Automation of Teaching Quality Survey Processing for Lecturers via Integrated TOPSIS Calculation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62712/ijapset.v1i2.11Keywords:
lecturer competency evaluation, data validation, prototype model, black-box testing, System Usability ScaleAbstract
Faculty teaching quality in a vocational study program was previously monitored manually, which risked calculation errors and failed to prevent duplicate evaluations. This research presents a prototype application that integrates student evaluations, data validation, and calculations based on the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) into a single system. The development followed a prototyping model and used four faculty competencies as evaluation criteria. The system enforces rules requiring one evaluation per faculty member, at least one entry for each competency, and a minimum number of evaluators. Black-box testing across ten scenarios confirmed that all functions operate as intended. System-generated calculations matched manual calculations up to four decimal places. An implementation involving 485 evaluations provided by 100 students regarding six faculty members revealed that "professional competence" received the lowest scores across all faculty. A System Usability Scale assessment yielded an average score of 94.42 from 13 respondents. This system enables study programs to process faculty evaluations quickly and accurately, providing a foundation for professional development training.
Downloads
References
[1] Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi. (2021). Keputusan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 399/P/2021 tentang Standar Pelayanan Minimum POLMED. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi.
[2] A. Rizka et al., “Analisis Metode TOPSIS Terhadap Kinerja Dosen Berdasarkan Preferensi Penilaian Mahasiswa,” Jurnal Nasional Teknologi Komputer, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 974–984, Oct. 2025.
[3] R. Pramodiyo Wilantara, Wasilah, and J. Triloka, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Penilaian Efektivitas Pemilihan Dosen Terbaik ITBA Dian Cipta Cendikia Bandar Lampung Menggunakan Metode AHP dan Topsis,” Jurnal JUPITER, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 425–435, Oct. 2024.
[4] L. Raković, M. Sakal, S. Dakić, and J. Đurković, “Spreadsheets: risk from the shadow,” Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2022, doi: 10.1504/IJBIS.2022.126027.
[5] S. Aryza and Z. Lubis, “Optimizing Lecturer Performance Assessment through Web-Based Application Design and Deployment,” Journal of Computer Science, Information Technology and Telecommunication Engineering (JCoSITTE), vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1028–1035, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.30596/jcositte.v7i1.26501.
[6] H. C. Wang, R. Ehianeta, and H. Sen Doong, “Students’ online evaluation of teaching and system continuance usage intention: new directions from a multidisciplinary perspective,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 1295–1309, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2023.2199181.
[7] Y. Dzakadzie and F. Quansah, “Modeling unit non-response and validity of online teaching evaluation in higher education using generalizability theory approach,” Front. Psychol., vol. 14, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1202896.
[8] Y. Dzakadzie, “Identifying optimal number of raters and items for dependable student evaluation of teaching: evidence from generalizability theory,” Front. Educ. (Lausanne)., vol. 11, pp. 01–14, May 2026, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1814494.
[9] V. Pandey, Komal, and H. Dincer, “A review on TOPSIS method and its extensions for different applications with recent development,” Soft comput., vol. 27, no. 23, pp. 18011–18039, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1007/S00500-023-09011-0/METRICS.
[10] M. Maral and A. Özdemir, “A systematic review on multi-criteria decision-making methods in educational research,” Br. Educ. Res. J., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 01–36, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1002/berj.70002.
[11] Y. Zheng, “Evaluation of Online Teaching Effect of Vocational College Teachers Based on TOPSIS Technology and the Hierarchical Chi-Square Model,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 18, no. 15, pp. 161–173, 2023, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v18i15.42251.
[12] S. Broumi, R. Sundareswaran, M. Shanmugapriya, P. K. Singh, M. Voskoglou, and M. Talea, “Faculty Performance Evaluation through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Using Interval-Valued Fermatean Neutrosophic Sets,” Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 18, pp. 1–21, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.3390/math11183817.
[13] J. O. Adigun et al., “Development and Evaluation of a Web Based System for Students’ Appraisal on Teaching Performance of Lecturers,” International Journal of Information Engineering and Electronic Business, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 25–36, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.5815/ijieeb.2022.01.03.
[14] J. V. M. Bata, “A General-Purpose Web-based TOPSIS tool for Accessible Multi-Criteria Decision Making,” Jurnal Teknik Informatika (Jutif), vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 3994–4005, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.52436/1.jutif.2025.6.5.4988.
[15] Q. H. Do, V. T. Tran, and T. T. Tran, “Evaluating lecturer performance in Vietnam: An application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 11, May 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30772.
[16] N. Hayati, A. E. Syaputra, and Y. S. Eirlangga, “SISTEM PENUNJANG PENGAMBILAN KEPUTUSAN DALAM PEMBERIAN REWARD DOSEN TERBAIK MENGGUNAKAN METODE TOPSIS,” Jurnal Informatika dan Komputer, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 246–253, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.35508/jicon.v11.i2.12390.
[17] D. Yan and G. Li, “Applying multivariate generalizability theory to compose and rank the evaluation scores of college teachers’ teaching ability,” Sci. Rep., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–13, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-08550-w.
[18] E. Bjarnason, F. Lang, and A. Mjöberg, “An empirically based model of software prototyping: a mapping study and a multi-case study,” Empir. Softw. Eng., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1–47, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10664-023-10331-w.
[19] F. Quansah, A. Cobbinah, K. Asamoah-Gyimah, and J. E. Hagan, “Validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: a systematic review,” Front. Educ. (Lausanne)., vol. 9, pp. 01–12, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1329734.
[20] N. Indah Chasanah et al., “BLACK BOX TESTING WEBSITE RIMA BATIK DENGAN TEKNIK BOUNDARY VALUE DAN EQUIVALENCE PARTITIONING,” Jurnal Mahasiswa Teknik Informatika, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 12814–12820, Dec. 2024.
[21] A. Wisesa Bong, E. Safitri, and T. Hendry, “Analisis dan Pengujian Sistem Informasi Stok dengan Boundary Value Analysis pada PT ABC,” Journal Of Information System, Computer Science And Information Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 217–231, Jun. 2024.
[22] P. Vlachogianni and N. Tselios, “Perceived usability evaluation of educational technology using the System Usability Scale (SUS): A systematic review,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 392–409, 2022, doi: 10.1080/15391523.2020.1867938.
[23] M. Hyzy et al., “System Usability Scale Benchmarking for Digital Health Apps: Meta-analysis,” JMIR Mhealth Uhealth, vol. 10, no. 8, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.2196/37290.
[24] O. Suria, “A Statistical Analysis of System Usability Scale (SUS) Evaluations in Online Learning Platform,” Journal of Information Systems and Informatics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 992–1007, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.51519/journalisi.v6i2.750.
[25] A. Nfh and A. T. Wardani, “Evaluating Usability of a Website-Based Learning Platform for Basic Programming Using the SUS Method,” INTEC Journal: Information Technology Education Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45–50, Feb. 2025.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ade Rizka

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
