A Novel Integrated PIPRECIA–Interval-Valued Triangular Fuzzy ARAS Model: E-Learning Course Selection

Jaukovic Jocic, Kristina and Jocic, Goran and Darjan, Darjan and Popovic, Gabrijela and Stanujkic, Dragisa and Kazimieras Zavadskas, Edmundas and Nguyen, Phong Thanh (2020): A Novel Integrated PIPRECIA–Interval-Valued Triangular Fuzzy ARAS Model: E-Learning Course Selection. Published in: symmetry , Vol. 12, No. 928 (2 June 2020): 01-14.

Abstract

The development of information and communication technologies has revolutionized and changed the way we do business in various areas. The field of education did not remain immune to the mentioned changes; there was a gradual integration of the educational process and the mentioned technologies. As a result, platforms for distance learning, as well as the organization of e-learning courses of various types, have been developed. The rapid development of e-learning courses has led to the problem of e-learning course selection and evaluation. The problem of the e-learning course selection can be successfully solved by using multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. Therefore, the aim of the paper is to propose an integrated approach based on the MCDM methods and symmetry principles for e-learning course selection. The pivot pairwise relative criteria importance assessment (PIPRECIA) method is used for determining the weights of criteria, and the interval-valued triangular fuzzy additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method is used for the ranking of alternatives i.e., e-learning courses. The suitability of the proposed integrated model is demonstrated through a numerical case study.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: ARAS, interval-valued triangular fuzzy numbers, e-learning courses, MCDM
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C4 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics > C44 - Operations Research ; Statistical Decision Theory; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C6 - Mathematical Methods ; Programming Models ; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling; D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Institutions > I23 - Higher Education ; Research Institutions

References

1. Grimus, M. ICT and Creative Computing, Austrian Perspective in Teacher Education. In Educational Technology: Opportunities and Challenges; University of Oulu: Oulu, Finland, 2007; pp. 86–104.

2. Trehan, A.; Trehan, R. ICT in Education Sector and its Impacts. Int. J. Manag. IT Eng. 2019, 7, 281–288.

3. Plomp, T.; Anderson, R.E.; Law, N.; Quale, A. (Eds.) CrossNational Information and Communication Technology Policies and Practices in Education, 2nd ed.; IAP: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2009.

4. Pulkkinen, J. Cultural Globalization and Integration of ICT in Education. Educational Technology: Opportunities and Challenges; University of Oulu: Oulu, Finland, 2007; pp. 13–23.

5. Wang, Q.; Woo, H.L. Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic learning. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2007, 10, 148–156.

6. Altun, S.A.; Kalayci, E.; Avci, U. Integrating ICT at the Faculty Level: A Case Study. Turkish Online J. Educ. Technol. -TOJET 2011, 10, 230–240.

7. García-Alcaraz, P.; Martínez-Loya, V.; García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Sánchez-Ramírez, C. The role of ICT in educational innovation. In Managing Innovation in Highly Restrictive Environments; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 143–165.

8. An, Y.-J.; Reigeluth, C. Creating Technology-Enhanced, Learner-Centered Classrooms. J. Digit. Learn. Teach. Educ. 2011, 28, 54–62.

9. Al-Samarraie, H.; Teng, B.K.; Alzahrani, A.I.; Alalwan, N. E-learning continuance satisfaction in higher education: A unified perspective from instructors and students. Stud. High. Educ. 2017, 43, 2003–2019.

10. Sung, Y.-T.; Chang, K.-E.; Liu, T.-C. The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Comput. Educ. 2016, 94, 252–275.

11. An, Y.J.; Reigeluth, C.M. Problem-Based Learning in Online Environments. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 2008, 9, 1–16.

12. Chou, C. Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2003, 34, 265–279.

13. Sachar, M.; Neumann, Y. Twenty years of research on the academic performance differences between traditional and distance learning: Summative meta-analysis and trend examination. MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach. 2010, 6, 318–334.

14. Chao, I.T.; Saj, T.; Hamilton, D. Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2010, 11, 106.

15. Stavredes, T.; Herder, T. A Guide to Online Course Design: Strategies for Student Success; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014.

