Operational Definition and Measurement Instrument

C. Operational Definition and Measurement Instrument

To collect good quality of data needs good measurement items because the quality of instrument used determine the quality data gathered. Thus, questionnaire used in this study are arranged based on previous studies. Here are the details of operational definition and measurement items used.

1. Learner Autonomy Learner autonomy was defined as freedom to make important decisions for themselves that was given by lecturer to student in learning process (eg. scheduling independently), which is examined from student perspective (Hassan and Rahman, 2010). The indicators of this variable are taken from

5 Convenience sampling is defined as the collection of data from member of the population that are

1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The indicators are: “I am allowed to: decide which lessons is learned, decide learning method, choice reference

book, decide time of unscheduled class, choice task material, decide evaluation method, and decide class rule.

2. Lecturer Support Lecturer support is defined as supports, which examined from student perspective that was given by lecturer to student in learning process. The indicators of this variable are taken from Standage et. al. (2005). They are measured by Likert scale that ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The indicators of competence support are: Lecturers help me understand the materials, encourage to discuss, encourage to study, make feel confident, and encourage to study in groups.

3. Intrinsic Motivation Intrinsic motivation is defined as internal driving force that moves people to engage on certain behavior because of pleasure and satisfaction derived from it (Deci et. al., 1991). The indicators of this variable are taken from Smith et. al. (2009). They are measured by Likert scale that ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The indicators are: studying seriously, study with work hard, interested to educated formally, and interested to study course.

4. Extrinsic Motivation Extrinsic motivation is a type of motivation that was driven by external rewards (Deci et. al., 1991; Deci and Ryan, 2000). The indicators of this variable are taken from Smith et. al. (2009). They are measured by Likert scale that ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The indicators are: opportunity of have a high-paying job, desire of have academic degree, encouraged by parents.

5. Amotivation Amotivation is a condition of people that is unable to regulate the self and lack intention to behave because of absence of motivation to achieve desired outcomes (Deci and Ryan, 2000). The indicators of this variable are taken from Smith et. al. (2009). They are measured by Likert scale that ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The indicators are: School is wasting time, school does not have any benefit, do not have reason to school, and do not understand what is doing in school .

6. Academic Performance Academic performance is defined as how someone perceived on his own overall academic competence absolutely and how someone perceived on his own academic competence compared to his classmates (see Davy et. al., 2007). The indicators of this variable are taken from Smith et. al. (2009).

5= strongly agree. The indicators are: able to make academic papers, participating in class discussions, can do writing exams.

7. Prior Cheating Prior cheating is defined as self-perceived on frequency of cheating that has been done before (Davy, et. al., 2009). The indicators of this variable are taken from Smith et. al. (2009). They are measured by Likert scale that ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The indicators are: exchanged answers, look at another student’s answer sheet, allowed another student to look at own answer, gave answers to someone, and opened test materials at exams.

8. Neutralization Neutralization represents the rationalization and justification for unethical behavior as a deflection from self-disapproval or disapproval from others after violating an accepted social norm (see Sykes and Matza, 1957). Measurement items of this variable are taken from Smith et.al. (2009). The indicators are measured by Likert scale that ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The indicators are: grade points are reason to cheat,

didn’t study are reason to cheat, the course material was too hard are reason to cheat, too much material was assigned are reason to cheat, useless course are reason to cheat, instructor didn’t care are reason to cheat, opportunity are didn’t study are reason to cheat, the course material was too hard are reason to cheat, too much material was assigned are reason to cheat, useless course are reason to cheat, instructor didn’t care are reason to cheat, opportunity are

9. Likelihood of Cheating Likelihood of cheating is defined as students’ tendencies to cheat on the

future (Smith et. al., 2009). The indicators of this variable are taken from Smith et. al. (2009). They are measured by semantic differential scale that ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree. The indicators are: intent to cheat, probably cheat, willing to cheat, likely to cheat, committed to cheat, certainly to cheat.