A Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approach to Designing Teaching Plans in Higher Education Institutions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methods
3.1. Description of the Method and Justification
3.2. Assessment 1: Assessment of the Competences by the Students
- Criteria Rank: the students assign marks to each competence using a number from 1 to V (V ≤ C), where C is the number of competences or criteria in order of relevance.
- Conjoint Result: the calculation of the weight is based on [36]. For the C criteria and competences, ns students and votes, the largest score (for the criteria c when you get a score th in the preferences) is defined as a result of the maximum of the sum of the votes for the th criteria.
- Rule of priority: the weights obtain the value , i.e., only the first option of each participant is considered = 1.
- Borda count: each participant ranks their preferences of the C criteria and competences, assigning votes to the preferred candidate, to the second choice and, finally 1 to the least preferred candidate.
3.3. Assessment 2: Assessment of the Contribution of Teaching Strategies for Each Competence by the Lecturers
3.4. Final Results: Provide a Rank That Highlights the Best Fitting Teaching Strategies Capable of Obtaining the Competences Most Preferred by the Students
4. Case Study
5. Results and Discussion
6. Conclusions
7. Limitations and Recommendations
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Živković, Ž.; Nikolić, D.; Savić, M.; Djordjević, P.; Mihajlović, I. Prioritizing Strategic Goals in Higher Education Organizations by Using a SWOT–PROMETHEE/GAIA–GDSS Model. Group Decis. Negot. 2017, 26, 829–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Vught, F.; Huisman, J. Institutional profiles: Some strategic tools. Tuning J. High. Educ. 2014, 1, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Waeraas, A.; Solbakk, M.N. Defining the essence of a university: Lessons from higher education branding. High. Educ. 2009, 57, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CESAER. Next Generation Metrics. White Paper Dated 10 June 2020. Available online: https://www.cesaer.org/content/5-operations/2020/20200610-white-next-generation-metrics.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2020).
- Real Decreto 1393/2007, de 29 de Octubre, por el que se Establece la Ordenación de las Enseñanzas Universitarias Oficiales; AEBOE: Madrid, Spain.
- Todose, D. Education management in knowledge based society. Contemp. Econ. 2008, 2, 109–117. [Google Scholar]
- Dollinger, M.; Lodge, J.; Coates, H. Co-creation in higher education: Towards a conceptual model. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2018, 28, 210–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leal-Rodriguez, A.L.; Albort-Morant, G. Promoting innovative experiential learning practices to improve academic performance: Empirical evidence from a Spanish Business School. J. Innov. Knowl. 2019, 4, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ANECA, 2015. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Available online: https://enqa.eu/indirme/esg/ESG%20in%20Spanish_by%20ANECA.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2020).
- Martínez-Caro, E.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.C.; Cepeda-Carrión, G. An application on the performance-evaluation model for e-learning quality in higher education. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2014, 26, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevenson, S.; MacKeogh, K.; Sander, P. Working with student expectations of tutor support in distance education: Testing an expectations-led quality assurance model. Open Learn. 2006, 21, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sander, P.; Stevenson, K.; King, M.; Coates, D. University students’ expectations of teaching. Stud. High. Educ. 2000, 25, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felder, R.M.; Brent, R. Understanding student differences. J. Eng. Educ. 2005, 94, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lea, S.J.; Stephenson, D.; Troy, J. Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond èducational bulimiá? Stud. High. Educ. 2003, 28, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koenen, A.K.; Dochy, F.; Berghmans, I. A phenomenographic analysis of the implementation of competence-based education in higher education. Teach. Lect. Educ. 2015, 50, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montalvo, S.; Palomo, J. Bridging the gap between teaching and breaking news: A new approach based on ESHE and ICT. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 9, 1423–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De la Orden, C.; Palomo, J.; Figueroa-Domecq, C. Improving learning by motivating students to read the news using ICT. Glob. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2017, 7, 89–98. [Google Scholar]
- Nafría, J.M.D.; Cendón, J.A.; Alonso, L.P. Building up eParticipatory decision-making from the local to the global scale. Study case at the European Higher Education Area. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 47, 26–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visser-Wijnveen, G.J.; van der Rijst, R.M.; van Driel, J.H. A questionnaire to capture students’ perceptions of research integration in their courses. High. Educ. 2016, 71, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bergsmann, E.; Schultes, M.T.; Winter, P.; Schober, B.; Spiel, C. Evaluation of competence-based teaching in higher education: From theory to practice. Eval. Program Plan. 2015, 52, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EHEA Rome. 2020. Available online: http://ehea.info/Upload/Rome_Ministerial_Communique_Annex_III.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2020).
