Eğitim Araştırmalarında Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci ve Uygulamaları

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı; karar verme algoritmalarından olan Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHS) yönteminin eğitim alanında nasıl kullanılacağına yönelik araştırmacılara bakış açısı sunulması ve eğitim alanında AHS yöntemi kullanılarak yapılan araştırmaların incelenmesidir. Bu amaç kapsamında öncelikle AHS yöntemi tanıtılmış, bir örnek uygulama ile hesaplamalar yapılarak sonuçlar yorumlanmıştır. Araştırmanın diğer amacına yönelik olarak ise; son beş yıl içerisinde eğitim alanında AHS yöntemi kullanılarak yapılmış araştırmalar içerik analizi ile incelenmiştir. AHS; ikili karşılaştırmalara dayalı olarak kriter ve alternatifler arasında öncelik ya da ağırlıkların belirlenmesini sağlayabilen Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerinden birisidir. Araştırma kapsamında yapılan uygulama örneği ise öğrencilerin üniversite seçimi olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu problem durumunun çözüm basamakları; a) karar amacının belirlenmesi ve hiyerarşik yapının oluşturulması, b) ikili karşılaştırmaların yapılması ve c) önceliklerin belirlenmesi şeklinde yapılandırılmıştır. Araştırma kapsamında yapılan içerik analizi ise araştırmacılar tarafından belirlenen sekiz ölçüt bağlamında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarında AHS yönteminin yıllara göre artan bir eğilim gösterdiği, genellikle öğretime yönelik önceliklerin belirlenmesi ve öğretimin değerlendirilmesi amacıyla yapıldığı görülmüştür. AHS yöntemi kullanılan araştırmaların özellikle Asya Pasifik ülkelerinde çok daha yoğunlaştığı elde edilen bulgulardandır. Ayrıca AHS yönteminin bireysel kararlar almaktan daha çok grup kararı almada kullanıldığı bir diğer sonuçtur. Araştırmaların özellikle lisans öğrencileri ile yapıldığı bunların yanı sıra akademisyen ve uzmanlar ile yapılan araştırmaların da yoğunlukta olduğu görülmüştür. 

Keywords

• Analitik hiyerarşi süreci,eğitim araştırmaları,içerik analizi,karar verme algoritmaları

A Content Analysis Study on the Use of Analytic Hierarchy Process in Educational Studies

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to examine the studies based on the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) method in the field of education and to present the researcher's perspective on how to use the AHP method in the field of education. Within the scope of this aim, firstly the AHP method was introduced with a sample application and then the results were interpreted. The other aim of the research; studies which based on the AHP methods in the field of education in the last five years have been examined through content analysis. AHP; is one of the “Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDC)” methods that can determine the priority or weights among the criteria and alternatives based on comparative judgments. The content analysis conducted within the scope of the research was carried out in the context of eight criteria determined by the researchers. According to the results of the analysis; the AHP method has shown an increasing tendency compared to the years, and usually is used for determining and prioritizing teaching priorities. Especially in Asia Pacific countries, the AHP method is used much more intensive. Another result is that the AHP method is used to make group decisions rather than individual decisions. It has been seen that the research has been done especially with undergraduate students. In addition to these, there are lots of studies with academicians and experts.

Keywords

• Analytic hierarchy process,educational studies,content analysis,decision making algorithms

References

1. Ahmad, S. Z., & Hussain, M. (2017). An investigation of the factors determining student destination choice for higher education in the United Arab Emirates. Studies in Higher Education, 42(7), 1324-1343. Doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1099622
2. Alsamaray, H. S. (2017). AHP as multi-criteria decision making technique, empirical study in cooperative learning at Gulf University. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 13(13), 272-289. Doi: 10.19044/esj.2017.v13n13p272
3. Altamirano-Corro, A., & Peniche-Vera, R. (2014). Measuring the institutional efficiency using dea and ahp: The case of a mexican university. Journal of Applied Research and Technology, 12(1), 63-71.
4. Bhutta, K. S., & Huq, F. (2002). Supplier selection problem: A comparison of the total cost of ownership and analytic hierarchy process approaches. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 7(3), 126-135.
5. Blanco, M., Gonzalez, C., Sanchez-Lite, A., & Sebastian, M. A. (2017). A practical evaluation of a collaborative learning method for engineering project subjects. IEEE Access, 5, 19363-19372.
6. Certa, A., Enea, M., & Hopps, F. (2015). A multi-criteria approach for the group assessment of an academic course: A case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 44, 16-22.
7. Chiu, P. S., & Huang, Y. M. (2016). The development of a decision support system for mobile learning: A case study in Taiwan. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(5), 532-544.
8. Chiu, P. S., Kao, C. C., Pu, Y. H., Lo, P. F., & Huang, Y. M. (2015, July). The development of a decision support system for successful mobile learning. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on (pp. 114-115), China.

