Attribution- ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)
e - ISSN 2807-8691 | p- ISSN 2807-839X
IJSSR 2650
10.46799/ijssr.v3i10.573
The Influence Of The Management System And Teacher
Performance On The Quality Of Learning At MTs Bilingual
Muslimat NU Pucang Sidoarjo
M. Khusni Mubarok
1,
Zakiatur Rofiah
2
Islamic Education Management, IAI Al- Khoziny Buduran Sidoarjo, Indonesia
Influence, Management System,
Teacher Performance, Quality of
Learning, MTs.
School as institution formal, informal and non-formal
education requires good management for ensure effectiveness
and efficiency of the educational process in order to achieve
objective education. Teacher, as factor main in the learning
process teach, play role key in reach quality more education
good. Quality Education is very dependent on teacher
performance, and quality teachers are needed For fulfil
demands society. A number draft management explain
management as tools, energy, systems, processes, tasks and
efforts used For reach objective organization. Function
management involve planning, organization, guidance,
coordination, supervision, and communication. Performance,
on the other hand, involves achievement, ability work, and the
results that have been achieved achieved. Teacher
performance is very important in reach quality more
education good. Therefore that, researchthis entitled "
Influence System Management and Teacher Performance
Quality Learning at MTs Bilingual Muslimat NU Pucang
Sidoarjo " for explore impact system management and teacher
performance towards quality learning at school that.
INTRODUCTION
et al.
International Journal of Asian Education,
IJSSR 2651
et al.et al.
et al.
et al.
et al.
International Journal of Social Service and Research
IJSSR 2652
Based on the description above, the author tried to carry out research activities entitled "The
Influence of Management Systems and Teacher Performance on the Quality of Learning at MTs
Bilingual Muslimat NU Pucang Sidoarjo".
METHODS
The data needed inthis research is the management system, teacher performance, and learning
quality. To reveal data on the principal's management system and teacher performance, two sets of
Likert model questionnaires with five alternative answers were developed. Before being used, the two
questionnaires were tested first to determine the validity of the items and the reliability of the
instrument. Meanwhile, to reveal data on the quality of learning, there is a decommentation study
Data Collection Techniques
Data collection techniques are the methods used to collect the necessary data and information to
make it easier for researchers to understand the symptoms or problems that occur.this is as stated by
Stanton (1998), that "data collection techniques are the methods taken and the tools used by
researchers in collecting data". For research there are several data collection techniques, Husaini Usman
and Purnomo Setiady Akbar (2000: 54) state that the types of data collection consist of "Observation,
Interviews, Questionnaires and Documentation".
In the research entitled The Influence of Management Systems and Teacher Performance on the
Quality of Learning at MTs Bilingual Muslimat NU Pucang Sidoarjo, data collection techniques used
International Journal of Asian Education,
IJSSR 2653
questionnaires as the main data analysis technique and documentation studies as a complement. The
research above uses a questionnaire to reveal data about the management system and teacher
performance. The type of questionnaire used is a closed questionnaire which allows respondents to
easily answer questions because alternative answers are available.
According to an expert's opinion, respondents can respond to questions/statements by using a
Liker scale model. The use of a Liker scale so that respondents can respond to statements by giving one
of the 5 alternative answers to each statement. Each response is associated with a value and the
individual value is determined by the sum of the values for each statement. For positive values starting
from strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, doubtful = 3, disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1. Meanwhile for
statements with negative values will be reversed, namely strongly agree = 1, agree = 2, doubtful = 3,
disagree= 4, strongly disagree= 5". Scarvia B. Anderson in Suharsini Arikunto (1998: 65), states that "A
test is valid if it measures what it aims to measure", meaning that a test is said to be valid if the test
measures what it is intended to measure.
Apart from questionnaires and observations used in efforts to extract data from the field,
documentation studies are also needed to reveal data related to information about the school, for
example the school's vision and mission, physical condition of the school, facilities and infrastructure
and personnel of the school.
RESULTS
Description Variable Research and Discussion
1. System Overview Management Head School
Table 1. Categories Interpretation
Average score
Category Interpretation
Less than or The same with 1.5
Very less
Between 1.5 - 2.5
Not enough
Between 2.5 - 3.5
Enough
Between 3.5 - 4.5
Good
More or The same with 4.5
Very good
a. Function Management
Item Number 1,
Item No. 2
International Journal of Social Service and Research
IJSSR 2654
Item No. 3
Item No. 4.
