Inquiry learning based on real-life problem solving (IL-RLPS) to develop critical thinking in air pollution education

Maria Gaudensia Ladja; Nuny Nurhabibah; Ari Widodo; Sariwulan Diana

doi:10.21009/biosferjpb.69149

Authors

Maria Gaudensia Ladja Biology Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
Nuny Nurhabibah Biology Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
Ari Widodo Biology Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
Sariwulan Diana Biology Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.69149

Keywords:

Air pollution education, Ceiling effect, Critical thinking skills, Inquiry-based learning, Normalized gain

Abstract

Science instruction in Indonesian secondary classrooms often positions students as passive recipients, limiting opportunities for evidence-based reasoning. This gap is particularly acute for critical thinking development, which is central to biology and science education yet underexplored in the context of air-pollution-based inquiry in Indonesia. This study examined the effect of an inquiry learning model based on real-life problem solving (IL-RLPS) focused on air pollution on the critical thinking skills of 31 Grade VIII students at a public junior high school in Bandung, Indonesia. The study used a one-group pretest–posttest design conducted over two class meetings through six learning phases: stimulation, problem formulation, data collection, application, communication, and reflection, culminating in the design of an air filter prototype. Student’s critical thinking skills were measured using a 10-item test, validated by two science education experts (content validity ratio = 0.89), supported by an implementation observation sheet and a seven-criterion project rubric (α = 0.83). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a statistically significant improvement (Z = −6.853; p < .001) with a large effect size (r = 0.87). The overall N-gain was 0.16 (low), largely attributable to a ceiling effect among seven high-scoring students; excluding these students raised the N-gain to 0.21, with 17 students recording a mean gain of 0.57 (moderate). Interpretation and knowledge-transfer indicators showed the strongest gains, whereas solution evaluation and investigation design-higher-order metacognitive demands-remained comparatively underdeveloped. These findings suggest that IL-RLPS is a promising, low-cost strategy for cultivating critical thinking in biology classrooms, particularly for students with initially low-to-moderate ability, provided that future implementations extend beyond two sessions and incorporate explicit scaffolding of evaluative reasoning

References

Arifah, F., Suprapto, N., & Setiawan, B. (2023). Profile of critical thinking skills in science learning class at junior high school on additive materials. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 601–607. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v4i3.288

Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., Liu, Q., & Ding, L. (2009). Learning and scientific reasoning. Science, 323(5914), 586–587. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167740

Basak Erkacmaz, K., Bakirci, H., & Kara, Y. (2023). Effect of inquiry-based laboratory approach on scientific process skills, critical thinking skills, and opinions of ninth grade students: Cell unit example. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pembelajaran IPA, 9(2), 139. https://doi.org/10.30870/jppi.v9i2.19733

Billah, A., Masykuri, M., Sarwanto, & Sajidan. (2021). Analysis of critical thinking in junior high school students through science learning in Indonesia: A systematic review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1796(1), 012013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1796/1/012013

Carvalho, C., Fíuza, E., Conboy, J., Fonseca, J., Santos, J., Gama, A. P., & Salema, M. H. (2015). Critical thinking, real life problems and feedback in the sciences classroom. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 12(2), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.36681/

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath & Company.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.

Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment.

Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038165

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

Isenaj, Z. S., Moshammer, H., Berisha, M., & Weitensfelder, L. (2025). Effect of an educational intervention on pupil’s knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and behavior on air pollution in public schools in Pristina. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 15(5), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15050069

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Kubinger, K. D. (2005). Psychological test calibration using the Rasch model: Some critical suggestions on traditional approaches. International Journal of Testing, 5(4), 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0504_3

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.

Putra, P. D. A., Sulaeman, N. F., & Supeno. (2023). Exploring students' critical thinking skills using the engineering design process in a physics classroom. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32, 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00640-3

Rocha, H., Viseu, F., & Matos, S. (2024). Problem-solving in a real-life context: An approach during the learning of inequalities. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13828

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. ed.). Sage Publications.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

Sucilestari, R., & Arizona, K. (2020). The impact of inquiry-based learning on students’ critical thinking skills. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 408, 172–175. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200220.031

Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76, 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wati, I. K., Rosana, D., & Wilujeng, I. (2026). How science teachers foster critical thinking in junior secondary classrooms: A narrative inquiry from a constructivist perspective. International Journal of Educational Reform. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879261458338

Yu, K.-C., Wu, P.-H., & Fan, S.-C. (2020). Structural relationships among high school students' scientific knowledge, critical thinking, engineering design process, and design product. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 1001–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10007-2

Zagatti, E., Russo, M., & Pietrogrande, M. C. (2020). On-site monitoring indoor air quality in schools: A real-world investigation to engage high school science students. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(11), 4069–4072. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00065