SCHOOL TEACHER EVALUATION BASED ON ANALYTIC …greenskill.net/suhailan/fyp/report/037125.pdf ·...

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


3.10 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Penggunaan

Sumber)

29

3.11 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Penggunaan

Sumber)

29


3.13 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Teknik

penyoalan)

31

3.14 Pairwise Comparison between Alternative (Teknik

penyoalan)

31


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 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 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 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 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 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


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 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 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 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


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 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 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 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


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

Date post:	05-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

SCHOOL TEACHER EVALUATION BASED ON ANALYTIC …greenskill.net/suhailan/fyp/report/037125.pdf ·...

Documents