Item No.5
item No. 1 to No. 5
2. Perception Overview Head School On Teacher Teaching Performance
Table 2. Average Teacher Performance Score
Average score
Category Interpretation
Less than or The same with 1.5
Very less
Between 1.5 - 2.5
Not enough
Between 2.5 - 3.5
Enough
Between 3.5 - 4.5
Good
More or The same with 4.5
Very good
3. Quality Overview Learning
International Journal of Asian Education,
IJSSR 2655
Table: 3. Interpretation Value Category
Mark
Category
number10
Special
number 9
Very good
number 8
Good
number 7
More Enough
number 6
Enough
number 5
Not Enough
number 4
Not enough
number 3
Very Less
number 2
Bad
Number 1
Very Bad
Table: 4. Quality Learning
Earned Grade Average
No
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Class V
Class VI
Amount
Average
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
42
7
2
7.8
7.4
7.2
7
6,7
7.4
43.5
7.25
3
6,8
6,8
6.2
7.1
6.2
6,8
39.9
6.65
4
6.9
7
7
7.2
7.4
7.4
42.9
7.15
5
7
7
6,8
6,8
7.1
7.2
41.9
6.98
6
7.3
6.9
6.67
6.75
6.66
7
42.06
7.01
7
7.71
7.78
7.66
7.66
7.61
7.66
46.08
7.68
8
7.5
7.1
7.28
7.9
6.9
6,8
43.48
7.25
9
7
7
7
6
6
7
40
6.67
10
7
7
7
6.5
6.5
7
41
6.83
11
7
7
7
6,7
7
6,8
41.5
6.92
12
6.9
7.1
7
7
7
7.3
42.3
7.05
13
7
7
7
7
7
7
42
7
14
7
7
6.5
7
7
7
41.5
6.92
15
7.3
7.4
6,7
7.07
6.83
7.4
42.7
7.12
16
7
7
6.5
6.5
6.5
7
40.5
6.75
17
7
6.9
7
7
6.5
7
41.4
6.9
18
8.5
7.9
7.6
7.3
7.3
7.2
45.8
7.63
19
7
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.5
7.05
39.95
6.66
20
7.8
7
7
6.5
6.4
6,8
41.5
6.92
21
7.1
6.5
6,7
6.5
6,7
7
40.5
6.75
22
7.42
7.02
6.87
7.05
7.8
7.5
43.66
7.28
23
6.65
6.91
7
7
6.42
6.80
40.78
6,8
24
6
7
7
7
7
7
41
6.83
25
6,7
6.9
6,8
7.1
6,8
7
41.3
6.88
26
6.9
6.9
6,8
7
6,8
7.2
41.6
6.93
27
7
7
6.1
6,8
6,8
7.4
41.1
6.85
28
7.6
7
7
7
7
6.4
42
7
29
6.6
6.5
6.3
6.5
6,7
6.9
39.5
6.58
30
7.4
7.4
6,8
7.1
7.2
7
42.9
7.15
31
7
6.5
6
7
6
7
39.5
6.58
32
7
7
7
7
7
7
42
7
33
6,7
6.3
7.5
6,10
6.95
6.85
40.4
6.73
International Journal of Social Service and Research
IJSSR 2656
34
7
7
6.88
6.61
6.55
6.83
40.87
6.82
35
7.3
7.2
6.61
6.63
6.21
7.85
41.8
6.97
36
6.5
7.4
6,8
7.3
6.5
7.3
41.8
6.97
37
7
7.5
8
7
7.5
7.5
44.5
7.41
38
7.5
7.5
7
7
7
7
43
7.17
39
7
7
7
6.5
7
7
41.5
6.92
40
7
7
7
6.5
7
7
41.5
6.92
41
7.5
7.5
8
7
7.5
7.5
45
7.5
42
7
7
6
7
7
7
41
6.83
43
7
7
6
7
6,7
6.5
40.2
6,7
44
7
7
7
7
7
7
42
7
45
7
7
7
7
7
7
42
7
46
7.1
6,7
7.1
6,8
6,8
6.6
41.1
6.85
47
7.3
7.1
7.01
7.5
7
7
42.91
7.15
Hypothesis Test Results and Discussion
TABLE 5. RECAPITULATION OF SCORE OBTAINING X1, X2 AND Y
NO
PRIMARY SCHOOL
NAME
X1
X2
Y
AMOUN
T
1.
SD A
217
213
7
437
2.
SD B
202
212
7.25
421.25
3.
SD C
207
220
6.65
427
4.
SD D
215
206
7.15
421
5.
SD E
213
217
6.98
430
6.
SD F
213
205
7.01
418
7.
SD G
211
207
7.68
418
8.
ALREADY
211
184
7.25
395
9.
Elementary School I
210
202
6.67
412
10.
