Evaluation of E-Learning Approaches Using AHP-TOPSIS Technique


  • Husam Jasim Mohammed Department of Decision Sciences, School of Quantitative Sciences, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia.
  • Maznah Mat Kasim Department of Decision Sciences, School of Quantitative Sciences, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia.
  • Izwan Nizal Shaharanee Department of Decision Sciences, School of Quantitative Sciences, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia.


E-Learning, Weight, AHP, TOPSIS,


Strategic preparation of e-learning application includes decision making regarding the most suitable type of elearning on different levels. The survey has been carried out on the sample of 95 respondents consisted of administrative and academic staff, and postgraduate students in Malaysia. They were asked to assess the relative importance of five e-learning evaluation criteria to be analysed by using AHP technique. Furthermore, they also rated the performance of five identified e-learning approaches under each of the requirements. The overall performance of each e-learning approach was computed by using TOPSIS method. The results suggested that Flipped Classroom is the most suitable e-learning approach, while ‘Strategic readiness for e-learning implementation’ found to be the most important criterion. The paper is suggesting a quantitative evaluation method for decision-makers who are strategising modern technologies in higher educational settings.


H. J. Mohammed, M. M. Kasim, E. A. AL-Dahneem, and A. K. Hamadi, “An analytical survey on implementing best practices for introducing e-learning programs to students,” J. Educ. Soc. Sci., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 191–196, 2016.

B. Divjak and N. Begcevic, “Imaginative acquisition of knowledge - strategic planning of E-learning,” 28th Int. Conf. Inf. Technol. Interfaces, 2006., pp. 47–52, 2006.

J. F. Strayer, “The effects of the classroom flip on the learning environment: A comparison of learning activity in a traditional classroom and a flip classroom that used an intelligent tutoring system,” The Ohio State University, 2007.

S. Z. Osman, R. Jamaludin, and N. E. Mokhtar, “Flipped Classroom and Traditional Classroom : Lecturer and Student Perceptions between Two Learning Cultures, a Case Study at Malaysian Polytechnic,” vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 16–25, 2014.

J. Bergmann and A. Sams, Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education, 2012.

J. L. Bishop and M. A. Verleger, “The flipped classroom: A survey of the research,” in ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, 2013.

H. J. Mohammed, E. AL-dahneem, and A. Hamadi, “A comparative analysis for adopting an innovative pedagogical approach of flipped,” J. Glob. Bus. Soc. Entrep., vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 86–94, 2016.

B. Dos, “Developing and evaluating a blended learning course,” Anthropologist, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 121–128, 2014.

N. Begičević, B. Divjak, and T. Hunjak, “Prioritization of e-learning forms: a multicriteria methodology,” Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 405–419, 2007.

R.-J. Chao and Y.-H. Chen, “Evaluation of the criteria and effectiveness of distance e-learning with consistent fuzzy preference relations,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 10657–10662, 2009.

N. Begičević and B. Divjak, “Validation of theoretical model for decision making about e-learning implementation,” J. Inf. Organ. Sci., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 171–184, 2006.

J. Malczewski, GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 1999.

J. Ananda and G. Herath, “Evaluating public risk preferences in forest land-use choices using multi-attribute utility theory,” Ecol. Econ., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 408–419, 2005.

T. L. Saaty, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process,” RWS Publ., pp. 1–11, 1980.

F. Dweiri, S. Kumar, S. A. Khan, and V. Jain, “Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 62, 2016.

G. N. Zhu, J. Hu, J. Qi, C. C. Gu, and Y. H. Peng, “An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number,” Adv. Eng. Informatics, vol. 29, no. 3, 2015.

A. Jayant, P. Gupta, S. K. Garg, and M. Khan, “TOPSIS-AHP based approach for selection of reverse logistics service provider: A case study of mobile phone industry,” in Procedia Engineering, 2014, vol. 97.

L. Abdullah, F. N. Azman, and K. Terengganu, “Weights of Obesity Factors Using Analytic Hierarchy,” Alternatives, vol. 7, no. April, pp. 57–63, 2011.

C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making, vol. 186. 1981.

C. Prakash and M. K. Barua, “Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment,” J. Manuf. Syst., vol. 37, 2015.

J. Ding, “An Integrated Fuzzy Topsis Method For Ranking Alternatives And Its,” vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 341–352, 2011.

E. Triantaphyllou, “Multi-criteria decision making methods,” in Multicriteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, Springer, 2000, pp. 5–21.




How to Cite

Mohammed, H. J., Mat Kasim, M., & Shaharanee, I. N. (2018). Evaluation of E-Learning Approaches Using AHP-TOPSIS Technique. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC), 10(1-10), 7–10. Retrieved from https://jtec.utem.edu.my/jtec/article/view/3783