İngilizce Dil Bilgisi Denetleyicilerinin Seçiminde Etkili Olan Faktörlerin FUCOM ve BWM ile Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Öz

Çevrimiçi dil bilgisi denetleyicileri, hatalı yazılan cümleleri dil bilgisi açısından doğru olanlarla, tekrar eden kelimeleri eş anlamlı olan alternatif kelimelerle, yazım hatası içeren kelimeleri doğru olanlarla değiştirmek için yazarlara öneriler sunan interaktif çevrimiçi yazılımlardır. Bu araçlar, kullanıcılarına dil bilgisi kontrolü sağlamalarının yanı sıra, sözlük, bağlamsal rehberlik, benzerlik kontrolü, kelime/cümle önerileri, noktalama işaretlerinin düzeltilmesi gibi çeşitli hizmetler de sunmaktadır. Kullanıcılar, kullanım amaçlarına en uygun yazılım aracını tercih ederken sunulan temel hizmetlere ek olarak, dil bilgisi denetleyicilerinin kullanıcı dostu olması, kurulum kolaylığı, farklı uygulamalara entegre edilebilmesi, müşteri hizmetleri, raporlama ve fiyat gibi farklı kriterleri de dikkate alabilmektedir. Bu çalışmada İngilizce dil bilgisi denetleyicilerinin seçiminde ektili olan faktörlerin belirlenmesi ve değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Öne çıkan faktörler, uzman görüşü niteliğinde kullanıcılar tarafından değerlendirilerek kendi içerisinde önceliklendirilmiştir. Bu değerlendirme aşamasında çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri olan FUCOM ve BWM uygulanarak, elde edilen bulgular karşılaştırmalı olarak sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dilbilgisi denetleyicisi
• Doğal dil işleme
• Çok kriterli karar verme
• FUCOM
• BWM

A Comparative Analysis of Factors Affecting the Selection of English Grammar Checkers with FUCOM and BWM

Öz

Online grammar checkers are interactive online software that offers authors suggestions to replace incorrect sentences with grammatically correct ones, repetitive words with alternative synonyms, and misspelled words with correct ones. Besides providing grammar checks to their users, also offer various services such as a dictionary, contextual guidance, similarity check, word/sentence suggestions, and punctuation correction. In addition to the basic services offered, users can also consider different criteria such as user-friendliness of grammar checkers, ease of installation, integration into different applications, customer service, reporting, and price, while choosing the most suitable software tool for their intended use. This study aims to determine and evaluate the factors that affect the selection of English grammar checkers. The prominent factors were evaluated by the users as an expert opinion and prioritized within themselves. In this evaluation stage, the results obtained were presented comparatively by applying the multi-criteria decision-making methods FUCOM and BWM.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Grammar checker
• Natural language processing
• Multi-criteria decision-making
• FUCOM
• BWM

Kaynakça

1. Aboutorab, H., Saberi, M., Asadabadi, M. R., Hussain, O., and Chang, E. (2018). ZBWM: The Z-number extension of best worst method and its application for supplier development. Expert Systems with Applications, 107, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.04.015
2. Ahmad, A., Mukhaiyar, and Atmazaki. (2022). Exploring digital tools for teaching essay writing course in higher education: Padlet, Kahoot, YouTube, Essaybot, Grammarly. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(13), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.3991/IJIM.V16I13.30599
3. Ahmad, N., Hasan, M. G., and Barbhuiya, R. K. (2021). Identification and Prioritization of Strategies to Tackle COVID-19 Outbreak: A group-BWM based MCDM Approach. Applied Soft Computing, 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2021.107642
4. Akar, G. S. (2022). Tedarik zincirlerinde sürdürülebilir imalatin önündeki engelleyici faktörlerin tam tutarlilik yöntemiyle (FUCOM) değerlendirilmesi. Bucak İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 298-318.
