Development of Sophisticated Thinking Blending Laboratory (STB-LAB) to Improve 4C Skills for Students as Physics Teacher Candidate

The 21st Century Learning is an increasingly interactive and attractive learning era. The learning process in the 21st century does not only focus on teaching and learning activities in the classroom and explaining theories. There need to be laboratory activities that help provide visuals to students, especially future physics teacher candidates. Various innovations have been made in the development of laboratory activity models. There are still many laboratory activity models that focus on one activity, namely real or virtual. Laboratory activities in the 21st century do not always have to focus on super skills or 4C skills currently in the spotlight and forget about analytical skills and the balance between LOTS and HOTS. This study aims to develop a mixed laboratory activity model that can build 4C skills focused on analytical skills and balance between LOTS-HOTS; in addition, two activities are combined into one, real and virtual. The method used in this research is in the form of Research and Development using the ADDIE model with three meetings in implementation. The results obtained in this study, namely STB-LAB, obtained good model and guide validity results. N-Gain data showed that in the control class, only creative thinking skills were compelling enough, with a value of 59.47. In contrast, in experiment class, only communication skills have an effective enough category with a value of 57.84, but other aspects have an effective category with a value > 76.00. The hypothesis test showed that using STB-LAB could improve students as physics teacher candidate 4C Skills.


INTRODUCTION
Learning in the 21st century is learning that has left various old and traditional ways of student learning (AACTE and P21 2010). Learning models in the 21st century have been developed with various characteristics each to adapt to all the needs educators need. Innovation can arise in various ways, such as combining innovation or modification. Even innovation can arise because creativity needs analysis (Blândul 2015). One of the many innovations developed in laboratory activities is the combination of virtual and real laboratories.
Laboratory activities in education are one of the activities in the learning process needed to observe, activate, and interpret findings (Peña-Ríos et al. 2012;Gunawan, Harjono and Sahidu 2015). In e-Journal: http://doi.org/10.21009/1 addition, laboratory activities can improve students' understanding of the content rather than just theory. Sulistiowati, in her research, found that students' interest in laboratory activities was very high by showed high interest in learning and understanding after using real and virtual laboratories (Sulistiowati et al. 2013). This laboratory activity can facilitate the process of transferring knowledge from educators to students, as in Putra's (RP Putra et al. 2021) research, he found that 78.4% of the subjects he studied in semesters 2 to 6 students regarding their views on the use of virtual laboratories in learning were felt to be very necessary because apart from just theory, Virtual and actual laboratory activities are needed to describe the theory being studied.
Knowing that laboratory activities are an essential additional requirement in learning, educators must choose the selection of laboratory activity models according to their needs so that students can accept all forms from educators (Nurdyansyah and Fahyuni 2016;Tayeb 2017). Previous research (Hanum 2013) revealed that the learning model, including the monotonous and less attractive laboratory activity model, can cause many shortcomings in learning and laboratory activities. Based on the results of the analysis of researchers in the model of laboratory activities carried out at the Physics Education Study Program, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati, Bandung, for the past four years, it shows that there has been no integration of the integration model of laboratory activities with virtual, sometimes educators only do one of the two types of laboratory activities. With the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic, laboratory activities are very limited, and not all students get actual laboratory activities. The use of virtual laboratories for a long time will make students not get real skills in using laboratory equipment, as explained in research conducted by Faour (Faour et al. 2018) which states that students who use virtual laboratories for too long will not develop psychomotor skills and operational tools.
Various problems arise in the laboratory activity model, one of which is the concern between real and virtual laboratories (Suryanti et al. 2019). The dilemma faced by educators is when they want laboratory activities but they are not available, but when they want to do virtual laboratory activities, there is no syntactic harmony between real and virtual laboratory activities, Previous study (Nanto et al. 2022) revealed in his research that sometimes laboratory activities are similar. For actual laboratory activities. Another study (Jaya 2012) revealed the main problem in virtual laboratory activities: the absence of alignment of work steps with real laboratory activities. The use of laboratories seems only for verification. The related study (Setya et al. 2021) revealed that in real laboratory activities, sometimes students do not know whether the results of the data obtained after the experiment are correct or not. However, in another study (Riki Purnama Putra et al. 2021) he found no difference in virtual and real laboratories' results. The data values obtained were only 0.1 to 0.2% different.
A previous study  shows that the e-module he made could only be used in virtual laboratory activities because the e-module used was HOT-VL based. A study about the development of laboratory activity models seeks to create two different laboratory activities with the HOT-LAB and HOT-VL models. (Malik and Setiawan 2015;Sapriadil et al. 2019). However, another research (Tayebinik andPuteh 2013) shows that blending learning should be made into one model because if there was a separation of models, educators would be confused and would repeat the same thing but on a different platform.
Based on the problems and previous findings, the learning model and the laboratory activity model are deemed to have the main objective of achieving learning outcomes. Especially in the laboratory activity model must have a hierarchy so that the blending of laboratory activities is more focused and clear without having to use the same model on different platforms. Therefore, this study aims to develop a model of laboratory activities based on the sophisticated thinking blending laboratory. This laboratory activity model results from sophisticated thinking, higher order thinking laboratory, and higher order thinking virtual laboratory.

