Users’ Preference on Online Learning Platform Using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process

Online learning refers to the utilization of online resources for learning activities and the substitution of internet-based virtual sessions. Although various online learning platforms are available, both teachers and students often find it challenging to determine which platform most effectively facilitates learning. This research aims to choose the best online learning platform using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method, which integrates the fuzzy logic and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approaches. The objective is to weigh and rank alternative platforms based on seven criteria from five decision-makers, who are lecturers from UiTM Cawangan Terengganu experienced in using all three online learning platforms. The findings show that platform compatibility, internet stability, and system quality are the key factors influencing platform preference. Overall, Google Classroom appeared as the most preferred online learning platform (0.7418), followed by Microsoft Teams (0.1922), while UFuture was the least favoured (0.0660). The result will help educators to choose which online learning platform to use during online classes. The survey also provides insights into users’ perceptions of online learning.

Covid 19, Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy

1. Sage, K., Jackson, S., Fox, E. & Mauer, L. (2021). The virtual COVID-19 classroom: surveying outcomes, individual differences, and technology use in college students. Smart Learning Environments. 8, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00174-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Christanto, H. J., Sutresno, S. A., Denny, A., & Dewi, C. (2023). Usability analysis of human computer interaction in Google Classroom and Microsoft Teams. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 101, 6425-6436 https://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol101No16/15Vol101No16.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Sari, F. M., & Oktaviani, L. (2021). Undergraduate students’ views on the use of online learning platform during COVID-19 Pandemic. TEKNOSASTIK, 19(1), 41 – 47. https://doi.org/10.33365/ts.v19i1.896 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ichwania, C., Mangkuto, R. A., Pradipta, J., Koerniawan, M. D., Sarwono, J. (2024). Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for selection of optimum passive design strategy. Energy & Buildings. 1-17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114285 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Saaty, T. L., Peniwati, K., & Shang, J. S. (2007). The analytic hierarchy process and human resource allocation: Half the story. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7-8), 1041-1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chen, J.-F., Hsieh, H.-N., & Do, Q. H. (2015). Evaluating teaching performance based on fuzzy AHP and comprehensive evaluation approach. Applied Soft Computing, 28, 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.050 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Van Krieken, E., Acar, E., & van Harmelen, F. (2022). Analyzing differentiable fuzzy logic operators. Artificial Intelligence, 32, 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2021.103602. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Pham, N. T., Do, A. D., Nguyen, Q. V., Ta, V. L., Dao, T. T. B., Ha, D. L., & Hoang, X. T. (2021). Research on knowledge management models at universities using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP). Sustainability 2021. 13, 809-824. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020809. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Mahamad, O., & Ramayah, T. (2010). Service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty: A test of mediation. International Business Research, 3(4), 72-80. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v3n4p72 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Liu, Y., Eckert, C. M., & Earl, C. (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Systems with Applications, 161, 113738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Abbasi-Moghaddam, M. A., Zarei, E., Bagherzadeh, R., Dargahi, H., & Farrokhi, P. (2019). Evaluation of service quality from patients’ viewpoint. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3998-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gunawan, G., & Hardi, R. (2022). E-Learning course design and implementation in fuzzy logic. Matrix Jurnal Manajemen Teknologi Dan Informatika, 12(1), 31-37. https://doi.org/10.31940/matrix.v12i1.31-37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fagundes, M. V. C., Keler, Á. C., Teles, E. O., de Melo, S. A. B. V., & Freires, F. G.M. (2021). Multicriteria decision-making system for supplier selection considering risk: a computational Fuzzy AHP-based approach. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 19(9), 1564-1572. https://latamt.ieeer9.org/index.php/transactions/article/view/5030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Yuyang, W., Luyan, X., Yan, H., & Yuqing, L. (2015). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process methods for evaluating the comfort of textiles. 2015 Seventh International Conference On Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation, 502-505. https://doi:10.1109/ICMTMA.2015.128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Interplay of Students’ Emotional Intelligence and Attitude toward Mathematics on Performance in Grade 10 Algebra
• Numerical Simulation of Fitzhugh-Nagumo Dynamics Using a Finite Difference-Based Method of Lines
• Fixed Point Theorem in Controlled Metric Spaces
• Usage of Moving Average to Heart Rate, Blood Pressure and Blood Sugar
• Exploring Algebraic Topology and Homotopy Theory: Methods, Empirical Data, and Numerical Examples