SD J
2O5
201
6.83
201
11.
SD K
195
214
6.92
409
12.
SD L
192
190
7.05
382
13.
SD M
193
198
7
398
14.
SD N
194
214
6.92
408
15.
SD O
207
211
7.12
418
16.
SD P
202
180
6.75
382
17.
SD Q
204
217
6.9
421
18.
SD R
212
211
7.63
423
19.
SD S
201
205
6.66
406
20.
SD T
209
231
6.92
440
21.
U Elementary School
194
210
6.75
404
22.
SD V
196
212
7.28
408
23.
SD W
201
211
6,8
412
24.
SD X
200
206
6.83
406
25.
SD Y
195
181
6.88
376
26.
SD Z
200
196
6.93
396
27.
AA Elementary
School
211
205
6.85
416
International Journal of Asian Education,
IJSSR 2657
28.
BB Elementary
School
208
242
7
457
29.
SDCC
196
205
6.58
401
30.
DD Elementary
School
192
193
7.15
385
31.
EE Elementary
School
195
201
6.58
396
32.
FF Elementary
School
191
201
7
399
33.
GG Elementary
School
191
202
6.73
393
34.
HH Elementary
School
196
192
6.82
388
35.
Elementary School II
193
196
6.97
389
36.
JJ Elementary School
204
204
6.97
408
37.
KK Elementary
School
252
206
7.41
458
38.
LL Elementary
School
199
212
7.17
411
39.
MM Elementary
School
201
185
6.92
386
40.
NN Elementary
School
193
205
6.92
398
41.
OO Elementary
School
201
190
7.5
391
42.
PP Elementary
School
195
201
6.83
396
43.
QQ Elementary
School
202
203
6,7
405
44.
RR Elementary
School
198
209
7
414
45.
SS Elementary School
197
220
7
424
46.
TT Elementary
School
207
217
6.85
430.85
47.
UU Elementary
School
186
191
7.15
377
AMOUNT
9302
9634 56.1
18992.1
Testing and Discussion of Hypothesis Test Results Number 1
Principal
Management
System (X1)
Teacher
Teaching
Performance
(X2)
Learning
Quality (Y)
International Journal of Social Service and Research
IJSSR 2658
Figure 1. Relationship Model Causal System Management Head School (X 1), Teacher
Performance (X
2
) against Quality Learning (Y)
Hypothesis number 1 in study this, formulated as as follows : " System management head school
influential positive to teacher performance ". In hypothesisthis, System management head school
treated as an exogenous variable, meanwhile teacher performance is treated as an endogenous variable.
For needs testing, hypothesis study the furthermore explained to in hypothesis statistics as following :
Ho: P = 0
H1: P > 0
Criteria the test, Ho is rejected if : p-value price for coefficient path (P) obtained based on
empirical data, more small from a. In research Here, price a is set of 0.05.
Test results produce price P = 0.397 with The p-value is 0.006. It turns out, the p-value for
coefficient track the more small of 0.05 so H0 is rejected. That is, System management head school
influential positive significant to teacher performance. Because of the hypothesis formulated in study
this shaped hypothesis alternative or hypotasis Work so formulated hypothesis in study this accepted.
Testing and Discussion of Hypothesis Test Results Number 2
Hypothesis number 2 in study this, formulated as as follows : " System management head school
influential positive to quality learning ". In hypothesisthis, system management head school treated as
an exogenous variable, meanwhile quality learning treated as an endogenous variable. For needs testing,
hypothesis study the furthermore explained to in hypothesis statistics as following :
H0: P = 0
Hi: P > 0
Criteria the test, H0 is rejected if : p-value price for coefficient path (P) obtained based on
empirical data, more small from a. In research Here, price a is set of 0.05.
Test results produce price P = 0.330 with The p-value is 0.023. It turns out, the p-value for
coefficient track the more small of 0.05 so H0 is rejected. That is, System management head school
influential positive significant to quality learning. Because of the hypothesis formulated in study this
shaped hypothesis alternative or hypotasis Work so formulated hypothesis in study this accepted.
Testing and Discussion of Hypothesis Test Results Number 3
Hypothesis number 3 in study this, formulated as as follows : "Teacher performance is influential
positive to quality learning ". In hypothesis Inthis case, teacher performance is treated as an exogenous
variable, meanwhile quality learning treated as an endogenous variable. For needs testing, hypothesis
study the furthermore explained to in hypothesis statistics as following :
H0: P = 0
H1: P > 0
Testing and Discussion of Hypothesis Test Results Number 4
International Journal of Asian Education,
IJSSR 2659
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Arikunto S. 1998. Pendekatan Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Brown M. 1960. Effective work management. (No Title).
