Öğrenme yönetim sistemi seçiminde kullanılacak kriterlerin belirlenmesine yönelik çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemi önerisi

Öz

Yükseköğretimde Öğrenme Yönetim Sistemleri (ÖYS) her geçen gün önemini artırmaktadır. ÖYS’ler uzaktan eğitim sürecinde öğrencilerin ve öğretim elemanlarının asenkron olarak bir araya geldikleri ortamların oluşmasında faydalanılan alanlardır. Bu çalışmanın amacı yükseköğretimde yer alan üniversitelerin veya uzaktan eğitim kurumlarının ÖYS seçim kriterlerinin oluşturulmasının sağlanmasıdır. Çalışma nitel bir durum çalışması olarak desenlenmiştir. Bu durum çalışmasında yükseköğretimde görev yapmakta olan uzman profesyoneller ile gerçekleşen görüşmelerin ardından AHP (Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci) ile süreç organize edilmiştir. Veri toplama bağlamında uzman profesyonellere alanyazın destekli kriter havuzu sunulmuştur. Uzman görüşlerinin beraberinde kriter havuzu nihai halini almıştır. Bu sürecin ardından hazırlanan kriter havuzu farklı bir uzman grubu ile değerlendirilerek kriterlerin kriter ağırlıklarının oluşturulması sağlanmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda 6 ana kriterin ve 42 alt kriterin kriter ağırlıkları ortaya çıkmıştır. Ana kriterler ve ağırlıklarının sırasıyla; Ölçme ve değerlendirme boyutu (0,295), iletişim boyutu (0,254), içerik boyutu (0,159), topluluk oluşturma boyutu (0,140), teknoloji boyutu (0,098) ve maliyet boyutu (0,055) olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmadaki alt kriterlerin alanyazındaki diğer birçok çalışma ile desteklenir olması, sunulan bu kriter havuzunun ÖYS seçim kriterleri bağlamında kullanılabilirliğini gözler önüne sermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğrenme yönetim sistemi (ÖYS)
• Çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV)
• Analitik hiyerarşi süreci (AHS)

Multi-criterion decision making method proposal for determining the criteria for learning management system selection

Öz

Learning Management Systems (LMS) in Higher Education have been increasing their importance every day. LMSs are areas that are used in the remote education process to create environments where students and faculty meet as asynchronously. The aim of this study is to provide the construction of LMS selection criteria of universities or distance education institutions in higher education. The study has been shaped as a qualitative case study. Following interviews with specialist professionals working in higher education in this case study, the process was organized with AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process). In the context of data collection, literature supported list of criteria has been presented to experts in the field. Along with expert opinions, the list of criteria has taken its final form. After this process, the list of criteria prepared was evaluated with a different group of experts and the weights of criteria have been established. As a result of the study, the weights of 6 main criteria and 42 sub-criteria have been revealed. The main criteria and their weights which are respectively in terms of measurement and evaluation (0.295), communication (0.254), content (0.159), community building (0.140), technology (0.098) and cost (0.055) were detected. The fact that the sub-criteria in the study were supported by many other studies in the field enabled the usability of this list of criteria in the context of the LMS selection criteria.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Learning Management System (LMS)
• Multi-Criterion Decision Making (MCDM)
• Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Kaynakça

1. Altıparmak, M., Kurt, İ. D. ve Kapıdere, M. (2011). E-öğrenme ve uzaktan eğitimde açık kaynak kodlu öğrenme yönetim sistemleri. XI. Akademik Bilişim Kongresi.
2. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
3. Belton V. (1986). A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function. European Journal of Operational Research, 26, 7-21.
4. Brandl, K. (2005). Are you ready to “Moodle”? Language Learning and Technology, 9(2), 16-23.
5. Bozkurt, A. (2019). The historical development and adaptation of open universities in Turkish context: case of Anadolu University as a giga university. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(4), 36-59.
6. Canvas Guides. (2020). “Improving accessibility to your course”, Erişim: 30 Mayıs 2020 , http://guides.instructure.com/m/5834/l/92747-improving-the-accessibility-of-your-course.
7. Chang, C. C. (2014). Exploring the determinants of e-Learning systems continuance intention in academic libraries, Library Management, 34(1/2), 40-55.
8. Chen SJ. ve Hwang CL. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlang,

