8 Journal of ICSAR ISSN (print): 2548-8619; ISSN (online): 2548-8600 Volume 3 Number 1 January 2019 Implementation of Solutions-Focused Counseling (SFC) to Improve Student Motivation: A Single Subject Research Lintang Setiono, Marjohan, Marlina Universitas Negeri Padang Email: lintangsetiono@gmail.com Abstract: This research aims to examine the effectiveness of solution-focused counseling to improve student learning motivation. The research is conducted using Single Subject Research design. The research subjects were five eight-grade students who have very low learning motivation. The instruments for data collection are learning motivation scale, interview, and observation. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. The findings indicated that the counseling effectively improves student learning motivation. Based on the research findings, it is suggested that counselors apply SFC in counseling both in individuals and in groups. Keywords: solution-focused counseling, learning motivation, single subject research INTRODUCTION Motivation is an absolute requirement in learning. Students who learn without or lack motivation will not succeed maximally. Motivation is very important in learning activities because with motivation it can encourage the spirit of learning, and conversely, lack of motivation will weaken the spirit of learning (Budiono, Degeng, & Ardhana, 2016; Rehman & Haider, 2013; Sardiman, 2012). Learning motivation is an energize, direct, and persevering behavior that drives self- motivation to try to fulfill the overall needs of learning (sustain behavior)(Santrock, 2011). (Ormrod, 2014) Further stated that motivation increases perseverance in learning at school. Based on these descriptions, it can be interpreted that learning motivation is the overall driving force in students that lead to learning activities, which ensures the continuity of learning activities so that the activities desired by the students are achieved. The aspects examined in this study are: diligence in doing the tasks, resilience in solving problems and obstacles independently, having the urge to learn, and showing interest in learning(McClelland, 1987; Neviyarni & Irianto, 2016; Sardiman, 2012). Students who have low learning motivation will bring negative behavior to themselves. The behaviors that appear are like; ditching, lazy learning, doing assignments, having no desire to know, not caring about its value, not eager to learn in class, getting bad grades, etc. (Neviyarni & Irianto, 2016; Nuzliah, 2015; Sardiman, 2012) Based on the results of interviews with subject teachers in SMP Negeri 13 Padang, it was revealed that many VIII graders had low learning motivation. This can be seen from students often leaving the classroom during learning activities, students often sleep in class, students pull out of class, students are ignorant of their achievement, and many students do not do the assignments given by the teacher. Furthermore, from the results of interviews with counselor in SMP Negeru 13 Padang teachers, the obtained data revealed that the handling of low learning motivation in students had been less optimal because every week there was only 1 hour of counseling in each class. Counselors feel that the services provided are not optimal due to the limited time and interest of students to follow the service. In addition, the services provided are informative about new things, and emphasize the discussion of the problem (problem-talk) and the background of the problem (history), so that the session used becomes more and longer. Handling problems in students with low motivation are still basically dominated only by giving training and problem-talk (Wiyono, 2013). One of the weaknesses of training is determining the ultimate goal in the hands of the counselor when in fact every student has the ability to be able to measure the success achieved (Corey, 2009; Neukrug, 2011; Seligman, 2006). In addition, limited time in the school environment is also considered less effective because counselors have to deal with various problems that exist in the school environment which take a lot of time. In this regard, the counselor must look for a more effective and efficient approach to counseling. 