5. Badi, I., and Kridish, M. (2020). Landfill site selection using a novel FUCOM-CODAS model: A case study in Libya. Scientific African, 9, e00537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00537
6. Barrot, J. S. (2020). Integrating Technology into ESL/EFL Writing through Grammarly. RELC Journal, 53(3), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220966632
7. Bazyar, M., Alipouri Sakha, M., Gordeev, V. S., Mousavi, B., Karmi, A., Maniei, R., Attari, S., and Ranjbar, M. (2022). Criteria for the selection of complementary private health insurance: the experience of a large organisation in Iran. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12913-022-08777-7
8. Bhirud, N. S., Bhavsar, R. P., and Pawar, B. V. (2017). Grammar checkers for natural languages: A review. International Journal on Natural Language Computing, 6(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijnlc.2017.6401

9. Bilgiç, S., Torğul, B. and Paksoy, T. (2021). Sürdürülebilir enerji yönetimi için BWM yöntemi ile yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarinin değerlendirilmesi. Verimlilik Dergisi, 2, 95-110.
10. Blagojević, A., Kasalica, S., Stević, Ž., Tričkovič, G., and Pavelkić, V. (2021). Evaluation of safety degree at railway crossings in order to achieve sustainable traffic management: A novel integrated fuzzy MCDM model. Sustainability, 13(2), 832. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13020832
11. Bustamante, F. R., and León, F. S. (1996). GramCheck: A Grammar and Style Checker. arXiv preprint cmp-lg/9607001. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cmp-lg/9607001
12. Calma, A., Cotronei-Baird, V., and Chia, A. (2022). Grammarly: An instructional intervention for writing enhancement in management education. International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), 100704 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJME.2022.100704
13. Cao, Q., Esangbedo, M.O., Bai, S., and Esangbedo C.O. (2019). Grey SWARA-FUCOM weighting method for contractor selection MCDM problem: A case study of floating solar panel energy system installation. Energies, 12(13), 2481. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12132481
14. Chakraborty, S., Sarkar, B., and Chakraborty, S. (2022). A FUCOM-MABAC-based integrated approach for performance evaluation of the Indian national parks. OPSEARCH, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-022-00611-2
15. Çalık, A. (2021). Grup Karar Verme Yöntemlerini Kullanarak Yeşil Tedarikçi Seçimi: Gıda Endüstrisinden Bir Örnek Olay Çalışması. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 17(1):1-16
16. Çevik Aka, D. (2021). Endüstriyel Atık Geri Dönüşümünde Etkili Olan Karar Kriterlerinin BWM ile Değerlendirilmesi: Plastik, Cam ve Çelik Endüstrisinde Uygulama. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 31: 390-398.
17. Dizon, G., and Gayed, J. M. (2021). Examining the impact of grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing. JALT CALL Journal, 17(2), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.29140/JALTCALL.V17N2.336
18. Drubin, D. G., and Kellogg, D. R. (2012). English as the universal language of science: opportunities and challenges. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 23(8), 1399. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E12-02-0108
19. Ecer F. (2021a). Sürdürülebilir tedarikçi seçimi: FUCOM sübjektif ağirliklandirma yöntemi temelli MAIRCA yaklaşımı. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.691693
20. Ecer, F. (2021b). An analysis of the factors affecting wind farm site selection through FUCOM subjective weighting method. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 27(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.5505/pajes.2020.93271
21. Fazeli, H. R., and Peng, Q. (2021). Integrated approaches of BWM-QFD and FUCOM-QFD for improving weighting solution of design matrix. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-021-01832-w
22. Gain, A., Rao, M., and Bhat, K. S. (2019). Usage of grammarly - online grammar and spelling checker tool at the health sciences library, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal: A Study. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2610.
