Tabel r Product Moment

Pada Sig.0,05 (Two Tail)
N	r	N	r	N	r	N	r	N	r	N	r
1	0.997	41	0.301	81	0.216	121	0.177	161	0.154	201	0.138
2	0.95	42	0.297	82	0.215	122	0.176	162	0.153	202	0.137
3	0.878	43	0.294	83	0.213	123	0.176	163	0.153	203	0.137
4	0.811	44	0.291	84	0.212	124	0.175	164	0.152	204	0.137
5	0.754	45	0.288	85	0.211	125	0.174	165	0.152	205	0.136
6	0.707	46	0.285	86	0.21	126	0.174	166	0.151	206	0.136
7	0.666	47	0.282	87	0.208	127	0.173	167	0.151	207	0.136
8	0.632	48	0.279	88	0.207	128	0.172	168	0.151	208	0.135
9	0.602	49	0.276	89	0.206	129	0.172	169	0.15	209	0.135
10	0.576	50	0.273	90	0.205	130	0.171	170	0.15	210	0.135
11	0.553	51	0.271	91	0.204	131	0.17	171	0.149	211	0.134
12	0.532	52	0.268	92	0.203	132	0.17	172	0.149	212	0.134
13	0.514	53	0.266	93	0.202	133	0.169	173	0.148	213	0.134
14	0.497	54	0.263	94	0.201	134	0.168	174	0.148	214	0.134
15	0.482	55	0.261	95	0.2	135	0.168	175	0.148	215	0.133
16	0.468	56	0.259	96	0.199	136	0.167	176	0.147	216	0.133
17	0.456	57	0.256	97	0.198	137	0.167	177	0.147	217	0.133
18	0.444	58	0.254	98	0.197	138	0.166	178	0.146	218	0.132
19	0.433	59	0.252	99	0.196	139	0.165	179	0.146	219	0.132
20	0.423	60	0.25	100	0.195	140	0.165	180	0.146	220	0.132
21	0.413	61	0.248	101	0.194	141	0.164	181	0.145	221	0.131
22	0.404	62	0.246	102	0.193	142	0.164	182	0.145	222	0.131
23	0.396	63	0.244	103	0.192	143	0.163	183	0.144	223	0.131
24	0.388	64	0.242	104	0.191	144	0.163	184	0.144	224	0.131
25	0.381	65	0.24	105	0.19	145	0.162	185	0.144	225	0.13
26	0.374	66	0.239	106	0.189	146	0.161	186	0.143	226	0.13
27	0.367	67	0.237	107	0.188	147	0.161	187	0.143	227	0.13
28	0.361	68	0.235	108	0.187	148	0.16	188	0.142	228	0.129
29	0.355	69	0.234	109	0.187	149	0.16	189	0.142	229	0.129
30	0.349	70	0.232	110	0.186	150	0.159	190	0.142	230	0.129
31	0.344	71	0.23	111	0.185	151	0.159	191	0.141	231	0.129
32	0.339	72	0.229	112	0.184	152	0.158	192	0.141	232	0.128
33	0.334	73	0.227	113	0.183	153	0.158	193	0.141	233	0.128
34	0.329	74	0.226	114	0.182	154	0.157	194	0.14	234	0.128
35	0.325	75	0.224	115	0.182	155	0.157	195	0.14	235	0.127
36	0.32	76	0.223	116	0.181	156	0.156	196	0.139	236	0.127
37	0.316	77	0.221	117	0.18	157	0.156	197	0.139	237	0.127
38	0.312	78	0.22	118	0.179	158	0.155	198	0.139	238	0.127
39	0.308	79	0.219	119	0.179	159	0.155	199	0.138	239	0.126
40	0.304	80	0.217	120	0.178	160	0.154	200	0.138	240	0.126

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

For the statistical consultant working with social science researchers the estimation of reliability and validity is a task frequently encountered.  Measurement issues differ in the social sciences in that they are related to the quantification of abstract, intangible and unobservable constructs.  In many instances, then, the meaning of quantities is only inferred.

Let us begin by a general description of the paradigm that we are dealing with.  Most concepts in the behavioral sciences have meaning within the context of the theory that they are a part of.  Each concept, thus, has an operational definition which is governed by the overarching theory.  If a concept is involved in the testing of hypothesis to support the theory it has to be measured.  So the first decision that the research is faced with is “how shall the concept be measured?” That is the type of measure.  At a very broad level the type of measure can be observational, self-report, interview, etc.  These types ultimately take shape of a more specific form like observation of ongoing activity, observing video-taped events, self-report measures like questionnaires that can be open-ended or close-ended, Likert-type scales, interviews that are structured, semi-structured or unstructured and open-ended or close-ended.  Needless to say, each type of measure has specific types of issues that need to be addressed to make the measurement meaningful, accurate, and efficient.

