Emotional Quotient Relations, Economic Level, Interests and Learning Styles on Student Achievement Grade Point Average (GPA)  at Muhammadiyah University Banten

Albahra Albahra; Partono Siswosuharjo

doi:10.37430/jen.v5i2.130

Emotional Quotient Relations, Economic Level, Interests and Learning Styles on Student Achievement Grade Point Average (GPA) at Muhammadiyah University Banten

Albahra Albahra, Partono Siswosuharjo

Abstract

This study aims to determine the relationship between emotional quotient, economic level, interests and learning styles with the level of achievement of the cumulative grade point average (GPA) of students at the University of Muhammadiyah Banten. This type of research uses a cross sectional design. The results of this study were 68% of the respondents who got a 2.00-2.75 GPA, 28% who got a 2.76-3.50 GPA and 4% of the total respondents who got a 3.51-4.00 GPA. . Meanwhile, respondents who had type E personality (Empitizing) were 48%, who had type S personality (Systemising) were 48% and type B (Balance) were 4%. The learning style of students who fall into the Accommodator category is 4%, assimilator is 48% and divergent is 48%. The results of bivariate analysis calculations show that the largest percentage is found in student respondents with a divergent learning style with a GPA of 2.00-2.75 of 80.6% and the lowest percentage is found in students with a GPA of 3.51-4.00 with a learning style that is same, that is, divergent. While student allowances that fall into the category of large allowances are as much as 80%, moderate allowances are as much as 71.8% and small economic allowances are as much as 57.7%. The results of the bivariate analysis showed that the largest percentage was found in respondents with a GPA of 2.00-2.75 with a large allowance of 80% and the lowest percentage was found in respondents with a GPA of 3.51-4.00 with a small allowance of 7.7. Interest in student computer science education as much as 34.7% of students are interested in computer science, as much as 20% are hesitant, and as much as 45.3% are not interested in computer science. The results of bivariate analysis show that the largest percentage is found in respondents who are not interested in computer science with a GPA of 2.00-2.75 at 84.6% and the smallest percentage is in respondents who are interested in computer science with a GPA of 3.51-4 .00 of 5.9%.

Keywords

Emotional Maturity, Economic Level, Learning Style, Grade Point Average (GPA)

Full Text:

PDF

References

Afrizal (2009)., Pengaruh gaya belajar (visual, auditori dan kinestetik) terhadap prestasi belajar akuntansi keuangan siswa kelas X program keahlian akuntansi SMK Negeri 1 Depok tahun ajaran 2008/2009. [Skripsi]. Yogyakarta: FE UNY; 2009

Ahmadi, A. dan Supriyono, W. (2004). Psikologi Belajar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Al-Saud LM (2013)., Learning style preference of first years dental student at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Influence of Gender and GPA. Journal Dental Education. 2013;77(10):1371-8

Astuti, Apri D. (2012). Jurnal : Pengaruh Kemandirian Belajar dan Penggunaan Uang Saku terhadap Prestasi Belajar kompetensi Dasar Ekonomi Kelas VII dan VIII. Semarang: Fakultas Ekonomi-Universitas Negeri Semarang. http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/ index.php/eeaj

Chotimah, L. N., Ani, H. M., & Widodo, J. (2017). Pengaruh Status Sosial Ekonomi Orang Tua Terhadap Prestasi Belajar Siswa (Studi Kasus Siswa Kelas VIII SMP Negeri 1 Jember Tahun Ajaran 2016/2017). Jurnal Pendidikan Ekonomi: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan, Ilmu Ekonomi, Dan Ilmu Sosial, 11(1): 75–80.

Chung, K. K. (2015). Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edi, Vol. 22). Hong Kong: Elsevier.

Cohen, Simon B. (2004). Male and Female Brains and the truth about autism. Cambridge: Perseus Books Group.

Gerungan, W. (2004). Psikologi Sosial. Bandung: Refika Aditama

Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional Intelligence (terjemahan: Alex Tri Kanjono Widodo). Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Hardiansyah (2014)., Pengaruh gaya belajar terhadap prestasi akademik mahasiswa Fakultas Kedokteran. Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro

Imiliyah, I. I., Mashudi, & Achmady. (2014). Pengaruh Status Sosial Ekonomi Keluarga Dan Rasionalitas Ekonomi Terhadap Prestasi Belajar Siswa Sma Muhammadiyah 1 Kota Pontianak. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran Khatulistiwa, 3(7).

Jamaris, Martini, (2013). Orientasi Baru Dalam Psikologi Pendidikan. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia.

Jaya, M., & Pamungkur. (2016). Pengaruh Status Sosial Ekonomi Terhadap Prestasi Mahasiswa Perguruan Tinggi Swasta. Jurnal Al-Ulum Ilmu Sosial Dan Humaniora, 2: 268–278.

Kusumayanti RF (2009)., Pengaruh persepsi siswa tentang metode guru mengajar dan gaya belajar siswa terhadap prestasi belajar akuntansi siswa kelas X program keahlian akuntansi SMK Negeri2 Magelang tahun ajaran 2009/2010. [Skripsi]. Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

Nursalam, (2003). Konsep dan Penerapan Metodologi Penelitian Ilmu Komputer. Jakarta: Salemba Medika

Prasetya DF (2012)., Pengaruh gaya belajar terhadap prestasi belajar mata diklat listrik otomotif siswa kelas XI teknik perbaikan bodi otomotif SMKN 2 Depok Sleman. [Skripsi]. Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.

Putriku, A. E. (2018). Prestasi Mahasiswa Jurusan Manajemen Fakultas Ekonomi Stambuk 2014 Universitas Hkbp Nommensen. Jurnal Niagawan, 7(1): 50–58.

Sari, F., Haryanto, S., & Soebandono, D. (2014). Faktor – Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Keberhasilan Belajar Mahasiswa yang Berprestasi (Studi Kasus Pada Program Studi DIII Kebidanan Stikes Guna Bangsa Jogjakarta). Jurnal Kesehatan Gubayo, 1(1): 1–9

Slameto. (1995). Belajar dan Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta

Suryabrata, S. (2008). Psikologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.

Warsito, Hadi (2012). Jurnal : Hubungan antara elf-efficacy dengan penyesuaian akademik dan prestasi akademik (Studi pada mahasiswa FIP-Universitas negeri Surabaya). http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/pedagogi

Yuzarion. (2017). Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Prestasi Belajar Peserta Didik. Jurnal Kajian Teori Dan Praktik Kependidikan, 2(1): 107– 117.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37430/jen.v5i2.130