- Turan, F.K.; Cetinkaya, S.; Ustun, C. A methodological framework to analyze stakeholder preferences and propose strategic pathways for a sustainable university. High. Educ. 2016, 72, 743–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henri, D.C.; Morrell, L.J.; Scott, G.W. Student perceptions of their autonomy at University. High. Educ. 2017, 75, 507–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Segovia-Pérez, M.; Laguna-Sánchez, P.; de la Fuente-Cabrero, C. Education for Sustainable Leadership: Fostering Women’s Empowerment at the University Level. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Laguna-Sánchez, P.; Abad, P.; de la Fuente-Cabrero, C.; Calero, R. A University Training Programme for Acquiring Entrepreneurial and Transversal Employability Skills, a Students’ Assessment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- González, J.; Wagenaar, R. Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Final Report. Phase One; Universidad de Deusto: Bilbao, Spain, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kampt, A. CESAER, 2019. Science & Technology Education for 21st Century Europe. Available online: https://www.cesaer.org/content/5-operations/2019/20191218-discussion-paper-st-education.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2020).
- Hartog, J.; Vijverberg, W. Schools, skills and risk. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2007, 26, 758–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broadbent, J.; Poon, W.L. Self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. Internet High. Educ. 2015, 27, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, A. Development as Freedom; Oxford Paperbacks: Oxford, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Ossadnik, W.; Schinke, S.; Kaspar, R.H. Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: A comparative analysis. Group Decis. Negot. 2016, 25, 421–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Castro-Pardo, M.; Martínez, P.F.; Martínez, J.M.G.; Martín, J.M.M. Modelling Natural Capital: A Proposal for a Mixed Multi-criteria Approach to Assign Management Priorities to Ecosystem Services. Contemp. Econ. 2020, 14, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández Martínez, P.; de Castro-Pardo, M.; Martín Barroso, V.; Azevedo, J.C. Assessing Sustainable Rural Development Based on Ecosystem Services Vulnerability. Land 2020, 9, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turan, F.K.; Needy, K.L. A quantitative decision model towards maximizing organizational sustainability. Eng. Manag. J. 2013, 25, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vaidya, O.S.; Kumar, S. Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2006, 169, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.M. Goal Programming for Decision Analysis; Auerbach Publishers: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1972; pp. 252–260. [Google Scholar]
- Zadeh, L. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaya, İ.; Çolak, M.; Terzi, F. A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019, 24, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. Decision making—The analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2004, 13, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zare, M.; Pahl, C.; Rahnama, H.; Nilashi, M.; Mardani, A.; Ibrahim, O.; Ahmadi, H. Multi-criteria decision making approach in E-learning: A systematic review and classification. Appl. Soft Comput. 2016, 45, 108–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shee, D.Y.; Wang, Y.S. Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: A methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Comput. Educ. 2008, 50, 894–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, T.C.; Ho, H.P.; Chang, C.T. Evaluation Model for Applying an E-Learning System in a Course: An Analytic Hierarchy Process—Multi-Choice Goal Programming Approach. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2014, 50, 135–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chao, R.; Chen, Y. Evaluation of the criteria and effectiveness of distance e-learning with consistent fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 10657–10662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.F. An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 877–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennedy, G.E.; Cutts, Q.I. The association between students’ use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2005, 21, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenwood, N.A.; Howard, J.R. First Contact: Teaching and Learning in Introductory Sociology; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Noguchi, H.; Ogawa, M.; Ishii, H. The appropriate total ranking method using DEA for multiple categorized purposes. