Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

TOPSIS YÖNTEMİNİ KULLANARAK EĞİTİM PROGRAMLARININ UYGULANMASININ SIRALAMASI

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 47, 366 - 374, 20.09.2020
https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.786051

Öz

Bir eğitim programının uygulanmasının değerlendirilmesi kolay değildir. Zorluğu çözmek için ilgili nicel ve nitel araştırmalara dayanarak elde edilen verilerin analizini yapmak gerektirir. Bu verilerin toplanmasının doğru tasarlanmış göstergeler kullanılarak yapılması gerektiği açıktır. Çalışmada böyle bir sorunun bilişim sistemleri teorisinde iyi bilinen TOPSIS çok kriterli çözüm analiz yöntemi kullanılarak başarılı bir şekilde çözülebildiği gösterilmiştir. Doğal olarak, karar verme kriterlerinin iki tür – olumlu veya olumsuz olma ihtimali vardır. Olumlu bir kriter için derecelendirme değeri ne kadar yüksek olursa, alternatif çözüm o kadar iyi olur ve olumsuz bir kriter için tam tersi olur. Yani negatif kriter için karşılık gelen derecelendirme değeri ne kadar düşük olursa, alternatif o kadar iyidir. TOPSIS yöntemi, mevcut alternatifler arasında en iyi çözümün, pozitif ideal çözümden minimum mesafeye sahip olduğu konseptine dayanmaktadır ve aynı zamanda, negatif ideal çözümden maksimum uzaklığa sahiptir. Makalede eğitim programının uygulanmasını değerlendirmek için geliştirilen olumlu ve olumsuz kriterler sunulmuştur. Yukarıdaki kriterlere ilişkin veriler Gori Devlet Eğitim Üniversitesi fakültelerinden birinin dört bilim dalından elde edinilerek kullanılmıştır. Yukarıdaki verilere dayanarak, programlar TOPSIS yöntemi kullanılarak derecelendirilmiştir. Çalışmada aynı şekilde, bu programla ilgili farklı aralıklarda elde edilen verileri kullanarak eğitim programlarından birinin uygulanması ile değerlendirilmesinin mümkün olduğu gösterilmiş ve böylece sonuçları karşılaştırarak programın başarı veya başarısızlık derecesi belirlenmiştir.

Kaynakça

  • Alsarmi, A.M. & Al-Hemyari, Z.A. (2014). Quantitative and qualitative statistical indicators to assess the quality of teaching and learning in higher education institutions. International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, 6(4), 369 – 392.
  • Bollaert, L. (2019). A manual for internal quality assurance in higher education: (looking for a new quality in HE in a new world). 2nd updated and enlarged edition. Brussels: EURASHE.
  • Hwang C.L. & Yoon K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Hwang C.L., Lai Y.J., Liu T.Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers and Operational Research, 20 (8), 889–899.
  • Martin, M. (Ed.). (2018). Internal Quality Assurance: Enhancing higher education quality and graduate employability. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
  • Ogunleye, A.A. (2013). Quality Assurance and Quality Indicators in Open and Distance Education: Context, Concerns and Challenges. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 4(2), 49- 62.
  • Parmenter, D. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPI): Developing, implementing, and using winning KPI’s. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  • Rajkaran, S. & Mammen, K. J. (2014). Identifying Key Performance Indicators for Academic Departments in a Comprehensive University through a Consensus-based Approach: A South African Case Study. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 5(3), 283-294.
  • Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Brussels, Belgium: EURASHE.
  • Yoon K. (1987). A reconciliation among discrete compromise situations. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38 (3), 277–286.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS PERFORMANCE RANKING BY USE OF TOPSIS METHOD

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 47, 366 - 374, 20.09.2020
https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.786051

Öz

Evaluation of an educational program is a complex task and its solution requires the analysis of data obtained on the basis of relevant to both quantitative and qualitative research. The collection of these data should be carried out using properly developed key performance indicators. The paper shows that such a task can be successfully solved using the TOPSIS method of multi-criteria decision analysis well known in information systems theory. The evaluation criteria can be positive or negative. The higher the rating value for a positive criterion, the better the alternative decision, while for the negative criterion the smaller the corresponding rating value, the better the alternative. The TOPSIS method is based on the concept that the best solution among the available alternatives is the one that has the minimum distance from the positive ideal solution and, at the same time, the maximum distance from the negative ideal solution. The paper presents both positive and negative criteria developed to evaluate the performance of educational programs. For the data relevant to the above criteria there are used the appropriate data of the four higher educational programs of Gori State Teaching University. Using the TOPSIS method the rating evaluation of the programs was carried out. The paper indicates that in the same way it is possible to assess the performance of one of the educational programs using data obtained at different intervals in relation to this program, and thereby determine the degree of success or failure of the program by comparing the results.