23. Gautam, A., and Jerripothula, K. R. (2020). SGG: Spinbot, Grammarly and GloVe based Fake News Detection. Proceedings - 2020 IEEE 6th International Conference on Multimedia Big Data, BigMM 2020, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIGMM50055.2020.00033
24. Genthial, D., and Courtin, J. (1992). From detection/correction to computer aided writing. COLING 1992 Volume 3: The 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1013–1018.
25. Hoan, P. and Ha, Y. (2021). ARAS-FUCOM approach for VPAF fighter aircraft selection. Decision Science Letters, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2020.10.004
26. Huang, H. W., Li, Z., and Taylor, L. (2020). The effectiveness of using Grammarly to improve students’ writing skills. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1145/3402569.3402594
27. Irannezhad, M., Shokouhyar, S., Ahmadi, S., and Papageorgiou, E. I. (2021). An integrated FCM-FBWM approach to assess and manage the readiness for blockchain incorporation in the supply chain. Applied Soft Computing, 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2021.107832
28. Işık, Ö. (2022). Gri Entropi, FUCOM ve EDAS-M yöntemleriyle Türk lojistik firmalarinin çok kriterli performans analizi. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 17(66), 472-489.
29. John, P., and Woll, N. (2020). Using grammar checkers in an ESL Context: An investigation of automatic corrective feedback. CALICO Journal, 37(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1558/CJ.36523
30. Kharis, M., Laksono, K., and Suhartono. (2022). Utilization of NLP-Technology in current applications for education and research by Indonesian student, teacher, and lecturer. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 22(14). https://doi.org/10.33423/JHETP.V22I14.5544
31. Khosravi, M., Haqbin, A., Zare, Z., and Shojaei, P. (2022). Selecting the most suitable organizational structure for hospitals: An integrated fuzzy FUCOM-MARCOS method. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 20(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-022-00362-3
32. Kumar, A., and Nair, S. B. (2007). An artificial immune system based approach for English grammar checking. Artificial Immune Systems: 6th International Conference, ICARIS 2007, Santos, Brazil, August 26-29, 2007: Proceedings, 348–357.
33. Kumar, A., Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., and Song, M. (2021). Mitigate risks in perishable food supply chains: learning from COVID-19. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166(February). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120643
34. Lamond, B., and Cunningham, T. (2022). Editing assistance tool validation for English language learners. Journal of Enabling Technologies, 16(4), 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1108/JET-04-2021-0020
35. Li, D. P., Xie, L., Cheng, P. F., Zhou, X. H., and Fu, C. X. (2021). Green supplier selection under cloud manufacturing environment: A hybrid MCDM model. SAGE Open, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211057112
36. Liang, F., Brunelli, M., and Rezaei, J. (2020). Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds. Omega, 96, 102175.
37. Lillis, T., and Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context. London: Routledge.
38. Lin, Z., Ayed, H., Bouallegue, B., Tomaskova, H., Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi, S., and Haseli, G. (2021). An integrated mathematical attitude utilizing fully fuzzy BWM and fuzzy WASPAS for risk evaluation in a SOFC. Mathematics, 9(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/MATH9182328
39. Liu, P., Zhu, B., and Wang, P. (2021). A weighting model based on best–worst method and its application for environmental performance evaluation. Applied Soft Computing, 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2021.107168
40. Macdonald, N. H. (1983). Human Factors and Behavioral Science: The UNIXTM Writer’s Workbench Software: Rationale and Design. Bell System Technical Journal, 62(6), 1891–1908. https://doi.org/10.1002/J.1538-7305.1983.TB03520.X
41. Matić, B., Jovanović, S., Das, D. K., Zavadskas, E. K., Stević, Ž., Sremac, S., and Marinković, M. (2019). A new hybrid MCDM Model: sustainable supplier selection in a construction company. Symmetry, 11(3), 353. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030353
42. McKinley, J., and Rose, H. (2018). Conceptualizations of language errors, standards, norms and nativeness in English for research publication purposes: An analysis of journal submission guidelines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.07.003
