Advancements in MADM with college English teaching quality evaluation: Integrating 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic models with prioritized heronian mean techniques
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2025
Advancements in MADM with college English teaching quality evaluation: Integrating 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic models with prioritized heronian mean techniques
With the continuous development of Internet era, teaching modes are also being innovated and developed, and online and offline blended teaching (OOBT) is one of them, which is mainly achieved by combining OOBT. By combining online and offline teaching modes with college English courses, teachers not only help students cultivate independent learning habits, but also help them think alone and improve their practical skills. This is also true for vocational and technical education, and it can be said that this approach is more relevant. The OOBT evaluation in college English teaching courses is deemed to multiple-attribute decision-making (MADM). In this study, we connected the geometric Heronian mean (GHM) technique and prioritized aggregation (PA) in line with 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic numbers (2TLNNs) to produce the generalized 2TLNN power GHM (G2TLNPGHM) technique. Then, the G2TLNPGHM technique is implemented to process the MADM under 2TLNNs. Finally, the G2TLNPGHM technique is implemented as the numerical example of evaluating the OOBT in college English courses. Some comparative analysis of the impact of parameters are fully addressed.
ThorneK. Blended learning: How to integrate online & traditional learning. London: Kogan Page Publishers; 2003.
2.
LiuXH, editor. The construction of college english teaching model based on blended learning. 1st International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science; 2009 Mar 07–08; Wuhan, PEOPLES R CHINA. LOS ALAMITOS: Ieee Computer Soc; 2009.
3.
WangXMYangYJWenX, Ieee, editors. Study on blended learning approach for english teaching. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics; 2009 Oct 11–14; San Antonio, TX. NEW YORK: Ieee; 2009.
4.
BricaultD. Blended learning in english language teaching: Course design and implementation (vol. 49, p. 210, 2015). Tesol Quarterly2015; 49(3): 622–22.
5.
HuangHWangJM. Innovative research on collaborative design of blended english teaching in higher vocational colleges based on digital technology. Scientific Programming2022; 2022: 7.
6.
ParasADY. Proposed blended learning model for cagayan state university. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences2016; 5(3): 280–91.
7.
QinY. University blended english teaching based on big data analytics. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems2023; 45(5): 9181–97.
8.
QiuNSQiuXQ. A study on the application model of blended teaching in english language teaching in colleges and universities under the ecological and internet perspectives. Journal of Environmental and Public Health2022; 2022: 10.
9.
KuaiBLiPH. Design of in-depth multi-intelligence teaching system under the mixed english teaching mode. Scientific Programming2022; 2022: 10.
10.
NingJBanHD. Blended teaching strategies of college english translation under the background of internet. Mobile Information Systems2022; 2022: 7.
11.
PanAQ. Construction and application of college english blended teaching system based on multidata fusion. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society2022; 2022: 7.
12.
LiuSM. Analysis of the effect of business english major teaching based on blended learning mode on relieving students’ foreign language learning anxiety. Psychiatria Danubina2022; 34: S784–S85.
13.
RenYQ. The innovation of blended teaching mode of college english in mobile network environment. Mathematical Problems in Engineering2022; 2022: 6.
14.
ShiDD. A study on the influence of blended teaching of an integrated english course based on flipped classroom on alleviating students’ learning anxiety. Psychiatria Danubina2022; 34: S467–S68.
15.
WangCY. Employing blended learning to enhance learners’ english conversation: A preliminary study of teaching with hitutor. Education and Information Technologies2021; 26(2): 2407–25.
16.
WangQShaoHGaoDMZhangJYYaoBGengC, editors. Applying blended learning mode to spiral sudoku in college english teaching. International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET); 2015 Jul 27–29; Cent China Normal Univ, Wuhan, PEOPLES R CHINA. NEW YORK: Ieee; 2015.
17.
WangRS. Economic benefits of blended teaching mode in the knowledge economy era: A case study of college english course. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2023; 48.
18.
WenXM. An english blended teaching model under the background of education informatization. Mobile Information Systems2022; 2022: 9.
19.
WuWQiuC. Deep learning analysis of english education blended teaching in virtual reality environment. Scientific Programming2022; 2022: 11.
20.
WeiL. An integrated decision-making framework for blended teaching quality evaluation in college english courses based on the double-valued neutrosophic sets. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems2023; 45(2): 3259–66.
21.
WongKTHwangGJGohPSCArrifSKM. Effects of blended learning pedagogical practices on students’ motivation and autonomy for the teaching of short stories in upper secondary english. Interactive Learning Environments2020; 28(4): 512–25.