9Lintang Setiono, Marjohan, Marlina, Implementation of Solutions-Focused Counseling (SFC) . . . . Table 1. Results of Measurement for Each Session Students Baseline (A) Intervention (B) Follow Up (A’) Ses- sion 1 Ses- sion 2 Ses- sion 3 Ses- sion 4 Ses- sion 1 Ses- sion 2 Ses- sion 3 Ses- sion 4 Ses- sion 5 Ses- sion 1 Ses- sion 2 Ses- sion 3 Ses- sion 4 AF 16 15 16 15 19 23 28 32 36 34 35 35 36 AB 15 16 16 16 18 21 29 32 37 38 37 39 38 GL 16 15 16 15 18 23 28 31 35 37 38 38 37 AG 16 15 16 15 17 22 29 34 36 36 36 35 36 RZ 15 16 16 16 18 23 27 32 33 35 33 33 34 intervention is eliminated. A’s ‘follow-up phase’ is a control phase to find out changes so that conclusions can be drawn as to whether solution-focused counseling can improve student learning motivation. The subjects of this study were eighth-grade students using purposive sampling technique. Before the implementation of this research was carried out, they were given a learning motivation scale to capture potential research subjects. Based on the scale of learning motivation, there were 8 students who became prospective subjects in the very low category. Furthermore, interviews were conducted with teachers and observations were made to students to establish the subject members. Based on the results of interviews and observations, it was decided that there were 5 subjects for the research. The other 3 students had to be aborted based on the teacher’s recommendations and the observations of the researchers. The instrument in this study was the treatment material instrument that contains SFC treatment procedures and data collection instruments namely observation and interview guidelines. Target Behavior and Measurement of Behavioral Behavior are learning motivation: (1) Diligent in learning and facing assignments, (2) Resilient in facing learning difficulties, (3) Having encouragement/desire to learn, and (4) Showing interest in learning. Measurement of behavioral targets used observation sheets and interviews filled in by the authors and class teachers during the baseline, intervention, and follow-up phases. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Findings Measurements were made using two (2) data collection tools namely observation and interviews in order to get a representation of student learning motivation conducted in the baseline (A), intervention (B), and follow-up (A ‘) phases. The following measurement results for each session of the five students are shown in the following table 1. Soedjito (2014) states that the SFC model is suitable for schools because this approach focuses on students’ strengths and abilities rather than their weaknesses. The focus of the SFC approach is future- oriented and solutions rather than looking for the cause of the problems. SFC is more efficient and realistic to do in school settings than other approaches. The results of the study by Trepper et al. (2006) showed that SFC is effective in elementary, middle school and college students. De Jong & Berg said “Solution-focused therapists view clients as wanting to change, and therapists do their best to help bring about change” (Shaff, 2012). According to the above description, it can be interpreted that the SFC approach focuses on what the client wants, and the role of the counselor is to help reazling what the client wants. The implementation of SFC focuses more on the solution-talk and the ultimate goal of the counseling process is in the hands of clients who have the ability to solve their own problems(Bannink, 2007; Iveson, 2002; Sumarwiyah, Zamroni, & Hidayati, 2015) Based on the overall study described, the researcher assumes that the SFC approach is effective to be used in school settings. This is also one reason the researchers are intrigued to test the effectiveness of the use of the SFC approach in school settings, especially to improve student learning motivation. METHOD This research used experimental research with single subject designs. This design is used to study human behavior individually intensively. Single subject does not mean that the subject is only 1 (one) person. It is usually between 3 (three) to 5 (five) people, even though only 1 (one) person is possible (Sugiyanto, 1995). The design chosen in this study was the A-B-A Baseline (A) -Intervention (B) -Follow up (A ‘) model (Barlow et al., 2007). A is an embodiment of the baseline condition, B is a manifestation of conditions after getting intervention or treatment, and A’ is a condition after treatment or 10 Journal of ICSAR; Volume 3, Number 1, January 2019: 8-14 Graph 1. Frequency of AF Learning Motivation in Baseline, Intervention a nd Follow-Up Phases 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 S es i 1 S es i 2 S es i 3 S es i 4 S es i 1 S es i 2 S es i 3 S es i 4 S es i 5 S es i 1 S es i 2 S es i 3 S es i 4 S co re L ea rn in g M o ti v at io n Learning Motivation Trend Mean Level Graph 2. Frequency of AB Learning Motivation in Baseline, Intervention