9. Çiçekli, U. G., & Karaçizmeli, A. (2013). Bulanık analitik hiyerarşi süreci ile başarılı öğrenci seçimi: Ege üniversitesi iktisadi ve idari bilimler fakültesi örneği. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(1), 71-94.
10. Dai, L., Guo, J., & Zhao, J. (2013). Application of analytical hierarchy pro-cess on evaluation of teaching quality in farmer distance education platform. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Information, Business and Education Technology (ICIBET 2013). Atlantis Press.
11. Dündar, S. (2008). Ders seçiminde analitik hiyerarşi proses uygulaması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 217-226.
12. Ertuğ, Z. K., & Girginer, N. (2014). A multi criteria approach for statistical software selection in education. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(2), 129-143.
13. Esen, Ö. (2008). Uygulamalı yöneylem araştırması, yöneticiler için bilgisayar destekli karar modelleri: Excel ile modelleme ve çözüm teknikleri. İstanbul: Çağlayan.
14. Fardinpour, A., Pedram, M. M., & Burkle, M. (2014). Intelligent learning management systems: Definition, features and measurement of intelligence. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 12(4), 19-31.
15. Farid, S., Ahmad, R., Niaz, I. A., Arif, M., Shamshirband, S., & Khattak, M. D. (2015). Identification and prioritization of critical issues for the promotion of e-learning in Pakistan. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 161-171.
16. Frangos, C. C., Fragkos, K. C., Sotiropoulos, I., Manolopoulos, I., & Gkika, E. (2014). Student preferences of teachers and course ımportance using the analytic hierarchy process model. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering (Vol. 2), United Kingdom.
17. Han, S., Li, Z., & Tang, X. (2014). Study of the relationship between tutors and master graduates based on analytic hierarchy process. 2nd International Conference on Advances in Social Science, Humanities, and Management (ASSHM 2014), China.
18. Ho, S. Y., Chen, W. T., & Hsu, W. L. (2017). Assessment system for junior high schools in taiwan to select environmental education facilities and sites. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(5), 1485-1499.
19. Huang, D. F., & Singh, M. (2014). Critical perspectives on testing teaching: Reframing teacher education for English medium instruction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 363-378.
20. Huang, Y., & Shi, Y. (2013, June). College teachers teaching evaluation model based on ahp-dfs. In 2013 the International Conference on Education Technology and Information System (ICETIS 2013), China.
21. Ishizaka, A., & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis: Methods and software. John Wiley & Sons. New Jersey.
22. Kahraman, C., Suder, A., & Cebi, S. (2013). Fuzzy multi-criteria and multi-experts evaluation of government investments in higher education: The case of Turkey. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(4), 549-569.
23. Karaarslan, M. H., & Özbakır, L. (2017). Mühendislik öğrencilerinin kariyer tercihlerinin belirlenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(1), 83-103.
24. Kecek, G., & Söylemez, C. (2016). Course selection in postgraduate studies through analytic hierarchy process and topsis methods. British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 11(1), 142-157.
25. Kim, N., Park, J., & Choi, J. J. (2017). Perceptual differences in core competencies between tourism industry practitioners and students using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 20, 76-86.
26. Kim, S. (2014). Decision support model for introduction of gamification solution using ahp. The Scientific World Journal, 2014, 1-7.
27. Köksal, G., & Eği̇tman, A. (1998). Planning and design of industrial engineering education quality. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 35(3-4), 639-642.
28. Lokare, V. T., & Jadhav, P. M. (2016, January). Using the AHP and TOPSIS methods for decision making in best course selection after HSC. In Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI), 2016 International Conference on (pp. 1-6). India.
29. Lu, Y. L., Lian, I. B., & Lien, C. J. (2015). The application of the analytic hierarchy process for evaluating creative products in science class and its modification for educational evaluation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 413-435.
30. Madbouly, A. I., Noaman, A. Y., Ragab, A. H. M., Khedra, A. M., & Fayoumi, A. G. (2016). Assessment model of classroom acoustics criteria for enhancing speech intelligibility and learning quality. Applied Acoustics, 114, 147-158.
31. Noaman, A. Y., Ragab, A. H. M., Madbouly, A. I., Khedra, A. M., & Fayoumi, A. G. (2017). Higher education quality assessment model: Towards achieving educational quality standard. Studies in Higher Education, 42(1), 23-46.
