A COMPARATIVE CRITERIA ANALYSIS FOR THE HIGHER EDUCATION SELECTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT GRADES OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS VIA FUZZY AHP APPROACH

Abstract

After high school, students face many different choices while choosing a higher education institute. In this study, it was examined whether there are differences among the higher education selection criteria for students at different high school levels. As a result of the literature review, the factors affecting the higher education selection were collected under 3 main criteria. These main criteria are “University Selection”, “Profession Choice and “Socio-demographic Features”. Under these 3 main criteria, 33 sub-criteria were considered in total. As a result of the surveys conducted for students of different grades, 5 most selected sub-criteria were determined for each main criterion. Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (F-AHP) was used to calculate the sub-criteria weights for each grade level. Two different comparison analyzes were performed in the application part. Firstly, the preference criteria weights of Prep class and 12^th class students of high school were compared. Secondly, the preference criteria weights of 9^th class students who were Prep students previous year were compared according to this year’s and last year’s results. As a result of this study, changes of students’ awareness about higher education were observed year to year. In addition, consistency analysis was applied for F-AHP method which was used to determine the main and sub-criteria weights, and only the consistent questionnaires were used in the process.

Keywords

• Higher Education Selection Criteria,Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods,Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (F-AHP),Consistency Analysis

A Comparative Criteria Analysis via Fuzzy AHP Approach For The High School Students’ Reasons For Selecting Higher Education Institutions

Öz

Öğrenciler lise eğitiminden sonra, yükseköğrenim kurumunu seçerken birçok farklı seçenekle karşı karşıya kalmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, farklı lise düzeyindeki öğrenciler arasında yükseköğrenim seçim kriterleri göz önüne alındığında farklılaşmanın olup olmadığı incelenmiştir. Literatür taraması sonucu yükseköğrenim seçimini etkileyen faktörler 3 ana başlık altında toplanmıştır. Bu ana kriterler “Üniversite Seçimi”, “Meslek Seçimi” ve “Sosyo demografik Özellikler”dir. Bu 3 ana kriter altında toplamda 33 alt kriter ele alınmıştır. Farklı sınıf seviyelerindeki öğrencilere yapılan anketler sonucunda, her bir ana kriter için en çok seçilen 5er tane alt kriter belirlenmiştir. Her bir sınıf seviyesi için ayrı ayrı belirlenen alt kriterlerin ağırlıklarının hesaplanmasında Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (BAHP) kullanılmıştır. Uygulama kısmında iki farklı karşılaştırma analizi yapılmıştır. Öncelikle lise hazırlık sınıfı öğrencileri ile lise son sınıf öğrencilerinin tercih kriterlerine vermiş oldukları ağırlıklar kıyaslanmıştır. İkinci olarak, geçtiğimiz sene lise hazırlık olan öğrencilerin geçen seneki ve bu seneki tercih kriter ağırlıkları karşılaştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda, öğrencilerin yükseköğrenim hakkındaki bilinçlerinin her sene değiştiği gözlemlenmiştir. Ayrıca ana ve alt kriter ağırlıkları belirlenirken kullanılan BAHP yöntemi için tutarlılık analizi uygulanmış ve süreçte sadece tutarlı anketler kullanılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yükseköğrenim Seçim Kriterleri,Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleri,Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (BAHP),Tutarlılık Analizi

References

1. Akkaş, E., Ayhan, M.B. (2018). A Comparative Analysis For The Criteria Of Higher Education Selection. Participatory Educational Research (PER), Vol. 5, No:2, 38-50. http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11203/per.18.11.5.2
2. Al-Harbi, KMA.-S. (2001). Application of the AHP in project management. International Journal of Project Management, Vol.19, No.1, 19-27, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00038-1
3. Ayhan, M. B. and Atsay, F. (2011). Comparative Analysis of Prioritization of Preference Criteria for Higher Education. 1st International Higher Education Congress: New Trends and Issues, Vol. 3(XII), Istanbul, May, 1724-1731.
4. Ayhan, M.B. (2013). A Fuzzy AHP Approach For Supplier Selection Problem: A Case Study In A Gearmotor Company. International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains, Vol.4, No.3, 11-23.
5. Ayhan, M.B., and Kilic, H.S. (2015). A Two Stage Approach for Supplier Selection Problem in Multi-Item/Multi-Supplier Environment with Quantity Discounts. Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol.85, 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2015.02.026
6. Ayhan, M.B. (2018). A New Decision Making Approach for Supplier Selection: Hesitant Fuzzy Axiomatic Design. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, Vol.17, No:4, 1085-117.
7. Basaran, B. (2012). A Critique on the Consistency Ratios of Some Selected Articles Regarding Fuzzy AHP and Sustainability. 3rd International Symposium on Sustainable Development, May 31-June 01, Sarajevo, 2012, 318-326.
8. Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Systems, Vol.17 (1), 233–247.

9. Chou, S-W., Chang, Y-C. (2008). The implementation factors that influence the ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) Benefits. Decision Support Systems, 46(1), 149-157.
10. Çelik, N., Üzmez, U. (2014). Evaluation of University Students’ Affecting Factors Choice of Profession. Electronic Journal of Occupational Improvement and Research Vol. 2(1), 94-105.
11. D’Souza, J. (2018). Self-Actualization. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Lifespan Human Development, 1921-1922.
12. Gati, I. and Saka, N. (2001). High School Students’ Career-Related Decision-Making Difficulties. Journal of Counseling &Development, Vol. 79, 331-340.
13. Göksu, A. and Güngör, İ. (2008). Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Application of University Preference Ranking. Suleyman Demirel University the Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Vol. 13(3), 1-26.
14. Kılıç, H. S. and Ayhan M.B. (2011). Analyzing the Factors in the University Selection Based on AHP: A Case Study Among the Students of Marmara University, 1stInternational Higher Education Congress: New Trends and Issues, Vol. 3(XIV), Istanbul, May 2011, 1839-1844.
15. Mu, E., Pereyra-Rojas, M., (2017). Practical Decision Making, An Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), SpringerBriefs in Operations Research, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33861-3_2
16. Paksoy, T., Pehlivan, N.Y., Kahraman, C. (2012). Organizational strategy development in distribution channel management using fuzzy AHP and hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2822-2841.
17. Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a Vocation, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
18. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill Press, New York, USA.
19. Saaty, T.L. and Tran, L.T. (2007). On the Invalidity of Fuzzifying Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical And Computer Modeling 46, 962-975.
20. Sarıkaya, T. and Khorshid, L. (2009). Examining the Factors Affecting the Occupation Choice of University Students: Occupation Selection of University Students. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, Vol. 7(2), 393-423.
21. Tanhan, F. and Yılmaz, Ü. (2017). The Examination of the Effects of Family and Social Media on Students’ Career Choices (A Focus Group Work), The Journal of Social Sciences Institute Vol. 1(35), ISSN: 1302-6879, 161-174.
22. Terceno, A., De Andrés, J., Barberà and G., Lorenzana, T. (2003). Using Fuzzy Set Theory to Analyze Investments and Select Portfolios of Tangible Investments in Uncertain Environments. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 11(3), 263-281.
23. Yanıkkerem, E., Altınparmak, S. and Karadeniz, G. (2004). Factors Affecting Young People's Career Choice and their Self-esteem. Nursing Forum.Vol. 7(2), 61- 62.
24. Yılmaz, A., Dursun, B., Pektaş, K. and Altay,A. (2012). Career Choices of University Students in terms of Demographic Characteristics: The Sample of Pınarhisar Vocational Collage Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges,Vol.2 (2), 9-21.
25. Zadeh L. A. (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-53.