Implementation of Small Laboratory-Based Guided Inquiry Learning Model to Improve Learning Outcomes

This study analyzed differences in learning outcomes in the cognitive domain of students who studied through the mini-laboratory-based guided inquiry learning model and the direct learning model. The sample of this study were 43 students of class VIII3 who studied through a mini-laboratory-based guided inquiry learning model and 43 students of class VIII4 who studied through a direct learning model taken from a population of 180 people. This research is a type of quasi-experimental research. Data collection techniques were carried out through documentation, and multiple choice cognitive learning outcomes tests were tested and met the criteria as a standardized test (valid and reliable). The research data were analyzed statistically, the results were: (1) there was a significant difference between the average pre-test scores of students learning through the mini-laboratory-based guided inquiry learning model and the significance value-based direct learning model. from 0.043; (2) the average post-test score of students who learn through the mini-laboratory-based guided inquiry learning model is higher than the average post-test score of students who learn through the direct learning model based on a significance value of 0.044, and (3) the average gain value students who learn through the mini-laboratory-based guided inquiry learning model are lower or equal to the average gain value of students who learn through direct learning based on a significance value of 0.279. These results indicate the influence of the mini-laboratory-based guided inquiry learning model on students' cognitive learning outcomes in the subject matter of vibrations and waves with a 95% confidence level or a 5% chance of error. This research can then be developed by adding other variables such as inquiry skills and students' understanding of concepts. The implication of this study is that teachers and students can implement small laboratories to support the learning process in the form of interactive learning


INTRODUCTION
Learning is the heart of dynamic education. One of the reasons for the low quality of education is the lack of success in the learning process. Successful learning is characterized by the achievement of learning objectives and increased student understanding of each subject (Suwarni et al. 2018;Saputro et al. 2020). Natural Science is one of the subjects where the level of understanding of the material still lacks by most students (Awang, 2015;Asmoro & Mukti, 2019). According to Sohibun (2013), learning Science-Physics in schools, especially at the Junior High School (SMP) level, is still limited to understanding a collection of knowledge in facts, concepts, and formulas. Students are only exposed to concepts and formulas without any other learning activities requiring total student activity to understand the knowledge being taught. It is what makes students' understanding in learning Science-Physics at school does not increase.
Based on the preliminary observations made at Madrasah Tsanawiah (MTs) Negeri 2 Kendari in class VIII, information was obtained that in the teaching and learning process, learning is taught directly, where the material is delivered directly by the teacher to the students. Learning like this makes students passive because the teacher is monotonous in bringing the subject matter himself. There needs to be a learning innovation that involves all students' abilities to search, find, and investigate systematically, logically, and critically and does not require a relatively long time. The teacher's role is only to guide students to discover their knowledge. The learning model by this is the guided inquiry learning model.
According to Mulyasa (2006), Guided inquiry learning is inquiry learning with teacher guidance, which is a way of delivering lessons by studying something that is search for critically, analytically, and scientifically using specific steps towards a conclusion. Guided inquiry learning guides students to have individual responsibility and responsibility in a group or partner (Margunayasa et al. 2019;Putra et al. 2016;Nisa et al. 2018).
Guided inquiry learning will be more effective with practicum activities (Nopiya et al. 2020). The main objective of practicum activities is to train students to work scientifically to acquire knowledge, skills, and scientific values (Gunawan et al. 2019;Yulianti et al, 2020).
Based on an interview with one of the teachers at MTsN 2 Kendari, practicum activities for some Science-Physics materials were not held, one of which was vibration and wave material. The laboratory room is no longer functional, and the facilities for practicum equipment in the laboratory are inadequate. The importance of practicum activities encourages the author to develop a mini-laboratory-based guided inquiry learning model (Astuti et al. 2019;Akbar et al 2019). This model applies the guided inquiry learning model by providing practical activities in the classroom in its application by utilizing the tools around us.
