Development and Preliminary Evaluation of an AHP-Based Decision Support System for Teaching Method Recommendations in a Madrasah
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57255/intellect.v5i2.1849Keywords:
Decision Support System, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Teaching Method Recommendation, Differentiated Instruction, Educational SoftwareAbstract
This study developed and preliminarily evaluated SIPPERS, a web-based decision support system designed to provide teaching-method recommendations at MTs Laboratorium UIN Bukittinggi. The reported development process combined needs assessment through observation and an interview, Agile-oriented software development, and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The decision hierarchy comprises three criteria (learning-style category, classroom participation, and learning comprehension), nine subcriteria, and five instructional alternatives. The reported criterion weights were 0.633, 0.260, and 0.106, with a criterion-level consistency ratio of 0.048. Ten documented black-box scenarios passed. Functional-suitability and compatibility assessments reported scores of 52/52 and 12/12, respectively, while seven educational staff members provided a usability score of 1,004/1,050 (95.62%). A documentation audit identified an alternative-priority vector that does not sum to one, leaving the reproducibility and pedagogical validity of the recommendations unresolved pending the original comparison matrices. The evidence supports preliminary software implementation and technical evaluation; it does not establish that the recommendations improve learning outcomes or are optimal for individual learners.
Abstrak
Penelitian ini mengembangkan dan mengevaluasi secara awal Sistem Personalisasi Pembelajaran Siswa (SIPPERS), yaitu sistem pendukung keputusan berbasis web untuk menyajikan rekomendasi metode mengajar di MTs Laboratorium UIN Bukittinggi. Pengembangan menggabungkan analisis kebutuhan melalui observasi dan wawancara, tahapan pengembangan perangkat lunak yang dilaporkan sebagai Agile, dan Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Hierarki keputusan memuat tiga kriteria—gaya belajar, karakteristik keaktifan, dan daya tangkap—sembilan subkriteria, serta lima alternatif metode pembelajaran. Bobot kriteria yang dilaporkan adalah 0,633; 0,260; dan 0,106, dengan Consistency Ratio (CR) tingkat kriteria sebesar 0,048. Sepuluh skenario black-box berstatus berhasil; rekap penilaian functional suitability dan compatibility masing-masing mencapai 52/52 dan 12/12, sedangkan tujuh pengguna memberikan skor usability 1004/1050 (95,62%). Audit naskah menemukan ketidaksesuaian normalisasi pada satu vektor alternatif AHP sehingga validitas keputusan dan reproduksibilitas pembobotan masih memerlukan data sumber. Penelitian ini menunjukkan implementasi dan evaluasi teknis awal perangkat, bukan bukti ketepatan pedagogis rekomendasi ataupun peningkatan hasil belajar.
Downloads
References
[1] Fatimatuzzahrah, L. Sakinah, and S. A. Alyasari, “Problematika Implementasi Kurikulum Merdeka Di Sekolah: Tantangan Membangun Kualitas Pendidikan,” Jurnal Bintang Pendidikan Indonesia, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 2024, doi: 10.55606/jubpi.v2i1.2339
[2] Fatimatuzzahrah, L. Sakinah, and S. A. Alyasari, “Problematika Implementasi Kurikulum Merdeka Di Sekolah: Tantangan Membangun Kualitas Pendidikan,” Jurnal Bintang Pendidikan Indonesia, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 2024, doi: 10.55606/jubpi.v2i1.2339
[3] S. Dell’Anna, A. Frizzarin, and G. Biagiotti, “Practice-oriented research on differentiation strategies in primary and secondary education: A systematic review,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 177, art. no. 105559, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2026.105559
[4] B. N. Langelaan, L. Gaikhorst, W. Smets, and R. J. Oostdam, “Differentiating instruction: Understanding the key elements for successful teacher preparation and development,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 140, art. no. 104464, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104464
[5] M. I. Deunk, A. E. Smale-Jacobse, H. de Boer, S. Doolaard, and R. J. Bosker, “Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education,” Educational Research Review, vol. 24, pp. 31–54, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002
[6] A. E. Smale-Jacobse, A. Meijer, M. Helms-Lorenz, and R. Maulana, “Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Education: A Systematic Review of Research Evidence,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 10, art. no. 2366, 2019, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366
[7] A. Hase and P. Kuhl, “Teachers’ use of data from digital learning platforms for instructional design: A systematic review,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 72, pp. 1925–1945, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11423-024-10356-y
[8] D. Alonzo, V. Quimno, G. Townend, and C. Z. Oo, “Using information and communication technology (ICT)-based data systems to support teacher data-driven decision-making: Insights from the literature (2013–2023),” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, vol. 36, pp. 433–451, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11092-024-09443-8
[9] J. Vick et al., “Exploring Elementary Teachers’ Confidence and Anxiety in Data-Based Decision-Making,” TechTrends, vol. 69, pp. 1288–1303, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11528-025-01113-w
[10] P. Hawlitschek and S. Henschel, “Promoting teacher knowledge and self-efficacy for data-based decision-making: Dimensional structure, sensitivity to professional development, and relationships with teachers’ intended data use,” Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, vol. 28, pp. 1577–1603, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11618-025-01321-3
[11] S. Evenstein Sigalov, A. Hershkovitz, A. Cohen, and R. Nachmias, “Trusting the data: An updated framework for teachers’ data-driven decision-making (DDDM) in higher education,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 31, pp. 953–981, 2026, doi: 10.1007/s10639-025-13819-8
[12] F. Herliana, T. Hafinda, and R. Firmayanto, “Differentiated Instruction through Adaptive Learning Platform in Science Education: A Systematic Literature Review,” Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 914–931, 2024, doi: 10.23960/jpmipa/v25i2.pp914-931
[13] K. M. Bach, S. I. Hofer, and S. Bichler, “Adaptive learning, instruction, and teaching in schools: Unraveling context, sources, implementation, and goals in a systematic review,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 124, art. no. 102781, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102781
[14] R. Pelánek, “Adaptive Learning is Hard: Challenges, Nuances, and Trade-offs in Modeling,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 35, pp. 304–329, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s40593-024-00400-6