9. Chtouki, Y., Harroud, H., Khalidi, M., & Bennani, S. (2012, June). The impact of YouTube videos on the student's learning. In 2012 international conference on information technology based higher education and training (ITHET) (pp. 1-4).
10. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, And Mixed Methods Approaches. New York: Sage.
12. Conley, Q., Earnshaw, Y., & McWatters, G. (2020). Examining Course Layouts in Blackboard: Using Eye-Tracking to Evaluate Usability in a Learning Management System. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(4), 373-385.
13. Daniel, J. (1996). Mega-universities and knowledge media: Technology strategies for higher education. London: Psychology Press.
14. Edutechnica. (2020). “6th Annual LMS Data Update”, Erişim: 30 Mayıs 2020, http://edutechnica.com/2018/10/06/6th-annual-lms-data-update/.
15. French S. (1988). Decision theory: an introduction to the mathematics of rationality. Chichester: Ellis Horwood,
16. Hwang CL., Yoon K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications: A-State-of-the-Art Survey. Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
17. Kaewsaiha, P. (2019). Usability of the Learning Management System and Choices of Alternative. In the International Conference on Education, Psychology, and Social Sciences (ICEPS) (pp. 252-259).
18. Leymun, Ş. O., Odabaşı, F., & Yurdakul, İ. K. (2017). Eğitim ortamlarında durum çalışmasının önemi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(3), 367-385.
19. Liaw, S.S., (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & education, 51(2), 864-873.
20. Machajewski, S., Steffen, A., Fuerte, E. R., & Rivera, E. (2019). Patterns in Faculty Learning Management System Use. TechTrends, 63(5), 543-549.
21. Mekpiroon, O., Tammarattananont, P., Pravalpruk, B. & Buasroung, N. (2008). Multimedia Courseware with Open Source LMS : Learnsquare. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 197-202).
22. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (3. Basım). Ankara: Nobel akademik yayıncılık.
23. Pendergast, M. (2015). Leveraging Learning Management System to Accommodate Students with Disabilities: Issues and Experiences with the Canvas LMS. In Proceedings of the 18th Southern Association for Information Systems Conference.
24. Russell JS. (1990). Surety bonding and owner-contractor prequalification: comparison. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering. 116(4), 360-74.
25. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15(3), 234-281.
26. Saaty TL. (1989). Group decision making and the AHP. New York: Springer Verlag,
27. Saw, T., Win, K. K., Aung, Z. M. M., & Oo, M. S. (2018, May). Investigation of the Use of Learning Management System (Moodle) in University of Computer Studies, Mandalay. In International Conference on Big Data Analysis and Deep Learning Applications (pp. 160-168).
28. Schuyler JR. (1996). Decision analysis in projects. Upper Darby, PA, USA: Project Management Institute,
29. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Pbc.
30. Steyn, R., Millard, S., & Jordaan, J. (2017, September). The use of a learning management system to facilitate student-driven content design: an experiment. In International Symposium on Emerging Technologies for Education (pp. 75-94).
31. Tawalbeh, T. I. (2018). EFL Instructors' Perceptions of Blackboard Learning Management System (LMS) at University Level. English Language Teaching, 11(1), 1-9.
32. Turker, Y. A., Baynal, K., & Turker, T. (2019). The evaluation of learning management systems by using Fuzzy AHP, fuzzy topsis and an integrated method: A case study. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 195-218.
33. Vassilev V, Genova K ve Vassileva M (2005). A brief Survey of Multicriteria Decision Making Methods. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Cybernetics and Information Technologies. 5(1), 4.
34. Von Winterfeldt D., Edwards W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
35. Yacan, İ. (2016). Eğitim kalitesinin belirlenmesinde etkili olan faktörlerin bulanık AHP ve Bulanık Topsıs yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Denizli.
36. Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study methods: design and methods (5. Baskı). Thousand Oaksage Pbc.: S.
37. Zeleny M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.