4.6 Article

NEW MCEQLS FUZZY AHP METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING LEARNING REPOSITORIES: A TOOL FOR TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY

Journal

TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 142-155

Publisher

VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECH UNIV
DOI: 10.3846/20294913.2015.1074950

Keywords

alternative; criteria; decision making; information technology; learning; multiple criteria decision analysis; quality; weight

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paper aims to present a new methodology to evaluate the quality of features and functionality of learning object repositories (LORs). The quality of features and functionality of LORs is analysed in terms of engaging LOR users and content producers. Thus, it can be referred to as quality-in-use of LORs. This methodology consists of creation and consequent application of methods and the model for the quality-in-use of LORs. LOR The model of the quality-in-use of LORs is presented in this paper. The methodology for evaluating the quality-in-use of LORs is based on the general MCEQLS (Multiple Criteria Evaluation of the Quality of Learning Software) approach to evaluate the quality of learning software. The essential part of the novel methodology is the application of improved Fuzzy AHP method to establish criteria weights of the quality-in-use of LORs. It is shown that the created methodology is suitable and stable for evaluating the quality of LOR features and its functionality. A more detail presentation is given on the results of the expert evaluation of the quality-in-use of three LORs that are most popular in Lithuania against the proposed methodology. The novelty of the presented research is achieved through the innovative instrument consisting of the model of the quality-in-use of LORs and the Fuzzy AHP method. The presented methodology could serve as a technological tool for decision making in education as well as in different areas of economy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available