Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SCHOOL TEACHER EVALUATION BASED ON
ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP)
MOHD IZZUDDIN BIN BANAN
BACHELOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
(SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT)
UNIVERSITI SULTAN ZAINAL ABIDIN
2017
School Teacher Evaluation Based On Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
MOHD IZZUDDIN BIN BANAN
Bachelor of Computer Science (Software Development)
Faculty of Informatics and Computing
Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu, Malaysia
MAY 2017
i
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this report is based on my original work except for quotations
and citations, which have been duly acknowledged. I also declare that it has not been
previously or concurrently submitted for any other degree at Universiti Sultan Zainal
Abidin or other institutions.
________________________________
Name : Mohd Izzuddin Bin Banan
Date : ..................................................
ii
CONFIRMATION
This is to confirm that:
The research conducted and the writing of this report was under my supervision.
________________________________
Name : Puan Nor Surayati binti Mohamad Usop
Date : ..................................................
iii
DEDICATION
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
First of all, all praises and thanks due to Allah SWT, for His limitless
blessing on us. May Allah SWT bestow his peace and blessings upon His
Prophet Muhammad SAW and his family. Acknowledgment are due to all
lecturers of Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin for providing knowledge and
support my final report project proposal with the title School Teacher
Evaluation Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Puan Nor Surayati Binti
Mohamad Usop for her invaluable guidance and enlightening advices in
preparing this thesis. I was proud to be supervise by her with her guidance,
ideas and invaluable advice.
Thank you to Norlina Binti Udin @ Kamaruddin, and Dr Wan Suryani
Binti Wan Awang had been helpful exchanging ideas, concept and opinion
Through my research endeavour. I would also like to thank my classmate for
their support about my project. Last but not least, my special thanks to my
beloved mother and family for their prayers, love and encouragement. thanks
to everybody who contributed for this proposal, both directly and directly in
giving their support.
iv
ABSTRACT
Evaluation of teachers in schools normally used to raise the grade or
rank of the teacher. At this point, the evaluation of teachers in schools using
the form of questions given by the teacher that will lead to a long process and
will lead to slow to generate such reports but this system allows students to
answer the questions on-line. This system was designed to simplify the
management to get feedback from students. Next, assessment scores taken
from the student’s feedback. This system also allows students in Form 4 and
Form 5 only. The system uses the technique of "Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP)" as the calculation technique. Calculations using AHP is intended to
determine whether those teachers are in an excellent level, moderate or weak.
The system can also assist management in assessing and raising the grade
or rank of teachers in schools.
v
ABSTRAK
Penilaian subjek dan guru di sekolah kebiasaannya digunakan untuk menaikkan gred
atau pangkat seseorang guru. Pada ketika ini, penilaian disekolah hanyalah
menggunakan borang soalan yang diberi oleh guru tersebut tetapi sistem ini
membenarkan pelajar menjawab soalan atas talian. Sistem ini dibuat untuk
memudahkan pihak pengurusan mendapatkan maklumbalas daripada pelajar.
Seterusnya markah penilaian diambil daripada maklumbalas pelajar tersebut. Sistem
ini juga hanya membenarkan pelajar di tingkatan 4 dan tingkatan 5 sahaja. Sistem ini
menggunakan teknik “Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)” sebagai teknik
pengiraan. Pengiraan menggunakan AHP adalah bertujuan untuk menentukan
samada guru tersebut berada di tahap cemerlang, sederhana atau lemah. Sistem ini
juga dapat membantu pihak pengurusan dalam menilai dan menaikkan gred atau
pangkat guru di sekolah.
