Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Normalization in TOPSIS-based approaches with data of different nature: application to the ranking of mathematical videos

  • S.I.: MOPGP 2017
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

YouTube is the largest Internet video-sharing site in the world and in the last years it has become an important learning resource making educational contents accessible for hundreds of millions of people around the world, from developed and developing countries, allowing students to watch contents on demand. The utility of the performance assessment and ranking of educational videos available in You Tube goes beyond the simple control of the correctness and precision of the instructional contents. It requires considering other important didactical features as waste of time in the exposition, empathy with the user and the degree of adaptation of the contents to the educational context. In this paper a ranking method for instructional videos will be proposed, taking into account decision criteria of different nature: precise and imprecise and a reference solution (ideal solution). The decision matrix describing the assessment of videos with respect to each criterion will be formed by data of diverse nature: real numbers, intervals on the real line and/or linguistic or sets of categorical variables. Classical normalization procedures do not always take into account situations where the different nature of the data of the decision matrix could make the ranking of the alternatives quite unstable. A new normalization method will be proposed allowing us to mitigate this problem. Through this normalization procedure, the nature of the transformed normalized data will reflect the similarity of each alternative with the reference solution becoming thus, the decision matrix of homogeneous nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Own elaboration

Fig. 2

Source: Own elaboration

Fig. 3

Source: Adapted from Gerstein (2011)

Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amiri, M., Zandieh, M., Soltani, R., & Vahdani, B. (2009). A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for firms’ competence evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 12314–12322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai, C., Dhavale, D., & Sarkis, J. (2014). Integrating Fuzzy C-Means and TOPSIS for performance evaluation: An application and comparative analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 4186–4196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa, C., & Vansnick, J. (2008). A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 187(3), 1422–1428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in the digital age. Resource document. Tony Bates Associates Ltd. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/. Accessed November 4, 2017.

  • Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(7), 13051–13069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton, V., & Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cables, E., Lamata, M. T., & Verdegay, J. L. (2016). RIM-reference ideal method in multicriteria decision making. Information Sciences, 337–338, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canós, L., Casasús, T., Liern, V., & Pérez, J. C. (2014). Soft computing methods for personnel selection based on the valuation of competences. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 29, 1079–1099.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and applications (Vol. 375). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1978). Fuzzy sets and systems theory and applications. Mathematics in science and engineering (Vol. 14). London: Academic Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dymova, L., Sevastjanov, P., & Tikhonenko, A. (2013). An approach to generalization of fuzzy TOPSIS method. Information Sciences, 238, 149–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emrouznejad, A., & Marra, M. (2017). The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017), a literature review with a social network analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 55(22), 6653–6675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertugrul, I., & Karakasglu, N. (2008). Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 39, 783–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Cascales, M. S., & Lamata, M. T. (2012). On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Mathematical Computing and Modelling, 56(5–6), 123–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendall, P., & Hoek, J. (1990). A question of wording. Marketing Bulletin, 5, 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstein, J. (2011). The flipped classroom model: A full picture. Resource document. http://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/the-flipped-classroommodel-a-full-picture. Accessed January 15, 2015.

  • Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., & Font, V. (2007). The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(1–2), 127–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. L@S 2014 March 4–5 2014, Atlanta, Georgia. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556325.256639.

  • Hansch, A., Hillers, L., McConachie, K., Newman, C., Schildhauer, T., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Video and online learning: Critical reflections from the field. Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society. Discussion paper series, 13. Resource document. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2577882. Accessed October 16, 2017.

  • Huang, J. H., & Peng, K. H. (2012). Fuzzy Rasch model in TOPSIS: A new approach for generating fuzzy numbers to assess the competitiveness of the tourism industries in Asian countries. Tourism Management, 33(2), 456–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, H. (2012). Introduction to flipping the college classroom. In T. Amiel, & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2012 (pp. 2434–2438). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications a state of the art survey. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 14336–14345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka, A., & Lusti, M. (2006). How to derive priorities in AHP: A comparative study. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 14, 387–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isiklar, G., & Büyüközkan, G. (2007). Using a multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 29, 265–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahanshahloo, G. R., Lotfi, F. H., & Izadikhah, M. (2006). An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 175, 1375–1384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaltura. (2015). The state of video in education. Resource document. New York: Kaltura. http://site.kaltura.com/rs/984-SDM859/images/The_State_of_Video_in_Education_2015_a_Kaltura_Report.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2017.

  • Kapoun, J. (1998). Teaching undergrads WEB evaluation: A guide for library instruction. C&RL News, (July/August 1998), 522–523.

