CAN ARGUMENT-DRIVEN INQUIRY MODELS HAVE IMPACT ON CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS FOR STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENTPERSONALITY TYPES?

Critical thinking skills are important in the context of 21st-century learning, where students are able to express reasons that support the assumptions or conclusions they obtain. A preliminary study at 25 Bandar Lampung Middle Schools found that science learning had not been maximized in training critical thinking skills. This study aims to determine the effect of applying the Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) learning model on students’ critical thinking skills based on differences in academic abilities, gender, and personality type. This study used Nonequivalent (Pretest and Posttest) Control Group Design and One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design. The data of pretest and posttest essay questions results were analyzed using nonparametric statistical tests. The results showed that there was an effect of ADI learning on critical thinking skills in high and low academic students. Moreover, this model provided a greater influence on students’ high academic abilities. The ADI model could also accommodate all male and female students with various types of personality types because the gender and personality type aspects do not show significant differences in students’ critical thinking abilities, both between male and female students and students with different personality types. Overall, the ADI model is effective in improving students’ critical thinking skills.


INTRODUCTION
Education is a continuous process of learning in social activities to gain knowledge, skills, attitudes and thinking abilities that are carried out by someone to develop individual skills that can later be useful in community life. One form of thinking skills obtained through the educational process is critical thinking skills. Critical thinking skills are one of the skills that must be trained in the context of 21st century skills where these skills train students' reasoning and argumentation in providing reasons to support assumptions or conclusions obtained (OECD, 2018). These competencies are important to be taught to students in the context of the field of study and the theme of 21st century learning. Critical thinking (along with creative thinking) in thought (Gibson, 1995) will be an important personal asset for future success. Critical thinking skills are important skills that a person needs to have for a better future.
Critical thinking is good thinking, almost opposite to thinking that is illogical and irrational (Facione, 2010). Critical thinking is one of the higher order thinking skills required. The definition of critical thinking skills in a nutshell is a mental process in perceiving the world using existing knowledge. Research conducted by Kirmizi, Saygi, & Yurdakal (2015) revealed that there was a moderate, positive and significant relationship between their disposition of critical thinking sub-scale scores and problem solving skills scores. That is, critical thinking skills have a relationship with problem solving skills, where the better the critical thinking skills will be followed by betterproblem solving skills. Critical thinking skills were influenced by various factors, one of which is the structure of thinking, which is the structure of thought expressed in oral and written, which is called argumentation (Hasnunidah, Susilo, Irawati, & Sutomo, 2015). Critical thinking skills also have a relationship with argumentation skills. One indicator of critical thinking developed by Ennis (2011), namely, regulating strategies and tactics, One of the sub-aspects of managing strategy and tactics is analyzing arguments. So, it can be stated that if someone has good critical thinking skills, he/she will also have good argumentation skills.
Some educational researchers have investigated various factors that can influence the level of students' skills in critical thinking. Among them are academic abilities, gender, and personality types. Academic ability is one of the keys to one's success, where a student with a good academic achievement will gain several benefits, so it needs special emphasis on academic abilities (Calaguas, 2012). Academic ability is also an important aspect that is reviewed to measure the success of school education and education in a country at large. Student academic ability is influenced by four factors, namely: 1) the role of teachers and schools; 2) peers; 3) family; and 4) students themselves (Yahaya, 2003). From the students themselves, academic abilities can be determined by the basic process of student learning, learning goals from students, the use of strategies of thinking and thinking of the way students think. Each school usually mapped students' academic conditions in the last few years into high and low levels of academic ability (Sukmawati, Ramadani, Fauzi, & Corebima, 2015). High and low academic ability of students need to be trained to empower their thinking skills and metacogical skills so that mastery of the concept was better so as to improve learning performance (Van der Stel& Veenman, 2008). High and low academic abilities require a special attention because students who have moderate academic skills may experience an increase or decrease caused by the factors mentioned above.