and Follow-Up Phases 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 S e s i 1 S e s i 2 S e s i 3 S e s i 4 S e s i 1 S e s i 2 S e s i 3 S e s i 4 S e s i 5 S e s i 1 S e s i 2 S e s i 3 S e s i 4S c o re L e a rn in g M o ti v a ti o n Learning Motivation Trend Mean Level Graph 3. Frequency of GL Learning Motivation in Baseline, Intervention and Follow-Up Phases 1. AF Based on the graph 1, it shows the change in the frequency of AF learning motivation in the baseline phase obtained by the stability range score of 2.4, the mean level of 15.5, the upper limit of 17.9, and the lower limit of 13.1, while the Stability Trends are in the stable category of 100%. Besides, based on the interview that the researcher did with the counselor, it was concluded that AF showed less serious behavior in learning. AF is lazy to do assignments given by the teacher. AF also feels that it is cooler to play with his peers than to study. This condition is reinforced by truant behavior for not making assignments. AF also often appears sleepy/is sleeping in class when the lesson takes place. Therefore, AF was given SFC intervention and obtained a stability range score of 5.4, mean level 27.6, an upper limit of 33, lower limit of 22.2, with a tendency to the stability of 80%. Based on these data it can be concluded that student’s learning motivation has increased in the SFC intervention phase of 36-19 = 17. Also, AF showed changing behavior from the baseline phase where AF began to appear serious in making the assignments given by the teacher, seemed enthusiastic about the material given by the teacher, and showed great interest in the material. After the intervention was complete, a follow- up was given to see the AF condition after the intervention. Achievement of the stability range score of 5.4, mean level 35, an upper limit of 40.4, a lower limit of 29.6. In this follow-up phase, AF condition appears to be stable with the acquisition of a stability tendency score of 100%. It can be concluded that there is no change in AF conditions after intervention and remains in high criteria. 2. AB Based on the baseline phase in graph 2, the stability range score was 2.4, the mean level was 15.75, the upper limit was 18.17 and the lower limit was 13.35. While the Stability Trends are in the stable category of 100%. In addition, based on the results of the interview, it was revealed that AB often pulled out of class and often asked for permission to go to the bathroom. AB also seemed very lazy to learn, AB felt bored with the classroom environment or the lessons given by the teacher. It can be concluded that encouragement and interest in learning AB are very lacking. Thus, AB was given SFC intervention and obtained a score of intervention stability range of 5.55, a level means of 27.4, an upper limit of 32.95, a lower limit of 21.85, with a tendency to the stability of 40%. Based on these data it can be concluded that student learning motivation has increased in the SFC intervention phase of 37-18 = 19. Moreover, AB showed behavior that changes from the baseline phase in which AB is committed to increase motivation to learn by means of seriousness in learning. To overcome laziness in the classroom, AB made a unique and interesting note, so AB does not get bored quickly. AB also proposed to teachers to study in other places such as prayer rooms, parks, and other places to support fun learning. Follow-up was given to see AB’s condition after the intervention. The follow-up outcome score in the stability range was 5.85, the mean level was 38, the upper limit was 43.85, the lower limit was 32.15. In this follow-up phase, it seems that AB condition was stable with the acquisition of a stability tendency score of 100%. It can be concluded that there is no change in the condition of AB after the intervention and remains in the high criteria. 11Lintang Setiono, Marjohan, Marlina, Implementation of Solutions-Focused Counseling (SFC) . . . . Graph 4. Frequency of AG Learning Motivation in Baseline, Intervention and Follow-Up Phases Graph 5. Frequency of RZ Learning Motivation in Baseline, Intervention and Follow-Up Phases 3. GL Based on the baseline in graph 3, the range of stability scores on the baseline was 2.4, mean level 15.5, an upper limit of 17.9 and lower limit of 13.1, while the tendency of stability is in the stable category of 100%. In addition, the results of interviews with counselors revealed that GL often seemed desperate in learning. Previous counselors had counseled with GL, and it was revealed that GL was not interested in learning even