Another important feature is the population for which the measure is intended.  This decision is not entirely dependent on the theoretical paradigm but more to the immediate research question at hand.

A third point that needs mentioning is the purpose of the scale or measure.  What is it that the researcher wants to do with the measure?  Is it developed for a specific study or is it developed with the anticipation of extensive use with similar populations?

Once some of these decisions are made and a measure is developed, which is a careful and tedious process, the relevant questions to raise are “how do we know that we are indeed measuring what we want to measure?” since the construct that we are measuring is abstract, and “can we be sure that if we repeated the measurement we will get the same result?”.  The first question is related to validity and second to reliability.  Validity and reliability are two important characteristics of behavioral measure and are referred to as psychometric properties.

It is important to bear in mind that validity and reliability are not an all or none issue but a matter of degree.

Validity:

Very simply, validity is the extent to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure.  The question of validity is raised in the context of the three points made above, the form of the test, the purpose of the test and the population for whom it is intended.  Therefore, we cannot ask the general question “Is this a valid test?”.  The question to ask is “how valid is this test for the decision that I need to make?” or “how valid is the interpretation I propose for the test?”  We can divide the types of validity into logical and empirical.

Content Validity:

When we want to find out if the entire content of the behavior/construct/area is represented in the test we compare the test task with the content of the behavior.  This is a logical method, not an empirical one.  Example, if we want to test knowledge on American Geography it is not fair to have most questions limited to the geography of New England.

Face Validity:

Basically face validity refers to the degree to which a test appears to measure what it purports to measure.

Criterion-Oriented or Predictive Validity:

When you are expecting a future performance based on the scores obtained currently by the measure, correlate the scores obtained with the performance.  The later performance is called the criterion and the current score is the prediction.  This is an empirical check on the value of the test – a criterion-oriented or predictive validation.

Concurrent Validity:

Concurrent validity is the degree to which the scores on a test are related to the scores on another, already established, test administered at the same time, or to some other valid criterion available at the same time.  Example, a new simple test is to be used in place of an old cumbersome one, which is considered useful, measurements are obtained on both at the same time.  Logically, predictive and concurrent validation are the same, the term concurrent validation is used to indicate that no time elapsed between measures.

Construct Validity:

Construct validity is the degree to which a test measures an intended hypothetical construct.  Many times psychologists assess/measure abstract attributes or constructs.  The process of validating the interpretations about that construct as indicated by the test score is construct validation.  This can be done experimentally, e.g., if we want to validate a measure of anxiety.  We have a hypothesis that anxiety increases when subjects are under the threat of an electric shock, then the threat of an electric shock should increase anxiety scores (note:  not all construct validation is this dramatic!)

A correlation coefficient is a statistical summary of the relation between two variables.  It is the most common way of reporting the answer to such questions as the following:  Does this test predict performance on the job?  Do these two tests measure the same thing?  Do the ranks of these people today agree with their ranks a year ago?

(rank correlation and product-moment correlation)

According to Cronbach, to the question “what is a good validity coefficient?” the only sensible answer is “the best you can get”, and it is unusual for a validity coefficient to rise above 0.60, though that is far from perfect prediction.

All in all we need to always keep in mind the contextual questions:  what is the test going to be used for? how expensive is it in terms of time, energy and money? what implications are we intending to draw from test scores?

Reliability:

Research requires dependable measurement.  (Nunnally) Measurements are reliable to the extent that they are repeatable and that any random influence which tends to make measurements different from occasion to occasion or circumstance to circumstance is a source of measurement error.  (Gay) Reliability is the degree to which a test consistently measures whatever it measures.  Errors of measurement that affect reliability are random errors and errors of measurement that affect validity are systematic or constant errors.

Test-retest, equivalent forms and split-half reliability are all determined through correlation.

 Test-retest Reliability:

Test-retest reliability is the degree to which scores are consistent over time.  It indicates score variation that occurs from testing session to testing session as a result of errors of measurement.  Problems:  Memory, Maturation, Learning.

Equivalent-Forms or Alternate-Forms Reliability:

Two tests that are identical in every way except for the actual items included.  Used when it is likely that test takers will recall responses made during the first session and when alternate forms are available.  Correlate the two scores.  The obtained coefficient is called the coefficient of stability or coefficient of equivalence.  Problem:  Difficulty of constructing two forms that are essentially equivalent.

