ANALISIS KECURANGAN AKADEMIK MELALUI RUBRIK PENSKORANPADA KAJIAN MASALAH EKONOMI

David Firna Setiawan(1*),

(1) 
(*) Corresponding Author


Abstract


Kecurangan akademik seringkali terjadi dalam tes formatif maupun sumatif. Beberapa bentuk kecurangan yang umum terjadi yaitu (1) memberi, mengambil, atau menerima informasi tertentu (2) menggunakan suatu alat yang dilarang, (3) memanfaatkan kelemahan orang, prosedur, maupun proses untuk mendapatkan keuntungan. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mendiskripsikan metode analisis kecurangan mengerjakan soal yang mengarah pada plagiarisme dalam bentuk kegiatan memberi, mengambil atau menerima informasi tertentu berkaitan dengan jawaban tes formatif maupun tes sumatif. Metode yang digunakan menekankan pada tiga langkah analisis yaitu (1) unjuk kerja (performance), (2) kriteria unjuk kerja (performance criteria), serta (3) rubrik penskoran (scoring rubric). Hasil analisis diharapkan mampu memberikan data kecurangan akademik yang dilakukan oleh siswa.



Full Text:

PDF

References


Alhadza, A. 2001. Masalah Mencontek (Cheating) di Dunia Pendidikan. (Online). (http://www.depdiknas.go.id, diakses pada 20 Oktober 2016).

Andrade, H., & Du, Y. 2005. Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research&Evaluation,10 (3), 1-11. Retrieved from http:// pareonline. net/getvn.asp?v =10&n=3

Davis, S.F., & Ludvigson, H. W. 1995. Additional data on academic dishonesty and proposal for remediation. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16-20.

Davy, Jeanette A., Kincaid, Joel F., Smith, Kenneth J., Trawick, Michelle A.2007. An Examination of the Role of Attitudinal Characteristics and Motivation on the Cheating Behavior Of Bussiness Students. Ethcs & Behavior. Routledge. 17(3). 281-302.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, L. (2005).The systematic design of Instructional design: International perspectives (Vol. 1). Mahwah, instruction (6th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Endra Murti Sagoro. 2013. Pensinergian Mahasiswa, Dosen, dan Lembaga dalam Pencegahan Kecurangan Akademik Mahasiswa Akuntansi. Jurnal Pendidikan Akuntansi Indonesia, Vol. XI. XI, No. 2 : 54-67

Hendriks, B. 2004. Academic Dishonesty : A Study In The Magnitude of And Justifications For Academic Dishonesty Among College Undergraduate And Graduate Students. New Jersey : Roman University

Kuhl, J. 2000.A fumctional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation. In M.Boekaerts, P.R. Pitric, & M.Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp, 111-169). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., & Barton, S.M. 2003. Collegiate academic dishonesty revisited: what habe they done, how often habe they done it, who does it, and why did they do it. Electronic Journal of Sosiology. (http:/ /www.sociology. org/content /vol7.4/ lambert _etal.html), diakses pada 20 Oktober 2016.

Mankiew,N. Gregory. 2015. Principles Of Micro Economics. USA: Cengage Learning. http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/economics-principles-v1.0/s20-01-the-gains-from-trade.html.

Nonis, S. & C. Swift. 2001.An Examination of Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Workplace Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation. Jurnal of Education for Business.

Nonis, S.A., & Swift, C.O. 1998. Cheating behavior in the marketing classroom: An analysis of the effects of demographics, attitudes, and in-class deterrent strategies. Jouran of marketing educatioan, 20, 188-199.

Panadero, E. 2011. Instructional help for self-assessment and self-regulation: Evaluation of the efficacy of self-assessment scripts vs. rubrics. Doctoral dissertation. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Panadero, Ernesto & Jonsson, Anders. 2013. The Use of scoring rubrica for formative assessment purposes revised: A review. Elsevier. Educational Research Review 9 (2013) 129-144.

Pudjiastuti, Endang. 2012. Hubungan Self Efficacy dengan Perilaku Mencontek Mahasiswa Psikologi. Mimbar. Vol. XXVIII, No. 1 (Juni 2012: 103-112)

Reddy, Y.M.,&Andrade, H. 2010. A Review of rubric use in higher education, Assessment&Evaluation in Higher Education. Taylor & Francis Online. Journal Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 35(4), 435-448.

Reynolds-Keefer, L, 2010. Rubric-referenced assessment in teacher preparation: An opportunity to learn by using. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 15(8), Retrieved from Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=15&n=8.

Sadono, Sukirno. 2010. Mikro Ekonomi. Teori Pengantar. Edisi Ketiga. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.

Slavin. R. E 2005. Educational Psychology_ Theory and Practice (8th Edition)-Allyn & Bacon.

Smith, Patricia L; Ragan, Tillman J. 2003. Instructional Design, Second Edition. Newyork: Wiley.

Van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. 2010. Factors affecting students self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Researchh Review, 6(2), 95-108. dx.doi .org/10. 1016/j. edurev. 2010.10.003.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24127/ja.v4i2.634

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Office:
Jl. Ki Hajar Dewantara No. 116KotaMetro,KodePos 34111, Lampung, Sumatera - Indonesia

web stats
Promosi Stats

 

 

Flag Counter:

Flag Counter