22.
XieB. Modified gra methodology for madm under triangular fuzzy neutrosophic sets and applications to blended teaching effect evaluation of college english courses. Soft Computing. 2023; 12.
23.
LongNTVan HanhN. A structural equation model of blended learning culture in the classroom. International Journal of Higher Education2020; 9(4): 99–115.
24.
MaXX. Study on college english online teaching model in mixed context based on genetic algorithm and neural network algorithm. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society2021; 2021: 10.
25.
MaierTAThomasN. Hospitality leadership course design and delivery: A blended-experiential learning model. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education2013; 25(1): 11–21.
26.
MiaoYF. Online and offline mixed intelligent teaching assistant mode of english based on mobile information system. Mobile Information Systems2021; 2021: 6.
27.
YanWJ. Effect of blended teaching mode in colleges and universities based on automation technology on college students’ english performance. Mobile Information Systems2022; 2022: 10.
28.
YuLShenJ. Analysis of the correlation between academic performance and learning motivation in english course under a corpus-data-driven blended teaching model. Scientific Programming2022; 2022: 11.
29.
ZhangYB, Ieee, editors. Application of blended teaching into the course of comprehensive english. 11th International Conference on Educational and Information Technology (ICEIT); 2022 Jan 06–08; Sichuan Normal Univ, Chengdu, PEOPLES R CHINA. NEW YORK: Ieee; 2022.
30.
MahawanKLangprayoonP, Ieee, editors. The effect of blended learning with collaborative learning upon english communication skills of english teaching program students. 5th International STEM Education Conference (iSTEM-Ed); 2020 Nov 04–06; Hua Hin, THAILAND. NEW YORK: Ieee; 2020.
31.
ZhangJN. Construction of college english blended teaching model based on mooc. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology2020; 127: 209–09.
32.
ZhengLYLeeKC. Examining the effects of “small private online course and flipped-classroom”-based blended teaching strategy on first-year english-major students’ achievements. Sustainability2023; 15(21): 26.
33.
ZhouCY. Empirical study on the effectiveness of teaching model of college english writing within blended learning mode. Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice2018; 18(5): 1060–76.
34.
LiuCA, editor. Ai blended teaching in business english based on deep learning. International Conference on Image, Video Processing and Artificial Intelligence; 2020 Aug 21–23; Shanghai, PEOPLES R CHINA. BELLINGHAM: Spie-Int Soc Optical Engineering; 2020.
35.
GuJH. Blended oral english teaching based on core competence training model. Mobile Information Systems2022; 2022: 9.
36.
GültekinKMedeE. Blended teaching readiness of efl instructors and their perceptions about blended learning in english preparatory schools: A case from turkey. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2023; 17.
37.
ReynoldsBL. A mixed methods study of “english corners” funded by the taiwan ministry of education “program for promoting teaching excellence of universities”. Applied Linguistics Review2019; 10(4): 561–90.
38.
ZhaoMM, Acm, editors. Construction and research design of vocational english blended teaching model based on spoc. 7th International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET); 2019 Mar 29–31; Univ Aizu, Aizuwakamatsu, JAPAN. NEW YORK: Assoc Computing Machinery; 2019.
39.
GuoQLiuJFGuoL. Research on online and offline blended teaching of higher vocational english under the background of “internet plus”. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology2020; 127: 73–73.
40.
ChaiyamaN. The development of blended leaning model by using active learning activity to develop learning skills in 21st century. International Journal of Information and Education Technology2019; 9(12): 880–86.
41.
FangYG. Research on the effectiveness of the english blended teaching in higher vocational colleges in the big data era. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology2019; 125: 237–37.
42.
LiuXY. Application of wechat mixed learning in english teaching in higher vocational colleges. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology2019; 125: 82–83.
43.
SahaAReddyJKumarR. A fuzzy similarity based classification with archimedean-dombi aggregation operator. Journal of Intelligent Management Decision2022; 1(2): 118–27.
44.
BhatS. An enhanced ahp group decision-making model employing neutrosophic trapezoidal numbers. Journal of Operational and Strategic Analytics2023; 1(2): 81–89.
45.
JanaCPalM. Interval-valued picture fuzzy uncertain linguistic dombi operators and their application in industrial fund selection. Journal of Industrial Intelligence2023; 1(2): 110–24.
46.
TaoZZhuJZhouLLiuJChenH. Multi-attribute decision making with pythagorean fuzzy sets via conversions to intuitionistic fuzzy sets and oreste method. Journal of Control and Decision2021; 8(3): 372–83.