vi
CONTENTS
PAGE
DECLARATION i
CONFIRMATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ABSTRACT iv
ABSTRAK v
CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background 1
1.2 Problem statement 2
1.3 Objectives 2
1.4
1.5
Scopes
Expected Result
2
3
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Analysis of Existing System 4
2.3 Literature Review of the System 5
2.4 Literature Review of AHP 6
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 7
3.2 System Development Methodology 8
3.2.1 Initial Planning & Planning Phase 8
3.2.2 Requirement Phase 9
3.2.3 Analysis and Design 9
3.2.4 Implementation phase 9
3.2.5 Testing and Evaluation Phase
3.2.6 Deployment Phase
10
10
vii
3.3 System Requirement 11
3.3.1 Software Requirement 11
3.3.2 Hardware Requirement 11
3.4 System Design and Modelling 12
3.4.1 Framework Design 12
3.4.2 Architecture Design 13
3.4.3 Process Model 16
3.4.4 Data Model 21
3.4.5 Solution Complexity 22
REFERENCES 34
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
3.1 Pairwise Comparison between Criteria 23
3.2 Pairwise Comparison between Criteria 23
3.3 Result of times for criteria and total row 24
3.4 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Perancangan
dan penyampaian)
25
3.5 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Perancangan
dan penyampaian)
25
3.6 Result of times for alternatives and total row 26
3.7 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (kaedah
penyampaian)
27
3.8 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (kaedah
penyampaian)
27
3.9 Result of times for alternatives and total row 28
3.10 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Penggunaan
Sumber)
29
3.11 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Penggunaan
Sumber)
29
3.12 Result of times for alternatives and total row 30
3.13 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Teknik
penyoalan)
31
3.14 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Teknik
penyoalan)
31
3.15 Result of times for alternatives and total row 32
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
3.1 Iterative and Incremental Model 8
3.2 Framework Design of the System 12
3.3 Interface of user login 14
3.4 Interface of add new user 15
3.5 Interface of add student profile 15
3.6 Interface of report 15
3.7 Context Diagram 16
3.8 Data Flow Diagram (DFD) Level 0 17
3.9 Manage User Process (DFD Level 1) 18
3.10 Manage Questionnaire Process (DFD Level 1) 19
2.11 Manage Report Process (DFD Level 1) 20
3.12 Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) 21
x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / TERMS / SYMBOLS
CD Context Diagram
DFD Data Flow Diagram
ERD Entity Relationship Diagram
FYP Final year project
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Appendix 1 80
B Appendix 2 81
C Appendix 3 82
D Appendix 4 83
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Evaluation of subjects and teachers is the way which the management to
get feedback from students to analyse and improve the quality of subject
offered at the school and the quality of teachers, including improving
productivity management.
This evaluation is proposed to do online for student because want to
increase the use of website and also want to reduce the processes involved in
traditional methods which require a lot used of resource. The process involved
in traditional method is teachers need to distribute forms to students, collected
the form, segregation by subject, assessment calculation and generating
reports.
This system is use analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for the
assessment calculation. Next, the results of the AHP calculations used by
management to determine whether teachers are evaluated at an excellent
level, or weak. In conclusion, the AHP helps by solving problems in evaluating
teachers
2
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
There are few problems that identified when analyzing this system. Firstly,
the processes involved in traditional methods which require a lot used of
resource. The process involved in traditional method is teachers need to
distribute forms to students, collected the form, categorize by subject,
assessment calculation and generating reports. So this process requires high
cost and wasted time.
Next, the problem that found when analysing this system is the
management late receive the report. This problem occurs when it need to go
through a long process, so it may take time to generate a report. It proves that
the traditional method is not suggested anymore and need to improve.
1.3 OBJECTIVE
The objectives are as below;
To design a system that can evaluate subject and teachers.
To implement Analytic Hierarchy Process as calculation techniques into
a system.
To test the functionality of the system.
3
1.4 SCOPE
Scope for this system are divided into three (3) which is Students,
Teachers and Management
1.4.1 Students
Only three (3) students involved to evaluate teachers.
1.4.2 Teachers
Only three (3) teacher from SMK Tembila that teach the subject at the
school will be examine/ evaluate by the student.
1.4.3 Management (Principal)
The management that manage about the evaluation and update the
questionnaire.
1.5 EXPECTED RESULT
To design a system that help school management to evaluate their
teacher
The system will be able to help student to answer the online
questionnaire
The system is offers user friendly interface and is easy to use
4
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
A literature review is an evaluative report of information found in the
literature based on the system that want to develop selected. The information
collected will be identified to complete the objectives. The review should
define, review, evaluate and explain this literature. It should give a theoretical
base for the study and help determine the nature of the system. Works which
are irrelevant should be discarded and those which are outer should be looked
at critically. It also need to be discuss about the idea from previous method
before develop the system.
2.2 ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM
Based on the study, school in Malaysia still use manual evaluation
subject which is they distribute the questionnaire to student to evaluate the
subject. This will make the report are late to generate.
However, Management reports do not provide sufficient information to
document teacher quality. Good teacher evaluation adds multiple data
sources such as client surveys, peer reviews of materials and pupil
achievement data which vary by teacher and setting. Management should
become knowledgeable about pupil gain data, costs of evaluation, sociology
of teacher evaluation, and the problem of the bad teacher. Teacher evaluation
5
can reassure external audiences that schools are doing a good job (Kenneth
Peterson, 2004).
