IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i23p3136-d695501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

E-Learning Platform Assessment and Selection Using Two-Stage Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach with Grey Theory: A Case Study in Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Pham Ngoc Toan

    (School of Accounting, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City 740500, Vietnam)

  • Thanh-Tuan Dang

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 80778, Taiwan)

  • Le Thi Thu Hong

    (School of Accounting, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City 740500, Vietnam)

Abstract

Education has changed dramatically due to the severe global pandemic COVID-19, with the phenomenal growth of e-learning, whereby teaching is undertaken remotely and on digital platforms. E-learning is revolutionizing education systems, as it remains the only option during the ongoing crisis and has tremendous potential to fulfill instructional plans and safeguard students’ learning rights. The selection of e-learning platforms is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem. Expert analyses over numerous criteria and alternatives are usually linguistic terms, which can be represented through grey numbers. This article proposes an integrated approach of grey analytic hierarchy process (G-AHP) and grey technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (G-TOPSIS) to evaluate the best e-learning website for network teaching. This introduced approach handles the linguistic evaluation of experts based on grey systems theory, estimates the relative importance of evaluation criteria with the G-AHP method, and acquires e-learning websites’ ranking utilizing G-TOPSIS. The applicability and superiority of the presented method are illustrated through a practical e-learning website selection case in Vietnam. From G-AHP analysis, educational level, price, right and understandable content, complete content, and up-to-date were found as the most impactful criteria. From G-TOPSIS, Edumall is the best platform. Comparisons are conducted with other MCDM methods; the priority orders of the best websites are similar, indicating the robust proposed methodology. The proposed integrated model in this study supports the stakeholders in selecting the most effective e-learning environments and could be a reference for further development of e-learning teaching-learning systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Pham Ngoc Toan & Thanh-Tuan Dang & Le Thi Thu Hong, 2021. "E-Learning Platform Assessment and Selection Using Two-Stage Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach with Grey Theory: A Case Study in Vietnam," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(23), pages 1-20, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:23:p:3136-:d:695501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/23/3136/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/23/3136/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ebru Turanoglu Bekar & Mehmet Cakmakci & Cengiz Kahraman, 2016. "Fuzzy COPRAS method for performance measurement in total productive maintenance: a comparative analysis," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 663-684, September.
    2. Sindhu, Sonal & Nehra, Vijay & Luthra, Sunil, 2017. "Investigation of feasibility study of solar farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: Case study of India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 496-511.
    3. Abdul Hafeez Muhammad & Ansar Siddique & Ahmed E. Youssef & Kashif Saleem & Basit Shahzad & Adnan Akram & Al-Batool Saleh Al-Thnian, 2020. "A Hierarchical Model to Evaluate the Quality of Web-Based E-Learning Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Finn, Thomas & McKenzie, Paul, 2020. "A high-resolution suitability index for solar farm location in complex landscapes," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 520-533.
    3. Sward, Jeffrey A. & Nilson, Roberta S. & Katkar, Venktesh V. & Stedman, Richard C. & Kay, David L. & Ifft, Jennifer E. & Zhang, K. Max, 2021. "Integrating social considerations in multicriteria decision analysis for utility-scale solar photovoltaic siting," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    4. Pratibha Rani & Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Abbas Mardani & Fausto Cavallaro & Dalia Štreimikienė & Syed Abdul Rehman Khan, 2020. "Pythagorean Fuzzy SWARA–VIKOR Framework for Performance Evaluation of Solar Panel Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Besharati Fard, Moein & Moradian, Parisa & Emarati, Mohammadreza & Ebadi, Mehdi & Gholamzadeh Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad & Klemeŝ, Jiří Jaromír, 2022. "Ground-mounted photovoltaic power station site selection and economic analysis based on a hybrid fuzzy best-worst method and geographic information system: A case study Guilan province," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    6. Hui Gao & Linggang Ran & Guiwu Wei & Cun Wei & Jiang Wu, 2020. "VIKOR Method for MAGDM Based on Q-Rung Interval-Valued Orthopair Fuzzy Information and Its Application to Supplier Selection of Medical Consumption Products," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-14, January.
    7. Dae-Ho Byun & Han-Na Yang & Dong-Seop Chung, 2020. "Evaluation of Mobile Applications Usability of Logistics in Life Startups," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, October.
    8. Seker, Sukran & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2021. "Socio-economic evaluation model for sustainable solar PV panels using a novel integrated MCDM methodology: A case in Turkey," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. Diemuodeke, E.O. & Addo, A. & Oko, C.O.C. & Mulugetta, Y. & Ojapah, M.M., 2019. "Optimal mapping of hybrid renewable energy systems for locations using multi-criteria decision-making algorithm," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 461-477.
    10. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin & Yue, Wen Long & Zou, Xin, 2019. "Multi-criteria analysis of policies for implementing clean energy vehicles in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 826-840.
    11. Romero-Ramos, J.A. & Gil, J.D. & Cardemil, J.M. & Escobar, R.A. & Arias, I. & Pérez-García, M., 2023. "A GIS-AHP approach for determining the potential of solar energy to meet the thermal demand in southeastern Spain productive enclaves," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    12. Batur Sir, G. Didem & Çalışkan, Emre, 2019. "Assessment of development regions for financial support allocation with fuzzy decision making: A case of Turkey," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 161-169.
    13. Singh Doorga, Jay Rovisham & Rughooputh, Soonil D.D.V. & Boojhawon, Ravindra, 2019. "High resolution spatio-temporal modelling of solar photovoltaic potential for tropical islands: Case of Mauritius," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 972-987.
    14. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur & Mukul, Esin, 2018. "A novel renewable energy selection model for United Nations' sustainable development goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PA), pages 290-302.
    15. Hosseini Dehshiri, Seyyed Shahabaddin & Firoozabadi, Bahar, 2022. "A new application of measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) in solar site location for electricity and hydrogen production: A case study in the southern clim," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(PB).
    16. Tsai, Pei-Hsuan & Chen, Chih-Jou & Hsiao, Wei-Hung & Lin, Chin-Tsai, 2023. "Factors influencing the consumers’ behavioural intention to use online food delivery service: Empirical evidence from Taiwan," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    17. Shahriyar Nasirov & Eugenio Cruz & Claudio A. Agostini & Carlos Silva, 2019. "Policy Makers’ Perspectives on the Expansion of Renewable Energy Sources in Chile’s Electricity Auctions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, October.
    18. Naeini, Mina Alavi & Zandieh, Mostafa & Najafi, Seyyed Esmaeil & Sajadi, Seyed Mojtaba, 2020. "Analyzing the development of the third-generation biodiesel production from microalgae by a novel hybrid decision-making method: The case of Iran," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    19. Majid H. Alsulami & Mashael M. Khayyat & Omar I. Aboulola & Mohammed S. Alsaqer, 2021. "Development of an Approach to Evaluate Website Effectiveness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-15, December.
    20. Nihit Goyal, 2021. "Limited Demand or Unreliable Supply? A Bibliometric Review and Computational Text Analysis of Research on Energy Policy in India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-23, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:23:p:3136-:d:695501. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.