16. Karabaševi´c, D.; Popovi´c, G.; Stanujki´c, D.; Maksimovi´c, M.; Sava, C. An approach for hotel type selection based on the Single-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers. Int. Rev. 2019, 1–2, 7–14.

17. Suboti´c, M.; Stevi´c, B.; Risti´c, B.; Simi´c, S. The selection of a location for potential roundabout construction–a case study of Doboj. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl. 2020, 3, 41–56.

18. MacCrimmon, K.R. Decision Marking Among Multiple-Attribute Alternatives: A Survey and Consolidated Approach. RAND Memorandum, RM-4823-ARPA; Rand Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 1968.

19. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision in a Complex World; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1980.

20. Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981.

21. Brans, J.P.; Vincke, P. A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Manag. Sci. 1985, 31, 647–656.

22. Roy, B. The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theory Decis. 1991, 31, 49–73.

23. Opricovic, S. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems; Faculty of Civil Engineering: Belgrade, Serbia, 1998.

24. Zadeh, L. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control. 1965, 8, 338–353.

25. Bellman, R.E.; Zadeh, L.A. Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment. Manag. Sci. 1970, 17, 141–164.

26. Atanassov, K.T. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1986, 20, 87–96.

27. Wang, G.; Li, X. Correlation and information energy of interval-valued fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1999, 103, 169–175.

28. Lee, K.M. Bipolar-valued fuzzy sets and their basic operations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Technologies, Bangkok, Thailand, 12–14 December 2000; pp. 307–317.

29. Vahdani, B.; Hadipour, H. Extension of the ELECTRE method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets. Soft Comput. 2010, 15, 569–579.

30. Samantra, C.; Sahu, N.K.; Datta, S.; Mahapatra, S.S. Decision-making in selecting reverse logistics alternative using interval-valued fuzzy sets combined with VIKOR approach. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2013, 14, 175.

31. Vahdani, B.; Hadipour, H.; Sadaghiani, J.S.; Amiri, M. Extension of VIKOR method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2009, 47, 1231–1239.

32. Baležentis, T.; Zeng, S. Group multi-criteria decision making based upon interval-valued fuzzy numbers: An extension of the MULTIMOORA method. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 543–550.

33. Vahdani, B.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Mousavi, S.M.; Ghodratnama, A. Soft computing based on new interval-valued fuzzy modified multi-criteria decision-making method. Appl. Soft Comput. 2013, 13, 165–172.

34. Ye, F. An extended TOPSIS method with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for virtual enterprise partner selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 7050–7055.

35. Park, J.H.; Park, I.Y.; Kwun, Y.C.; Tan, X. Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision making problems under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Appl. Math. Model. 2011, 35, 2544–2556.

36. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 16, 159–172.

37. Zavadskas, E.; Turskis, Z.; Vilutiene, T. Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2010, 10, 123–141.

38. Karabaševi´c, D.; Stanujkic, D.; Uroševi´c, S. The MCDM Model for Personnel Selection Based on SWARA and ARAS Methods. Manag. Sustain. Bus. Manag. Solutions Emerg. Econ. 2015, 20, 43–52.

39. Karabaševi´c, D.; Paunkovic, J.; Stanujki´c, D.; Darjan, K.; Jane, P.; Dragisa, S. Ranking of companies according to the indicators of corporate social responsibility based on SWARA and ARAS methods. Serbian J. Manag. 2016, 11, 43–53.

40. Karabaševi´c, D.; Maksimovi´c, M.; Stanujkic, D.; Joci´c, G.B.; Rajˇcevi´c, D.P. Selection of software testing method by using ARAS method. Tehnika 2018, 73, 724–729.

41. Bahrami, Y.; Hassani, H.; Maghsoudi, A. BWM-ARAS: A new hybrid MCDM method for Cu prospectivity mapping in the Abhar area, NW Iran. Spat. Stat. 2019, 33, 100382.

42. Balki, M.K.; Erdo˘gan, S.; Aydın, S.; Sayin, C. The optimization of engine operating parameters via SWARA and ARAS hybrid method in a small SI engine using alternative fuels. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120685.