[15] M. Mejeh and M. Rehm, “Taking adaptive learning in educational settings to the next level: Leveraging natural language processing for improved personalization,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 72, pp. 1597–1621, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11423-024-10345-1
[16] H. Farhood, M. Nyden, A. Beheshti, and S. Muller, “Artificial intelligence-based personalised learning in education: A systematic literature review,” Discover Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, art. no. 331, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44163-025-00598-x
[17] Hariyanto, F. X. D. Kristianingsih, and R. Maharani, “Artificial intelligence in adaptive education: A systematic review of techniques for personalized learning,” Discover Education, vol. 4, art. no. 458, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00908-6
[18] N. Kerimbayev, K. Adamova, R. Shadiev, and Z. Altinay, “Intelligent educational technologies in individual learning: A systematic literature review,” Smart Learning Environments, vol. 12, art. no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s40561-024-00360-3
[19] A. Nurjanah, A. Solehudin, and A. Primajaya, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Penentuan Model Pembelajaran Untuk Guru Dengan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (Studi Kasus: SMK PGRI Telagasari),” Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan, vol. 8, no. 17, pp. 32–45, 2022, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7069500
[20] H. A. Farizi, H. K. Saputra, Y. Hendriyani, and K. Budayawan, “Implementasi Sistem Rekomendasi Pemilihan Mata Pelajaran Pada Kurikulim Merdeka Menggunakan Metode TOPSIS,” Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 27627–27636, 2025, doi: 10.31004/jptam.v9i2.31314
[21] C. Troussas, A. Krouska, P. Mylonas, and C. Sgouropoulou, “Personalized Instructional Strategy Adaptation Using TOPSIS: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Adaptive Learning Systems,” Information, vol. 16, no. 5, art. no. 409, 2025, doi: 10.3390/info16050409
[22] T. L. Saaty, “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process,” International Journal of Services Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 83–98, 2008, doi: 10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
[23] O. S. Vaidya and S. Kumar, “Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 169, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
[24] A. Ishizaka and A. Labib, “Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 14336–14345, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143
[25] H. Pashler, M. McDaniel, D. Rohrer, and R. Bjork, “Learning styles: Concepts and evidence,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 105–119, 2008, doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
[26] P. A. Kirschner, “Stop propagating the learning styles myth,” Computers & Education, vol. 106, pp. 166–171, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006
[27] V. Clinton-Lisell and C. Litzinger, “Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 15, art. no. 1428732, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1428732
[28] A. Touloumakos et al., “Visual Type? Not My Type”: A Systematic Study on the Learning Styles Neuromyth Employing Frequentist and Bayesian Statistics,” Mind, Brain, and Education, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 197–208, 2023, doi: 10.1111/mbe.12380
[29] C. Hattan, E. Grossnickle Peterson, and K. Miller, “Revising teacher candidates’ beliefs and knowledge of the learning styles neuromyth,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 77, art. no. 102269, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2024.102269
[30] B. A. Rogowsky, B. M. Calhoun, and P. Tallal, “Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 64–78, 2015, doi: 10.1037/a0037478
[31] D. T. Willingham, E. M. Hughes, and D. G. Dobolyi, “The Scientific Status of Learning Styles Theories,” Teaching of Psychology, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 266–271, 2015, doi: 10.1177/0098628315589505
[32] P. M. Newton, “The Learning Styles Myth is Thriving in Higher Education,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, art. no. 1908, 2015, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908
[33] L. R. Aiken, “Three Coefficients for Analyzing the Reliability and Validity of Ratings,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 131–142, 1985, doi: 10.1177/0013164485451012
[34] J. R. Lewis, “IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 57–78, 1995, doi: 10.1080/10447319509526110
[35] M. Bond et al., “A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: A call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 21, art. no. 4, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z
[36] S. K. Banihashem et al., “A systematic mapping review at the intersection of artificial intelligence and self-regulated learning,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 22, art. no. 50, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s41239-025-00548-8
[37] M. Roski, R. Sebastian, R. Ewerth, A. Hoppe, and A. Nehring, “Learning analytics and the Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A clustering approach,” Computers & Education, vol. 214, art. no. 105028, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105028
[38] Y. Liu, X. Hu, J. T. D. Ng, Z. Ma, and X. Lai, “Ready or not? Investigating in-service teachers’ integration of learning analytics dashboard for assessing students’ collaborative problem solving in K–12 classrooms,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 30, pp. 1745–1776, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12842-5
[39] A. Riedmann, P. Schaper, and B. Lugrin, “Reinforcement Learning in Education: A Systematic Literature Review,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 35, pp. 2669–2723, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s40593-025-00494-6
[40] M. Mejeh, L. Sarbach, and T. Hascher, “Effects of adaptive feedback through a digital tool – a mixed-methods study on the course of self-regulated learning,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 29, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12510-8
[41] F. Almasri, “Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Teaching and Learning of Science: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research,” Research in Science Education, vol. 54, pp. 977–997, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11165-024-10176-3
[42] O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond, and F. Gouverneur, “Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators?,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 16, art. no. 39, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
[43] A. Fuchs, A. Radkowitsch, and D. Sommerhoff, “Using learning progress monitoring to promote academic performance? A meta-analysis of the effectiveness,” Educational Research Review, vol. 46, art. no. 100648, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100648
Downloads
Submitted
Accepted
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rendi Kurniyawan, Liza Efriyanti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
