Implementation of Simple Additive Weighting Method in Teachers
Teaching Assessment Quality
Tonni Limbong
1,3
, Lamhot Sitorus
1
, Desinta Purba
1
and Janner Simarmata
2
1
Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Katolik Santo Thomas Medan, Medan –Indonesia
2
Faculty of Economics, Universitas Negeri Medan, Medan –Indonesia
3
Student of Doctoral Program Education Technology, Universitas Negeri Medan, Medan –Indonesia
Keywords: Teacher Teaching Quality Assessment, Decision Support System, Simple Additive Weighting (SAW)
Abstract: Activities in improving the quality of education, especially the quality of implementing teacher teaching and
learning activities, the level of welfare and teacher education are currently carried out according to views
from outside and within the school environment. Too much technical and objective educational wisdom.
One of the problems of education is the assessment of the quality of teaching teachers. A principal has not
been able to determine exactly who the teacher has good quality in teaching, so the this problem is solved
by applying the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method in making decisions by making the weight of
each alternative choice according to the many criteria. The alternative choice with the greatest weight is an a
alternative choice recommended as a quality teacher in teaching. Based on the results of trials and
evaluations made able to provide information and decisions that can help in determining the assessment of
the quality of teaching teachers.
1 INTRODUCTION
The performance of a teacher can increase if there is
a match between work and expertise, as well as in
terms of the placement of a teacher must be in
accordance with the field. If a teacher is given a task
that is not in accordance with the field of expertise,
his competence will can reduce teacher performance,
and can cause a feeling of dissatisfaction with their
performance. Efforts to improve teacher
performance such as by accepting the presence of
new teachers well at school; giving teaching
assignments in accordance with the fields and
competencies that are controlled; form a working
group of study teachers and teacher meetings of the
same field of study, as a medium for teachers in
discussing planning and solving problems that occur
in class with other teachers, evaluating and
reviewing the administration and academics of new
teachers as a material for improvement and policy
making administrative, academic coaching, as well
as teacher career development, open opportunities
for new teachers to take part in training both at
schools, at the district level, at the provincial level
and at the national level and provide rewards to
teachers who excel and provides sanction
problematic teachers.
As for the formulation of the problem in this
study, is about How to determine the criteria in the
assessment of teacher teaching quality, How to
apply the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW)
method on the of teacher teaching quality so that the
results of the assessment are optimal and far from
mistakes so in determining which teacher who are
worthy of getting a reward are not mistaken and can
be done easily after getting the values of each
criterion that has been agreed and determined
(Limbong, 2013a), (Meilina, Rosanti and Astryani,
2017).
2 THEORICAL FOUNDATION
2.1 Decision Support Systems
Decision support is a technique for organizing an
information (by involving the use of a database)
which is intended to be used in making the right
decisions(Limbong et al., 2018). Decision support
systems are designed to solve problems for decision
maker, but not to replace decisions and make
Limbong, T., Sitorus, L., Purba, D. and Simarmata, J.
Implementation of Simple Additive Weighting Method in Teachers Teaching Assessment Quality.
DOI: 10.5220/0009492103470350
In Proceedings of the 1st Unimed International Conference on Economics Education and Social Science (UNICEES 2018), pages 347-350
ISBN: 978-989-758-432-9
Copyright
c
2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reser ved
347
decisions. Decision Support System as a system that
is ready to be developed and expanded so that it can
support data analysis and modeling a decision,
oriented towards future planning, and used in units
of irregular and unplanned time intervals(Simarmata
et al., 2018).
2.2 Simple Additive Weighting Method (SAW)
Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making
(FMADM) is a method to find optimal a alternatives
from a number of alternatives that exist with certain
criteria by determining the weight value on each
attribute, then proceed to the ranking process for
selecting (Limbong and Limbong,
2018)(Nofriansyah and Defit, 2017). There are 3
(three) approaches looking for attribute weight
values, namely with a subjective approach, with an
objective approach and with an integrated approach
between subjective and objective. With a subjective
approach the value of weight is taken based on
subjectivity so that several factors the alternative
ranking process can be determined freely(Limbong,
2013a). While the objective approach, the weight
value is calculated by mathematical formula must
ignore the subjectivity of the decision maker.
The Simple Additive Weighting method is also
known as the weighted addition method. The
concept of the Simple Additive Weighting method is
to find a weighted sum of each performance rating
on each alternative on all attributes.
