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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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