MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896196871 · doi:10.21009/pip.322.4

KEEFEKTIFAN KONSELING RATIONAL EMOTIVE BEHAVIOR UNTUK MEREDUKSI PERILAKU MENYONTEK SISWA SMA

2018· article· en· W2896196871 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hartono Hartono

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspektif Ilmu Pendidikan · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Character Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCheatingPsychologyEmotiveRational emotive behavior therapyWilcoxon signed-rank testSignificant differenceMathematics educationResearch designExperimental researchSocial psychologyMathematicsPedagogyStatisticsCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to apply rational emotive behavior counseling as an effort to reduce cheating behavior of high school students. The design of this study was conducted using a quasi experimental method approach with a pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group design research design. Data analysis techniques using Wilcoxon mached-pairs signed test, with the Asymp.Sig (2-Tailed) 0.028 <0.05, which shows a significant difference. The Z test value is -0.730 with the Asymp.Sig (2-Tailed) number 0.466, because of the Asymp.Sig (2-Tailed) value> 0.05, it can be concluded that there is no significant difference between the posttest value and the experimental group value with the control group, Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted which means that rational emotive behavior counseling is effective in reducing student cheating behavior. The study was carried out starting from January to March 2018, which took place at Darul Hikmah High School. Based on the results of the study, the researchers proposed several suggestions, among others (1) BK teachers, counseling rational emotive behavior can be applied by BK teachers to reduce student cheating behavior practically and can be easily applied; (2) for researchers furthermore, this research uses the pretest and posttest control group design research models, for the next researcher can use other research designs such as action research in BK, or other experimental research. References Andrestia, M. (2010). Pengaruh locus of control goal orientation terhadap cheating mahasiwa Fakultas Psikologi UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Skripsi. Jakarta: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Anitasari, L. (2012). Hubungan stres dan perilaku merokok pada remaja. Skripsi. Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang. Arabzadeh, S., Ameli, N., Zeinoddini, A., Rezaei, F., Farokhnia, M., Mohammadinejad, P., Ghaleiha, A., & Akhondzadeh, S. (2015). Celecoxib adjunctive therapy for acute bipolar mania: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Bipolar Disorders, 17(6), 606-614. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bdi.12324 Bond, F. W., & Dryden, W. (1996). Why two central REBT hypotheses appear untestable. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 14(1), 29-40. Corey, G. (2015). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy. Canada: Nelson Education. Corey, G. (2012). Case approach to counseling and psychotherapy. Canada: Nelson Education. Dessy, D. A., Suranata, K. S., & Setuti, N. M. (2013). Penerapan konseling rasional emotif dengan teknik kognitif untuk meningkatkan self disclosure siswa kelas X. 6 SMA Negeri 1 Sukasada tahun pelajaran 2012/2013. Jurnal Ilmiah Bimbingan Konseling Undiksha, 1(1), 1-10. https://ejournal.undiksha.ac.id/index.php/JJBK/issue/view/91 Dryden, W. (2014). Rational emotive behaviour therapy: Distinctive features. London: Routledge. Dryden, W. (2003). Reason to change: A rational emotive behaviour therapy (REBT) workbook. London: Routledge. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7). New York: McGraw-Hill. Habsy, B. A. (2017a). Model konseling kelompok cognitive behavior untuk meningkatkan self esteem siswa SMK. Perspektif Ilmu Pendidikan, 31(1), 21-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.21009/PIP.311.4 Habsy, B. A. (2017b). Filosofi ilmu bimbingan dan konseling indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan (Teori dan Praktik), 2(1), 1-11. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.26740/jp.v2n1.p1-11 Habsy, B. A. (2018a). Konseling rasional emotif perilaku: Sebuah tinjauan filosofis. Indonesian Journal of Educational Counseling, 2(1), 13-30. doi:https://doi.org/10.30653/001.201821.25 Habsy, B. A. (2018b). Model bimbingan kelompok PPPM untuk mengembangkan pikiran rasional korban bullying siswa SMK Etnis Jawa. Jurnal Pendidikan (Teori dan Praktik), 2(2), 91-99. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.26740/jp.v2n2.p91-99 Hartanto, D. (2012). Bimbingan & konseling menyontek: Mengungkap akar masalah dan solusinya. Jakarta: Indeks. Hetherington, E. M., & Feldman, S. E. (1964). College cheating as a function of subject and situationalvariables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(4), 212. McCabe, M., & Ricciardelli, L. (2001). Parent, peer and media influences on body image and strategies to both increase and decrease body size among adolescent boys and girls. Adolescence, 36(142), 225-240. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-79251794/parent-peer-and-mediainfluences-on-body-image-and Nurmayasari, K., & Murusdi, H. (2015). Hubungan antara Berpikir Positif dan Perilaku Menyontek pada Siswa Kelas X SMK Koperasi Yogyakarta. Empathy: Jurnal Fakultas Psikologi, 3(1), 8-15. http://journal.uad.ac.id/index.php/EMPATHY/ article/view/3009/1748 Santrock, J. W., & Curl, R. M. (2003). Adolescence (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Setyani, U. (2007). Hubungan antara konsep diri dengan intensi menyontek pada siswa SMA Negeri 2 Semarang. Disertasi. Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro. Sujana, Y. E., & Wulan, R. (1994). Hubungan antara kecenderungan pusat kendali dengan intensi menyontek. Jurnal Psikologi, 21(1994). http://i-lib.ugm.ac.id/jurnal/download.php?dataId=4298 Taylor, K.R. (2003). Bracing for cheating and plagiarism. Diakses melalui https://www.eddigest.com/sub.php Permatasari, D., & Muka, J. R. (2017). Correlation between self–efficacy and cheating behavior onvocational high school students. Prosiding 8th ICLICE 2017. Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Haugen, R., Spinrad, T. L., Hofer, C., Liew, J., & Kupfer, A. (2011). Children’s efforftul control and academic achievement: Mediation through social functioning. Early Education and Development, 22(3), 411-433. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2010.505259

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspektif Ilmu PendidikanSame topicEducation and Character DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207