Sulistiana, Sriyono, & Nurhidayati (2013) explained about the discussion on gender and motivation focused on how differences in the ways men and women have in their beliefs and values. The confidence of female and male students related to competence varies based on the context of achievement (Ricketts & Rudd, 2004) stating the value of women is higher than the value of men in terms of critical thinking skills analysis. Women are also rated higher than men in their ability to draw conclusions, which means women are better able to identify the elements needed to draw conclusions, to form hypotheses, and to consider relevant information.
A good learning process in students is also influenced by factors that are in students which are called internal factors. One of the internal factors that influence student learning is the characteristics of students (Aunurrahman, 2012). One of the problems in the learning process is the characteristics of students related to the personality of students. Student personality has an influence in the learning process. In fact, there are still many teachers who teach without paying attention to the personality/characteristics of students (Halder, Roy, & Chakraborty, 2017). As an educator it is highly demanded to understand the personality characteristics of students so that they can provide stimulation or treatment that is in accordance with the personality types of students faced. In general, personality is divided into 4 types. Four types of personality types: sanguinis, choleric, melancholy, and phlegmatic. Thus, there needs to be an understanding of the teacher to pay attention to and recognize the personality of students in carrying out learning.
A particular learning model is needed to practice critical thinking skills, one of which is inquiry. Sequential implementation of inquiry in science learning has the potential to improve students' thinking skills, because scientific inquiry in science learning helps students develop their ability to think, work, and become scientific and communicate it as an important aspect of life skills (BNSP, 2006). From the results of the preliminary study, 82% of the 18 respondents from Bandar Lampung science teachers have applied the inquiry model, but the implementation has not been maximized. Inquiry learning applied by the teacher influences the improvement of students' skills, both those with high and low academic abilities; students with melancholic, sanguine, coholeric, and plegmatic personality types; and male and female students. Based on the results of preliminary research, 78% of 18 teachers reviewed how to form heterogeneous study groups in their students' abilities. The application of inquiry-based learning showed the results of high critical thinking in students (Greenwald & Quitadamo, 2014). The purpose of using the inquiry inquiry strategy was to emphasize the process of thinking systematically, logically, analytically, and critically (Hadisi, 2014). One way to improve students' critical thinking skills in learning science, especially Physics, is to use inquiry.
Critical thinking ability is a reasoning ability that requires students to be able to express the reasons that support the assumptions or conclusions they obtain. Critical thinking (along with creative thinking) will be an important personal asset for a better future. Critical thinking skills are important skills that need to be stimulated through learning planned and designed in the context of the field of study with the theme of 21st century learning. One solution that can be carried out to improve student's critical thinking skills was to apply learning with the Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) model. Sampson & Gleim (2009) stated that ADI learning model was a model that is designed to arrange the objectives of activities in the classroom as an effort to develop, understand, or evaluate a scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon or a solution to a problem. Then, Demircioglu &Ucar (2015) stated a harmonious opinion that ADI was an effective model for improving academic achievement and science process skills. The ADI learning model was designed to change conventional learning which makes students have the opportunity to learn in scientific inquiry in a reflective manner so they can develop skills argumentation and critical thinking (Kadayifci, Atasoy, & Akkus, 2012;Sampson, Grooms, & Walker, 2010). There were eight stages in implementing learning using the ADI model as presented in Table 1.