43. Mendes, A. C. S., Ferreira, F. A. F., Kannan, D., Ferreira, N. C. M. Q. F., and Correia, R. J. C. (2022). A BWM approach to determinants of sustainable entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2022.133300
44. Mitrović Simić, J., Stević, Ž., Zavadskas, E. K., Bogdanović, V., Subotić, M., and Mardani, A. (2020). A Novel CRITIC-Fuzzy FUCOM-DEA-Fuzzy MARCOS Model for Safety Evaluation of Road Sections Based on Geometric Parameters of Road. Symmetry, 12(12), 2006. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12122006
45. O’Neill, R., and Russell, A. M. T. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.14742/AJET.3795
46. Ocampo, L. (2022). Full consistency method (FUCOM) and weighted sum under fuzzy information for evaluating the sustainability of farm tourism sites. Soft Computing, 26(22), 12481–12508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-07184-8
47. Öztaş, G.Z., Bars, A., Genç, V., and Erdem, S. (2022). Criteria Assessment for Covid-19 Vaccine Selection via BWM. In: Rezaei, J., Brunelli, M., and Mohammadi, M. (eds) Advances in Best-Worst Method. BWM 2021. Lecture Notes in Operations Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89795-6_16
48. Pamucar, D., and Ecer, F. (2020). Prioritizing The Weights of The Evaluation Criteria Under Fuzziness: The Fuzzy Full Consistency Method – FUCOM-F. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 18(3), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME200602034P
49. Pamucar, D., Ecer, F., and Deveci, M. (2021). Assessment of alternative fuel vehicles for sustainable road transportation of United States using integrated fuzzy FUCOM and neutrosophic fuzzy MARCOS methodology. Science of The Total Environment, 788, 147763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147763
50. Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., and Sremac, S. (2018). A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry, 10(9), 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393
51. Parra, G. L., and Calero, S. X. (2019). Automated writing evaluation tools in the improvement of the writing skill. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.29333/IJI.2019.12214A
52. Peker, B. P. and Görener, A. (2022). Tesis yeri seçiminde kriterlerin önem ağırlıklarının bulanık FUCOM yöntemiyle belirlenmesi. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(45), 1512-1536. https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.1212318
53. Qarnain, S. S., Sattanathan, M., Sankaranarayanan, B., and Ali, S. M. (2020). Analyzing energy consumption factors during coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak: a case study of residential society. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects, 1-20.
54. Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
55. Rezaei, J., Nispeling, T., Sarkis, J., and Tavasszy, L. (2016). A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.06.125
56. Rezaei, J., van Roekel, W. S., and Tavasszy, L. (2018). Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method. Transport Policy, 68, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRANPOL.2018.05.007
57. Rezaei, J., Wang, J., and Tavasszy, L. (2015). Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using Best Worst Method. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(23), 9152–9164. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2015.07.073
58. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
59. Sajjadpour, N. (2021). How Grammarly® website influences the Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 22, 119–139. https://doi.org/10.32038/LTRQ.2021.22.09
60. Salimi, N., and Rezaei, J. (2016). Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects using best worst method. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1911–1938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2121-0
61. Soni, M., and Thakur, J. S. (2018). A systematic review of automated grammar checking in English language. http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00540
62. Stević, Ž., and Brković, N. (2020). A Novel Integrated FUCOM-MARCOS Model for Evaluation of Human Resources in a Transport Company. Logistics, 4(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics4010004
63. Tabatabaei, M. H., Amiri, M., Khatami Firouzabadi, S. M. A., Ghahremanloo, M., Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., and Saparauskas, J. (2019). A new group decision-making model based on bwm and its application to managerial problems. Transformations in Business and Economics, 18(2), 197–214.
