62.30 appreciation of the
work. Thus the motivation,
commitment and appreciation of
work, a high response in the aggregate, and students give a high response. Variable work ethic and work
culture of the majority, as much as 67.21 in the variable work ethic, and 52.46 in the work
culture.
Table 2. Testing Results CFA Latent Confidence
Variabel Manifes
lambda t-hitung
description confidents
Y1 0.68
Ref Significant
Y2 0.72
4.84 Significant
Y3 0.58
6.45 Significant
Y4 0.61
6.20 Significant
The manifest also declared invalid the other latent signified by the t-count of more than
1.96. Means that all manifests are used to reflect the latent proven to function properly, so it does not do
the removal or replacement of the manifest in the questionnaire.
4.1.2 Construct Reliability
The manifest can be viewed as a form of oerational indicators that reflect a latent variable, so
that conceptually manifest latent in a set of measuring the same universe. However universe
or nature unidimensi. However, the empirical level, this similarity is not necessarily agreed upon by
the participants, and he viewed not as unidimensi.
Empirical evaluation of the nature-manifes to unidimensi can be done based on a latent construct
reliability coefficient ≥ 0.7 signifies the acquisition is
unidimensi or reliable. The results
of the calculation of the confidence variable reliability
coefficient values obtained for 0744, the acquisition is ≥ 0.7 signifies unidimensi or have an acceptable
construct reliability. Manifesto of the other latent variables also have construct reliability coefficient
0.7, indicating that unidimensi be declared reliabel. Based
on these
results, all the
subs manifest variables declared readiness work reliable i
n measuring its latent.
4.1.3 Testing Descriptive
Scores the answer is the response of participants against some proposed variables,
namely: work commitment, work ethic, appreciation of work, work culture, motivation, and job
readiness. In general, the higher scores indicate better, and the lower the mean the opposite. In
accordance with the scale of the answers are used, scores will be in the range 1-4.
4.1.3.1 Exogenous Variables
Scores of
variables measuring
work commitment between 2,32 – 3,80 with an average of
3,28. 2,32 is the result of the lowest scores of all participants was measured on a scale of 1-4 interpret
the respondents with the level of motivation to work less than moderate. While 3,80 is the highest yield
scores that show the presence of respondents with high motivation. The average for
3 shows in general of all respondents already have a high
motivation to work. The results of measurements on other exogenous also obtain the mean scores on all
3.
Figure 3. Endogenous Variable Histogram
The majority of participants have a job readiness categorized simply by the ammount reached
68.03, the next largest categorized as 16.36 less, then high-low as much as 13.93 and 1.64
see table 3.
3 .2
1 5
2 .9
2 6
3 .1
5 3
2 .6
4 1
2 .8
4 2
2 .7
5 1
2 .7
9 9
3 .2
3 2
.9 8
6 2
.7 6
2 .7
6 2
.7 4
9 2
.8 9
9
T o
ta l
K e
s ia
p a
n K
e rj
a
1 2
3 4
R a
ta -
R a
ta
Sumber : Data Primer
Skala 1 - 4
Hasil Pengukuran Variabel Endogen
Percaya diri Tanggung jawab
Disiplin Mental
Kejujuran Daya juang
Kepatuhan Daya saing
Adaptasi Komunikasi
Kerjasama Kepemimpinan
Kesiapan kerja
62
Table 3. Distribution of Work Readiness Response
Kategorisasi Frequensi
Frequensi lower
2 1.64
lower 20
16.39 midle
83 68.03
high 17
13.93 Total
122 100.0
4.1.4 Data Validation
4.1.4.1 Normality
The data distribution was evaluated by kai square test, for variables of
work motivation
coefficient obtained for 0047 with a probability of 0977, the acquisition of ≥ 0,05 p denotes normally
distributed data. Normality is important because it means that analysis results can be generalized to
the population, and can also be used as a parametric statistical tools. Kai squared test resulit for all
outcome
variables have
kai squared
with probability
more than 0.05, indicating all
the variables have the data with normal distribution.
4.1.4.2 Multicollinearity
The relationship between variables in the model that was developed to put the variables of
work motivation, job
commitment, work ethic, appreciation of work, and work culture as
exogenous mutually independent. Means
no harmful relationships multikolinier.
Evaluation to see relations between exogenous forces is done with the product moment correlation
test, in the table 4 are shown the correlation of 0.8. The
small correlation
coefisien its
shows the relationship between exogenous is not strong,
so that otherwise does
not occur
multicollinearity [
5 ]
. Table 4.
Multicollinearity Test Results Variabel
Work commitment Work ethic
Work appreciation Work motivation
0.068 -0.037
0.158 Work commitment
0.120 0.168
Work ethic -0.089
4.1.4.3 Outlieritas
Relatively always found any data values that are far from reratanya or oulier. Its presence causes
the data quality decreases and its distribution is not normal. Normal result in previous testing indicate
that there is still outlieritas be tolerated because it does not cause the data is not normal.
4.1.5 Compliance Test Model
Suitability model to evaluate the matc between the sample covariance withpopulation, if the results
are appropriate means empirically supported models so that no changes or modifications required.