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2002, 146, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fuh-Hwa, F.; Hui, L.H. The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting supplier. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2005, 97, 308–317. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.H.; Tennyson, R.D.; Hsia, T.L. A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marttunen, M.; Lienert, J.; Belton, V. Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Practice: A Literature Review of Method Combinations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 263, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Castro-Pardo, M.; Urios, V. A critical review of multi-criteria decision making in protected areas. Econ. Agrar. Y Recur. Nat. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2017, 16, 89–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Menezes, M.B.; da Silveira, G.J.; Drezner, Z. Democratic elections and centralized decisions: Condorcet and Approval Voting compared with Median and Coverage locations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 253, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Castro-Pardo, M.; de la Fuente-Cabrero, C.; Laguna-Sanchez, P.; Perez-Rodriguez, F. Combining AHP and Goal Programming in the context of the assessment of e-learning. Int. J. Anal. Hierarchy Process 2019, 11, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurmi, H. Voting procedures: A summary analysis. Br. J. Political Sci. 1983, 13, 181–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guaita Martínez, J.M.; Martín Martín, J.M.; Ostos Rey, M.S.; de Castro Pardo, M. Constructing Knowledge Economy Composite Indicators using an MCA-DEA approach. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2020, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Gibari, S.; Gómez, T.; Ruiz, F. Building composite indicators using multicriteria methods: A review. J. Bus. Econ. 2019, 89, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez Gómez, G.; Ibarra Saiz, M.S.; Cubero Ibáñez, J. Competencias básicas relacionadas con la evaluación. Un estudio sobre la percepción de los estudiantes universitarios. [Basic competences related to assessment: A study about university students’ perception]. Educ. Xx1 2018, 2, 181–208. [Google Scholar]
- Abrahams, I.; Millar, R. Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2008, 30, 1945–1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bautista, I. Generic competences acquisition through classroom activities in first-year agricultural engineering students. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2016, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crebert, G.; Bates, M.; Bell, B.; Patrick, C.J.; Cragnolini, V. Developing Generic Skills at University, during Work Placement and in Employement: Graduates′ Perceptions 2004. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.4757&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 8 December 2020).
- Ajjawi, R.; Tai, J.; Huu Nghia, T.L.; Boud, D.; Johnson, L.; Patrick, C.J. Aligning assessment with the needs of work-integrated learning: The challenges of authentic assessment in a complex context. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2020, 45, 304–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rudduck, J.; Fielding, M. Student voice and the perils of popularity. Educ. Rev. 2006, 58, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- British Educational Research Association (BERA). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, 4th ed.; BERA: London, UK, 2018; Available online: https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018 (accessed on 9 December 2020).
Degree | Participants | Stage |
---|---|---|
BAM | 76 | Third Year |
Law and BAM | 43 | Fourth Year |
Tourism and BAM | 50 | Fourth Year |
APR and BMA | 36 | Fourth Year |
Others | 6 | - |
Competences | Type | Description |