METHODS
This research focuses on product development using the Research and Development model and the ADDIE model, which have five stages, namely; (1) Analysis; (2) Design; (3) Development; (4) Implementation; (5) Evaluation. In particular, the flow description can be seen in FIGURE 1. In the analysis stage, activities will analyze needs such as observing the current situation and the availability of models to analyze the results of evaluating laboratory achievements in previous semesters at the Physics Education Study Program of UIN Sunan Djati Bandung. In the design stage, designing the syntax for the STB-LAB model and adapting it to the available learning theories, for development, namely the development of the STB-LAB guidebook, which then from the design and development stages each will look for validity and construct validity by using a questionnaire sheet and assessed by several lecturers which then the results are averaged to become a proportion with a mathematical equation that can be seen in EQUATION 1 (Sugiyono 2013).

= × 100%
(1) X is based on the priority or quality of a learning model that can be adapted to it, as seen in TABLE 1 (Sugiyono 2013). Implementation was carried out in 3 meetings, with three different materials, and holding control and experimental classes with 30 subjects in each class and carried out for two semesters or about eight months. Small and large scale tests to determine the practicality results in product assessment as indicated by the percentage value of the observation sheet for lecturers and the results of the 4C skills measured using various rubrics whose aspects can be seen in TABLE 2. The results of each skill will be hypothesized using an independent sample t-test comparing the pretest and N-Gain scores from the two classes with a design that can be seen in TABLE 3. The evaluation shows the results in the form of evaluating the results of statistical tests on the 4C skills values that have been obtained to the results of validation and practicality.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This study aims to develop a complete laboratory activity model with a guidebook to the results that can be in the form of 4C skills using the ADDIE model R&D method. The explanation for each ADDIE stage will be discussed in stages.

Analysis
Models of laboratory activities in general still use conventional models such as cookbooks or inquiry-guided laboratories. A previous study revealed that the need for ICT in learning models must develop because, in the 21st century, students are required to master technology that will develop rapidly in the future. Inline, other research which analyzed learning models, including laboratory activities, that not all learning models can facilitate technological needs. So, students are perceived to only master one ability, and the abilities mastered are still considered basic abilities, not abilities needed in the 21st century (Khoerunnisa and Aqwal 2020). Other related studies had integrated two laboratory activities models, namely PjBL and STEM. They still felt he had to repeat the activities to achieve the two goals (Rochim, Prabowo and Budiyanto 2021). From various problem analyses, previous research found that the needs of the Education students of UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung require integration between two types of laboratory activities, namely the combination of real and virtual. In addition to direct experience, students can also know the use of technology (RP Putra et al. 2021). Researchers took initial data to analyze the needs of educators and students for laboratory activities which can be seen in TABLE 4. A previous study on hybrid activities revealed the various shortcomings of hybrid activities with two or more models, which include; (1) Time will be wasted because there must be more prepared in making assessments; (2) There will be gaps in learning outcomes; (3) Make students confused because the learning process is changing; and (4) Undirected teaching and learning process (Raes et al., 2020).

