Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approaches to Prioritize Teaching Solutions for Intellect Errors


Affiliations
1 Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


The teaching fraternity and intellects play an important role in students’ careers as they make students industry-ready. During their teaching, they make different types of errors. One of the neglected aspects during teaching is intellect errors and these directly or indirectly impact students learning capabilities. The scattered literature shows that there are twelve types of intellect errors like ‘error of coincidence’, ‘senses error’, ‘analogy error’, ‘subjectivity error’, etc. To minimize these errors, six solutions have been identified like ‘selection of right instruments’, ‘development of critical thinking in the students’, ‘aware about knowledge engineering development’ etc. This study aims to identify and prioritize the solutions to overcome the errors of the intellect that has been the ignored aspect of the teaching till now. A hybrid approach of fuzzy AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) and Fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) has been proposed to rank the solutions that minimize the intellect errors. Fuzzy AHP is used to compute the weights for intellect errors by doing the pairwise comparison and fuzzy TOPSIS is used to rank the identified solutions with the help of generated weights of fuzzy AHP. The results show that “error of proximity” and “senses error” are the highest and least rated intellect errors respectively. The topmost rated solution to handle errors of the intellect is “development of critical thinking in the students”.

Keywords

Intellect Errors, Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy TOPSIS, Industry-Ready.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Bambaeeroo, F., & Shokpour, N. (2017). The impact of the teachers’ non-verbal communication on success in teaching. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 5(2), 51–59.
  • Bezanilla, M. J., Fernández-Nogueira, D., Poblete, M., & Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2019). Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher’s view. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33 (February), 100584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584
  • Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2
  • Dr Revel Miller. (2019). The Life Wheel: 7 Aspects of Who You Are. Retrieved March 19, 2021, from http://www.drrevelmiller.com/
  • Huang, C., & Yoon, K. (1981). Attribute multiple decision making. Springer.
  • Javidmehr, M., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2015). Performance appraisal bias and errors: The influences and consequences. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 4(3), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2015.60464
  • Kalyani, D., & Rajasekaran, K. (2018). Innovative teaching and learning. JOurnal of Applied and Advanced Reserach, 3, S23–S25. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--12270
  • Kusumaningrum, D. E., Sumarsono, R. B., & Gunawan, I. (2019). Professional ethics and teacher teaching performance: Measurement of teacher empowerment with a soft system methodology approach. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 5(4), 611–624.
  • Nadeau, C., & Bengio, Y. (2003). Inference for the generalization error. Machine Learning, 52(3), 239–281.
  • Palanki, B. (2021). Errors of the Intellect : A neglected aspect in teaching. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 34(3), 109–113.
  • Patil, S. K., & Kant, R. (2014). A fuzzy AHPTOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Systems With Applications, 41(2), 679–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.093
  • Patterson, S. (2016). Descartes on the Errors of the Senses. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 78, 73–108.
  • Rahmawati, E., & Harun, H. (2019). Developing instruments of teacher’s perception of critical thinking in elementary school. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 13(4), 559. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v13i4.13232
  • Rampasso, I. S., Siqueira, R. G., Anholon, R., Silva, D., Quelhas, O. L. G., Leal Filho, W., & Brandli, L. L. (2019). Some of the challenges in implementing Education for Sustainable Development: perspectives from Brazilian engineering students. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 26(4), 367–376. https://doi.org /10.1080/13504509.2019.1570981
  • Renatovna, A. G. (2019). Modern Approaches to the Development of Critical thinking of Students. European Journal of Reserach and Reflection in Education Sciences, 7(10), 65–67. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2075113319060029
  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New Mc Graw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(87)90016-8
  • Sherpa, K. (2018). Importance of professional ethics for teachers. International Education & Research Journal, 4(3), 16–18.
  • Singh, P. K., & Sarkar, P. (2019). A framework based on fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS for prioritizing solutions to overcome the barriers in the implementation of ecodesign practices in SMEs. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 26(6), 506–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1605547
  • Sirisawat, P., & Kiatcharoenpol, T. (2018). Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches to prioritizing solutions for reverse logistics barriers. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 117(April 2017), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.01.015
  • Summers, J. S. (2017). Post hoc ergo propter hoc: some benefits of rationalization. Philosophical Explorations, 20, 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2017.1287292
  • Wolfson, R. J., & Carroll, T. M. (1976). Ignorance, error, and information in the classic theory of decision. Behavioral Science, 21(2), 107–115.

Abstract Views: 246

PDF Views: 1




  • Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approaches to Prioritize Teaching Solutions for Intellect Errors

Abstract Views: 246  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

Vinay Kukreja
Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, India

Abstract


The teaching fraternity and intellects play an important role in students’ careers as they make students industry-ready. During their teaching, they make different types of errors. One of the neglected aspects during teaching is intellect errors and these directly or indirectly impact students learning capabilities. The scattered literature shows that there are twelve types of intellect errors like ‘error of coincidence’, ‘senses error’, ‘analogy error’, ‘subjectivity error’, etc. To minimize these errors, six solutions have been identified like ‘selection of right instruments’, ‘development of critical thinking in the students’, ‘aware about knowledge engineering development’ etc. This study aims to identify and prioritize the solutions to overcome the errors of the intellect that has been the ignored aspect of the teaching till now. A hybrid approach of fuzzy AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) and Fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) has been proposed to rank the solutions that minimize the intellect errors. Fuzzy AHP is used to compute the weights for intellect errors by doing the pairwise comparison and fuzzy TOPSIS is used to rank the identified solutions with the help of generated weights of fuzzy AHP. The results show that “error of proximity” and “senses error” are the highest and least rated intellect errors respectively. The topmost rated solution to handle errors of the intellect is “development of critical thinking in the students”.

Keywords


Intellect Errors, Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy TOPSIS, Industry-Ready.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet%2F2022%2Fv35i4%2F22104