3.3. Evaluation Criteria Achievemen

3.3. Evaluation Criteria Achievement:
This is the mean of weighted average school report of each student in a certain school. Data has been collected just after 1st term ends up. This criterion represents for achievement level of a school. Nonattendance: This criterion represents for how steadily students continue courses in a school. Related to school reports, average missing days per student has been calculated as the nonattendance score for each school. Here, we appreciate that nonattendance criterion differs from others because of it works invers (see Table 2). It means that the less average of nonattendance a school has, the higher impact shows up itself on the whole performance. Social Activities: This criterion stands for what extent social and cultural activities spread over the school residents. In order to determine a social activity score, sum of attendance ratios of students, teachers and parents is calculated for each activity. Each score has been derived from a simple index. Projects: This is how many projects have been carried out during the semester. Both international and local projects are accepted.
3.4. Applying Promethee
Firstly, according to what performance scores each of school possess, evaluation matrix is formed. In this case, each criterion has equal weight, so that it doesn’t need to be shown in Table 2. Besides, due to characteristics of evaluation structure, all of threshold types are selected as absolute, but not percentage. They are all same of each other, thus they are not placed in Table 2, as well.
Before acquiring the ranking order of schools according to their performance on each criterion, a specific preference function and thresholds are defined. While setting the preference function, criteria and data structure have been considered regarding their special features. Preference functions and thresholds are provided in Table 3.
Evaluation matrix that shows up performance scores of schools and appropriate preference functions with thresholds have been entered Visual Promethee software simultaneously. Hence, positive flow (Ɏ+ ), negative flow (Ɏ- ) and net flow (Ɏ) values are obtained, as it is seen in Table 4
Figure 1 illustrates the Promethee 1 partial ranking that is calculated by using positive and negative flow values. In positive flow, schools are ranked in the order of IO-DO-KO-AO-CPAL-BO-AIHL. When we look at the negative flow, there is a little bit difference on the order of schools, which is like DO-IO-KO-BO-AO-AIHL-CPAL. Let us have a look if this difference comes up complete ranking. PROMETHEE I is not able to provide sufficient information about the best alternative, so we need PROMETHEE II complete ranking as it is shown in Figure 2. In order to determine the best performance, net flow is taken into consideration. According to this, schools are ultimately ranked in the order of IO-DO-KO-AO-BO-AIHLCPAL. Here, we see IO comes first at complete ranking as opposed to negative flow. It means that even if IO is worse than how much DO is on a certain criteria, it does not influence the complete ranking. Performance evaluation can also be analyzed in GAIA plane (see Fig.3) where schools are represented by points and criteria by vectors. In this plane, conflicting criteria can be observed clearly. In case criteria vectors are oriented in the same direction, it is understood that they are expressing similar performances. The length of each vector responses to its power on alternative schools (Da÷deviren, 2008).
As it is shown in Figure 3, quality of measurement is approximately 80%. It means, 20% of total information gets lost by the projection, nevertheless analysis can be assumed reliable enough as long as quality remains above 75% (Brans and Mareschal, 1998).
GAIA plane illustrates that Project criteria has a highly differentiation power and express independent structure, different from those expressed by most of all other criteria. It is understood that school performance on projects is more likely related to individual or small groups endeavor.
We also observe that achievement and nonattendance criteria have very close relationship with each other, so it is possible to infer that the more students continue courses regularly, the higher achievement they can get at the end of semester.
At first glance, no matter how short the vector social activity is seen, it is quite remarkable in terms of which vector social activity and vector pi (decision axis) are both oriented same direction. Thus, if an alternative school is good enough on social activities, then it can also be assumed as a well-performed school without considering other aspects of performance.
When we examine how schools spread out on the plane, we can estimate performance of schools on each criterion according to their location. For example, we can say IO has the best performance on social activities and whole concept because of that it is located the most closest place to vector pi as well as vector