However, if otherwise is necessarymodifications. One marker that indicates the suitability of this is chi
square coefficient. From the test result obtained coefficient chi square of 224.60 with a probability
p of 0000, the acquisition of P 0.05 showed no significant
differences between the
sample covariance with
a population that otherwise the
model is less suitable. Chi Square is an absolute fit index, which is sufficient basis to modify the
model, for other GOF parameters can be seen in the following table 5.
Table 5. Goodness of Fit Index Results Models Before Changes
No Index
Cut of Value Result
Description 1
Kai Kuadrat p small p 0.05
224.60 p=0.000 No fullfiled
2 CFI
≥ 0.90 max 1 0.944
fullfiled 3
GFI ≥ 0.95 max 1
0.821 Moderate
4 AGFI
≥ 0.95 max 1 0.748
Moderate 5
RMSEA ≤ 0.08 Min 0
0.094 Moderate
63
Figure 4. Building character model before changes
Structurally not made major changes to the
hypothesized variables,
the only
change to the manifest error of the endogenous variables.
Chi square value becomes 117.16 after repair model with probability p for 0161, changes the
probability p probability p becomes more than 0.05 indicates a significant difference no longer
occurs between the sample covariance with the estimation, means that the proposed model received
strong support
from the sample to explain or
population estimates [
6 ]
.
Figure 5. Building character model after changes
Table 6. Goodness of Fit Index Results Build Character Model After Changes
No Index
Cut of Value Result
Description 1
Kai Kuadrat p small p 0.05
117.16 p=0.161 fullfiled
2 CFI
≥ 0.90 max 1 0.990
fullfiled 3
GFI ≥ 0.95 max 1
0.897 moderate
4 AGFI
≥ 0.95 max 1 0.847
moderat 5
RMSEA ≤ 0.08 Min 0
0.034 fullfiled
64
4.1.7 Structural Test Results
Test results in the above figure is displayed again in the table 7 below. The first function in the
model is z = 0.3186x1 + 0.3528x2 + 0.7264x3 + 0.2625x4, while the second function is y = 0.9833z.
Table 7. Functions In Model Building Character
Fungsi Endogen Eksogen
β β ²
t-val Ket
1 Budaya Kerja z
work motivation x1 0.3176
10.09 2.6946
Sig work commitment x1
0.3528 12.45
2.7074 Sig work ethic x1
0.7264 52.77
3.0143 Sig
work appreciation x1 0.2625
6.89 2.5550
Sig 2
Readiness to work y work culture z
0.9833 96.68
2.9589 Sig
T-val ≥ 1.96 : Significant The first function explained that the culture of
student work can be explained by exogenous motivation, commitment, ethics and appreciation.
Positive beta coefficient indicates if the exogenous variables can be well managed so that the increase,
workplace culture can encourage students to become better. All exogenous variables have a t-value of
more than 1.96, indicating significant in influencing the work culture. Greatest contribution is the work
ethic with β = 0.7264 52.77, variable work commitment with β = 0.3528 12:45, work
motivation variables with β = 0.3176 10:09, and it
recent appreciation of the
work with the
variable β = 0.2625 6.89 . The
second function is the
equation y = 0.9833z, this
function shows the readiness of
the students work y
can be explained significantly t-val ≥ 1.96 by the work
culture z owned
by students.
Great job readiness that can be
expalined is
0.9883 ² = 0.966896.68. The
model was developed
put the variable work
culture as
intermediate variables intervening of motivation, commitment, work ethic and appreciation. Analysis
of the ability to work as an intervening culture can be done through the significan exogenous to
the work
culture and work culture of work
commitment. All relationships between variable are significant, meaningful work culture proved to be
intervening in the model.
5. Conclusion
5.1 Build work
character integrated
learning practices
with the five phases: 1
building work commitment, 2 work ethic simulation,
3 appreciation of work,
4 practical work culture, and 5 the effective
reflection develop
programs for vocational students, based
on: the fulfillment
of the character dimensions of
work and implemented a very effective process
stages. 5.2
Overall stages and the
building work
character foster good working readiness on on intrapersonal
aspects of skills, including self-confidence,
responsibility, discipline, mental toughness
work, honesty, competitiveness, and aspects of interpersonal skills include the power struggle,
adaptation, communication, cooperation, and leadership.
REFERENCE
[1] Suyanto. Tantangan
pendidikan hadapi
globalisasi.
www.kompas.com
, 16 mei 2001 [2] Hari
Suderajat. Implementasi
kurikulum berbasis
kompetensi KBK pembaharuan pendidikan dalam undang- undang sisdiknas 2003. Bandung: Cipta cekas grafika, 2004
[3] Doni Koesoema. Tiga matra pendidikan karakter. Majalah BASIS, agustus-september 2007.
[4] Imai, Masaaki Gemba kaizen. Pendekatan akal sehat, berbiaya rendah pada manajemen. Transl: kristianto Jahja.
Jakarta Putaka Binaman Pressindo, 1998 [5] Imam Ghozali Fuad. Structural equation modeling.
Semarang. Badan Peneribit-UNDIP, 2008 [6] Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom. Lisrel 8: User reference guide.
Chicago: Scientific sofware International, 1996 [7] Gujarati, Damodar. Basic econometrics. New york:
McGraw-Hill,Inc, 1995
65
PART TWO
Organization: The Challenge of Vocational Education in the Changes of Technology
66