Design
The design of laboratory activity model of the Sophisticated Blending Laboratory (STB-LAB) is designed with the characteristics; (1) Using constructivism learning theory; (2) Oriented to balancing e-Journal: http://doi.org/10.21009/1 LOTS with HOTS cognitive which focuses on the disposition of LOTS-HOTS by applying concepts to the material presented; (3) Provide a stimulus for higher-order thinking by utilizing the lower-level as a starting point; (4) Comparing the results between virtual and real as a benchmark for high-level analysis; (5) Using levers as a benchmark for the transition from LOTS to HOTS; (6) Setting of activities is Persuasive-Axiological; (7) Using computing and big data; (8) Real-world problems are constructed with a 1:2 truth ratio with reasons. The STB-LAB laboratory activity model has a syntax with five stages, namely; (1) Disposition Stage; (2) the argumentation stage; (3) Verification Phase; (4) Laboratory Stage; (5) Communication Stage.
The disposition stage will present a problem in everyday life with three or more arguments raised on real-world problems. The arguments raised on real-world problems have a truth ratio of 1:2, intending to understand the initial concept of a material presented and be able to understand what will be done in laboratory activities later, to create imagination and curiosity of students towards answers. In addition, it will make it easier for students in the variables to be studied later. The disposition stages of the STB-LAB are based on the Gestalt and Piaget learning theory which says that learning is needed as a means to build and develop experience (Anidar 2017; Indrawati 2019). In addition, a related study presenting a stimulus to real events experienced daily will stimulate students to understand what will be learned. Students will also realize the importance of seeking information before activities (Malik et al. 2017).
The argumentation stage is carried out in three activities; namely, the first activity in the argumentation stage of the STB-LAB model is an argumentation activity in which students individually determine arguments and describe hypotheses for the selected arguments. The second activity is the description of the basic theory in which students describe related theories with the arguments chosen to put forward are logistical and rational. Then the third activity is argumentation discussions, where students exchange arguments while exchanging thoughts and opinions to get to know each other and learn new things from different points of view. The argumentation stage is in line with Vygotsky's learning theory, which in learning must build awareness and the foundation for what is being said so that it becomes an idea that people can accept (Sulisworo, Ristiani and Kusumaningtyas 2019). Other research shows that students must be able to build trust in the arguments raised when they have an opinion. Arguments based on theories and concepts will be more easily accepted by people and also support opening new minds for the interlocutor (Harackiewicz and Priniski 2018). Another study revealed that if someone often has an opinion so that they can estimate people's opinions, a very rapid communication skill will be created (ES 2017). Bruner's social-constructivism learning theory (Rannikmäe, Holbrook and Soobard 2020) is also in line with the formation of communication skills in which necessary learning takes place between friends and educators, with the aim of being able to build on each other and gain new knowledge so that a broad mindset.
The verification stage is a stage in the STB-LAB model where students will conduct laboratory activities virtually by conducting initial exploration, namely determining and determining the variables used in real laboratory activities. The use of virtual laboratories at the beginning of the activity is also aimed at building students' understanding of reading data, data collection, and operating tools so that when doing real laboratory activities, students will not be confused later. In addition, students can find out if the data obtained are correct or not by looking at the pattern of values obtained. A previous study (Ramadiani et al. 2022) revealed that the virtual laboratory has no difference in the data generated between the virtual laboratory and a real laboratory. The results obtained are the same, only with a difference of about 0.4% due to environmental errors or human error in taking real laboratory data. Related studies revealed that the research subjects felt less confident when doing a real laboratory and stammered (Aşıksoy and Islek 2017). Still, the results when using a virtual lab first showed that research subjects felt more confident and had no doubts when carrying out real laboratory activities.
The laboratory stage is a stage in the STB-LAB model where students carry out real activities with thought and overall data collection, which will later filter the data according to individual needs to answer the hypotheses proposed statistically. Then, students process and analyze virtual laboratory data and real laboratories, which they will later compare the results between virtual laboratories and real laboratories. The collaborative ability can be seen in laboratory activities, especially when collecting data together. This can be seen from how compact they are in making decisions and their groups in work teams (Malik et al. 2021). A person's creative thinking ability can be known and measured when e-Journal: http://doi.org/10.21009/1 carrying out an activity as a team, which measures how proficient a person is in finding new steps or new breakthroughs when collecting data, thus making data collection more flexible and efficient (Khoiri et al. 2017). In addition, the analytical ability when carrying out laboratory activities (Agustian and Seery 2017) explains that analytical thinking skills can be seen when students can distinguish variables and know which data are appropriate to use.
The communication stage is the final stage in the STB-LAB model where students make reports on laboratory activities which can be in the form of videos, reports, and articles which will be equipped with hypothesis test results to determine the final hypothesis as well as the initial hypothesis of what has been in the argumentation session. Relevance with John Dewey's learning theory (Williams 2017), in which learning tools must build a typical stage so that he can master and dare to speak in line or carry out tests later. In addition, the ability to think analytically will work (Seery et al. 2017). Analytical thinking skills will be seen when students can describe their findings based on statistical testing and alignment between discussions (Ghani et al. 2017).
The design stage also provides expert validity results focusing on content and construct validity proportionally. This validation is carried out before conducting product trials. The results of input and suggestions from the validator can be seen in TABLE 5.