Both of the above require two administrations.

Split-Half Reliability:

Requires only one administration.  Especially appropriate when the test is very long.  The most commonly used method to split the test into two is using the odd-even strategy.  Since longer tests tend to be more reliable, and since split-half reliability represents the reliability of a test only half as long as the actual test, a correction formula must be applied to the coefficient.  Spearman-Brown prophecy formula.

Split-half reliability is a form of internal consistency reliability.

Rationale Equivalence Reliability:

Rationale equivalence reliability is not established through correlation but rather estimates internal consistency by determining how all items on a test relate to all other items and to the total test.

 Internal Consistency Reliability:

Determining how all items on the test relate to all other items.  Kudser-Richardson-> is an estimate of reliability that is essentially equivalent to the average of the split-half reliabilities computed for all possible halves.

Standard Error of Measurement:

Reliability can also be expressed in terms of the standard error of measurement.  It is an estimate of how often you can expect errors of a given size.

Perangkat Pembelajaran SD/MI

Assalamu'alaikum
Buat para guru sekolah dasar yang ingin melengkapi administrasinya atau perangkat pembelajaran silahkan klik sesuai kebutuhan anda.
Mata Pelajaran SBK:
1. Pemetaan Standar Kompetensi dan Kompetensi Dasar SBK
2. Silabus SBK
3. RPP SBK
4. KKM SBK
5. Program Tahunan SBK
6. Program Semester SBK

PENYAKIT GURU YANG MEMBAHAYAKAN

Dari beberapa faktor penunjang keberhasilan pendidikan sehingga mampu melahirkan siswa yang berprestasi , faktor guru sangat dominan adanya. Peran guru sangat penting  terhadap baik buruknya mutu pendidikan. Ungkapan “guru kencing berdiri murid kencing berlari” rasanya masih belum usang. Bila sampai sangat ini mutu pendidikan di Indonesia dinilai oleh berbagai pihak masih relatif rendah, maka perlu diakui salah satu penyebab utamanya adalah kualitas kompetensi guru relatif rendah, di samping faktor-faktor lain yang menjadi penyebabnya. Misalnya, sarana prasarana pendidikan yang kurang refresentatif, manajemen pendidikan yang masih carut marut.

Mengapa masih banyak guru yang belum profesional alias tidak berkualitas? Berdasarkan hasil riset dan survey berbagai pihak ditemukan beberapa penyakit yang bersarang pada diri guru sehingga guru tersebut tidak profesional dalam melaksanakan tugas dan kewajibannya. Ada beberapa penyakit berbahaya yang melemahkan kualitas guru dalam melaksanakan tugas sehingga berdampak negatif terhadap upaya peningkatan mutu pendidikan, diantaranya :