Stage 8
Reflective Discussion The implementation of ADI learning model had many advantages in classroom. Amin & Corebima (2016) stated that ADI learning model could: 1) frame the purpose of class activities; 2) involve students in investigations; 3) encourage individuals to learn how to produce arguments that articulate and justify explanations for research questions as part of the investigation process; 4) give a place for students how to propose, support, evaluate, revise ideas through discussion and writing in a more productive way; 5) create a class community that values evidence and critical thinking; 6) encourage students to take control of learning from themselves. Ginanjar (2015) stated that the methods developed in the ADI model can train students' scientific argumentation skills. The results of the research conducted by Sampson, Enderle, Grooms, & Southerland (2012) showed some evidence for the effect that ADI-based learning can improve inquiry skills and scientific understanding. The study result of Hidayat (2017) showed that the mathematical reasoning abilities of students who get learning with ADI learning model are better than students with direct learning.
Critical thinking skills need to be trained to students so that they can face the demands of 21st century learning according to the objectives of Indonesian education. ADI learning model may be the best alternative solution to developing student's critical thinking skills. Thus, this research was conducted to examine the influence of ADI learning model compared to other learning models on improving students' critical thinking skills by paying attention to differences in academic abilities, gender, and student personality types.

METHOD
This study adopted the Non-equivalent (Pretest and Posttest) Control Group Designthat was also mixed by adopting One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design. Determination of the experimental and control groupswas conducted using random sampling techniques.This research was conducted on eighth grade students of Public and Private Middle Schools in Bandar Lampung City. We used different samples for each data collection. So, the sample we used for the four data packages we obtained, namely 1) we involved 52 students (each experimental and control class was 26 students) to obtain pretestposttest data on students' critical thinking skills in the experimental class (using ADI learning model) and control class (using conventional learning model), 2) we involved 26 students to obtain pretest-posttest data of students' critical thinking skills through the application of the ADI learning model by looking at student academic ability level variables, 3) we involved 30 students to obtain data students' pretest-posttest critical thinking skills through the application of the ADI learning model by looking at gender aspect, and 4) we involved 32 students to obtain pretest-posttest data on students' critical thinking skills through the application of the ADI learning model by looking at aspect of students' personality types. We used purposive sampling techniques to determine the sample. The variables in this study were the application of the ADI model as an independent variable, critical thinking skills as the dependent variable and academic ability; gender; and personality type as a moderator variable. Samples that were reviewed based on academic ability are first grouped based on their academic abilities through science and KKM grades (minimum graduation criteria). Specifically the samples reviewed based on personality types before learning were firstly tested to classify students into appropriate personality types using a personality profile test in Florence littaeuer's book Personality Plus.
The instruments used in this study were test instruments of critical thinking skills that refer to the indicators of critical thinking skills (Ennis, 2011). Test instruments in the form of essay questions as many as 6 questions that have been tested for validity and reliability before being used by the sample. Tests were carried out before and after learning model implementations. Furthermore, the four data packages on students' critical thinking skills were tested for normality (using kolmogorov smirnov test)and homogenity(using Levene's test).
Overall, the data analysis techniques we used were descriptive and inferential quantitative analysis techniques. For the first data package, namely the pretest posttest data of students' creative thinking skills from the implementation of the ADI and conventional models, we used the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U Test to see the significance of differences in each pretest and posttest data in each experimental class and control class. Meanwhile, to see the improvement of students' critical thinking skills through pretest and posttest data, we used nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and were supported by N-gain analysis to see the effectiveness of the ADI model implementation. Meanwhile, the data analysis techniques for the second dan data packages were almost the same as the first data package analysis. For the last data package based on personality type, we used Kruskall Wallis Test to examine the significance of differences in each pretest and posttest data in each personality type which then be continued using Mann-Whitney U Test. We only use the experimental class, so the focus of data analysis was more oriented to the aspects of academic ability level (high vs. low), gender (male vs. female), and personality type (choleric vs. melancholy vs. phlegmatic vs. sanguine).

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Findings
We describe the findings that we obtained in four sections because we adjust to the four data packages we analyzed. All the findings that we obtained always focused on students' critical thinking skills. The findings we obtained were outlined as follows.

ADI vs. Conventional Learning Model
The earliest data we obtained aimed to see the effect of implementing ADI and conventional learning models on students' critical thinking skills. The results of the normality and homogeneity test indicated that the data were not normally distributed with a significance value of <.05 but homogeneous with a significance value>.05. Then, the results of the Mann-Whitney U Test and descriptive analysis can be seen in Table 1 and 2. Table 1 showed that the significance value of the pretest and posttest data between the experimental and control classes showed a value of <.05, which means that there were significant differences from the pretest and posttest values between the experimental and the control classes. That is, the application of ADI and conventional learning models both have an influence on students' critical thinking skills. However, if seen in Table 2, the mean value of experimental class posttest data that applies the ADI learning model was higher than the control class that applies conventional learning models. It indicated that the ADI learning model provided a greater influence than conventional models in improving student's critical thinking skills. Meanwhile, the results of pretest-posttest data analysis to examine the improvement of students' critical thinking skills were represented in Figure 1 and Table 3. Table 3 showed that the significance values of the pretest and posttest data between the experimental and control classes <.05, which means that there was a significant increase between the pretest and posttest data in both the experimental and control classes. However, N-gain analysis results in Figure 1 showed that the N-gain for experimental class was higher than the control class which means ADI learning model was more effective than conventional model in improving student's critical thinking skills.