Before Revision
After Revision The learning theory used is not appropriate and not well described Readjusting learning theory and adding learning theory according to the stages in the syntax The sentences used in the syntax are less operational, and the flexibility of educators is not described Sentences are replaced by using operational sentences and change the flexibility of educators by combining two stages, namely disposition, and argumentation Lack of clarity on learning activities at the stage of laboratory activities Clarify the stages of laboratory activities by adding what educators and students should do There are errors in spelling and writing in foreign languages Improve spelling and writing of foreign languages Skills or achievements at the disposition stage are not clearly described, and there is a lack of references at the disposition stage Add and hierarchical references to skills or achievements that students will obtain After carrying out the syntax revision stage from the expert validation results as in TABLE 5, it is then re-assessed by the content and construct validity date validators which can be seen in TABLE 6. The results from TABLE 6, the assessment of the STB-LAB model, show that the final result of validity gets a value of 90%, and construct validity gets a value of 95%, which shows that both validity states are valid or feasible for testing to students.

Development
The development carried out is the development of the STB-LAB model with the guidebook-the STB-LAB laboratory activity model guide book it can be seen in

Implementation
This STB-LAB laboratory activity model is implemented for the subject. The subjects in the control class were 30 students in the early semester of the Physics Education Study Program at UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung. Then the experimental subjects were carried out on the second-semester students of the Physics Education Study Program at UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung; 30 people have collected again. The laboratory activity model in the control class is laboratory-guided inquiry, while the experimental class performs maintenance using the STB-LAB model. Initial results at the implementation stage can be seen in TABLE 9 for the control class N-Gain and TABLE 10 for the experimental class N-Gain and graphs, which can be seen in FIGURE 2 for the control class, and FIGURE 3 for the experimental class.    The results of the N-Gain in FIGURE 2 and TABLE 9 show that the effectiveness in the control class that gets the sufficient category is in the aspect of creative thinking skills. In contrast, the other three aspects get the category below are quite effective. Meanwhile, in the control class shown in the results of the N-Gain FIGURE 3 and TABLE 10, it shows that the effectiveness of the experimental class is effective in three skills; (1) Critical Thinking Skills; (2); Creative Thinking Skills; and (3) Collaborative Skills. FIGURE 3 and TABLE 10 show that using the laboratory activity model can improve 4C Skills in the N-Gain category.

