Implementation of the MARCOS Method and Entropy Weighting for Selecting the Best Teacher at Madrasah Ibtidaiyah

Siti Qayyimah; Indana Lazulfa

doi:10.32664/smatika.v16i02.2365

Penulis

Siti Qayyimah Universitas Hasyim Asy'ari
Indana Lazulfa Universitas Hasyim Asy’Ari

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32664/smatika.v16i02.2365

Kata Kunci:

Decision Support, MARCOS, Madrasah Ibtidaiyah, MCDM, Shannon Entropy

Abstrak

Selecting the best teacher in a madrasah requires an assessment mechanism that is transparent, reproducible, and able to process several performance criteria simultaneously. This study evaluates 20 active teachers at Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Al-Huda using five benefit criteria: attendance, pedagogical competence, personality competence, social competence, and professional competence. The criterion weights were calculated objectively using Shannon Entropy, and the alternatives were ranked using the Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to Compromise Solution (MARCOS) method. The Entropy calculation produced weights of 0.011 for attendance, 0.266 for pedagogical competence, 0.266 for personality competence, 0.245 for social competence, and 0.212 for professional competence. The MARCOS results show that Wasilul Gaffar obtained the highest utility value of 0.783 and ranked first. Sensitivity testing and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) comparison indicate that the leading alternative remains stable under several weighting scenarios. The findings show that the integration of Shannon Entropy and MARCOS can support evidence-based teacher performance evaluation in a small madrasah context without relying solely on subjective judgment.

Referensi

[1] E. Fatmawati, “Reconceptualizing Assessment in Islamic Education: A Critical Review of Madrasah Evaluation Practices in the 21st Century,” J. Qual. Assur. Islam. Educ., vol. 5, no. 2, 2025, doi: 10.47945/jqaie.v5i2.2376.

[2] M. T. Şener and A. E. Şener, “A systematic literature review on multi-criteria decision making in higher education,” Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 192–211, 2023, doi: 10.21449/ijate.1104005.

[3] S. E. Akmaludin, R. Rinawati, E. Arisawati, and L. Dewi, “Decision Support for Selection of The Best Teachers Recommendations MCDM-AHP and ARAS Collaborative Methods,” Sinkron, vol. 8, no. 4, 2023, doi: 10.33395/sinkron.v8i4.12354.

[4] Y. Yu, “Evaluating Teaching Quality in Colleges and Universities of Public Art Education Using the AHP Fuzzy Comprehensive Method,” Sci. Program., vol. 2022, pp. 1–10, 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/3529311.

[5] M. Radovanović, S. Jovčić, A. Petrovski, and E. Cirkin, “Evaluation of University Professors Using the Spherical Fuzzy AHP and Grey MARCOS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model: A Case Study,” Spectr. Decis. Mak. Appl., 2025, doi: 10.31181/sdmap21202518.

[6] S. Zhang, “Evaluate teaching quality of physical education using a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework,” PLoS One, vol. 18, no. 1, p. e0280845, 2023, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280845.

[7] Ž. Stević, D. Pamučar, A. Puška, and P. Chatterjee, “Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS),” Comput. & Ind. Eng., vol. 140, p. 106231, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231.

[8] A. El-Araby, I. Sabry, and A. El-Assal, “Ranking Performance of MARCOS Method for Location Selection Problem in the Presence of Conflicting Criteria,” Decis. Mak. Adv., 2024, doi: 10.31181/dma21202435.

[9] A. Nasyuha, “A Decision Support System for Selecting the Best Private Universities in Yogyakarta Using MARCOS Method,” J. Comput. Sci. Res., 2024, doi: 10.65126/jocosir.v2i2.37.

[10] A. Ulutaş, D. Karabašević, G. Popović, D. Stanujkić, P. Nguyen, and Ç. Karaköy, “Development of a Novel Integrated CCSD-ITARA-MARCOS Decision-Making Approach for Stackers Selection in a Logistics System,” Mathematics, 2020, doi: 10.3390/math8101672.

[11] D. Trung, “Multi-criteria decision making under the MARCOS method and the weighting methods: applied to milling, grinding and turning processes,” Manuf. Rev., 2022, doi: 10.1051/mfreview/2022003.

[12] Y. Zhu, D. Tian, and F. Yan, “Effectiveness of Entropy Weight Method in Decision-Making,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2020, pp. 1–5, 2020, doi: 10.1155/2020/3564835.

[13] I. Mukhametzyanov, “Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD,” Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 76–105, 2021, doi: 10.31181/dmame210402076i.

[14] N. T. Linh, N. H. Son, and D. T. Thao, “Evaluating the Impact of Weighting Methods on the Stability of Scores for Alternatives in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems,” Eng. Technol. & Appl. Sci. Res., 2025, doi: 10.48084/etasr.9518.

[15] T. Van Dua, D. Van Duc, N. C. Bao, and D. D. Trung, “Integration of objective weighting methods for criteria and MCDM methods: application in material selection,” EUREKA Phys. Eng., 2024, doi: 10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003171.

[16] P. Du, Y. Wang, Z. Chen, and Z. Zhang, “A novel q-rung orthopair fuzzy best-worst method, Shannon entropy and MARCOS method for mobile medical app service quality evaluation,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 153, p. 111417, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111417.

[17] Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia, Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia Nomor 16 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Kualifikasi Akademik dan Kompetensi Guru. Jakarta, Indonesia, 2007.

[18] P. Pahrudin, M. Martono, and D. Murtini, “The Effect of Pedagogic Competency, Personality, Professional and Social Competency Teacher to Study Achievement of Economic Lesson in State Senior High School of East Lombok District Academic Year 2015/2016,” in Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Teacher Training and Education, 2016.

[19] X. Wang and Z. Zhang, “A Novel Integrated Picture Fuzzy MACONT Method and Its Application in Teaching Quality Evaluation in Higher Education,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 88390–88402, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3418035.

[20] L. Zhao, “Optimization of teacher evaluation indicator system based on fuzzy-DEMATEL-BP,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 14, p. e34034, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34034.