𝑟
……. (2.1)
Under the condition :
a. The profit attribute if the attribute gives a
benefit to the decision maker and the cost
attribute is the attribute that provides
expenditure if the value increases for decision
makers [5].
b. In the form of profit attributes, the value (X
ij
) of
each attribute column is divided by the value
MAX (X
ij
) from each column, while for the cost
attribute using the MIN value (X
ij
) of each
attribute column divided by the value (X
ij
) for
each column.
Specifies the Preference value:
𝑣
∑
𝑤
𝑟
…………………….(2.2)
A higher V
i
value indicates that the alternative
A
i
is a better alternative.
2.3. Quality of Teaching Teachers
Teacher quality is the ability possessed by a teacher
to be transferred to his students. Important activities
that are needed by a teacher in improving the quality
of teaching so that they can continue to support their
promotion to the highest level. First, teachers must
exchange ideas about matters relating to experience
developing a knowledge of subject matter and
interaction with students (Limbong, 2013b). This
exchange of ideas can be carried out in the teacher
in a teacher's work studio, or in seminars related to
that (Sudarsana et al., 2018). Scientific activities
must always raise the topic of discussion about all
that is applicable. That is, each meeting result must
be used directly to improve the quality of the
teaching and learning process. It should be noted, in
a scientific activity such as this, it is better that
factors which are of a structural administrative
nature must be ignored and not included. For
example, it is not necessary and is not mandatory
that the head of each meeting must be the principal.
3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Problem analysis
Assessing the quality of teaching teachers in schools
is not a simple matter. There needs to be good ability
in making a standard of assessment. The standard for
evaluating the quality of teaching good teachers does
not just appear. Need agreement from the party that
will assess (the principal) and the teacher to be
assessed. Thus the process of assessing the quality of
teaching teachers is achieved, not to find fault but to
improve quality so that learning activities in the
school can run better, and how the school can help
teachers better in conducting learning in the
classroom.
Table 1: Percentage values for criteria
N
o Criteria Percenta
g
e
1 Timeliness of starting
lessons
15%
2 Ability and skill in
masterin
g
the Material
30%
3 Repeats a material 10%
4 Fair and ob
j
ective 20%
5 Mastery of the use of
Learnin
g
Teachin
g
tools
25%
In this study the alternative teachers assessed were
marked with A1 to A4, with descriptions as follows:
Table 2: Alternative Teacher Data
Alternative Teacher Names
A1 Teacher A
A2 Teacher B
A3 Teacher C
A4 Teacher D
UNICEES 2018 - Unimed International Conference on Economics Education and Social Science
348
As an example of a calculation on Simple Additive
Weighting (SAW), after a performance assessment
is obtained the value of teacher performance as in
table 3. The following:
Table 3: Alternative Options and Value Tables
No Alternative C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
1 A1 75 80 65 79 65
2 A2 87 75 82 85 76
3 A3 69 84 78 88 80
4 A4 85 72 55 92 70
3.2. Application of the SAW Method
In this case the variable C is identified as an identity
to determine the terms or conditions for evaluating
the teaching and learning process. The criteria for
consideration in the following assessment of the
teaching learning process.
a. Provides Weight Criteria
To determine the weight of the teacher criteria is
shown in table 4. below:
Table 4: Weight for criteria
Criteria Wei
g
h
t
Value
(C1) Timeliness of
startin
g
lesson
15% 0.15
(C2) Ability and mastery
skills Material
30% 0.30
(C3) Repeates a
material
10% 0.10
(C4) Fair and
Ob
j
ectives
t
20% 0.20
(C5) Mastery of the use
of Learnin
g
Props
25% 0.25
From table 5, weights (W) are obtained with data
W = [0.15 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.25]
b. Calculating Normalization
To calculate normalization benefit using
formula, with the following:
𝑟
…………. (3.1)
Table 5: Alternative Value Data of by Criteria
Alternative C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
A1 75 80 65 79 65
A2 87 75 82 85 76
A3 69 84 78 88 80
A4 85 72 55 92 70
Retrieving Maximal Values on each criterion
(Column)
a. Column C1 = 87
b. Column C2 = 84
c. Column C3 = 82
d. Column C4 = 92
e. Column C5 = 80
Application of the formula:
Table 6: Calculation of Normalization
A
1
75/
87
80/
84
65/
82
79
/92
65
/80
A
2
87 /
87
75 /
84
82 /
82
85 /
92
76 /
80
A
3
69 /
87
84 /
84
78 /
82
88 /
92
80 /
80
A
4
85 /
87
72 /
84
55 /
82
92 /
92
70 /
80
Table 7: Normalization Calculation Results
A
1
0.8620
6897
0.952
38095
0.792
68293
0.858
69565
0.8125
A
2
1
0.8928
5714
1
0.923
91304
0.95
A
3
0.7931
0345
1
0.951
21951
0.956
52174
1
A
4
0.9770
1149
0.857
14286
0.6707
3171
1 0.875
c. Preferences Calculating (Ranking)
From the calculation rank process using the
following formula:
𝑣
∑
𝑤
𝑟
…………. (3.2)
Where is weights W = [0.15 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.25]
Then all data in table 7 are multiplied by the weight
value W.