2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE SYSTEM
According to the journal of “Teacher evaluation and school
improvement: An
analysis of the evidence (Philip Hallinger & Ronald H. Heck & Joseph Murphy,
2013) substantial investment have been made in reengineering systems of
teacher evaluation. The new generation models of teacher evaluation typically
adopt a standard-based view of teaching quality and include a value-added
measure of growth in student learning. With more than a decade of
experience and research, it is timely to assess empirical evidence bearing on
the efficacy if this school improvement strategy.
Also in same journal it highlights three lines of analysis which is
evidence on the magnitude, consistency, and stability of teacher effects on
student learning, evidence on the impact of teacher evaluation on growth in
student learning, and literature from the sociology of organizations on how
schools function. Although the trend towards focusing on teacher evaluation is
increasingly evident internationally, most of the empirical research evaluated
in this paper is from the USA. This critical evaluation of the empirical literature
yields two key. First, we conclude that the policy logic supporting this reform
remains considerably stronger than the empirical evidence. Second, we
suggest that alternative improvement strategies may yield more positive
results and at a lower cost in terms of staff time and district funds.
Evaluating teaching performance is a main means to improve teaching
quality and can plays an important role in strengthening the management of
higher education institution (Jeng-Fung Chen, Ho-Nien Hsieh, Quang Hung
Do,2014). On this paper “Evaluating teaching performance based on fuzzy
AHP and comprehensive evaluation approach” it presents a novel framework
for teaching performance evaluation based on the combination of fuzzy AHP
6
and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Specifically, after determining
the factors and sub-factors, the teaching performance index system was
established. In the index system, the factor and sub-factor weights were then
estimated by the extent analysis fuzzy AHP method. Employing the fuzzy AHP
method in group decision-making can facilitate a consensus of decision-
makers and reduce uncertainty. On the basis of the system, the fuzzy
comprehensive evaluation method was employed to evaluate teaching
performance. A case application was also used to illustrate the proposed
framework. The application of this framework can make the evaluation results
more scientific, accurate, and objective. It is expected that this work may
serve as an assistance tool for managers of higher education institutions in
improving the educational quality level.
2.4 LITERATURE REVIEW OF ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP)
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a University of Pittsburgh professor of
operations research home Sadi (TLSaaty) in the early 1970s a combination of
quantitative and qualitative in dealing with complex decision problems
program more sort of system analysis method. Orderly hierarchy of the
complex issues of various factors are interrelated by dividing it so principled,
based on certain objective reality judgment, given to each of the relative
importance of each factor in the level of quantitative mathematical method to
determine each the weights of the levels of various factors, to provide a
scientific basis for the correct evaluation of the research project.
AHP helps to identify the subjective and the objective of an evaluation,
provide a useful mechanism to check the consistency of a valuation and an
alternative proposed by the next group to avoid bias in decision-making (V.S
Lai, R.P.Trueblood & B.K.Wong, 1992).
7
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In order to achieve goals and planned results within a defined schedule
and a budget, a project methodologies are used. Regardless of which field or
which trade, there are assortments of methodologies to help in every stage of
a project from the initiation to implementation to the closure. A methodology is
a model, which is for the design, planning, implementation and achievement
of their project objectives. There are different project management
methodologies to benefit different projects.
8
3.2 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY
The development of the system will follow System Development Life
Cycle (SDLC) to ensure the effectiveness of the implementation process.
School Teacher Evaluation will use iterative and incremental model as the
methodology approach. Iterative and incremental development is the
combination of iterative design or method and incremental build model for
software development. They are long lasting and widely use in large
development efforts.
Figure 3.1 Iterative and Incremental Model
3.2.1 Initial Planning & Planning Phase
i. Initial Planning Phase
The phase starts with brainstorming the ideas of current problems and system
requests. Then continue the discussion with the supervisor to choose a project
to be implemented. Literature reviews with the current similar system are
studied to find the problems of the systems.
9
ii. Planning Phase
The title has been confirmed including the details of the project. Then
system’s problem statement, objectives and scopes are also being discussed
with the supervisor. Feasibility study has been done to get more info about the
diet plan and chronic disease.