Kaynakça

  • Alsarmi, A.M. & Al-Hemyari, Z.A. (2014). Quantitative and qualitative statistical indicators to assess the quality of teaching and learning in higher education institutions. International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, 6(4), 369 – 392.
  • Bollaert, L. (2019). A manual for internal quality assurance in higher education: (looking for a new quality in HE in a new world). 2nd updated and enlarged edition. Brussels: EURASHE.
  • Hwang C.L. & Yoon K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Hwang C.L., Lai Y.J., Liu T.Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers and Operational Research, 20 (8), 889–899.
  • Martin, M. (Ed.). (2018). Internal Quality Assurance: Enhancing higher education quality and graduate employability. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
  • Ogunleye, A.A. (2013). Quality Assurance and Quality Indicators in Open and Distance Education: Context, Concerns and Challenges. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 4(2), 49- 62.
  • Parmenter, D. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPI): Developing, implementing, and using winning KPI’s. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  • Rajkaran, S. & Mammen, K. J. (2014). Identifying Key Performance Indicators for Academic Departments in a Comprehensive University through a Consensus-based Approach: A South African Case Study. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 5(3), 283-294.
  • Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Brussels, Belgium: EURASHE.
  • Yoon K. (1987). A reconciliation among discrete compromise situations. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38 (3), 277–286.

РАНЖИРОВАНИЕ ОСУЩЕСТВЛЕНИЯ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНЫХ ПРОГРАММ С ПОМОЩЬЮ МЕТОДА TOPSIS

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 47, 366 - 374, 20.09.2020
https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.786051

Öz

Оценка реализации образовательной программы является сложной задачей, и для ее решения требуется анализ данных, полученных на основе соответствующих количественных и качественных исследований. Понятно, что сбор этих данных должен осуществляться с использованием правильно разработанных индикаторов. В работе показано, что такая задача может быть успешно решена с помощью метода анализа многокритериальных решений TOPSIS, хорошо известного в теории информационных систем. Естественно, что критерии для принятия решения, как правило, могут быть двух типов - положительные или отрицательные. Чем выше значение рейтинга для положительного критерия, тем лучше альтернативное решение, а для отрицательного критерия справедливо противоположное, т. е. чем меньше соответствующее значение рейтинга для отрицательного критерия, тем лучше альтернатива. Метод TOPSIS основан на концепции, согласно которой наилучшим решением среди доступных альтернатив является то, которое имеет минимальное расстояние от положительного идеального решения и, в то же время, имеет максимальное расстояние от отрицательного идеального решения. В статье представлены как положительные, так и отрицательные критерии, разработанные для оценки реализации образовательной программы. В качестве данных, относящихся к вышеуказанным критериям, используются соответствующие данные четырех образовательных программ одного из факультетов Горийского Государственного Учебного Университета. На основании упомянутых данных была проведена рейтинговая оценка программ по методу TOPSIS. В работе указано, что таким же образом можно оценить реализацию одной из образовательных программ используя данные, полученные в разные промежутки времени по отношению к этой программе, и тем самым, определить степень успеха или неудачи осуществления программы путем сравнения результатов.

Kaynakça

  • Alsarmi, A.M. & Al-Hemyari, Z.A. (2014). Quantitative and qualitative statistical indicators to assess the quality of teaching and learning in higher education institutions. International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, 6(4), 369 – 392.
  • Bollaert, L. (2019). A manual for internal quality assurance in higher education: (looking for a new quality in HE in a new world). 2nd updated and enlarged edition. Brussels: EURASHE.
  • Hwang C.L. & Yoon K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Hwang C.L., Lai Y.J., Liu T.Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers and Operational Research, 20 (8), 889–899.
  • Martin, M. (Ed.). (2018). Internal Quality Assurance: Enhancing higher education quality and graduate employability. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
  • Ogunleye, A.A. (2013). Quality Assurance and Quality Indicators in Open and Distance Education: Context, Concerns and Challenges. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 4(2), 49- 62.
  • Parmenter, D. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPI): Developing, implementing, and using winning KPI’s. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  • Rajkaran, S. & Mammen, K. J. (2014). Identifying Key Performance Indicators for Academic Departments in a Comprehensive University through a Consensus-based Approach: A South African Case Study. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 5(3), 283-294.
  • Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Brussels, Belgium: EURASHE.
  • Yoon K. (1987). A reconciliation among discrete compromise situations. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38 (3), 277–286.
Toplam 10 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Bidzina Mıdodashvılı Bu kişi benim 0000-0002-5046-8766

Levan Mıdodashvılı Bu kişi benim 0000-0002-2033-7458

Pavle Mıdodashvılı Bu kişi benim 0000-0002-7852-4467

Yayımlanma Tarihi 20 Eylül 2020
Gönderilme Tarihi 2 Ağustos 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Sayı: 47

Kaynak Göster

APA Mıdodashvılı, B., Mıdodashvılı, L., & Mıdodashvılı, P. (2020). EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS PERFORMANCE RANKING BY USE OF TOPSIS METHOD. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, 1(47), 366-374. https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.786051