1. ASMA (Asal masuk kelas). Ketika guru masuk ke kelas tanpa disertai persiapan dan perencanaan matang secara tertulis dan sistematis
2. ASAM URAT (Asal Sampai Materi Urutan tidak Akurat). Cara menyajikan materi pelajaran masih konvensional, sering memakai metode CBSA (Cul Budak Sinau Anteng), metode tugas mencatat paling sering dilakukan. Kadang-kadang batas materi pelajaran yang disampaikan gurupun tidak tahu.
3. BATUK (Baca Ngantuk). Umumnya guru malas membaca, sekali-kali membaca kantuk datang menggoda akhirnya membaca tak tahan lama. Karena jarang membaca ilmunya tidak bertambah, wawasannya tidak luas. Materi pelajaran yang diberikan kepada siswa tidak mengikuti perubahan dan perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan. Jadilah guru yang jumud, kaku bahkan ortodok.
4. DIABETES (Dihadapan Anak Bekerja Tidak Serius)
5. DIARE (Di kelas Anak diRemehkan). Potensi, bakat dan minat anak kurang diperhatikan, sehingga proses belajar mengajar monoton, tidak menumbuh kembangkan potensi anak didik tapi justru sering membunuh potensi, bakat dan minat anak didik.
6. GATAL (Gaji Tambah Aktifitas Lesu). Gaji ingin terus bertambah, tapi melaksanakan tugas kewajiban tidak mau berubah. Mengikuti sertifikasi sangat ambisi padahal kurang memiliki kompetensi tujuan utamanya ingin berpenghasilan tinggi mendapat gaji tunjangan profesi.
7. GINJAL (Gaji Nihil Jarang Aktif dan Lambat). Gaji minus tiap bulan karena habis oleh kredit bank akhirnya hilanglah gairah bekerja, pudar semangat mengajar.
8. HIPERTENSI (Hilang Perhatian Terhadap Nasib Siswa). Prestasi siswa tidak diperhatikan, mau pintar atau bodoh masa bodo, tidak ada upaya pengayaan bagi siswa berprestasi dan tidak ada upaya perbaikan atau remedial kepada siswa yang masih kurang berprestasi.
9. KANKER (Kantong Kering). Gaji satu bulan habis satu minggu, karena besar pasak daripada tiang, tinggi kemauan rendah kemampuan. Penghasilan tidak memenuhi kebutuhan, akibatnya hilanglah semangat melaksanakan tugas, malas masuk kelas, sering mangkir tidak hadir.
10. KUDIS (Kurang Disiplin) melaksanakan tugas asal-asalan tidak tepat waktu, tidak akurat rencana dan program.
11. KURAP (Kurang Rapih). Penampilan pisik (performan) acak-acakan, persiapan administrasi KBM asal-asalan.
12. KUSTA (Kurang Strategi). Tampil mengajar dihadapan siswa hanya menggunakan metode ceramah sehingga membosankan, tidak menggunakan berbagai metode mengajar sehingga tidak membangkitkan semangat belajar siswa.
13. MUAL (Mutu Amat Lemah) masih banyak guru yang belum memiliki kompetensi pedagogik, kompetensi kepribadian, kompetensi sosial dan kompetensi profesional yang ideal. Kurang menguasai materi pelajaran dan metoda pembelajaran.
14. LESU (Lemah Sumber). Buku sumber pelajaran hanya mengandalkan buku paket, tidak memiliki buku referensi yang variatif dan representatif sehingga wawasannya sempit
15. LIPER (Lekas Ingin Pergi). Tidak betah berada di sekolah, tidak antusias masuk ke kelas bahkan sebaliknya ingin segera pulang untuk mencari penghasilan tambahan. Kadang-kadang usaha sampingan diutamakan tugas utama mengajar dilupakan.
16. PROSTAT (Program dan Strategi tidak dicatat). Ketika KBM tidak disertai Silabus dan RPP, tanpa dilengkapi program dan strategi mengajar yang ditulis sistematis.
17. REMATIK (Rendah Motivasi Anak Tidak Simpatik). Tidak semangat ketika mengajar dihadapan anak didik, performan tidak menarik  sehingga anak didik tidak simpatik bahkan sebaliknya antipati akhirnya melemahkan bahkan menghilangkan gairah belajar. Tampil mengajar tidak menyenangkan siswa.
18. STRUK (Suka Terlambat Untuk masuk Kelas)
19. T B C (Tidak Bisa Computer) alias gaptek (gagap teknologi), tidak ada usaha untuk meng-up grade kompetensi diri, sehingga penguasaan teknologi informasi dan komunikasi kalah oleh siswa.
20. TIPUS (Tidak Punya Selera). Ketika melaksanakan kegiatan belajar mengajar dihadapan siswa tidak semangat, kurang gairah

Waspadalah jenis-jenis penyakit di atas jangan sampai diderita oleh para guru. Apabila macam-macam jenis penyakit kronis tersebut di atas bersemayam dalam sikap mental dan psikologis guru sehingga mengalami komplikasi akut, maka sangat membahayakan terhadap kualitas pendidikan siswa. Jenis-jenis penyakit mental di atas termasuk penyakit menular yang dapat melumpuhkan bahkan membunuh potensi yang dimiliki siswa. Dampak negatifnya potensi yang dimiliki siswa bukan meningkat menjadi kompetensi tapi justru membuat siswa impotensi, kurang berprestasi.

Sebelum berbagai penyakit di atas semakin mewabah dan merambah pada jiwa setiap guru, maka perlu segera melakukan tindakan antisipatif dan preventif dengan meminum obat mujarab yaitu “IMTAK” dan “IPTEK” (meningkatkan kualitas keimanan dan merealisasikan ketakwaan serta menguasai ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi).

Seberapapun besar dana yang disediakan untuk memperbaiki dan meningkatkan mutu pendidikan bila tidak ditunjang oleh mutu pendidik karena sudah terjangkit penyakit, yakinlah prestasi siswa sulit bangkit.

“Be Good A Teacher or Never”

“Lebih baik tidak jadi guru daripada jadi guru tidak baik”