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.
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- M. Bertoni. 2019. Multi-criteria decision making for sustainability and value assessment in early PSS design. Sustainability 11, 7 (2019), 1952.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Index Terms
Multi-Objective Heuristic Decision Making and Benchmarking for Mobile Applications in English Language Learning
Recommendations
Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on the Hausdorff distance of hesitant fuzzy linguistic numbers
A hesitant fuzzy linguistic set is an extension of both a linguistic term set and a hesitant fuzzy set. It combines a quantitative evaluation with a qualitative evaluation, which can describe the real preferences of decision makers and reflect their ...
Using a multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives
The arrival of the mobile phone and its rapid and widespread growth may well be seen as one of the most significant developments in the fields of communication and information technology over the past two decades. The aim of this study is to propose a ...
A Combined BWM-TOPSIS Approach Versus AHP-TOPSIS Approach: An Application to Solid Waste Management
IEIM 2022: 2022 The 3rd International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Industrial ManagementMulti-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is a tool used to evaluate and choose alternatives between multiple criteria when a decision is required. One trusted MCDM techniques is the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Recently, scholars have expressed a ...






Comments