Instrumen Akuntabilitas Guru BK dalam Menyelenggarakan Layanan Dasar

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Aip Badrujaman rosyidin
Suherman Suherman

Abstract

Pengukuran terhadap akuntabilitas merupakan isu penting, dan menjadi kajian yang mendukung profesionalitas profesi BK. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menghasilkan instrumen akuntabilitas guru BK dalam menyelenggarakan layanan dasar menggunakan skala kombinasi mixed standard scale for evaluating student behavior dan skala direct behavior rating. Pengembangan instrumen dilakukan melalui kegiatan penelitian yang bersifat research and development melalui 6 tahapan, yaitu; preliminary study, konstruksi instrumen, validasi pakar, perbaikan berdasarkan masukan pakar, validasi empirik, administrasi instrumen akhir. Konstruk instrumen akuntabilitas terdiri dari 5 indikator yaitu; mampu menerima tanggungjawab, melakukan komunikasi, menjelaskan layanan, menetapkan mekanisme umpan balik, serta melakukan perbaikan layanan. Luaran Penelitian ini adalah instrumen akuntabilitas yang terdiri dari 3 bagian, meliputi; instrumen siswa, wali kelas, dan kepala sekolah. Proses validasi dilakukan baik secara konseptual melalui penilaian ahli, serta empirik  melalui ujicoba pada subjek ukur yang terdiri dari: 1008 siswa, 33 wali kelas, dan 33 kepala sekolah. Validasi ahli dilakukan pada ahli manajemen pendidikan, manajemen, dan bimbingan dan konseling. Instrumen akuntabilitas yang diisi oleh kepala sekolah terdiri dari 38 butir dengan koefisien reliabilitas sebesar 0,96. Instrumen akuntabilitas yang diisi oleh wali kelas  berjumlah12 butir dengan koefisien reliabilitas sebesar 0,90. Instrumen akuntabilitas yang diisi oleh siswa berjumlah 28 butir dengan koefisien reliabilitas sebesar 0,85. 


 


Accountability is an important issue in the guidance and counseling profession. This study aims to develop an instrument for measuring accountability of guidance and counseling teachers in conducting guidance curriculum. A mixed standard scale for evaluating student behavior and direct behavior rating are used as  a scale. The instrument is developed through research and development study which is consists of six phases: preliminary study, instrument construction, expert judgement, improvement, empirical validation, improvement and instrument administration. The construct of accountability instrument consist of five components: take responsibilities, communicate the services, explain the services, have a feedback mechanism, and conduct improvement for the stakeholder. Accountability scale of school counselor in conducting guidance curriculum consist of three sub-scales, fill by students, teachers, and school principals. Three experts have reviewed the instrument construct.  Empirical validation is also conducted to 1008 students, 33 teachers, and 33 principals. The instrument of accountability that is filled by the head teachers consists of 38 items with reliability coefficient of 0.96. The instrument of accountability that is filled by the teachers consists of 12 items with reliability coefficient of 0.90. Accountability instrument which is filled by students totalls 28 items with reliability coefficient of 0.85.


 


Keywords: accountability; curriculum;guidance;instrument

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
rosyidin, A., & Suherman, S. (2018). Instrumen Akuntabilitas Guru BK dalam Menyelenggarakan Layanan Dasar. Indonesian Journal of Guidance and Counseling: Theory and Application, 7(3), 8-13. https://doi.org/10.15294/ijgc.v7i3.21783

References

Badrujaman, Aip. 2011. Teori dan Aplikasi Evaluasi program Bimbingan Konseling. Jakarta:Indeks.

Costa, Daniel M et al. 2007. Preliminary report on The Accountability Scale: A Change and Outcome Measure for Intimate Partner Violonce research. Journal of violence and victim. Vol.22, 5.

Dimmitt, Carey. 2009. Why Evaluation Matters: Determining Effective School Counseling Practices. Profesional School Counseling. August. vol.12, 6.

Dimmitt, Carey. 2010. Evaluation in School Counseling: Current Practices and Future Possibilities. http//: cor.sagepub.com. Didownload pada tanggal 3 Juli 2010

Dahir, Carol A & Carrolyn B Stone. 2009. School Counselor Accountability: The Path to Social Justice and Systemic Change. Journal of Counseling & Development. Winter, vol.87, 12.

ECB2. 2006. Panduan ‘Cukup Baik’ Guna Pengukuran Dampak Dan Akuntabilitas Untuk Situasi Darurat.

Gysbers, Norman C. 2004. Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Programs: The Evolution of Accountability. Profesional School Counseling. October. vol.8, 1.

Howieson, Catty & Sheila, Semple. The Evaluation of Guidance: Listening to Pupils’ Views. British Journal of Guidance & Cunseling. Cambridge: aug. 2000. Vol. 28, Iss 3.

Jeannine R Studer, Aaron H Oberman, Reagan H Womack. Producing Evidence to Show Counseling Effectiveness in the Schools. Professional School Counseling. Alexandria: Jun 2006.Vol.9, Iss. 5; pg. 385, 7 pgs

Jeannine R Studer, Aaron Oberman. Supervision ini ASCA Models. Professional School Counseling. Alexandria: Oct 2006. Vol. 10, Iss. 1; pg. 82, 6 pgs

Levinson. 2011. Democracy, accountability, and education. Theory and research in education. Vol.9,2.

Perera-Diltz, Dilani M & Mason, Kimberly L. 2010. An Exploration of Accountability Practices of School Counselors: A National Study. Journal of Profesional counseling, Practice, Theory, and Research. Summer/Spring. Vol. 38, 52.

Poole, Dennis L.2000. Evaluating performance measurement system in non-profit agencies: the program accountability quality scale (PAQS). American Journal of evaluation. Vol.21, 1.

Ryan, Katherine. 2005. Making educational accountability more democratic. American Journal of evaluation. December.vol.26, 4.

Sink, Christopher. 2009. School Counselor as Accountability Leaders: Another Call for Action. Profesional School Counseling. December. vol.13, 2.

Stapleton, Karyn and Owen Hargie. 2011. Double-Bind Accountability Dilemmas: Impression Management and Accountability Strategies Used by Senior Banking Executives. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. May Vol.30,

Steenbarger, brett N & H Bret Smith. 1996. Assesing the Quality of Counseling Services: Developing Accountabel Helping System. Journal of Counseling & Development. Nov/Dec, vol.75, 145.

Wang, Xiaohu. 2002. Assesing administrative accountability: result from national survey. The American review of public administration. September, vol.32, 3.

Whiston, Susan C. 1996. Accountability Through Action Research: Research Methods for Practitioners. Journal of Counseling & Development. Jul/Aug, vol.74, 616.

White, France A. 2007. The Profesional School Counselor’s Chalange: Accountability. Journal of Profesional counseling, Practice, Theory, and Research. Spring. Vol. 35, 62.