Several studies that have been carried out are related to guided inquiry learning based on mini-laboratories, namely: (1) Research conducted by Sohibun (2013), which was carried out at one of the state junior high schools in Rokan Hulu Riau district showed an increase in learning outcomes in the cognitive aspects of students after applying the model laboratorybased guided inquiry learning; (2) Research conducted by Maretasari & Subali (2012) conducted at SMA Negeri 1 Jepara showed significant results on student learning outcomes and scientific attitudes when applied laboratorybased guided inquiry learning models.
Based on the description, it is concluded that the application of the laboratory-based guided inquiry learning model can improve students 'science-physics learning outcomes, so it is deemed necessary to conduct a study entitled "application of a mini laboratory-based guided inquiry learning model to improve the learning outcomes of Class VIII MTsN 2 Kendari students cognitive domains on the subject matter of vibrations and waves.

METHODS
This research is a quasi-experimental research type. The population in this study were students of class VIII MTS Negeri 2 Kendari from class 8 th 1grade to class 8 th 1grade. The sampling technique used was the purposive sampling technique. Next, the research using sample class 8 th 3grade and class 8 th 4grade were assigned as research samples. The determination of the experimental class and the control class was carried out using a random technique through a lottery process. The drawing is done by taking a lottery paper containing the serial numbers of the two classes, which is done blindfolded. The results are used as the experimental class, and the rest are used as the control class. The results obtained class 8 th 3grade with 44 students as the experimental class and 8 th 4grade with 43 students as the control class.
The independent variable in this study is a guided inquiry learning model based on a minilaboratory, and the dependent variable is the learning outcomes of students' cognitive domains on the subject matter of vibrations and waves.
The data collection technique in this study was carried out by analyzing the documentation of student learning outcomes to determine the experimental class and the control class and giving tests of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain. The cognitive realm learning outcome test in the form of an objective test in the form of multiple-choice as many as 20 questions, with the scoring if it is correct, it is given a score of 1, and if it is wrong, it is given a score of 0.
Data analysis was performed using statistical analysis techniques, namely descriptive statistics, and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics describe the value obtained by each class in the form of average scores, maximum and minimum values, and standard deviation. Inferential statistical analysis is intended to test the research hypothesis before testing the hypothesis, first testing the basics of analysis as a guide for conducting which test will be used. Testing the basics of analysis used consisted of testing the normality of the data using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. In contrast, the homogeneity test of the data used the analysis technique with the Levene statistical test using SPSS 16.0 software. As a follow-up, the t-test was used test the mean significance of the value of the dependent variable and test the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. All null hypothesis testing is carried out at the 5% significance level.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
From the results of the analysis, it was found that there was an increase in learning outcomes after the guided inquiry-based learning model, this can be seen in Table 1. Based on Table 1 in general, it can be seen that the average value of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain on the subject matter of vibrations and waves of experimental class students and control class students both experienced an increase. At the time of the pretest, the lowest and highest values were in the control class. At the time of the post-test the lowest score achieved by both classes is the same, and the highest score is in the experimental class. Even so, the difference between the experimental class mean and the control class average is almost significant.  Table 2 in general, it can be said that the Gain category of cognitive learning outcomes on the subject matter of vibrations and waves, both experimental class students and control class students, are mostly in the moderate category, namely 27 people (63%) in the experimental class and 32 people ( 74%) in the control class.  Table 3 shows that the significant value for the experimental class pre-test is 0.18 greater than α = 0.05. Thus it can be concluded that the data on student learning outcomes using guided inquiry learning models based on minilaboratories are normally distributed. Likewise, in the post-test experiment class, the control class pre-test and post-test the significant value was greater than α = 0.05, so it can be concluded that each learning class is learning either with a guided inquiry learning model based on a mini laboratory or a learning model. directly distributed normally at α = 0.05. Tables 4 show that the significant value obtained is greater than α = 0.05. So it can be concluded that the pre-test and post-test data of students who learn through guided inquiry learning models based on mini-laboratories and direct learning models are homogeneous at α = 0.05. Based on Table 5, it can be seen that the Sig. (2-tailed) is smaller than α = 0.05, so it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the pre-test mean scores of students who learn through a mini-laboratorybased guided inquiry learning model and a direct learning model at α = 0, 05.  Table 6, it can be seen that the Sig. (2-tailed) is smaller than α = 0.05, so it can be concluded that the post-test average score of students learning through the guided inquiry learning model based on mini-laboratories is higher than the post-test average score of students learning with direct learning model. Data analysis was performed using statistical analysis techniques, namely descriptive statistics, and inferential statistics. Based on the descriptive analysis of the pre-test results of students in the class to be taught with a guided inquiry learning model based on a minilaboratory and a direct learning model, the student's average score for the experimental class was 37.093, and the control class was 33.023. These results indicate that students' initial abilities for both the experimental and control classes are statistically the same or homogeneous, so that the two classes can be given different treatment. This result can also be proven in the homogeneity test, which shows that the two classes are homogeneous.
The descriptive analysis of the post-test results of students who applied a guided inquiry learning model based on a mini-laboratory and a direct learning model obtained the mean value of the experimental class students, namely 79.186. This value is higher than the control class, with an average of 76.046. Students can find their concepts and knowledge through an investigation carried out during the experiment in a classroom that applied a guided inquiry learning model. After inferential analysis using the t-test, it shows a statistically significant difference between the pre-test results of students who will be taught a mini-laboratorybased guided inquiry learning model and students who will be taught a direct learning model with a Sig value. (2-tailed) 0.040 is smaller than α = 0.05.
In testing the results of the post-test, students showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the post-test mean scores of students who studied with the mini laboratory-based guided inquiry learning model and the post-test mean scores of students who studied with the direct learning model or It can be said that the post-test average score of students who learn with the guided inquiry learning model based on mini-laboratories is higher than the post-test average score of students who learn using the direct learning model. The Sig can prove this result. (2-tailed) which is smaller than the value of α = 0.05, namely 0.044.
Furthermore, the inferential analysis results on the average value of the Gain of the learning outcomes of students who studied with the guided inquiry learning model based on mini-laboratories and students who studied with the direct learning model showed that statistically, the average N-Gain value of class students who studied with the inquiry learning model supervised mini-laboratory-based lower or equal to the average gain value of student learning outcomes studying with the control class. The Sig evidences this result. (2-tailed) which is greater than the value of α = 0.05, namely 0.279. This research is supported by previous research, such as (1) Sohibun (2013) conducted at a state junior high school in Rokan Hulu Riau district stated that the guided inquiry learning model based on mini-laboratories could improve student learning outcomes in cognitive aspects; and (2) research conducted by Maretasari & Subali (2012) conducted at Senior High School 1 Jepara stated that the guided inquiry learning model based on mini laboratories had a significant positive effect on student learning outcomes and scientific attitudes.

CONCLUSION
Based on the formulation of the problem and the results of data analysis and hypothesis testing, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) Students' learning outcomes of Science-Physics after learning have increased both for the experimental class and the control class. This is indicated by the acquisition of an average learning outcome that has increased from 37.093 to 79, 186 for the experimental class and the control class from 33.023 to 76.046;(2) N-Gain students' science-physics learning outcomes for both the experimental class and the control class were mainly in the medium category, namely 27 people in the experimental class and 32 people in the control class; (3) There is a significant difference between the pre-test mean score of students who learn through a mini-laboratorybased guided inquiry learning model with a direct learning model at = 0.05; (4) The post-test average score of students learning through the mini-laboratory-based guided inquiry learning model was higher than the post-test average score of students learning through the direct learning model at = 0.05; and (5) The average gain value of students learning through the minilaboratory-based guided inquiry learning model is lower or equal to the average gain value of students who learn through the direct learning model at α= 0.05.