Student's Critical Thinking Skills Based on Academic Ability Level (High vs. Low)
The results of the normality and homogeneity test of pretest-posttest in one class which implementing ADI learning model indicated that the data were not normally distributed with a significance value of <.05 but homogeneous with a significance value>.05. Then, the results of the Mann-Whitney U Test and descriptive analysis can be seen in Table 4 and 5. Table 4 showed that the significance value of each pretest and posttest showed a value of <.05, which means that there were significant differences for each pretest and posttest values between high and low academic ability students after ADI learning model implementation. That is, the application of ADI gave a contribution on high and low academic ability students' critical thinking skills. However, in Table 5, the posttest mean value of high academic ability level was higher than the low one. It indicated that the ADI learning model provided a greater influence on improving critical thinking skills of students who had high academic abilities. Furthermore, the results of pretest-posttest data analysis to examine the improvement of students' critical thinking skills based on academic ability levels were represented in Figure 2 and Table 6. Table 6 showed that the significance values of the pretest and posttest data between high and low academic ability level <0.05, which means that there was a significant increase between the pretest and posttest data in both the high and low academic ability level. However, N-gain analysis results in Figure 1 showed that the N-gain for high academic ability level was higher than the low one which means ADI learning model was more effective in improving critical thinking skills of high academic ability student than low academic ability student.

Student's Critical Thinking Skills Based on Gender (Male vs. Female)
The results of the normality and homogeneity test of pretest-posttest in one class which implementing ADI learning model indicated that the data were not normally distributed with a significance value of <.05 but homogeneous with a significance value>.05. Then, the results of the Mann-Whitney U Test and descriptive analysis can be seen in Table 7 and 8. Table 7 showed that the significance value of each pretest and posttest data showed a value of >.05, which means that there were no significant differences for each pretest and posttest values between male and female students after ADI learning model implementation. That is, the application of ADI gave the same contribution on male and female students' critical thinking skills. Although Table 8 showed the mean value of posttest data for female students was higher than male students, but statistically the difference was not significant. It indicated that the ADI learning model provided the same influence on improving critical thinking skills of male and female students. Furthermore, the results of pretest-posttest data analysis to examine the improvement of students' critical thinking skills based on gender levels were represented in Figure 3 and Table 9. Table 9 showed that the significance values of each pretest and posttest data between male and female students<.05, which means that there was a significant increase between the pretest and posttest data in both male and female students. This result was supported by N-gain analysis results in Figure 3. It showed that the N-gain for male and female students were the same in the high category which means ADI learning model was very effective in improving critical thinking skills of male and female students.

Student's Critical Thinking Skills Based on Personality Type
The results of the normality and homogeneity test of pretest-posttest in one class which implementing ADI learning model indicated that the data were not normally distributed with a significance value of <.05 but homogeneous with a significance value>.05. Then, the results of the Kruskall Wallis Test and descriptive analysis can be seen in Table 10 and 11. Table 10 showed that the significance value of pretest data showed a value of <.05, which means that there was a significant difference for pretest value between the four personality types (choleric, melancholy, phlegmatic, and sanguine). Meanwhile, posttest data showed a value of >.05, which means that there was no a significant difference for posttest value between the four personality types That is, the application of ADI learning model had the same influence in improving student's critical thinking skills in four personality types observed. That is, the ADI learning model could accommodate all students with different personality types in order to improve students' critical thinking skills. Furthermore, the results of pretest-posttest data analysis to examine the improvement of students' critical thinking skills based on student's personality type were represented in Figure 4 and Table 12. Table 6 showed that the significance values of the pretest and posttest data of Choleric and Sanguine personality types <.05, which means that there were significant increase between the pretest and posttest data. However, Table 6 also showed that the significance values of the pretest and posttest data of Melancholy and Phlegmatic personality types >.05, which means that there were no significant increase between the pretest and posttest data. These results indicated that ADI learning model was powerful in improving critical thinking skills of choleric & sanguine students, but the learning model was less potential for the same purpose of melancholy and phlegmatic students.