  • KarimiAzari, A. R., Mousavi, N., Mousavi, S. F., & Hosseini, S. B. (2011). Risk assessment model selection in construction industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 9105–9111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, A., & Gupta, M. M. (1988). Fuzzy mathematical models in engineering and management science. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koumi, J. (2003). Synergy between audio commentary and visuals in multimedia packages. Journal of Educational Media, 28(1), 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koumi, J. (2006). Designing video and multimedia for open and flexible learning. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laaser, W. (1999). Technologies for distance education in developing countries. In S. Mitter, M.-I. Bastos, & A. Bartzokas (Eds.), Europe and developing countries in the world information economy. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laazer, W., & Toloza, E. (2007). The changing role of the educational video in higher distance education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 118(2), 264–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, D. F. (2010). TOPSIS-based nonlinear-programming methodology for multiattributes decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 18(2), 299–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liern, V., & Pérez-Gladish, B. (2018). Measuring geographical appropriateness for impact investing. In C. Corona (Ed.), Soft computing for sustainability science studies in fuzziness and soft computing series (pp. 163–178). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. L., Hsieh, M. S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2010). Evaluating vehicle telematics system by using a novel MCDM technique with dependence and feedback. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 6723–6736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouenniche, J., Pérez-Gladish, B., & Bouslah, K. (2017). An out-of-sample framework for TOPSIS-based classifiers with application in bankruptcy prediction. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlicic, D. (2001). Normalization affects the results of MADM methods. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 11(2), 251–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Y., Wang, G., Kou, G., & Shi, Y. (2011). An empirical study of classification algorithm evaluation for financial risk prediction. Applied Soft Computing, 11, 2906–2915.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pino-Fan, L., Assis, A., & Castro, W. F. (2015). Towards a methodology for the characterization of teachers’ didactic-mathematical knowledge. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(6), 1429–1456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (2005). ‘‘The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making’’, Process: What the AHP is and what it is not. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Ehgott (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 345–407). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sankey, M. D, & Hunt, L. (2013). Using technology to enable flipped classrooms whilst sustaining sound pedagogy. In H. Carter, M. Gosper, & J. Hedberg (Eds.), Electric dreams. Proceedings Ascilite 2013 (pp. 785–795). Sydney.

  • Santos-Mellado, J. A., Acuña-Soto, C. M., Blasco-Blasco, O., & Liern, V. (2017). Use of maths video tutorials. What are the users looking for? In Proceedings 9th annual international conference on education and new learning technologies (pp. 8536–8541).

  • Secme, N. Y., Bayrakdaroglu, A., & Kahraman, C. (2009). Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 11699–11709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shyur, H. J. (2006). COTS evaluation using modified TOPSIS and ANP. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 177, 251–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, C. C. (2010). A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 7745–7754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, C. C., & Lin, G. T. R. (2009). Using fuzzy TOPSIS method for evaluating the competitive advantages of shopping websites. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 11764–11771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vahdani, B., Hadipour, H., & Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. (2012). Soft computing based on interval valued fuzzy ANP—A novel methodology. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(5), 1529–1544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vest, J. (2009). Six steps to creating high quality video training. Resource document. Learning Solutions Magazine. http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/185/. Accessed October 12, 2017.

  • Wang, Y. J. (2014). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model by associating technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution with relative preference relation. Information Sciences, 268, 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Chin, K. S., & Luo, Y. (2009). Aggregation of direct and indirect judgements in pairwise comparison matrices with a re-examination of the criticisms by Bana e Costa and Vansnick. Information Sciences, 179, 329–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. S., Lin, C. T., & Lee, C. (2010). Optimal marketing strategy: A decision making with ANP and TOPSIS. International Journal of Production Economics, 127, 190–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. R., Lin, C. T., & Lin, Y. F. (2009). Selecting the preferable bank assurance strategic alliance by using expert group decision technique. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 3623–3629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C. L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making an introduction. New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, X., Guo, S., Guo, J., & Huang, X. (2011). Rank B2C e-commerce websites in e-alliance based on AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 3550–3557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zandi, F., & Tavana, M. (2011). A fuzzy group quality function deployment model for e-CRM framework assessment in agile manufacturing. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zappe, S., Leicht, R., Messner, J., Litzinger, T., & Lee, H. W. (2009). ‘Flipping’ the classroom to explore active learning in a large undergraduate course. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education annual conference, Portland, Oregon.

  • Zavadskas, E. K., Peldschus, F., & Ustinovichius, L. (2003). Development of software for multiple criteria evaluation. Informatica, 14(2), 259–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, W., & Guo, P. (2008). Normalized distance, similarity measure, inclusion measure and entropy of interval-valued fuzzy sets and their relationship. Information Sciences, 178, 1334–1342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, H., Xia, H., Wang, W., & Wang, R. (2015). Approach of ICT in education for rural development: Good practices from developing countries. New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., Gao, L., Shao, X., Wen, L., & Zhi, J. (2010). A PSO-fuzzy group decision making support system in vehicle performance evaluation. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 52, 1921–1931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, H. J. (1996). Fuzzy set theory. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zyoud, S. H., & Fuchs-Hanusch, D. (2017). A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 78, 158–181.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratorio Iberoamericano para la valoración de procesos educativos de la enseñanza de la matemática (LAPIBE), Matemática Educativa, CINVESTAV – Instituto Politécnico Nacional, México, Av. Instituto Politécnico Nacional 2508, 07360, Mexico City, Mexico

    C. Acuña-Soto

  2. Laboratorio Iberoamericano para la valoración de procesos educativos de la enseñanza de la matemática (LAPIBE), Matemáticas para la Economía y la Empresa, Universidad de Valencia, Avda. Tarongers, 46022, Valencia, Spain

    V. Liern

  3. Dpt. Quantitative Economics, University of Oviedo, Avda. del Cristo s/n, 33006, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain

    B. Pérez-Gladish

Authors
  1. C. Acuña-Soto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. Liern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Pérez-Gladish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Pérez-Gladish.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

Table 12 Individual decision matrices for the qualitative criteria
Full size table
Table 13 Consensual decision matrix for the qualitative criteria
Full size table
Table 14 Decision matrix for the quantitative criteria
Full size table
Table 15 Normalized decision matrix
Full size table
Table 16 Weighted decision matrix
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Acuña-Soto, C., Liern, V. & Pérez-Gladish, B. Normalization in TOPSIS-based approaches with data of different nature: application to the ranking of mathematical videos. Ann Oper Res 296, 541–569 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2945-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2945-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation