The Application Of The Group Investigation (GI) Cooperative Learning Model To Improve Students’ Understanding Of Biodiversity In Grade 10 At SMAN 2 Mori Atas

Background of study: The biology teaching process at SMAN 2 Mori Atas has been characterized by the use of conventional teaching practices. Preliminary observations indicated that students experienced difficulties in understanding biodiversity concepts, and some students had not yet achieved the minimum passing criterion of 70 for the biodiversity topic. These conditions indicated the need for learning activities that could provide students with greater opportunities to actively investigate, discuss, and connect biological concepts. Therefore, the Group Investigation (GI) model was implemented to provide a more collaborative and investigative learning environment for learning biodiversity.
Aims and scope of paper: Using Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) questions evaluated using the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy, this classroom action research (CAR) attempts to analyse the use of the Group Investigation (GI) cooperative learning model in improving the engagement and conceptual understanding of Year 10 students at SMAN 2 Mori Atas regarding the topic of biodiversity.
Methods: This study involved 23 pupils (8 girls and 15 boys) selected through purposive sampling. It focused on implementing the Group Investigation (GI) learning model to develop pupils’ Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in biodiversity learning, grounded in constructivist theory. Data were collected through teacher and pupil activity observations and HOTS tests administered in two action cycles. Pupils’ understanding was analyzed using the five levels of the SOLO Taxonomy: prestructural, unistructural, multistructural, relational, and extended abstract.
Result: The implementation of the GI model improved teacher and student activities to the “very good” category in Cycle II. SOLO Taxonomy results also showed improved quality of students’ thinking, from predominantly prestructural and unistructural levels in Cycle I to multistructural (12 students) and relational (11 students) levels in Cycle II.
Conclusion: The implementation of the Group Investigation (GI) cooperative learning model was accompanied by progressive improvements in students’ classroom engagement and the structural complexity of their conceptual understanding across the two action cycles. The shift in students’ SOLO profiles toward the multi-structural and relational levels indicates a development in the quality of conceptual understanding during the implementation of GI. These findings suggest that GI may serve as a potential alternative instructional strategy for supporting student engagement and higher-order thinking in biodiversity learning.