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

3.3. evaluasi kriteria prestasi: Ini adalah rata-rata tertimbang laporan sekolah rata-rata setiap siswa di sekolah tertentu. Data yang telah dikumpulkan hanya setelah 1 istilah berakhir. Kriteria ini mewakili untuk pencapaian tingkat sekolah. Nonattendance: Kriteria ini mewakili untuk bagaimana terus siswa melanjutkan kursus di sekolah. Berkaitan dengan laporan-laporan sekolah, rata-rata yang hilang hari per siswa telah dihitung sebagai Skor nonattendance untuk setiap sekolah. Di sini, kami menghargai nonattendance bahwa kriteria yang berbeda dari orang lain karena kerjanya invers (Lihat tabel 2). Itu berarti bahwa rata-rata kurang dari nonattendance per sekolah memiliki, dampak yang lebih tinggi menunjukkan atas dirinya pada seluruh kinerja. Aktifitas sosial: Kriteria ini singkatan apa kegiatan sosial dan budaya sejauh tersebar sekolah penduduk. Untuk menentukan nilai kegiatan sosial, jumlah kehadiran rasio siswa, guru dan orang tua dihitung untuk setiap aktivitas. Setiap telah berasal dari indeks sederhana. Proyek: Ini adalah berapa banyak proyek telah dilakukan selama semester. Proyek-proyek lokal dan internasional yang diterima.3.4. menerapkan Promethee Pertama, menurut apa yang Skor kinerja masing-masing sekolah memiliki, evaluasi matriks dibentuk. Dalam kasus ini, setiap kriteria memiliki bobot yang sama, sehingga tidak perlu ditampilkan dalam tabel 2. Selain itu, karena karakteristik struktur evaluasi, semua jenis ambang batas yang dipilih sebagai mutlak, tetapi tidak persentase. Mereka semua sama satu sama lain, sehingga mereka tidak ditempatkan dalam tabel 2, juga.Sebelum memperoleh urutan peringkat sekolah menurut kinerja mereka pada setiap kriteria, fungsi preferensi khusus dan ambang batas yang ditetapkan. Sewaktu membuat struktur fungsi, kriteria dan data preferensi telah dianggap mengenai fitur khusus mereka. Fungsi preferensi dan ambang batas disediakan di Tabel 3.Evaluasi matriks yang muncul kinerja sejumlah sekolah dan fungsi sesuai preferensi dengan ambang telah memasuki Visual Promethee perangkat lunak secara bersamaan. Oleh karena itu, aliran positif (Ɏ +), arus negatif (Ɏ-), dan nilai-nilai bersih aliran (Ɏ) diperoleh, karena hal ini terlihat pada Tabel 4Figure 1 illustrates the Promethee 1 partial ranking that is calculated by using positive and negative flow values. In positive flow, schools are ranked in the order of IO-DO-KO-AO-CPAL-BO-AIHL. When we look at the negative flow, there is a little bit difference on the order of schools, which is like DO-IO-KO-BO-AO-AIHL-CPAL. Let us have a look if this difference comes up complete ranking. PROMETHEE I is not able to provide sufficient information about the best alternative, so we need PROMETHEE II complete ranking as it is shown in Figure 2. In order to determine the best performance, net flow is taken into consideration. According to this, schools are ultimately ranked in the order of IO-DO-KO-AO-BO-AIHLCPAL. Here, we see IO comes first at complete ranking as opposed to negative flow. It means that even if IO is worse than how much DO is on a certain criteria, it does not influence the complete ranking. Performance evaluation can also be analyzed in GAIA plane (see Fig.3) where schools are represented by points and criteria by vectors. In this plane, conflicting criteria can be observed clearly. In case criteria vectors are oriented in the same direction, it is understood that they are expressing similar performances. The length of each vector responses to its power on alternative schools (Da÷deviren, 2008).As it is shown in Figure 3, quality of measurement is approximately 80%. It means, 20% of total information gets lost by the projection, nevertheless analysis can be assumed reliable enough as long as quality remains above 75% (Brans and Mareschal, 1998). GAIA plane illustrates that Project criteria has a highly differentiation power and express independent structure, different from those expressed by most of all other criteria. It is understood that school performance on projects is more likely related to individual or small groups endeavor. We also observe that achievement and nonattendance criteria have very close relationship with each other, so it is possible to infer that the more students continue courses regularly, the higher achievement they can get at the end of semester. At first glance, no matter how short the vector social activity is seen, it is quite remarkable in terms of which vector social activity and vector pi (decision axis) are both oriented same direction. Thus, if an alternative school is good enough on social activities, then it can also be assumed as a well-performed school without considering other aspects of performance. When we examine how schools spread out on the plane, we can estimate performance of schools on each criterion according to their location. For example, we can say IO has the best performance on social activities and whole concept because of that it is located the most closest place to vector pi as well as vector