47.
ZhangFWWangWHuaXD. Solution to multiple attribute group decision making problems with two decision makers. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics2015; 26(2): 329–33.
48.
ZhuWQLiangPWangLJHouYR. Triangular fuzzy bonferroni mean operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems2015; 29(4): 1265–72.
49.
ChenSMTsaiWH. Multiple attribute decision making based on novel interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy geometric averaging operators. Information Sciences2016; 367: 1045–65.
50.
DingTLiangLYangMWuHQ. Multiple attribute decision making based on cross-evaluation with uncertain decision parameters. Mathematical Problems in Engineering2016; 2016: 10.
51.
HeDYXuJQChenXL. Information-theoretic-entropy based weight aggregation method in multiple-attribute group decision-making. Entropy2016; 18(6): 13.
52.
MaXYWuPZhouLGChenHYZhengTGeJQ. Approaches based on interval type-2 fuzzy aggregation operators for multiple attribute group decision making. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems2016; 18(4): 697–715.
53.
VermaRSharmaB. Prioritized information fusion method for triangular fuzzy information and its application to multiple attribute decision making. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems2016; 24(2): 265–89.
54.
WangTRLiuJLiJZNiuCH. An integrating owa-topsis framework in intuitionistic fuzzy settings for multiple attribute decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering2016; 98: 185–94.
55.
ZhangFWXuSH. Multiple attribute group decision making method based on utility theory under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Group Decision and Negotiation2016; 25(6): 1261–75.
56.
ZhuCXZhuLZhangXZ. Linguistic hesitant fuzzy power aggregation operators and their applications in multiple attribute decision-making. Information Sciences2016; 367: 809–26.
57.
BaykasogluAGolcukIAkyolDE. A fuzzy multiple-attribute decision making model to evaluate new product pricing strategies. Annals of Operations Research2017; 251(1-2): 205–42.
58.
ChenJQYeJ. Some single-valued neutrosophic dombi weighted aggregation operators for multiple attribute decision-making. Symmetry-Basel2017; 9(6): 11.
59.
KumarKPrakashATripathiR. Spectrum handoff scheme with multiple attributes decision making for optimal network selection in cognitive radio networks. Digital Communications and Networks2017; 3(3): 164–75.
60.
ParkJHKwarkHEKwunYC. Entropy and cross-entropy for generalized hesitant fuzzy information and their use in multiple attribute decision making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems2017; 32(3): 266–90.
61.
PengXDDaiJG. Algorithm for picture fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making based on new distance measure. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification2017; 7(2): 177–87.
62.
YagerRR. Prioritized aggregation operators. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning2008; 48(1): 263–74.
WangJWeiGWWeiY. Models for green supplier selection with some 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic number bonferroni mean operators. Symmetry-Basel2018; 10(5): 36.
65.
WangHSmarandacheFZhangYQSunderramanR. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace Multistruct2010; (4): 410–13.
66.
HerreraFMartinezL. A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. Ieee Transactions on Fuzzy Systems2000; 8(6): 746–52.
67.
HerreraFMartinezL. An approach for combining linguistic and numerical information based on the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model in decision-making. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems2000; 8(5): 539–62.
68.
HerreraFMartinezL. The 2-tuple linguistic computational model. Advantages of its linguistic description, accuracy and consistency. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems2001; 9: 33–48.
69.
HuWLiBChenL. An intelligent decision methodology for physical health evaluation of college students based on generalized 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic geometric hm operators. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. doi: 10.3233/JIFS-221684.
70.
WangPWangJWeiGWWuJWeiCWeiY. Codas method for multiple attribute group decision making under 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic environment. Informatica2020; 31(1): 161–84.
71.
WangPWangJWeiGW. Edas method for multiple criteria group decision making under 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic environment. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems2019; 37(2): 1597–608.
72.
WangJWeiGWLuM. Todim method for multiple attribute group decision making under 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic environment. Symmetry-Basel2018; 10(10): 486.
73.
SalabunWUrbaniakK, editors. A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems. 20th Annual International Conference on Computational Science (ICCS); 2020 Jun 03–05; Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS. CHAM: Springer International Publishing Ag; 2020.
74.
SałabunWWa̧tróbskiJShekhovtsovA. Are mcda methods benchmarkable? A comparative study of topsis, vikor, copras, and promethee ii methods. Symmetry2020; 12(9): 1549.
