Assessment of education types for university education via multi-criteria decision-making methods

Abstract

Traditional face-to-face education has been applied as the primary method for centuries in universities, but synchronous distance education and blended education have become increasingly popular in recent decades. Students, academicians, and university administrators are the main stakeholders in university education. This study is the first to use multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) to determine the best education type, considering these three stakeholder groups. Criteria were identified through a literature review, and stakeholders completed three questionnaires to finalize criteria, compare them pairwise, and rate alternatives. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Criteria Importance Through Inter-criteria Correlation (CRITIC) methods were applied to prioritize criteria, and Visual PROMETHEE was used to rank alternatives. As a result of the calculations traditional face-to-face education was found as the most appropriate in 5 out of 6 cases across the three stakeholder groups. Therefore, face-to-face education should remain integral to university education. If synchronous distance education is offered as a separate program alongside traditional face-to-face education, they should not be considered equivalent, and distinct diplomas should be awarded.

Keywords

• Evaluation of education types
• AHP
• CRITIC
• Multi-Criteria decision-making

Üniversite eğitiminde kullanılan eğitim türlerinin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleriyle değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Üniversitelerde yüzyıllardır geleneksel yüz yüze eğitim birincil yöntem olarak uygulanıyor ancak son yıllarda senkronize uzaktan eğitim ve karma eğitim giderek daha popüler hale geliyor. Üniversite eğitiminin temel paydaşları öğrenciler, akademisyenler ve üniversite yöneticileridir. Bu çalışma, bu üç paydaş grubunu dikkate alarak en iyi eğitim türünü belirlemek için çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) yöntemini kullanan ilk çalışmadır. Kriterler literatür taraması yoluyla belirlendi ve paydaşlar kriterleri son haline getirmek, bunları ikili olarak karşılaştırmak ve alternatifleri derecelendirmek için üç anket doldurdu. Kriterlerin önceliklendirilmesi için Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) ve Kriterler Arası Korelasyon Yoluyla Kriterlerin Önemi (CRITIC) yöntemleri uygulandı ve alternatiflerin sıralanması için Visual PROMETHEE kullanıldı. Hesaplamalar sonucunda üç paydaş grubundaki 6 vakanın 5'inde geleneksel yüz yüze eğitimin en uygun olduğu görüldü. Bu nedenle yüz yüze eğitim üniversite eğitiminin ayrılmaz bir parçası olarak kalmalıdır. Senkron uzaktan eğitim, geleneksel yüz yüze eğitimin yanında ayrı bir program olarak sunuluyorsa eşdeğer sayılmamalı, farklı diplomalar verilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eğitim türlerinin değerlendirilmesi
• AHP
• CRITIC
• Çok kriterli karar verme

Kaynakça

1. [1] Ananga P, Biney IK. “comparing face-to-face and online teaching and learning in higher education”. MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends and Practices, 7(2), 165-179 2017.
2. [2] Tayebinik M, Puteh M. “Blended learning or e-learning?”. International Magazine on Advances in Computer Science and Telecommunications, 3(1), 103-110, 2012.
3. [3] Sadeghi M. "A shift from classroom to distance learning: Advantages and limitations". International Journal of Research in English Education, 4(1), 80-88, 2019.
4. [4] Kim SH, Park S. “What contributed to students’ online learning satisfaction during the pandemic?”. Distance Education, 44(1), 6-23, 2022.
5. [5] Keramati MR, Gillies RM. “Perceptions of nursing students on the effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement and learning environment”. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), 6724-6734, 2022.
6. [6] Dendir S, Maxwell RS. "Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring". Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, 1-10, 2020.
7. [7] Prinsloo P, Uleanya C. “Making the invisible, visible: Disability in south African distance education”. Distance Education, 43(4), 489-507, 2022.
8. [8] Kotera Y, Cockerill V, Green P, Hutchingson L, Shaw P, Bowskill N. "Towards another kind of borderlessness: online students with disabilities". Distance Education, 40(2), 170-186, 2019.