Discussion
The results of data analysis showed that the ADI learning model was more powerful in improving students' critical thinking skills than the conventional learning model. This could happens because the application of the ADI model in the classroom trained students to argue. In the third stage, namely, the tentative argument production stage, students and their groups were guided to make schemes of argumentation consisting of three parts namely claim, evidences, and warrant/backing. Claims contain statements that are answers to research questions, evidences contain facts obtained based on experiments, and warrant/backing contains rational reasons why evidences can be used to support claims. Furthermore, in the fourth stage, which is an interactive session of argument, students were given the opportunity to assess or revise their arguments after discussions with other groups. At this stage, students were trained to look at the quality of arguments based on claims, evidences and warrant/backing both from the group itself and from other groups.
The overall steps in the ADI learning model were very supportive in optimizing the achievement of students' critical thinking skills. These steps were not found in conventional learning models. Conventional learning only provided opportunities for students to practice understanding the material context through explanation and practice questions. The methods used in conventional learning are less varied, unlike the ADI model. In conventional models, the method used was discussion, but in the ADI learning model, the methods used were very varied, ranging from discussions, presentations, experiments, and demonstrations.
The reason why the ADI learning model was effective in enhancing students' critical thinking skills was because through the ADI learning model, students will be trained to analyze arguments, starting from identifying conclusions, identifying reasons, looking for similarities and differences, identifying and dealing with irrelevance, search for structural arguments, and summarize. The following whole activities were indicators of students' critical thinking skills (Ennis, 2011).In the aspect of giving further explanation, one of the sub critical thinking skills was identifying assumptions, which was further divided into identifying stated reasons and assumptions for reconstructing arguments. These two sub critical thinking skills were in accordance with the third and fourth stages of the ADI model where students produce arguments that contain claims, evidences, and warrant/backing and then assess and revise arguments. Thus, the application of the ADI model was very appropriate to improve students' critical thinking skills.These study results were in line with the research conducted by Fatmawati, Susilowati, & Iswari (2019). They stated that theimplementation of the ADI model had an effect on argumentation and critical thinking skills. Learning with the ADI model required students to develop critical thinking skills through problem solving. This was in line with research conducted by Rajagukguk & Simanjuntak (2015) who stated that problembased learning could contribute greatly to improving students' critical thinking skills, especially if learning is integrated with ICT.
Those findings were also supported by research conducted by Sampson, et. al. (2010), the use of the ADI model improves students' ability to argue. ADI model in learning shows a close relationship between students' weaknesses in arguing with their critical and creative thinking skills (Kadayifci, et. al., 2012). The research conducted by Riandi (2015) showed that the application of the Argument Driven Inquiry learning model can significantly improve the mastery of students' concepts compared to guided inquiry learning. The research conducted by Ginanjar (2015) showed that the methods developed in the ADI model can train the ability of junior high school students' scientific argumentation on the topic of light. Demircioglu & Ucar (2015) stated that the ADI model can improve students' critical thinking skills because students are given the opportunity to design their research and find the results of their own research. Thus students will be involved in many scientific argumentation processes that will support strengthening their critical thinking skills. ADI learning model could train students' scientific argumentation skills (Dwiretno & Setyarsih, 2018;Kurniasari &Setyarsih, 2017). After participating in learning, students'scientific argumentation skills increase from level 1 to level 3. Based on the results of research by Marhamah, Nurlaelah, & Setiawati (2017),ADI model could improve students' argumentation skills, it means that the ADI model can facilitate students in practicing scientific arguments and evaluating the quality of their arguments, one of which is at the stage of making tentative arguments and the stage of argumentation sessions. Hasnunidah, et. al. (2015) stated that ADI strategy was an effective strategy in improving students' critical thinking skills from conventional strategies and also critical thinking achievement for students with high academic abilities higher than students with low academic abilities.
These results were alsostrengthen by constructivist learning theory. The application of the ADI Model is based on constructivist learning theory. Constructivist learning theory is a process of forming knowledge (Sudarsana, 2018). This formation must be carried out by the students themselves. Then students must actively carry out activities, actively think, form concepts and give meaning to something they learn. Constructivist learning theory was a learning theory that conceptualizes learning as a result of building meaning based on previous experience and knowledge (Lowenthal, Muth,& Provenzo, 2009).