though for GL learning was important. That is the reason why GL did not have enthusiasm in learning. When having a school assignment, GL often did not do it and gave excuses. GL also rarely made lesson notes. If the teacher asked GL to go forward to answer a question, GL often answers he cannot do it. Based on the interview results above, it can be concluded that GL has a low learning motivation. Accordingly, SFC intervention was performed and obtained a score of intervention stability range of 5.25, mean level 27, an upper limit of 32.25, a lower limit of 21.75, with a tendency for the stability of 20%. Based on these data it can be concluded that student learning motivation has increased in the SFC intervention phase of 35-18 = 17. Based on interviews with GL, it was revealed that GL will be serious in learning by working on the questions given by the teacher. No matter how difficult the questions are by GL will try to work on them. If GL doesn’t understand then GL will ask friends or teachers. GL will also try to find material that has not been understood by creating study groups. , With the help of friends in groups, GL feels to have a more effective learning. After the intervention was complete, follow-up was given to see the GL condition after the intervention. Follow-up results were respectively 37, 38, 38, 37 with a stability range of 5.7, mean level of 37.5, an upper limit of 43.2, a lower limit of 31.8. In the follow-up phase, it appears that GL condition was stable with the acquisition of a stability tendency score of 100%. It can be concluded that there is no change in GL condition after intervention and it remains in high criteria. 4. AG In the Baseline phase in graph 4, the stability range score of AG was 2.4, the mean level was 15.5, the upper limit was 17.9 and the lower limit was 13.1, while the Stability Trends are in the stable category of 100%. The results of the interview with the counselor revealed that AG was a quiet student in the class. AG even rarely gave opinions during discussions. AG’s friends often complained of being in one group with AG. Based on an interview with AG, it was revealed that AG did not have a school interest, but parents wanted him to go to school. AG wants to do business. Therefore, AG is lazy to study, and AG goes to school without sincere intentions from himself. Subsequently, SFC interventions were performed and obtained a score of 5.4 stability interventions, level mean 27.6, upper limit 33, lower limit 22.2, with a tendency for the stability of 20%. Based on these data it can be concluded that student learning motivation has increased in the SFC intervention phase of 36-17 = 19. In addition, after the intervention, an interview with AG was carried out and it was found that AG would be more enthusiastic in learning. AG realized that he was quiet, but AG was committed to be active in class, especially when discussing with friends. AG’s enthusiasm for school would be further enhanced, because AG realized that business requires knowledge and skills in communication. It can be trained by learning science and communication interactions in schools. After the intervention was complete, follow-up was given to see AG’s condition after the intervention. The result of the stability range was 5.4, the mean level was 35.75, the upper limit was 41.15, the lower limit was 30.35. In this follow-up phase, it appears that AG condition was stable with the acquisition of a stability tendency score of 100%. It can be concluded that there is no change in AG condition after intervention and remains in high criteria. 5. RZ Based on the baseline results in graph 5, it obtained that RZ had a stability range score of 2.4, the mean level of 15.75, the upper limit of 18.15, and the lower limit of 13.35, while the Stability Trends are in the stable category of 100%. 12 Journal of ICSAR; Volume 3, Number 1, January 2019: 8-14 Graph 6. Frequency Learning Motivation in Group in Baseline, Intervention and Follow-Up Phases The results of interviews with teachers revealed that RZ was indifferent to his learning outcomes/ achievements. It appeared in RZ’s daily learning process, such as by cheating on exams, often leaving class, not interested in getting new material, and frequent sleeping during lessons. The results of interviews with RZ also revealed that he felt lazy with learning. For RZ, learning was boring. RZ also conveyed many people who are successful even without learning. So it can be concluded that RZ feels less interested in learning and there is no interest in learning. Therefore, RZ was given interventions 