43. Turskis, Z.; Zavadskas, E.K. A new fuzzy additive ratio assessment method (ARAS-F). Case study: The analysis of fuzzy multiple criteria in order to select the logistic centers location. Transport 2010, 25, 423–432.

44. Turskis, Z.; Zavadskas, E.K. A Novel Method for Multiple Criteria Analysis: Grey Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS-G) Method. Information 2010, 21, 597–610.

45. Stanujkic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Karabasevic, D.; Turskis, Z.; Keršuliene, V. New group decision-making ˙ ARCAS approach based on the integration of the SWARA and the ARAS methods adapted for negotiations. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2017, 18, 599–618.

46. Stanujkic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Karabaševi´c, D.; Smarandache, F.; Turskis, Z. The use of Pivot Pair-wise Relative Criteria Importance Assessment method for determining weights of criteria. Rom. J. Econ. Forecast. 2017, 20, 116–133.

47. Popovi´c, G. A framework for the quality control manager selection based on the PIPRECIA and WSPLP methods. In EMAN 2019–Economics & Management: How to Cope with Disrupted Times, Ljubljana; UdEkoM Balkan: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2019; pp. 33–43.

48. Tomaševi´c, M.; Lapuh, L.; Stevi´c, Ž.; Stanujki´c, D.; Karabaševi´c, D. Evaluation of Criteria for the Implementation of High-Performance Computing (HPC) in Danube Region Countries Using Fuzzy PIPRECIA Method. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3017.

49. Stevi´c, Ž.; Stjepanovi´c, Ž.; Božiˇckovi´c, Z.; Das, D.; Stanujki´c, D. Assessment of Conditions for Implementing Information Technology in a Warehouse System: A Novel Fuzzy PIPRECIA Method. Symmetry 2018, 10, 586.

50. Ðali´c, I.; Stevi´c, Ž.; Karamasa, C.; Puška, A. A Novel Integrated Fuzzy PIPRECIA–Interval Rough Saw Model: Green Supplier Selection. Decis. Making Appl. Manag. Eng. 2020, 3, 80–95.

51. Popovi´c, G.; Ðordevi´c, B.; Milanovi´c, D. Multiple criteria approach in the mining method selection. ¯ Industrija 2019, 47, 47–62.

52. Stanujkic, D. Extension of the ARAS Method for Decision-Making Problems with Interval-Valued Triangular Fuzzy Numbers. Informatica 2015, 26, 335–355.

53. Al-Alwani, A. Evaluation Criterion for Quality Assessment of E-Learning Content. E-Learning Digit. Media 2014, 11, 532–542.

54. Castellanos–Nieves, D.; Fernandez-Breis, J.T.; Peñalvo, F.J.G.; Martínez-Béjar, R.; Iniesta-Moreno, M. Semantic Web Technologies for supporting learning assessment. Inf. Sci. 2011, 181, 1517–1537.

55. Tzeng, G.-H.; Chiang, C.-H.; Li, C.-W. Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Syst. Appl. 2007, 32, 1028–1044.

56. Chao, R.-J.; Chen, Y.-H. Evaluation of the criteria and effectiveness of distance e-learning with consistent fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 10657–10662.

57. Garg, R.; Jain, D. Fuzzy multi-attribute decision making evaluation of e-learning websites using FAHP, COPRAS, VIKOR, WDBA. Decis. Sci. Lett. 2017, 6, 351–364.

58. Khan, N.Z.; Ansari, T.S.A.; Siddiquee, A.N.; Khan, Z.A. Selection of E-learning websites using a novel Proximity Indexed Value (PIV) MCDM method. J. Comput. Educ. 2019, 6, 241–256.

59. Ghannadpour, S.F. Fuzzy analytical network process logic for performance measurement system of e-learning centers of Universities. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2018, 11, 261–280.

60. Su, C.-H.; Yang, M.-H.; Wang, W.-C. The Use of a DANP with VIKOR Approach for Establishing the Model of E-Learning Service Quality. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 5927–5937.