32. Oddershede, A., Donoso, J., Farias, F., & Jarufe, P. (2015). ICT support assessment in primary school teaching and learning through AHP. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 149-158.
33. Ognjanovic, I., Gasevic, D., & Dawson, S. (2016). Using institutional data to predict student course selections in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 49-62.
34. Pellicer, E., Sierra, L. A., & Yepes, V. (2016). Appraisal of infrastructure sustainability by graduate students using an active-learning method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 884-896.
35. Rombe, E., Allo, P.L.D., Tolla, M.A. & KusumaDewi, S. (2016). What are the current quality ıssues in higher education? Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Education, Management Science and Economics. Singapore.
36. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
37. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill: New York.
38. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26.
39. Samut, P. K. (2014). İki aşamalı çok kriterli karar verme ile performans değerlendirmesi: AHP ve TOPSIS yöntemlerinin entegrasyonu. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(4), 57-67.
40. Sinem, A., & Arslan, M. (2015). Yabancılara Türkçe öğretiminde dilsel becerilerin gelişimine etkisi bakımından ders materyallerinin önem derecelerinin analitik hiyerarşi süreci (AHS) ile belirlenmesi. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 711-726. Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000138861
41. Soba, M., Şimşek, A., Erdin, E., & Can, A. (2016). Ahp temelli vikor yöntemi ile doktora öğrenci seçimi. Dumlupinar University Journal of Social Science/Dumlupinar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 50.
42. Thanassoulis, E., Dey, P. K., Petridis, K., Goniadis, I., & Georgiou, A. C. (2017). Evaluating higher education teaching performance using combined analytic hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68(4), 431-445.
43. Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A low of comperative judgement. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.
44. Tian, Y., Yang, P., Zhang, N., & Yang, G. (2013). Teaching quality evaluation of a new university mathematics teaching mode-an empirical research. In Conference: International Conference on Education Technology and Information System (ICETIS). Sanya.
45. Timor, M. (2011). Analitik hiyerarşi prosesi. İstanbul: Türkmen.
46. Turgut, M. F., & Baykul, Y. (1992). Ölçekleme teknikleri. Ankara: ÖSYM Yayınları.
47. Türkmen, E. G., Güngör, İ., & Erinci, F. (2015). Öğretmenlerin tayin yeri seçiminde analitik hiyerarşi proses uygulaması. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(3), 35-49.
48. Uvalieva, I., Garifullina, Z., Utegenova, A., Toibayeva, S., & Issin, B. (2015). Development of intelligent system to support management decision-making in education. In Modeling, Simulation, and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO), 2015 6th International Conference on (pp. 1-7). Turkey.
49. Venkadasalam, S. (2015). An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach to training typology selection based on student perspective: Empirical evidence from Malaysian Maritime Academy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 7(2), 140-146.
50. Wang, L. Y. (2014). Research on evaluation system for comprehensive quality of college and university students based on analytic hierarchy process model. In Applied Mechanics and Materials, 678, 648-652. Trans Tech Publications.
51. Wang, Y., Li, J., Li, D., & Chen, G. (2015, May). Analysis of influencing factors on graduate students' achievements in scientific research. In Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), 2015 27th Chinese (pp. 3188-3191). China.
52. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (No. 49). Sage.
53. Weng, Y., Zhang, C., & Liu, Y. (2014, May). Evaluation of teaching quality system designing based on AHP. In Electronics, Computer and Applications, 2014 IEEE Workshop on (pp. 438-440). IEEE.
54. Xingfeng, L. I. U. (2017). Performance evaluation of engineering teachers in universities based AHP and fuzzy mathematical methods. Revista de la Facultad de Ingeniería, 32(5), 141-149.
55. Xu, L. (2013, June). Teaching quality about application of multimedia in higher education. In 2013 Conference on Education Technology and Management Science (ICETMS 2013). China.
56. Yacan, İ. (2016). Eğitim kalitesinin belirlenmesinde etkili olan faktörlerin bulanık AHP ve Bulanık Topsıs yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi (Yüksek lisans tezi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Denizli).
57. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2004). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.
58. Zahedi, F. (1986). The analytic hierarchy process-A survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces, 16(4), 96-108.