1, 2, 3, 4, SFC and obtained scores of 18, 23, 27, 32, 33, with a range of intervention stability of 4.95, mean level 26.6, upper limit of 31.55, lower limit of 21.65, with a tendency to stability of 40%. Based on these data it can be concluded that student learning motivation has increased in the SFC intervention phase of 33-18 = 15. In addition, the results of interviews with RZ revealed that RZ would be enthusiastic in learning because RZ realized that learning achievement must be obtained by having high learning motivation. He agreed to be more enthusiastic in class to solve his problem in cheating, leaving class, and other problems. . RZ also realized that the success of others who are in school and who are not in school are different. After the intervention was completed, a follow- up was given to see the post-intervention RZ condition with a stability range of 5.25, mean level 34, an upper limit of 39.25, a lower limit of 28.75. In the follow-up phase, it appears that RZ condition was stable with the acquisition of a stability tendency score of 100%. It can be concluded that there is no change in RZ conditions after the intervention and remains in the medium criteria. Discussion Group Analysis This section explain the results of the dynamics of the development of the subject of the intervention (Client) thoroughly, graph 6. This analysis explains the development of the dynamics of increasing student learning motivation by providing solution- focused counseling interventions. The score obtained is the measurement results from the instruments of data collection namely, observation guidelines and interview guidelines. Trends, levels, and variability show students’ learning motivation increases with the provision of solution-focused counseling The findings from this research at the baseline phase (A) did not have a significant difference in scores even though the average score among groups were different. This is regardless of the validity that affects the subject in the study. The description is supported by Hepner, Wampold, and Kivlinghan (2008) explaining that validity can be interpreted as the level of accuracy/ validity of a study. Validity that is likely to have an influence on the condition of the subject of this study includes internal validity and external validity. Internal validity assumed to affect the subject of this research are: history, past events experienced by the subject, Cambell & Stanley (Ross & Morrison, 2004), maturity, the occurrence of changes both biologically and non-biologically that can affect the subject (Kazdin, 2003; Marlina, 2014), procedures, the occurrence of boredom affecting test results (Rosnow, & Rosenthal, 2005). Furthermore, some assumptions of external validity that influence the subject of the study, among others: reactive settings, refers to the emergence of something new from the subject such as decreased interest, learning motivation or fatigue (Kazdin, 2003), in addition multiple treatments become a threat to validity This external refers to a research situation where (1) the sample is given more than one experimental intervention (or independent variable) in the same study or (2) the same individual participates in more than one study (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 2013; Marlina, 2017). In the Intervention phase (B) shows an increase in student motivation before and after the SFC treatment. Based on the results of the study, it showed the changes in student motivation in individuals and groups in the baseline phase (A) and follow-up phase (A ‘) of SFC intervention. Supporting the description of the research results, (Fanaei, Gorji, & Abedi, 2014) in their research report revealed that SFC is effective in increasing internal and external learning motivation in students in Iran. This research finding was support by the result conducted by Lewis & Osborn (2004) and Burg and Mayhall (2002) that SFC was a novel method for engaging students motivation. Ermawati (2010) in her research also said that therapy focuses on solutions increased learning motivation in Class X of high school students. The findings from previous researchers who examined students’ motivation strengthen the results of this study. But in this research process, researchers used or combined the solution-focused counseling 13Lintang Setiono, Marjohan, Marlina, Implementation of Solutions-Focused Counseling (SFC) . . . . approaches. The results found that the application of counseling focuses on effective solutions increased student motivation. Solution-focused counseling (SFC) is an approach