The Use of a DANP with VIKOR Approach for Establishing the Model of E-Learning Service Quality
Chiu-Hung Su 2  
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, TAIWAN
2
Hwa Hsia University of Technology, TAIWAN
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Chiu-Hung Su   

Department of Electrical Engineering, Hwa Hsia University of Technology, Taiwan. No.111, Gongzhuan Rd., Zhonghe Dist., New Taipei City 235, Taiwan. Tel: +886-2-894151003325
Online publish date: 2017-08-23
Publish date: 2017-08-23
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(8):5927–5937
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
In practical environments, e-learners encounter service providers of varying quality. A wide range of criteria are used to assess service quality, but most of these criteria have interdependent or interactive characteristics, which can make it difficult to effectively analyze and improve service quality. The purpose of this study is to address this issue using a hybrid MCDM (multiple criteria decision-making) approach that includes the DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory), DANP (the DEMATEL-based analytic network process) and VIKOR methods to achieve an optimal solution. By exploring the influential interrelationships between criteria related to e-learning, this approach can be used to solve interdependence and feedback problems, allowing for greater satisfaction of the actual needs of e-learners.
 
REFERENCES (38)
1.
Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: an empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 159–174. doi:10.2307/249763.
 
2.
Bernroider, E. W. N. (2008). IT governance for enterprise resource planning supported by the DeLone–McLean model of information systems success. Information & Management, 45(5), 257–269. doi:10.1016/j.im.2007.11.004.
 
3.
Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical Success Factors for E-Learning in Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis between ICT Experts and Faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843-855.
 
4.
Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299–305. doi:10.1002/asi.20277.
 
5.
Casarotti, M., Pieti, L., & Sartori, R. (2002). Educational interaction in distance learning: Analysis of a one-way video and two-way audio system. PsychNology Journal, 1(1).
 
6.
Chao, R. J., & Chen, Y. H. (2009). Evaluation of the criteria and effectiveness of distance E-Learning with consistent fuzzy preference relations. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 10657–10662. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.02.047.
 
7.
Chen, F. H., Tzeng, G. H., & Hsu, T. S. (2011). A balanced scorecard approach to establish a performance evaluation and relationship model for hot spring hotels based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL and ANP. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 908-932. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.02.001.
 
8.
de Jong, A. J. M., & van Joolingen, W. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201. doi:10.3102/00346543068002179.
 
9.
Grönlund, Å, & Islam, Y. M. (2020). A mobile e-learning environment for developing countries: the Bangladesh virtual interactive classroom. Information Technology for Development, 16(4), 244–259. doi:10.1080/02681101003746490.
 
10.
Hsieh, M.Y. (2016). Online Learning Era: Exploring the Most Decisive Determinants of MOOCs in Taiwanese Higher Education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(5), 1163–1188. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1504a.
 
11.
Hsueh, S. L., & Su, F. L. (2016). Critical Factors That Influence the Success of Cultivating Seed Teachers in Environmental Education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(11), 2817–2833. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.02306a.
 
12.
Horton, W., & Horton, K. (2003). E-learning tools and technologies: A consumer's guide for trainers, teachers, educators and instructional designers, Wiley & Sons.
 
13.
Huang, C. Y., Shyu, J. Z., & Tzeng, G. H. (2007). Reconfiguring the innovation policy portfolios for Taiwan's SIP mall industry. Technovation, 27(12), 744-765. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.04.002.
 
14.
Iivari, J. (2005). An empirical test of the DeLone–McLean model of information system success. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 36(2), 8–27. doi:10.1145/1066149.1066152.
 
15.
Keramati, A., Afshari-Mofrad, M., & Kamrani, A. (2011). The role of readiness factors in E-learning outcomes: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1919–1929. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.005.
 
16.
Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M., & Chen, G. D. (2007). An activity-theoretical approach to investigate learners’ factors toward e-learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1906–1920. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.02.
 
17.
Liu, C. H., Tzeng, G. H., & Lee, M. H. (2012). Improving tourism policy implementation-The use of hybrid MCDM models. Tourism Management, 33(2), 413-426. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.05.002.
 
18.
McQuail, D. (1994). Mass communication theory: An introduction. London: Sage.
 
19.
Opricovic, S. (1998) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 2, 5–21.
 
20.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2002). Multicriteria planning of post-earthquake sustainable reconstruction. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 17(3), 211-220. doi:10.1111/1467-8667.00269.
 
21.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2003). Fuzzy multicriteria model for post-earthquake land-use planning. Natural Hazards Review, 4(2), 59-64. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988.
 
22.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
 
23.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514-529. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020.
 
24.
Ou Yang, Y. P., Shieh, H. M., & Leu, J. D. (2009). A VIKOR-based multiple criteria decision method for improving information security risk. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 8(2), 267–287. doi:10.1142/S0219622009003375.
 
25.
Ou Yang, Y. P., Shieh, H. M., Leu, J. D., Tzeng, G. H. (2008). A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. International Journal of Operations Research, 5(3), 160-168. doi:10.1080/14783361003606852.
 
26.
Rosenberg, M. J., & Foshay, R. (2001). E-Learning: Strategies for Delivery Knowledge in the Digital Age, MaGraw-Hill, doi:10.1002/pfi.4140410512.
 
27.
Saade, R., Bahli, B. (2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42(2), 317–327. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.12.013.
 
28.
Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
 
29.
Sun, P.-C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.-Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007.
 
30.
Tsai, W. H., Chou, W. C., & Hsu, W. (2009). The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for selecting socially responsible investment: an effective MCDM model. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(10), 1396–1410. doi:10.1057/jors.2008.91.
 
31.
Tseng, M. L. (2010). August, Implementation and performance evaluation using fuzzy network balanced scorecard. Computers & Education, 55(1), 188-201. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.004.
 
32.
Tzeng, G. H., Lin, C. W., & Opricovic, S. (2005). Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy, 33(1), 1373-1383. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.014.
 
33.
Tzeng, G. H., Teng, M. H., Chen, J. J., & Opricovic, S. (2002). Multicriteria selection for a restaurant location in Taipei. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(2), 171-187. doi:10.1016/S0278-4319(02)00005-1.
 
34.
Tzeng, G. H., Tsaur, S. H., Laiw, Y. D., & Opricovic, S. (2002a). Multicriteria analysis of environmental quality in Taipei: Public preferences and improvement strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 65(2), 109-120. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0527.
 
35.
Wang, Y.-S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information & Management, 41(1), 75–86. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00028-4.
 
36.
Yang, C. L., Huang, C. Y., Kao, Y. S., & Tasi, Y. L. (2017). Disaster Recovery Site Evaluations and Selections for Information Systems of Academic Big Data. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(8), 4553–4589. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.00951a.
 
37.
Yang, J. L., & Tzeng, G. H. (2011). An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1417-1424. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.048.
 
38.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information and Management, 43(1), 15-27. doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.01.004.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215