---|---|---|
GC1—Capacity for analysis and synthesis | Generic | Identify and describe the elements of a reality and organize the most significant information based on pre-defined criteria. |
GC2—Information management skills | Generic | Ability to retrieve and analyze information from different sources and use it efficiently to solve a problem, make a decision and be able to communicate it |
GC3—Decision making | Generic | Analyze a problem and choose between different alternatives to optimize the expected result as a result of the action |
GC4—Capacity to learn | Generic | Assimilation of new information and being able to apply it efficiently |
GC5—Ability to work autonomously | Generic | Work autonomously without support |
GC6—Capacity to apply knowledge practically | Generic | Contextualize and adapt theoretical contents in real situations |
GC7—Problem solving | Generic | Identify difficulties in the development of a project and choose an alternative way to solve it |
SC1—Comprehension of financial operations in the business environment | Specific | Select the best information to understand the financial operations in a business framework |
SC2—Problem solving regarding financial valuation | Specific | Learning, understanding and applying knowledge and contributing towards intellectual autonomy in a framework of financial valuation. |
Teaching Strategies | Description |
---|---|
R1—Theoretical lessons | Traditional classes to explain theoretical contents |
R2—Practical lessons | Traditional classes to solve problems, practical exercises and case studies. |
R3—Group activities | Group homework or classroom based group work |
R4—Group presentations | Presentations of the projects to a classroom audience |
R5—Activities related to the subject | Conferences, seminars. |
Competences | 1º | 2º | 3º | 4º | 5º | 6º | 7º | 8º | 9º | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SC1 | 33 | 30 | 36 | 13 | 16 | 17 | 15 | 31 | 20 | 211 |
SC2 | 28 | 35 | 22 | 26 | 20 | 19 | 25 | 20 | 16 | 211 |
GC1 | 1 | 10 | 20 | 22 | 18 | 32 | 32 | 30 | 46 | 211 |
GC2 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 24 | 37 | 34 | 34 | 36 | 26 | 211 |
GC3 | 23 | 17 | 33 | 30 | 46 | 26 | 19 | 9 | 8 | 211 |
GC4 | 25 | 20 | 18 | 25 | 25 | 33 | 26 | 24 | 15 | 211 |
GC5 | 21 | 18 | 26 | 16 | 18 | 19 | 30 | 22 | 41 | 211 |
GC6 | 50 | 37 | 21 | 26 | 15 | 13 | 11 | 21 | 17 | 211 |
GC7 | 26 | 38 | 25 | 29 | 16 | 18 | 19 | 18 | 22 | 211 |
Total | 211 | 211 | 211 | 211 | 211 | 211 | 211 | 211 | 211 |
Students | Lecturers (Teaching Strategies) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Competences | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 |
SC1 [4 (0.102)] | 1 (0.264) | 3 (0.146) | 9 (0.041) | 7 (0.045) | 4 (0.101) |
SC2 [8 (0.087)] | 2 (0.138) | 1 (0.276) | 8 (0.067) | 9 (0.041) | 8 (0.086) |
GC1 [5 (0.092)] | 5 (0.100) | 6 (0.064) | 7 (0.082) | 1 (0.243) | 5 (0.091) |
GC2 [7 (0.087)] | 7 (0.073) | 7 (0.060) | 2 (0.157) | 2 (0.211) | 7 (0.088) |
GC3 [9 (0.040)] | 6 (0.083) | 8 (0.058) | 3 (0.143) | 3 (0.133) | 9 (0.055) |
GC4 [3 (0.110)] | 3 (0.123) | 5 (0.067) | 6 (0.100) | 6 (0.086) | 3 (0.109) |
GC5 [2 (0.171)] | 4 (0.111) | 9 (0.048) | 5 (0.115) | 4 (0.108) | 2 (0.167) |
GC6 [1 (0.222)] | 8 (0.062) | 2 (0.171) | 1 (0.169) | 5 (0.091) | 1 (0.216) |
GC7 [6 (0.089)] | 9 (0.046) | 4 (0.109) | 4 (0.125) | 8 (0.042) | 7 (0.088) |
Final score | 0.108174 | 0.115573 | 0.116242 | 0.106058 | 0.132343 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Laguna-Sánchez, P.; Palomo, J.; de la Fuente-Cabrero, C.; de Castro-Pardo, M. A Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approach to Designing Teaching Plans in Higher Education Institutions. Mathematics 2021, 9, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9010009
Laguna-Sánchez P, Palomo J, de la Fuente-Cabrero C, de Castro-Pardo M. A Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approach to Designing Teaching Plans in Higher Education Institutions. Mathematics. 2021; 9(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9010009
Chicago/Turabian StyleLaguna-Sánchez, Pilar, Jesús Palomo, Concepción de la Fuente-Cabrero, and Mónica de Castro-Pardo. 2021. "A Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approach to Designing Teaching Plans in Higher Education Institutions" Mathematics 9, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9010009