Based on the learning theory above, the application of the ADI Model will train students' argumentation skills in the process of making, revising and evaluating an argument. Then, the argumentation skills of students trained through this ADI Model will be saved and will be used when this argumentation skill is needed. By being active in the learning process using the ADI model, students will experience in making and evaluating arguments so that they can improve their argumentation and critical thinking skills. The ability to think critically was influenced by various factors, especially the structure of one's thinking (Hasnunidah, et. al., 2015). The structure of thought can be expressed through language, both oral and written, which is then referred to as argumentation.
The results of statistical data analysis supported by N-gain analysis showed that the application of the ADI learning model had an impact on students' critical thinking skills, both those who had high academic abilities and low ones with the effectiveness in the medium category. However, ADI learning models were provided a greater influence and more effective in improving critical thinking skills of students who have a high academic ability than they who had a low academic ability. These results were in line and strengthen the research conducted by Zohar & Dori (2003); Saido, Siraj, Nordin, & Al_Amedy (2018), students with high academic achievements have gained higher thinking scores than their peers with low academic achievements. This happened because the high academic ability of students had capacity above and beyond their average ability of peers (Ramos & Verschueren, 2019), so they tended to have great motivation to learn, enthusiasm and curiosity (Froiland & Worrell, 2016), so they were more active and more participating in the learning process. The great motivation of students who have high academic abilities certainly had an impact on improving more optimal critical thinking skills (Howard, Tang, & Austin, 2015;Kwan & Wong, 2015).
Based on gender aspects, the results of data analysis show that the application of the ADI learning model had an impact and influence on improving students' critical thinking skills, both male and female students. That is, the ADI model was able to accommodate all students without looking at gender aspects to be able to improve the critical thinking skills that students had. This happened because male and female students were given the same roles, responsibilities, opportunities, and demands during the learning process, so that they had equal opportunities in gaining learning experience.Research conducted by Sulistyawati (2017) showed results that there were no significant differences regarding the influence of gender on students' thinking and learning outcomes. As stated in Sugihartono's (2007) study that there is actually no evidence that relates between physical differences and intellectual abilities. The results of Sulistiana, et. al. (2013) study showed that there was no gender influence on students' Physics learning achievement. Although some of the other opinions expressed by Ricketts & Rudd(2004) showed that the value of women is higher than the value of men in terms of critical thinking skills of analysts. Atamimi (2014) also stated that on the academic excellent scale aspects, there was a correlation with aspects of sex role differences. Actually the difference in the results of the learning that occurs is caused by environmental factors during the learning process. One of them comes from teacher treatment factors.
Statistical analysis to see the effect of applying the ADI learning model showed that the role of the ADI model did not provide significant differences for the four personality types of students observed, namely choleric, melancholy, phlegmatic, and sanguine. That is, the ADI learning model could be applied to every student with a diverse personality type. This can be seen from the N-gain value which indicates that the effectiveness of the ADI learning model were at high and medium category. However, a significant increase in students' critical thinking skills was only shown by students who had a choleric and sanguinist personality type. When viewed descriptively, the pretest and posttest values of the four personality types increased. However, statistically, the significant improvement in students' critical thinking skills with a type of melancholic and phlegmatic personality were not statistically proven. Research conducted by Sunarto, Budayasa, & Juniati (2017) also identified the influence of a person's personality with problem solving abilities. The results of the study were certainly in line with and support the results of the research we conducted that personality also contributes to problem-solving abilities that automatically also influence the improvement of thinking skills, especially critical thinking skills.

CONCLUSION
The process of knowledge construction in arguing with the ADI model improvedstudent's critical thinking skills.The ADI learning model was more effective in improving students' critical thinking skills than the conventional learning model. This could happens because the application of the ADI model in the classroom trained students to argue, and it was the critical thinking skills indicator. ADI learning model implementation showed an impact on students' critical thinking skills, both those who had high academic abilities and low ones with the effectiveness in the medium category. However, ADI learning models were provided a greater influence and more effective in improving critical thinking skills of students who have a high academic ability than they who had a low academic ability.ADI model can also accommodate all male and female students with various types of personality types, because the gender and personality type aspects do not show significant differences in students' critical thinking abilities, both between male and female students and students with different personality types -different.