64. Tambunan, A. R. S., Andayani, W., Sari, W. S., and Lubis, F. K. (2022). Investigating EFL students’ linguistic problems using Grammarly as automated writing evaluation feedback. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.17509/IJAL.V12I1.46428
65. Tavana, M., Mina, H., and Santos-Arteaga, F. J. (2023). A general Best-Worst method considering interdependency with application to innovation and technology assessment at NASA. Journal of Business Research, 154. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2022.08.036
66. Tavana, M., Shaabani, A., Santos-Arteaga, F. J., and Valaei, N. (2021). An integrated fuzzy sustainable supplier evaluation and selection framework for green supply chains in reverse logistics. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(38), 53953–53982. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-021-14302-W
67. Thi, N. K., and Nikolov, M. (2022). How teacher and Grammarly feedback complement one another in Myanmar EFL Students’ Writing. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(6), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40299-021-00625-2
68. Thurmair, G. (1990). Parsing for grammar and style checking. COLING 1990 Volume 2: Papers Presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 365–370.
69. Tóth, L., and Gosztolya, G. (2019). Reducing the inter-speaker variance of cnn acoustic models using unsupervised adversarial multi-task training. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11658 LNAI, 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26061-3_49
70. Tschichold, C., Bodmer, F., Cornu, E., Grosjean, F., Grosjean, L., Ktibler, N., Lrwy, N., and Tschumi, C. (1997). Developing a new grammar checker for English as a second language. From Research to Commercial Applications: Making NLP Work in Practice, 7–12.
71. Vieira, F. C., Ferreira, F. A. F., Govindan, K., Ferreira, N. C. M. Q. F., and Banaitis, A. (2022). Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM). Technology in Society, 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHSOC.2022.102131
72. Wan Ahmad, W. N. K., Rezaei, J., Sadaghiani, S., and Tavasszy, L. A. (2017). Evaluation of the external forces affecting the sustainability of oil and gas supply chain using Best Worst Method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 153, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.03.166
73. Wang, P., Lin, Y., and Wang, Z. (2022). An Integrated BWM-CRITIC Approach Based on Neutrosophic Set for Sustainable Supply Chain Finance Risk Evaluation. International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control, 18(6), 1735–1754. https://doi.org/10.24507/IJICIC.18.06.1735
74. Wankhede, V. A., and Vinodh, S. (2021). Analysis of Industry 4.0 challenges using best worst method: A case study. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CIE.2021.107487
75. Web1: https://www.berlitz.com/blog/most-spoken-languages-world (06/12/2022)
76. Web2: https://webshop.elsevier.com/language-editing-services/language-editing/ (06/12/2022)
77. Web3: https://authorservices.springernature.com (06/12/2022)
78. Web4: https://authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com (06/12/2022)
79. Web5: https://www.g2.com/categories/proofreading (15/12/2022)
80. Web6: https://www.trustradius.com/writing-proofreading-tools#products (15/12/2022)
81. Web7: https://www.softwaretestinghelp.com/free-online-proofreading-tools/ (15/12/2022)
82. Web8: https://bestworstmethod.com/software/ (16/12/2022).
83. Yadav, G., Luthra, S., Jakhar, S. K., Mangla, S. K., and Rai, D. P. (2020). A framework to overcome sustainable supply chain challenges through solution measures of industry 4.0 and circular economy: An automotive case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, 120112. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.120112
84. Yang, H. (2018). Efficiency of online grammar checker in English writing performance and students’ perceptions. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 18(3), 328–348. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.18.3.201809.328
85. Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., Pamucar, D., and Chakraborty, S. (2020). Development of an integrated decision-making model for location selection of logistics centers in the Spanish autonomous communities. Expert Systems with Applications, 148, 113208. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2020.113208
86. Zagradjanin, N., Pamucar, D., and Jovanovic, K. (2019). Cloud-Based multi-robot path planning in complex and crowded environment with multi-criteria decision making using full consistency method. Symmetry, 11(10), 1241. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11101241
87. Zakaria, M. S. (2022). Online manuscript editing services for multilingual authors: a content analysis study. Science and Technology Libraries, 41(1), 90–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2021.1932695