built on the potential of counselees who are actually able to construct solutions to the problem. The SFC is a counseling approach which is influenced by postmodern thinking in counseling through two main activities, namely consciousness raising and making choices in alleviating problems. This SFC counseling is focused on improving the solution of each client’s problems, focusing on solution-talk and directing on what steps the counselee will do later on with the problems inherent in his life so that the session becomes concise and concise. In the SFC application, the counselor must focus on the solution so that the counselee’s problems are solved. In educational settings, sessions used are usually three to six sessions (Davis, & Osborn, 2000; Lines, 2006) This is consistent with the results of the study of Littrel et al 1995 in the school student population, the number of counseling sessions was three times (Kelly, Wood, & Mansell, 2013; MacDonald, 2007) Solution- focused counseling is not a quick fix, but counseling is designed to be limited to focusing on an intervention short-term session plan that aims not to completely cure but only to regulate the client on what is done (Davis, & Osborn, 2000; Lines, 2006). This is in line with the purpose of counseling, namely “Service assistance by professionals to someone or a group of individuals to develop KES and the handling of KES-T with a focus on independent individuals who are able to control themselves” (Prayitno, 2017). Therapeutic change factors are basically summarized into four factors and have a percentage of contribution to changes in the counselee. (Bertolino et al., 2002) The four factors are: (1) 40% extra- therapeutic factors for improvement and change in the client, (2) relation factor 30%, (3) 15% expectation factor, (4) special technical factor 15% SFC. Thus it can be concluded that changes or problem-solving are more common in the client, not solely derived from approaches or counseling techniques. It’a also supported by research finding Strong et al. (2008), that the many ways or modalities available to a counselor when working with clients. In other words, it can be concluded that humans basically have the ability and strength to solve the problems they experience so they can achieve prosperity in their lives. CONCLUSION Based on the research results it can be concluded that the counseling focusing on effective solutions increases student motivation. The effectiveness of SFC to increase student motivation is marked by an increase in scores from low to high results from the accumulation of observation and interviews, data overlap between the baseline phase and the follow-up phase of 0%, and the occurrence of a positive trend line. The SFC is an approach built on the potential of counselees who are actually able to construct solutions to the problem, and it is a counseling approach which is influenced by postmodern thinking in counseling through two main activities, namely consciousness raising and making choices in alleviating problems. In the SFC application, the counselor must focus on the solution so that the counselee’s problems are solved. REFERENCES Bannink, F. P. (2007). Solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 37(2), 87–94. Barlow, D. H., Andrasik, F., & Hersen, M. (2007). Single Case Experimental Designs. London: Allyn and Bacon. Bertolino, B., O’Hanlon, W. H., & O’Hanlon, W. H. (2002). Collaborative, competency-based counseling and therapy. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Budiono, I., Degeng, N., Ardhana, W., & Suyitno, I. (2016). The Effect of Mind Mapping Method And Learning Motivation on Writing Short Story Learning Skills In Indonesian Subject. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 109-112. Burg, J. E., & Mayhall, J. L. (2002). Techniques and interventions of solution-focused advising. NACADA Journal, 22(2), 79-85. Corey, G. (2009). Theory and Practice of Group Counseling, Eighth Edition. USA: Beimont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Davis, T., & Osborn, C. (2000). The solution- focused school counselor: Shaping professional practice. Philadelphia: PA: Taylor and Francis. Ermawati, H. (2010). Terapi Berfokus Solusi Untuk Meningkatkan Motivasi Belajar Pada Siswa Kelas X Sma Negeri 1 Mojolaban Kecamatan Mojolaban Kabupaten Sukoharjo Tahun Pelajaran 2009/2010, Bambang D. Fanaei, Z., Gorji, Y., & Abedi, M. R. (2014). The Effect of Solution-Focused Group Counseling on Internal Motivation of Students of Islamic Azad University of Khomeini Shahr 2012- 2014, International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research. 