Table 8: Results of Multiplication of R with W
So obtained the results as above, the ranking process
is carried out, that the best value is obtained with by
the largest value, as in table 9 below:
A
1
0.15 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.25
0.86
915
7
A
2
0.1293
1
0.2857
1
0.0792
7
0.1717
4
0.2031
3
0.94
014
A
3
0.15
0.2678
6 0.1
0.1847
8 0.2375
0.95
539
2
A
4
0.1189
7 0.3
0.0951
2 0.1913 0.25
0.88
951
8
Implementation of Simple Additive Weighting Method in Teachers Teaching Assessment Quality
349
Table 9: Ranking Results
The biggest value is A3, so the A3 alternative is a
recommendation for the quality of teaching teachers
with the highest value, namely Teacher C.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions obtained from the this research is:
1. The process of calculating the SAW method in
this decision-making system is based on the
weight value of each specified criterion.
2. Procedure for evaluating teacher teaching quality
is seen from the timeliness of starting lessons,
Ability and Skills mastery of Materials,
Repeating material, Objective and Fair, Mastery
of the use of Learning Teaching tools. With the
percentage weight of each criterion 15%, 30%,
10%, 20%, and 25%.
3. The decision-making system using the SAW
method can be done by using other methods in
the process of calculating the criteria weight
value.
4. Decision Support Systems for assessing the
quality of teaching teachers using the SAW
method can be further developed by adding other
criteria that can support decision making.
REFERENCES
Limbong, T. (2013a) ‘IMPLEMENTASI METODE
SIMPLE ADDITIVE WEIGHTING (SAW)
UNTUK PEMILIHAN PEKERJAAN BIDANG
INFORMATIKA’, Proceeding SNIKOM.
Limbong, T. (2013b) ‘PEMANFAATAN VISUALISASI
DAN ANIMASI UNTUK KEGIATAN
AKADEMIK SEBAGAI SARANA
PENGUMUMAN PADA STMIK BUDI DARMA
MEDAN’, Majalah Ilmiah INTI (Informasi dan
Teknologi Ilmiah), 1(1).
Limbong, T. et al. (2018) The Implementation of Multi-
Objective Optimization on the Basis of Ratio
Analysis Method to Select the Lecturer Assistant
Working at Computer Laboratorium, International
Journal of Engineering & Technology.
Limbong, T. and Limbong, R. (2018) ‘IMPLEMENTASI
METODE SIMPLE ADDITIVE WEIGHTING
DALAM PEMILIHAN BIBIT UNTUK
BUDIDAYA IKAN MAS’, Jurnal Teknik
Informatika Kaputama (JTIK), 2(1), pp. 115–122.
doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10083.45609.
Meilina, P., Rosanti, N. and Astryani, N. (2017)
‘PRODUKSI BARANG DENGAN METODE
FUZZY TSUKAMOTO BERBASIS ANDROID’,
(November), pp. 1–2.
Nofriansyah, D. and Defit, S. (2017) Multi Criteria
Decision Making (MCDM) pada Sistem Pendukung
Keputusan. Deepublish.
Simarmata, J. et al. (2018) Learning Application of
Multimedia-Based-Computer Network Using
Computer Assisted Instruction Method, International
Journal of Engineering & Technology. Available at:
www.sciencepubco.com/index.php/IJET.
Sudarsana, I. K. et al. (2018) ‘Paradigma Pedidikan
Bermutu Berbasis Teknologi Pendidikan’,
Jayapangus Press Books, 0(0).
UNICEES 2018 - Unimed International Conference on Economics Education and Social Science
350