3.2.2 Requirement Phase
This phase is to study and analyse the existing system. Other than that review
the existing system, interview with the supervisor also helped in determining
the system requirements. Interviews have been made to the principal of the
Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tembila, En Shafii bin Yaacob and Penolong
Kanan Hal Ehwal Murid, Ustaz Mat Rahim Bin Abdullah. After determining the
requirements of the system, information needed such as teacher evaluation
criteria are collected
3.2.3 Analysis and Design Phase
In this phase, data flow diagram (DFD), entity-relationship diagram (ERD) and
framework are designed. They help to understand the process flow of the
system. Any changes might occur during development according to user’s
requirements.
3.2.4 Implementation Phase
The phase also known as code generation phase. Developer writes codes
based on the previous phase. The system will build using PHP language and
MySQL as the database platform. User interfaces are also included in the
phases as they are important in delivering information and messages to the
user.
10
3.2.5 Testing & Evaluation Phase
i. Testing Phase
Every sub-module needs to be tested before it will implement into the system.
Any changes of the coding, error, functionality or upgrades are also will be
tested. User interface will be checked to ensure they are connected to
database and appropriate with the system.
ii. Evaluation Phase
System will be evaluated to check for bugs or errors. Any best practices and
techniques that will be used in the first iteration then can be used for the next
requirement changes and needed in the next iteration.
3.2.6 Deployment Phase
In the last phase, School Teacher Evaluation System will be presented and
delivered to the end-user. Any complement will be given to check whether the
system has been developed correctly or not.
11
3.3 SYSTEM REQUIREMENT
In order to develop a system properly that hassle free, a list of complete
software and hardware tools are required. Without complete list of
requirements, the system will be in the state of troublesome.
3.3.1Software Requirement
i. windows 10 pro
- operating system used to house all the applications and tools
ii. Microsoft Office 2010
- Tools for writing and editing word documents.
iii. XamppServer
- Server used to process data together with management of data using
phpMyAdmin
iv. Edraw
- Tools for drawing diagram.
v. Google Chrome
- Web browser used to display the data to end user
vi. Dropbox
- Cloud storage for backup data files
vii. Sublime Text 3 & Notepad++
- Text editor used for coding
3.3.2 Hardware Requirement
i. Lenovo S410p ideapad
- Specification : intel core i5, 2GB RAM
ii. Kingston Data Traveller USB
- Used to store and transfer data files
12
3.4 SYSTEM DESIGN AND MODELLING
3.4.1 Framework Design
The framework describes how the user uses this system with AHP to
generate an overall mark that can be view by both management and teacher.
Firstly, all user need to login the system. After that the system will give
feedback interface based on their login id.
Figure 3.2 Framework Design of the system
13
3.4.2 Architecture Design
3.4.2.1 Database Design
This are list of table in database. There are 5 table which is table
management, table question, table report, table student and table teacher.
This is table management contains 5 Attributes. Management_id, name,
gender, address and tel_no. Management _id is the primary key.
This is table question contains only 2 Attributes. question_id, teacher_id.
question _id is the primary key. Teacher_id is the key.
This is table report contains only 2 Attributes. report_id, teacher_id. report _id
is the primary key. Teacher_id is the foreign key.
14
This is table student contains 5 Attributes. student_id, name, gender, address
and class. Student _id is the primary key.
This is table teacher contains 6 Attributes. teacher_id, name, gender, address
and tel_no and subject_name. Teacher _id is the primary key.
3.4.2.2 Graphical User Interface
Figure 3.3 Interface of user login
15
Figure 3.4 Interface of add new user
Figure 3.5 Interface of add student profile
Figure 3.6 Interface of report
16
3.4.3 Process Model
3.4.3.1 Context Diagram
Figure 3.7 Context Diagram
Context diagram in figure 3.7 show the data flow for the School
Teacher Evaluation System. There are three main actors which is
management, student and teacher. The context diagram shows the overall
function of the system. All the user need to be login as a basic step of using
this system.
17
3.4.3.2 Data Flow Diagram (DFD) Level 0
Data flow diagram (DFD) is a graphical representation of the flow of the
data in the system. The DFD show the data flow from an external source or
internal source to the data store or another process.
Through the DFD shown above, figure 3.8 show the whole system flow.
There are four process in this system which are Manage User, Login, Manage
Questionnaire and Manage Report. Every process of the system will interact
with their related table or data store in the databases in order to complete the
process
Figure 3.8 Data Flow Diagram (DFD) Level 0
18
3.4.3.3 Data Flow Diagram (DFD) Level 1
Figure 3.9 Manage User Process (DFD Level 1)
Figure 3.9 above shows the process of manage user process. All user
need to be register in the system and it will store in user data store. After that,
users can update their details and also can delete it. If user delete their
details, their detail in user data store also will be deleted.
