Simple Weighted Average as an Alternative Method in Aggregating Students’ Academic Achievements

Authors

  • Maznah Mat Kasim School of Quantitative Sciences, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Siti Rohana Goh Abdullah Institutes of Engineering Mathematics Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2013.10.6

Keywords:

academic subject, academic achievement, student assessments, simple weighted average

Abstract

Purpose â€“ It is a normal practice that students’ overall scores are computed by simple average (SA) method which considers all academic subjects as having the same weights or same degree of importance. This paper highlights the application of simple weighted average (SWA) as an alternative method in aggregating students’ academic achievements. The weights of the academic subjects must be determined prior to the use of SWA.
 
Methodology â€“ In a case study, a group of five teachers from one primary school was asked to rate five main subjects taught in primary schools according to their importance. These five teachers have taught the five subjects for more than six years. The obtained weights values were used to re-compute 2011 mid-semester final examination scores of 33 year-six pupils at the selected primary school.
 
Findings â€“ The teachers decided to give different weight to three subjects, but same weights to two subjects. Furthermore, the SWA scores give different ranking to the pupils as compared to the SA scores. Another sentence or two needed here to explain the findings.
 
Significance â€“ It is argued that the use of the SWA method is more suitable than the simple average method in finding the overall scores of students’ achievements. The SWA method considers the subjects to have different degrees of importance, as they do in the actual educational context.

References

Barron, F. H., & Barrett, B. E. (1996). Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Science, 42 (11), 1515-1523.

Choo E.U, Schooner B., & Wedley W.C. (1999). Interpreting of criteria weights in multi criteria decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 37, 537-541.

Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, & Papayannakis L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the CRITIC method. Computers and Operation Research, 22 (7), 763–770.

Hazura, Z., Abdul Azim, A., G., Mohd Hasan, S., & Ramlan, M. (2007). Using fuzzy integral to evaluate the web-based applications. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information Technology in Asia, 23-27.

Hwang, C.L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Kane M., & Case S. (2004). The reliability and validity of weighted composite scores. Applied Measurement in Education, 17(3), 221-240.

Kolen M. J., Wang T., & Lee, W. (2012) Conditional standard errors of measurement for composite scores using IRT. International Journal of Testing, 12,1–20.

Ma, J., Fan, Z. P., & Huang, L.H. (1999). A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attributes weights. European Journal of Operational Research, 112, 397-404.

Marichal, J. L. (1999). Aggregation operator for multi-criteria decision aid (Unpublished doctoral dissertations). University of Liege.

Maznah Mat Kasim (2008). Determination of criteria weights in multi criteria problem (in Malay).( Unpublished doctoral dissertations). Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Malaysia.

Mohd Faisal Imran. (2007). Student’s Educational Information Mangement System Case Study: Sekolah Kebangsaan Serkam Darat. Degree project paper, Technical University of Malaysia.

Muhamad Ayub. (2009). Choquet and Sugeno Integrals (Unpublished master’s thesis). Blekinge Institute of Technology.

Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26.

Tan C., & Chen X. (2010). Intuitionistic fuzzy choquet integral operator for multi-criteria decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 149-157.

Wagholikar, A. S., & Deer, P. (2007). Fuzzy measures acquisition methods. Engineering Letters (IAENG), 14(2), 56-60.

Wagholikar, A. S. (2007). An approach to improve practical application of fuzzy measures in multi-criteria decision making. Paper presented at the proceedings of NAFIPS International Conference 2007, 222-226.

Wagholikar, A. S., & Jo, J. (2008). An intelligent system in healthcare using fuzzy measures. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 2008 3rd International Conference on Intelligent System and Knowledge Engineering, 446-449.

Wei Y.L, & Hsiao S. (2012). Parents value language, math over nature science: Poll in Focus Taiwan News Channel 2012/06/29. http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail. aspx?Type=aALL&ID=201206290042

Yao L. (2010). Reporting valid and reliable overall scores and domain scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47(3), 339-360.

Downloads

Published

26-12-2013

Issue

Vol. 10 (2013): Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction (MJLI) Vol. 10, 2013

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Mat Kasim, M., & Goh Abdullah, S. R. (2013). Simple Weighted Average as an Alternative Method in Aggregating Students’ Academic Achievements. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 10, 119-132. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2013.10.6

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-21
0 citations recorded so far

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/mjli2013.10.6 OpenAlex W4405133625