Results of the validity test calculation against teaching materials are contained in Table 2. The validity of the teaching materials in Table 2 indicates that aspects of content eligibility, eligibility of presentation, language feasibility, and feasibility of infographics have valid categories. The overall result of the validity of the teaching material has a valid category. This shows that the teaching materials of the development results have met the components of suitable teaching materials. Thus, the teaching materials developed deserve to be used in classroom learning as a learning resource for students.
The student worksheets validity test consists of several aspects of assessment, namely characteristics of student worksheets format, language, and the content of student worksheets. Results of the validity test calculation against student worksheets are contained in Table 3. The validity of student worksheets in Table 3 shows that aspects of the student worksheets format have very valid categories; language aspects have valid categories, and the content aspect of student worksheets has valid categories. The average result of all aspects obtains validity with valid categories. The results of this valid category validity illustrate that the student worksheets developed have met the competence of good. So it can be said that the student worksheets designed are worth using in learning to train SPS students. The learning outcome test validity test consists of several aspects of assessment. Results of validity test calculations against learning outcome tests are contained in Table 4.  Table 4 shows that the question's validity in learning outcome tests obtains a valid category. There are two main aspects in making learning outcome tests: the general construction aspect that is categorically very valid and the language aspect that has a valid category. Prastowo (2016) stated that a learning outcome test must be designed by having a learning outcome tests grid and complex components according to indicators and must meet the assessment requirements to obtain a good learning outcome test.
While based on the validity of the aspect of language, it stated that it had completed the criteria of using the correct Indonesian rules and using language that is easy to understand. So it can be said that the learning outcome tests developed are worth using in the learning process.

The practicality of Learning Devices
The implementation of a lesson plan is used to determine the practicality of the learning device developed and observed by two observers for each meeting during the learning process. The implementation of the lesson plan was carried out four times. The learning model used for the four meetings is the guided inquiry model. The results of observations on the implementation of the lesson plan for all meetings are contained in Table 5.  The result of the observation of the implementation of lesson plan implementation is in Table 5. Overall, the results of observations of the performance of the lesson plan continue to increase from each meeting. The results of observations on the implementation of lesson plan at the 1 st meeting category are practical overall with the reliability of the performance of lesson plan produced by good category. Students are not used to making conclusions independently, so they still need guidance from teachers, especially this happens at 1 st meeting, which is still in the stage of adjusting learning to the new model. The first time doing practicum activities, many students were still confused by the learning procedures carried out. The results of observations of the implementation of lesson plan 2 nd meeting categories are convenient overall with the reliability of the performance of lesson plan produced by high category. This shows that the learning steps in the lesson plan can be done or implemented completely. This is following Nieveen's opinion in Akker (1998) that the implementation of a lesson plan can be said to be practical if the device is easy and can be implemented in learning.
The results of observations on the implementation of lesson plan 3 rd meeting categories are efficient as a whole and for each phase with the reliability of the performance of lesson plan resulting from high category. This shows that the learning steps in the lesson plan implementation can be done or implemented completely. The results of observations on the implementation of lesson plan 4 th meeting categories are efficient as a whole and for each phase with the reliability of the performance of lesson plan resulting from high category. This is because at the 4 th meeting, relearning is conducive, and students have begun to understand the flow of the learning process based on previous meetings. The results of the validity of learning devices can also affect the practicality of learning devices. A suitable device should be practical and accessible in its implementation and not demand complicated preparations (Widoyoko, 2016). Salam et al., (2016) stated that a valid learning device could make it easier for teachers to guide students in the learning process because it can facilitate teaching and learning activities and student activities become more targeted.

Effectiveness of Learning Devices
The effectiveness of the learning device is reviewed based on student learning outcomes in the form of pre-tests and post-tests to measure students' cognitive abilities, which are then calculated using N-gain. The effectiveness of student N-gain results can be seen in Table 6.  Table 6 shows that the N-gain result acquires a medium category. After being calculated based on N-gain, the acquisition of student learning test results can be effective because it has reached the medium category. The things that affect the student's pre-test score to be low and affect the student's completion value are that students are still less careful in writing down known variables, and the written symbols are not following what has been asked or taught. In addition, in doing the problem of analyzing. Students should explore the relationships between these variables by finding constants to find the relationships between variables mathematically. Misinterpretation when working on this problem by the research of Afriani et al., (2017) States that misunderstanding can occur when students answer questions directly without understanding the meaning of the question. Applying learning materials to physical phenomena in everyday life is also an obstacle for some students. Students have not been detailed in explaining the phenomena presented using concepts that correspond to the material.
Post-test scores increase from pre-test scores because, in each learning, students are constantly reminded of how to analyze experimental data through practicums conducted in the classroom and explanations of the physical equations used during the learning process. Students are also given training questions that are answered, both independently and in groups, and given reinforcement by the teacher after the problem is done. This is in line with the statements of Charli et al., (2018) that the solution that teacher implements decrease the difficulty of students in doing physics problems, namely, providing motivation to students at the beginning of learning and providing problem exercises to students so that students can learn to determine the equations used, write physics symbols correctly, and strengthen the understanding of concepts owned by students. It can also be proven by the presence of six students who can achieve the minimum completion criteria. However, the average results of the post-test obtained showed that the value still did not reach completion. However, students' cognitive abilities have improved, based on the cognitive realm of students, namely C2, C3, and C4, as many as ten questions in the form of essays. In the problem with the cognitive realm of C2, as many as one question obtained an average percentage of 56.5%, while for problems with the cognitive realm of C3, as many as two questions obtained an average percentage of 47.7% and 61.3%. The 7 questions with the cognitive realm of C4 obtained an average percentage of 48.2%, 32.0%, 64.7%, 61.5%, 33.9%, 55.7%, and 72.4%. From the percentage results on questions with the cognitive realms of C2, C3, and C4, it can be concluded that the students who get the lowest scores are in questions with the cognitive realm of C4, based on the percentage result of 32.0%. This result is because many students' answers are still empty in the answer column. After all, students have not been able to understand the questions given, so it impacts the scoring results obtained by students. Here are figures 2, 3, and 4 examples of answers from students in the cognitive realms of C2, C3, and C4 reviewed from precise and incorrect answers.
Another factor that can improve this learning outcome test is temperature and heat learning materials using phenomena that students can find in everyday life, making it easier for students to understand the application of the learned concept. The teaching process is not an activity of transferring the teacher's knowledge to students. Still, teaching is an activity that allows students to learn from their own experiences as their knowledge. The use of guided inquiry models also affects improving student learning outcomes because students are actively involved in learning with the guidance of teachers. A student will more easily remember the knowledge he gained independently and longer compared to the information he gained from listening to others (Ambarsari & Santosa, 2013). This is in line with several studies that show significant improvements in student learning outcomes in terms of cognitive aspects and skills of science processes using guided inquiry learning models (Duran & Dökme, 2016;Serevina & Luthfi, 2021;Subekti & Ariswan, 2016). The average gain of the category shows that practical learning tools are used to improve student learning outcomes, and learning devices have met the minimum category of learning device eligibility.

CONCLUSION
Learning devices with inquiry models guided by temperature and heat materials to practice students' science process skills are worth using because they are proven to meet valid, practical, and effective criteria. The implication of the research shows that learning devices can be one of the alternatives, especially in temperature and heat materials at the High School level. The limitations of this study are still limited to the senior high school level. Therefore, further research can be carried out with a larger number of samples, different materials and different levels of school education.