19
Figure 3.10 Manage Questionnaire Process (DFD Level 1)
Figure 3.10 above show the manage questionnaire process. In this
process, management will be able to add, update and delete the question and
all the question details will be store in data store question. Student also
involved in this process. Student will be able to retrieve the question from the
data store question and they need to answer the question. Then the answered
question will be send into question data store.
20
Figure 3.11 Manage Report Process (DFD Level 1)
Figure 3.11 above shows manage report process. In this process,
management will be able to add, update and delete the report and all the
report details will be store in data store report. Teacher also involved in this
process. Teacher will be able to retrieve the report from the data store report
and they only can view the report.
21
3.4.4 Data Model
3.4.4.1 Entity Relationship Model (ERD)
Figure 3.12 Entity Relationship Model (ERD)
Figure 3.12 above shows the Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) for
School Teacher Evaluation System. An ERD is a data modelling technique
that creates a graphical representation of the entities, and the relationships
between the entities in a system. In other words, ERD is graphical
representations that illustrate the logical structure of databases. ERD have
four different components which are entities, relationships, attributes and
cardinalities. The entity is a person, object, place or event for which data is
collected. Teacher and report are two examples of entities in the ERD shown
above. The relationship is the interaction between the entities. For the
example, the management generate report. The word ‘generate’ defines the
relationship between that instance of management and report. The attributes
are the characteristics of an entity. For example, student entity has five
attributes which are name, gender, address, student_id, class.
22
3.4.5 Solution Complexity
Figure 3.13 Objective, Criteria and Alternative
Figure 3.14 Hierarchy of AHP
Perancangan
& Persedia
Kaedah
Penyampaian Penggunaan
Sumber
Teknik
Penyoalan
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C
Rank Teacher
23
3.4.5.1 Make Pairwise Comparison by Criteria, Calculate Eigenvector and
Normalization
Perancangan
dan
Persediaan
Kaedah
Penyampaian
Penggunaan
Sumber
Teknik
Penyoalan
Perancangan
dan
Persediaan
1 4/3 4/2 4/1
Kaedah
Penyampaian
3/4 1 3/2 3/1
Penggunaan
Sumber
2/4 2/3 1 2/1
Teknik
Penyoalan
1/4 1/3 1/2 1
Table 3.1 Pairwise Comparison between Criteria
Perancangan
dan
Persediaan
Kaedah
Penyampaian
Penggunaan
Sumber
Teknik
Penyoalan
Perancangan
dan
Persediaan
1 1.3333 2.0000 4.0000
Kaedah
Penyampaian
0.7500 1 1.5000 3.0000
Penggunaan
Sumber
0.5000 0.6667 1 2.0000
Teknik
Penyoalan
0.2500 0.3333 0.5000 1
Table 3.2 Pairwise Comparison between Criteria
Use Matrix Formula to get new value each row for example : (1.0000*1.0000) + (1.3333*0.7500) + (2.0000*0.5000) + (4.0000*0.2500) = 4
24
Perancangan
dan
Persediaan
Kaedah
Penyampaian
Penggunaa
n Sumber
Teknik
Penyoalan
Total
row
Perancangan
dan
Persediaan
4 5.3332 8.0000 16.0000 33.3332
Kaedah
Penyampaian
3.0000 4 6.0000 12.0000 25.0000
Penggunaan
Sumber
2.0000 2.6668 4 8.0000 16.6668
Teknik
Penyoalan
1.0000 1.3332 2.0000 4 8.3332
Table 3.3 Result of times for criteria and total row
Normalization
Perancangan dan Persediaan 33.3332/83.3332 = 0.4
Kaedah Penyampaian 25.0000/83.3332 = 0.3
Penggunaan Sumber 16.6668/83.3332 = 0.2
Teknik Penyoalan 8.3332/83.3332 = 0.1
25
3.4.5.2 Make Pairwise Comparison by Alternative based on Criteria,
Calculate Eigenvector and Normalization
Perancangan Dan Persediaan
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C
Teacher A 1 3/4 3/2
Teacher B 4/3 1 4/2
Teacher C 2/3 2/4 1
Table 3.4 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Perancangan dan Persediaan)
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C
Teacher A 1 0.7500 1.5000