3(SP), 207-211 Hepner, P. P., Wampold, B. E., & Kivlinghan, D. (2008). Research Desain in Counseling. California: Thomson Brooks/Cole. 14 Journal of ICSAR; Volume 3, Number 1, January 2019: 8-14 Iveson, C. (2002). Solution-focused brief therapy. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 8(2), 149– 156. Kazdin, E. A. (2003). Research Design in Clinical Psychology, 4th Edition. Yale University: Pearson Education. Kelly, R. E., Wood, A. M., & Mansell, W. (2013). Flexible and tenacious goal pursuit lead to improving well- being in an aging population: A ten-year cohort study. International Psychogeriatrics, 25(1), 16– 24. Lewis, T. F., & Osborn, C. J. (2004). Solution-focused counseling and motivational interviewing: A consideration of confluence. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(1), 38-48. Lines, D. (2006). Brief Counseling In Schools: Working With Young People 2th Edition. London: Sage Publication. MacDonald, A. (2007). Solution Focused Therapy; Theory, Research & Practice. London: Sage Publication Inc. Marlina, M. (2014). Kelompok Teman Sebaya, Popularitas, dan Preferensi Sosial Anak Berkesulitan Belajar di Sekolah Dasar Inklusif. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pendidikan Luar Biasa, 1(1), 8-14. Marlina, M. (2017, May). Developing Peer-Mediated Social Skills Intervention Model for Children with Special Needs. In International Conference on Education (ICE2) 2018: Education and Innovation in Science in the Digital Era (pp. 1031-1040). McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human Motivation. New York: Cambrigde Unversity Press. Neukrug, E. (2011). The world of the counselor: An introduction to the counseling profession. Nelson Education. Neviyarni, N., & Irianto, A. (2016). Efektivitas Layanan Bimbingan Kelompok untuk Meningkatkan Motivasi Belajar dan Mengurangi Perilaku Membolos Siswa. Konselor, 3(4), 184–200. Nuzliah. (2015). Kontribusi Motivasi Belajar, Kreativitas Terhadap Problem Solving (Pemecahan Masalah) Siswa Dalam Belajar Serta Implikasi Terhadap Bimbingan Dan Konseling Di Smpn 29 Padang. Jurnal Edukasi, 1(2), 157–174. Ormrod, J. E. (2014). Educational Psychology Developing Learners Eight Edition. USA: Pearson Education. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. (2013). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. In Psychology Press (Ed.). Taylor & Francis Group. New York London. Prayitno. (2017). Konseling Profesional yang Berhasil. Depok: Rajagrafindo persada. Rehman, A., & Haider, K. (2013). The Impact of Motivation on Learning of Secondary School Students in karachi: An Analytical Study. Educational Research International, 2(2), 139– 147. Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2005). Beginning Behavioral Research: A Conceptual Primer, 5th Edition. Pearson Education. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2004). Experimental research methods. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2, 1021-1044. Santrock, J. W. (2011). Educational psychology 5 edition. Newyork: McGraw- Hill. E books. Sardiman. (2012). Interaksi dan Motivasi belajar Mengajar. (PT Raja Grafindo Persada, Ed.). Jakarta. Seligman, L. (2006). Theories of counseling and psychotherapy: Systems, strategies, and skills. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: New Jersey: Pearson Education, Ltd. Shaff. S, R. (2012). Theories of Psychotherapy and Counseling Concepts and Cases. (B. C. Learning, Ed.). Soedjito, T. M. (2014). Application of Solution- Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) to Enhance High School Students Self-Esteem: An Embedded Experimental Design. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 6(3), 96–105. Strong, T., Pyle, N. R., deVries, C., Johnston, D. N., & Foskett, A. J. (2008). Meaning-making lenses in counselling: Discursive, hermeneutic- phenomenological, and autoethnographic perspectives. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 42(2), 117-130. Sugiyanto. (1995). Metodologi Penelitian. (U. Press, Ed.). Surakarta. Sumarwiyah, S., Zamroni, E., & Hidayati, R. (2015). Solution Focused Brief Counseling (Sfbc): Alternatif Pendekatan Dalam Konseling Keluarga. Jurnal Konseling GUSJIGANG, 1(2). 234-242 Trepper, T. S., Dolan, Y., McCollum, E. E., & Nelson, T. (2006). Steve De Shazer and the future of solution-focused therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32(2), 133-139. Wiyono, B. D. (2013). Keefektifan Konseling Kelompok Singkat Berfokus Solusi Untuk Meningkatkan Motivasi Berprestasi Siswa SMK. Universitas Negeri Malang.