9. [9] Topuz Ş, Yilmaz Sezer N, Aker M, Gönenç İM, Öner Cengiz H, Er Korucu A. “A SWOT analysis of the opinions of midwifery students about distance education during the Covid-19 pandemic a qualitative study”. Midwifery, 103, 1-10, 2021.
10. [10] Alamer A, Alharbi F. “Synchronous distance teaching of radiology clerkship promotes medical students' learning and engagement”. Insights iInto Imaging, 12(1), 1-11, 2021.
11. [11] Akça M, Aydoğan T. "Online database editor design for web based distance education". Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 21(5), 178-181, 2015.
12. [12] Pınar Martlı E, Unlusoy Dincer N. “Technology in nursing education: augmented reality”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 27(5), 627-637, 2021.
13. [13] Laaser W. “Economic implications and stakeholder reactions in a digital university environment”. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 57(4), 1-20, 2018.
14. [14] Ivaniuk IV, Ovcharuk OV. “Problems and needs of teachers in the organization of distance learning in Ukraine during quarantine caused by covid-19 pandemic: 2021 research results”. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 85(5), 29-41, 2021.
15. [15] Tepe S. “A performance analysis for face-to-face, distance and hybrid education models based on student satisfaction”. European Journal of Science and Technology, 23, 254-271, 2021.
16. [16] Alqahtani AY, Rajkhan AA. “E-learning critical success factors during the covid-19 pandemic: a comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives”. Education Sciences, 10(9), 1-16, 2020.
17. [17] Griffith J, Faulconer E, McMasters B. “The relationship between learning mode and student performance in an undergraduate elementary statistics course in the united states”. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(1), 166-179, 2021.
18. [18] Mohammed HJ, Kasim MM, Shaharanee IN. “Evaluation of e-learning approaches using ahp-topsis technique”. Journal of Telecommunication, 10, 7-10, 2018.
19. [19] Oliveira JH, Giannetti BF, Agostinho F, Almeida CMVB. “Decision making under the environmental perspective: choosing between traditional and distance teaching courses”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4303-4313, 2018.
20. [20] Artsin M, Günal K. “Multi-criterion decision making method proposal for determining the criteria for learning management system selection”. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 87-108, 2021.
21. [21] Bhattacherjee A, Kukreja V, Aggarwal A. “Stakeholders’ perspective towards employability: a hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach”. Education and Information Technologies, 29(2), 2157-2181, 2024.
22. [22] Çelikbilek Y, Adıgüzel Tüylü A. “Prioritizing the components of e-learning systems by using fuzzy DEMATEL and ANP”. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(2), 322-343, 2019.
23. [23] Yilmaz H, Karadayi-Usta S, Yanık S. “A novel neutrosophic AHP-Copeland approach for distance education: towards sustainability”. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(5), 2152–2174, 2022.
24. [24] Bervell B, Umar IN. “Utilization decision towards LMS for blended learning in distance education: modelling the effects of personality factors in exclusivity”. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 10(3), 309-333, 2018.
25. [25] Kabak M, Özceylan E, Dağdeviren M, Genc T. “Evaluation of distance education websites: a hybrid multicriteria approach”. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, 25(4), 2809-2819, 2017.
26. [26] Andayani S, Sumarno HM B, Waryanto, NH. “Comparison of Promethee-Topsis method based on SAW and AHP weighting for school e-learning readiness evaluation”. The 3rd International Seminar on Innovation in Mathematics and Mathematics Education, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 3-4 October 2019.
27. [27] Bhuasiri W, Xaymoungkhoun O, Zo H, Rho JJ, Ciganek AP. “Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty”. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843-855, 2012.
28. [28] Kirkenidis IV, Andreopoulou ZS, Manos B. “Evaluation of e-learning platforms suitable for Agriculture and Forestry Higher Schools: A case study using ELECTRE III”. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 6(3), 74-80, 2016.
29. [29] Mehdipour Y, Zerehkafi H. “Mobile learning for education: Benefits and challenges”. International Journal of Computational Engineering Research, 3(6), 93-101, 2013.
30. [30] Olakulehin FK, Panda SK. “Private cost of education: a comparative study of distance and campus-based university students in Nigeria”. European journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 3(1), 1-12, 2011.
31. [31] Saaty TL. “A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures”. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281, 1977.
32. [32] Ordu M, Der O. “Environmental Impact-Based Thermoplastic Material Selection for Green Manufacturing: A Comparative Hybrid MCDM Approach”. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 39(1), 100-115, 2023.
33. [33] Der O, Ordu M, Başar G. “Multi-objective optimization of cutting parameters for polyethylene thermoplastic material by integrating data envelopment analysis and SWARA-based CoCoSo approach”. Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(2), 638-661, 2024.
34. [34] Ordu M, Der O. “Polymeric materials selection for flexible pulsating heat pipe manufacturing using a comparative hybrid MCDM approach”. Polymers, 15(13), 1-20, 2023.
35. [35] Kurtay KG, Dağıstanlı HA, Erol S. “Plastik Boru ve Kaynak Makinesi Seçim Problemi için Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi ile Gri İlişkisel Analiz Yöntemlerinin Entegrasyonu”. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 40, 267-291, 2021.
36. [36] Dagistanli HA, Özden Ü. “An integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making and Multi-Choice Conic Goal Programming approach for customer evaluation and manager assignment”. Decision Analytics Journal, 8, 1-15, 2023.
37. [37] Kurtay KG, Gökmen Y, Altundaş A, Dağıstanlı HA. “Savunma sanayii projelerinin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleriyle önceliklendirilmesi ve karşilaştirilmasi: karma bir model önerisi”. Savunma ve Savaş Araştırmaları Dergisi, 31(1), 1-24, 2021
38. [38] Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L. “Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the CRITIC method”. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770, 1995.
39. [39] Brans J, Vincke P. “Note-A Preference Ranking Organisation Method”. Management Science, 31(6), 647-656, 1985.