Teacher B 1.3333 1 2.0000
Teacher C 0.6667 0.5000 1
Table 3.5 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Perancangan dan Persediaan)
26
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Total Row
Teacher A 3 2.2500 4.5000 9.7500
Teacher B 3.9999 3 6.0000 12.9999
Teacher C 2.0001 1.5000 3 6.5000
Table 3.6 Result of times for alternatives and total row
Normalization
Teacher A 9.7500/29.2500 = 0.3333
Teacher B 12.9999/29.2500 = 0.4444
Teacher C 6.5001/29.2500 = 0.2222
27
Kaedah Penyampaian
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C
Teacher A 1 5/3 5/1
Teacher B 3/5 1 3/1
Teacher C 1/5 1/3 1
Table 3.7 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (kaedah penyampaian)
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C
Teacher A 1 1.6667 5.0000
Teacher B 0.6000 1 3.0000
Teacher C 0.2000 0.3333 1
Table 3.8 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (kaedah penyampaian)
28
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Total Row
Teacher A 3 5.0001 15.0000 23.0001
Teacher B 1.8000 3 9.0000 13.8000
Teacher C 0.6000 0.9999 3 4.5999
Table 3.9 Result of times for alternatives and total row
Normalization
Teacher A 23.0001/41.4000 = 0.5556
Teacher B 13.8000/41.4000 = 0.3333
Teacher C 4.5999/42.4000 = 0.1111
29
Penggunaan Sumber
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C
Teacher A 1 5/4 5/3
Teacher B 4/5 1 4/3
Teacher C 3/5 3/4 1
Table 3.10 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Penggunaan Sumber)
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C
Teacher A 1 1.2500 1.6667
Teacher B 0.8000 1 1.3333
Teacher C 0.6000 0.7500 1
Table 3.11 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Penggunaan Sumber)
30
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Total Row
Teacher A 3 3.7500 5.0001 11.7501
Teacher B 2.4000 3 3.9999 9.3999
Teacher C 1.8000 2.2500 3 7.0500
Table 3.12 Result of times for alternatives and total row
Normalization
Teacher A 11.7501/28.2000 = 0.4267
Teacher B 9.3999/28.2000 = 0.3333
Teacher C 7.0500/28.2000 = 0.2500
31
Teknik Penyoalan
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C
Teacher A 1 1/2 5/3
Teacher B 2/1 1 2/3
Teacher C 3/1 3/2 1
Table 3.13 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Teknik penyoalan)
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C
Teacher A 1 0.5000 0.3333
Teacher B 2.0000 1 0.6667
Teacher C 3.0000 1.5000 1
Table 3.14 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Teknik penyoalan)
32
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Total Row
Teacher A 3 1.5000 0.9999 5.4999
Teacher B 6.0000 3 2.0001 11.0001
Teacher C 9.0000 4.5000 3 16.5000
Table 3.15 Result of times for alternatives and total row
Normalization
Teacher A 5.4999/33.0000 = 0.1667
Teacher B 11.0001/33.0000 = 0.3333
Teacher C 16.5000/33.0000 = 0.5000
33
3.4.5.3 Calculation to Know Rank of the Teacher
Perancangan
dan
Persediaan
Kaedah
Penyampaian
Penggunaan
Sumber
Teknik
Penyoalan
Teacher A 0.3333 0.5556 0.4167 0.1667
Teacher B 0.4444 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333
Teacher C 0.2222 0.1111 0.2500 0.5000
X
Rank Criteria
Perancangan dan Persediaan 0.4000
Kaedah Penyampaian 0.3000
Penggunaan Sumber 0.2000
Teknik Penyoalan 0.1000
=
Total
Teacher A 0.4001
Teacher B 0.3774
Teacher C 0.2222
34
REFERENCES
Jeng-Fung Chen, Ho-Nien Hsieh, Quang Hung Do. (2014). Evaluating
teaching performance based on fuzzy AHP and comprehensive evaluation
approach. Volume 28, Pages 100–108.
Philip Hallinger,Ronald H. Heck & Joseph Murphy.(2013). Teacher evaluation
and school improvement: Ananalysis of the evidence. DOI 10.1007/s11092-
013-9179-5.
Dayong Xu(2014). Application of analytic hierarchy process to the employee
performance evaluation. Volume 10, issue 18.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. “The Analytic Hierarchy Process.” McGraw-Hill, New York.
Craig Larman, Victor R. Basili. (2003). Iterative and Incremental Development:
A Brief History