Evaluation
The final stage of developing the STB-LAB model is to determine the statistical improvement of 4C Skills starting from normality and homogeneity, then an independent sample t-test for each aspect. The normality and homogeneity test results in each aspect can be seen in  Normality and homogeneity tests are the main requirements in the paired sample t-test which will later become a reference in determining the hypothesis of 4C skills improvement. Based on TABLE 11, the critical thinking skills aspect results showed that the normality of the pretest control class got a result of 0.200 with = 0.050, then sig. > data is normally distributed, while the experimental class shows the result of 0.112, then sig. > data is normally distributed, the homogeneity shows a value of 0.311 which means sig. > homogeneous data. While the N-Gain shows that the control class has a normality of 0.200 and the experimental class of 0.063, it shows that the N-Gain normality in both classes is normally distributed with sig. >, the homogeneity shows a value of 0.071 which means sig. < homogeneous data.
Based on TABLE 11, the creative thinking skills aspect shows that the normality of the pretest control class gets 0.112 results with = 0.050, then sig. > data is normally distributed, while in the experimental class, the results are 0.055, so sig. > data is normally distributed. The homogeneity shows a value of 0.955 which means sig. > homogeneous data. While the N-Gain shows that the control class has a normality of 0.200 and the experimental class of 0.119, it shows that the N-Gain normality in both classes is normally distributed with sig. >, the homogeneity shows a value of 0.957 which means sig. < homogeneous data.
Based on TABLE 11, the aspect of communication skills shows that the normality of the pretest control class gets a result of 0.066 with = 0.050, then sig. > the data is normally distributed, while the experimental class shows the result of 0.101 then sig. > data is normally distributed. The homogeneity shows a value of 0.085 which means sig. > homogeneous data. While the N-Gain shows that the control class has a normality of 0.200 and the experimental class of 0.136, it shows that the N-Gain normality in both classes is normally distributed with sig. >, the homogeneity shows a value of 0.932 which means sig. < homogeneous data.
Based on TABLE 11, the collaborative skills aspect shows that the pretest normality of the control class gets a result of 0.083 with = 0.050, then sig. > data is normally distributed, while in the experimental class, the results are 0.077, so sig. > data is normally distributed, the homogeneity shows a value of 0.486 which means sig. > homogeneous data. While the N-Gain shows that the control class has a normality of 0.150 and the experimental class of 0.200, it shows that the N-Gain normality in both classes is normally distributed with sig. >, the homogeneity shows a value of 0.901 which means sig. < homogeneous data. The results of normality and homogeneity in both classes of each aspect do not show abnormal or non-homogeneous data, the next step is to find the significant value in the paired sample t-test, the results of which can be seen in   TABLE 12 shows that the statistical analysis of paired sample t-test on 4C skills shows that in the control class, only creative thinking skills get sig. < α, while in the experimental class, none of the values obtained sig. > α. Based on the hypothesis H0 = there is an increase in ability, and Ha = there is no increase in ability. The hypothetical decisions taken in the control class from

CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the development and statistical results found, it can be concluded that the Sophisticated Thinking Blending Laboratory (STB-LAB) laboratory activity model has been successfully developed by showing the results of content validation of 90% and construct validity of 95%, the results of both validations on the STB-LAB model shows good category. In the STB-LAB guidebook, the content validation results are 85%, and construct validity is 75%, the results of the two validations in the preparation of the STB-LAB guidebook show a good category. In general, the STB-LAB model consists of 5 stages, namely; (1) Stages of disposition; (2) Stages of Argument; (3) Verification stage; (4) Laboratory Stages; (5) Communication stages. The results of the 4C skills evaluation show that in the control class N-Gain test, only aspects of creative thinking skills are categorized as quite effective, while the other three aspects get results below. Meanwhile, the results of the N-Gain test in the experimental class showed that only communication skills were categorized as quite effective. At the same time, the other three aspects got the above results. The results of the paired sample t-test show that in the control class, only creative thinking skills can improve, while in the experimental class, all 4C skills can improve. It is hoped that in further research, the use of STB-LAB in this laboratory activity will focus on improving 4C skills and other abilities. Practitioners are able to determine facts, opinions to identify and summarize the main ideas that will be conveyed accurately and in their entirety 3 Practitioners are able to determine facts, opinions to identify and summarize the main ideas that will be conveyed accurately but not in its entirety 2 Practitioners are able to determine facts, opinions to identify and summarize the main ideas that will be conveyed but are not correct at all 1 The practitioner is not able to determine facts, opinions to identify and summarize the main ideas that will be conveyed Reading 4 Practitioners deliver presentations not by reading the text in its entirety and not by displaying full-text and not haltingly 3 Practitioners deliver presentations not by reading the text in its entirety and not by full-text display but sometimes stuttering 2 Practitioners deliver presentations by reading the text in its entirety but not in full-text display 1 Practitioners deliver presentations by reading the text in its entirety with a full-text display Listening 4 The practitioner listens to directions from the instructor and can identify facts in a message/information 3 The practitioner listens to directions from the instructor but there is a miscommunication in identifying facts in a message/information 2 The practitioner listens to the instructions from the instructor but is unable to identify the facts in a message/information.
1 Practitioners do not listen to directions from the instructor so they cannot identify facts in a message/information Understanding Understand the purpose/purpose of communication 4 The practitioner is able to translate messages properly and correctly 3 The practitioner is able to translate the message well but it is not complete 2 The practitioner is able to understand the main idea of a message but needs help in translating it.