skip to main content
research-article

Multi-Objective Heuristic Decision Making and Benchmarking for Mobile Applications in English Language Learning

Authors Info & Claims
Published:30 June 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This research proposes to evaluate and analyze the decision matrix for learner's English mobile applications (EMAs) based on multi-objective heuristic decision making with a view to listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Because of the number of criteria, the significance of parameters, and variance in results, EMAs are difficult. Decision making has built on the combination of listening, speaking, reading, and writing and EMA evaluation criteria for students. The requirements are adapted from a framework of pre-school education. Six alternatives and 17 skills as a requirement are included in decision-making results. The six EMA are then assessed, with six English learning experts distributing a review form. The application subsequently is evaluated using the best-worst method and preference-order technique (TOPSIS) using multi-objective heuristic decision making methods. The best-worst method is used to measure requirements, whereas TOPSIS is used to test and assess the applications. In two cases, namely person and group, TOPSIS is used. Internal and external aggregations are used throughout the group context. In effect, the aim of evaluating the proposed study and comparing it to six relative studies with scenarios and benchmarking checklists is to develop an objectives validation framework for e-apps.

References

  1. J. Buzhardt, D. Walker, C. R. Greenwood, and L. Heitzman-Powell. 2012. Using technology to support progress monitoring and data-based intervention decision making in early childhood: Is there an app for that? Focus on Exceptional Children 44, 8 (2012), 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Khalifah, and K. M. Nor. 2015. Application of multiple-criteria decision-making techniques and approaches to evaluating of service quality: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics and Management 16, 5 (2015), 1034–1068.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. X. Xu, D. Li, M. Sun, S. Yang, S. Yu, G. Manogaran, G. Mastorakis, and C. X. Mavromoustakis. 2019. Research on key technologies of smart campus teaching platform based on 5G network. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 20664–20675.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Q. Gao, S. Guo, X. Liu, G. Manogaran, N. Chilamkurti, and S. Kadry. 2020. Simulation analysis of supply chain risk management system based on IoT information platform. Enterprise Information Systems 14, 9–10 (2020), 1354–1378.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. F. Niaz, M. Khalid, Z. Ullah, N. Aslam, M. Raza, and M. K. Priyan. 2020. A bonded channel in cognitive wireless body area network based on IEEE 802.15.6 and Internet of Things. Computer Communications 150, (Jan. 2020), 131–143.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. O. S. López. 2010. The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education 54, 4 (2010), 901–915.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. D. Brazer, W. Rich, and S. A. Ross. 2010. Collaborative strategic decision making in school districts. Journal of Educational Administration 48, 2 (2010), 196–217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. T. T. Wu, T. W. Sung, Y. M. Huang, C. S. Yang, and J. T. Yang. 2011. Ubiquitous English learning system with dynamic personalized guidance of learning portfolio. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 14, 4 (2011), 164–180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. Israel, M. T. Marino, J. D. Basham, and W. Spivak. 2013. Fifth graders as app designers: How diverse learners conceptualize educational apps. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 46, 1 (2013), 53–80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. M. Bräuning, E. Hüllermeier, T. Keller, and M. Glaum. 2017. Lexicographic preferences for predictive modeling of human decision making: A new machine learning method with an application in accounting. European Journal of Operational Research 258, 1 (2017), 295–306.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Y. V. Nieto, V. Garcia-Diaz, and C. E. Montenegro. 2019. Decision making model at higher educational institutions based on machine learning. Journal of Universal Computer Science 25, 10 (2019), 1301–1322.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Y. Nieto, V. Garcia-Diaz, C. Montenegro, C. C. González, and C. R. González. 2019. Usage of machine learning for strategic decision making at higher educational institutions. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 75007–75017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. N. Menaga and D. B. Umadevi. 2018. A perspective review on e-learning promotions and development. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Applications 6, 6 (2018), 16–22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. P. M. Shakeel and S. Baskar. 2020. Automatic human emotion classification in web document using fuzzy inference system (FIS): Human emotion classification. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 16, 1 (2020), 94–104. DOI:10.4018/IJTHI.2020010107Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. M. E. Anderson, J. E. Minnema, M. L. Thurlow, and J. Hall-Lande. 2005. Confronting the Unique Challenges of Including English Language Learners with Disabilities in Statewide Assessments. ELLs with Disabilities Report 9. National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Datnow, V. Park, and B. Kennedy-Lewis. 2012. High school teachers’ use of data to inform instruction. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 17, 4 (2012), 247–265.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Z. Sun, C. H. Lin, J. You, H. J. Qi, S. Shen, and L. Luo. 2017. Improving the English-speaking skills of young learners through mobile social networking. Computer Assisted Language Learning 30, 3–4 (2017), 304–324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. S. Başaran and O. J. Aduradola. 2018. A multi-criteria decision making to rank Android based mobile applications for mathematics. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 9, 7 (2018), 99–107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. M. Bertoni. 2019. Multi-criteria decision making for sustainability and value assessment in early PSS design. Sustainability 11, 7 (2019), 1952.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. R. Gangaiamaran and M. Pasupathi. 2017. Review on use of mobile apps for language learning. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 12, 21 (2017), 11242–11251.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Multi-Objective Heuristic Decision Making and Benchmarking for Mobile Applications in English Language Learning

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing
      ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing  Volume 20, Issue 5
      September 2021
      320 pages
      ISSN:2375-4699
      EISSN:2375-4702
      DOI:10.1145/3467024
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 Association for Computing Machinery.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 30 June 2021
      • Accepted: 1 November 2020
      • Revised: 1 October 2020
      • Received: 1 July 2020
      Published in tallip Volume 20, Issue 5

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!