Canales A, Maldonado L. 2018. Teacher quality and student achievement in Chile: Linking teachers
contribution and observable characteristics. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 60:33
50.doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.09.009.
Elfrida D, Santosa H, Soefijanto TA. 2020. Pengaruh Kompetensi Guru dan Implementasi Kurikulum
International Journal of Social Service and Research
IJSSR 2660
Asing Terhadap Kinerja Guru di Sekolah Internasional Jakarta Utara. Tadbir J. Stud. Manaj.
Pendidik. 4(1):53.doi:10.29240/jsmp.v4i1.1358.
Gore J, Lloyd A, Smith M, Bowe J, Ellis H, Lubans D. 2017. Effects of professional development on the
quality of teaching: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds.
Teach. Teach. Educ. 68:99113.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.007.
Graham LJ, White SLJ, Cologon K, Pianta RC. 2020. Do teachers years of experience make a difference in
the quality of teaching? Teach. Teach. Educ. 96:103190.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2020.103190.
Gutkin TB, Hickman JA. 1990. The relationship of consultant, consultee, and organizational
characteristics to consultee resistance to school-based consultation: An empirical analysis. J.
Educ. Psychol. Consult. 1(2):111122.doi:10.1207/s1532768xjepc0102_1.
Hamidaton U, Lee MS, Ismail A, Shahida N, Sanusi A. 2018. Ethical climate as a determinant of
organizational commitment. Int. J. Asian Soc. Sci. 8(8):534539.
Husaini U, Akbar PS. 2000. Metodologi Penelitian Sosial, Jakarta: PT. Bumi Aksara.
Klassen RM, Tze VMC. 2014. Teachers self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-
analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 12:5976.doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001.
Lundgren EF. 1974. Organizational management: systems and process. (No Title).
Martínez-Zarzuelo A, Rodríguez-Mantilla JM, Fernández-Díaz MJ. 2022. Improvements in climate and
satisfaction after implementing a quality management system in education. Eval. Program Plann.
94:102119.doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102119.
Morris SA, Vaughan Jr ED, Constable WC. 1976. Problems in management of primary bilateral germ cell
testicular tumors: report of 3 cases and review of literature. J. Urol. 115(5):566
568.doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)59285-X.
Musselman VA, Hughes EH. 1969. Introduction to modern business: Analysis and interpretation. (No
Title).
Negeri AFMT. The school heads strategy for planning to boost the standard of education.
.doi:10.29210/021004jpgi0005.
Prawirosentono S, Primasari D. 2022. Manajemen Stratejik & Pengambilan Keputusan Korporasi
(Strategic Management & Corporate Decision Making). Bumi Aksara.
Premeaux SR, Gordon JR, Mondy RW, Sharplin A. 1991. Management and Organizational Behaviour.
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois.
Ray M, Stoner AW. 1994. Experimental analysis of growth and survivorship in a marine gastropod
aggregation: balancing growth with safety in numbers. Mar. Ecol. Ser. 105:47.
Stanton JM. 1998. An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Pers. Psychol.
51(3):709725.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00259.x.
Sumantri Nawawi E. 1988. Citizenship training for steady national development: a case study of the P-4
training program for the students of higher education in West Java, Indonesia.
Surakhmad W. 1982. A. Metode Penelitian.
Swasto B. 1996. Pengembangan Manajemen Sumber daya Manusia pengaruhnya terhadap kinerja dan
Imbalan. Malang FIA UB.
Tabata Y, Griek L. 1999. Ensuring Opportunities for the Professional Development of Teachers.
Innovation and Reform in Teacher Education for the 21st Century in the Asia-Pacific Region.
Seminar Report (Hiroshima, Japan, September 1998).
Tahalele JF, Indrafachrudi S. 1975. Kepemimpinan Pendidikan. Malang Sub Proy. Penulisan Buku
Pelajaran P3T IKIP Malang.
Ukas M. 2004. Manajemen: Konsep, Prinsip dan Aplikasi. Bandung: Agnini.
Wallace DP, Van Fleet C, Downs LJ. 2011. The research core of the knowledge management literature.
Int. J. Inf. Manage. 31(1):1420.doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.10.002.
Wei H-C, Peng H, Chou C. 2015. Can more interactivity improve learning achievement in an online
course? Effects of college students perception and actual use of a course-management system
International Journal of Asian Education,
IJSSR 2661
on their learning achievement. Comput. Educ. 83:1021.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.013.
Copyright holder:
(2023)
First publication rights:
International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR)
This article is licensed under:
