KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Alanya Akademik Bakış / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

Yükseköğrenimde Yenilikçi Eğitim Teknolojilerinin Seçimi: Resim Bulanık EDAS ve Best Worst Yöntemi ile Bir Uygulama

Eren Kamber(ALANYA ALAADDIN KEYKUBAT UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-6426-9936
Sayfa
142–160
Yayın Tarihi
2026-01-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Değerlendirme sonuçları, AR/VR teknolojilerinin özellikle fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik (STEM) alanlarında yenilikçi öğretim yöntemlerini destekleyebileceğini göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, yükseköğrenimde artırılmış gerçeklik (AR) ve sanal gerçeklik (VR) teknolojilerinin seçimini optimize etmek amacıyla resim bulanık (PF) sayılarla genişletilmiş EDAS (PF-EDAS) yöntemini uygulamaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Dijital dönüşüm süreciyle birlikte eğitim ortamlarında AR/VR teknolojilerine yönelik artan talep, bu teknolojilerin etkili ve sürdürülebilir bir şekilde seçilmesini gerektirmektedir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Değerlendirme sonuçları, AR/VR teknolojilerinin özellikle fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik (STEM) alanlarında yenilikçi öğretim yöntemlerini destekleyebileceğini göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Eğitim · EDAS · Resim Bulanık EDAS

Özet

Bu çalışma, yükseköğrenimde artırılmış gerçeklik (AR) ve sanal gerçeklik (VR) teknolojilerinin seçimini optimize etmek amacıyla resim bulanık (PF) sayılarla genişletilmiş EDAS (PF-EDAS) yöntemini uygulamaktadır. Dijital dönüşüm süreciyle birlikte eğitim ortamlarında AR/VR teknolojilerine yönelik artan talep, bu teknolojilerin etkili ve sürdürülebilir bir şekilde seçilmesini gerektirmektedir. Çalışmada, dilsel değerlendirmeler resim bulanık sayılarla modellenmiş ve belirsizliklerin üstesinden gelmek amacıyla PF-EDAS yöntemi Best Worst Yöntemi (BWM) ile entegre edilmiştir. Bu yöntem, kriter ağırlıklarının tutarlı bir şekilde belirlenmesini ve alternatiflerin güvenilir bir şekilde değerlendirilmesini sağlamıştır. Kriterler arasında öğrenme etkinliği, kullanım kolaylığı, maliyet, kapsayıcılık ve sürdürülebilirlik gibi faktörler yer almıştır. Değerlendirme sonuçları, AR/VR teknolojilerinin özellikle fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik (STEM) alanlarında yenilikçi öğretim yöntemlerini destekleyebileceğini göstermektedir. Karşılaştırmalı analizde PF-CODAS ve PF-CoCoSo yöntemleri de kullanılmış ve sonuçların tutarlılığı doğrulanmıştır. Çalışma, belirsizlik ve muğlaklık içeren çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) süreçlerinde PF-EDAS yönteminin etkin bir araç olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Gelecekte, farklı eğitim seviyelerinde daha geniş karar gruplarıyla uygulanması ve dinamik veri entegrasyonu ile desteklenmesi bu yöntemin genel uygulanabilirliğini artırabilir.

Abstract

This study applies the Picture Fuzzy EDAS (PF-EDAS) method to optimize the selection of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies in higher education. With the increasing demand for AR/VR technologies driven by digital transformation, their effective and sustainable integration into educational environments has become essential. In this study, linguistic assessments were modeled using picture fuzzy numbers, and the PF-EDAS method was integrated with the Best Worst Method (BWM) to handle uncertainties and determine reliable criteria weights for evaluation. Key criteria considered include learning effectiveness, ease of use, cost, inclusivity, and sustainability. The results indicate that AR/VR technologies have significant potential to support innovative teaching methods, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. However, challenges such as high costs and the need for specialized hardware remain critical barriers to widespread adoption. A comparative analysis using the PF-CODAS and PF-CoCoSo methods validated the consistency of the results. The findings demonstrate that the PF-EDAS method is an effective tool for multi-criteria decision-making under uncertainty and ambiguity. Future research could extend its application to different educational levels with larger decision-making groups and incorporate dynamic data integration to improve adaptability and generalizability.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kamber, E. (2026). Yükseköğrenimde Yenilikçi Eğitim Teknolojilerinin Seçimi: Resim Bulanık EDAS ve Best Worst Yöntemi ile Bir Uygulama. Alanya Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 142–160. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1655523

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (56)

  1. Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
  2. Alam, S. S., Ahmed, S., & Kokash, H. A. (2024). Interplay of perceived organizational and external e-readiness in the adoption and integration of augmented reality and virtual reality technologies in Malaysian higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies, 29(11), 13735-13761. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12428-7
  3. AlGerafi, M. A., Zhou, Y., Oubibi, M., & Wijaya, T. T. (2023). Unlocking the potential: A comprehensive evaluation of augmented reality and virtual reality in education. Electronics, 12(18), 3953. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12183953
  4. Almufarreh, A., & Arshad, M. (2023). Promising emerging technologies for teaching and learning: Recent developments and future challenges. Sustainability, 15(8), 6917. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086917
  5. Ardiny, H., & Khanmirza, E. (2018, October). The role of AR and VR technologies in education developments: Opportunities and challenges. Proceedings of the 6th RSI International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics, Tehran, Iran, 482-487.
  6. Aydoğmuş, H. Y., Kamber, E., & Kahraman, C. (2021). ERP selection using picture fuzzy CODAS method. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 40(6), 11363-11373. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-202564
  7. Badi, I., Ballem, M., & Shetwan, A. (2018). Site selection of desalination plant in libya by using combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(3). Doi: 10.18421/IJQR12.03-04
  8. Burley, J., & Stubbs, A. (2023). Emerging Technologies & Higher Education. Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
  9. Cheng, K. H. (2017). Reading an augmented reality book: An exploration of learners’ cognitive load, motiva-tion, and attitudes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4). Doi: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2820
  10. Cuong, B. C., & Kreinovich, V. (2013, December). Picture fuzzy sets-a new concept for computational intelligence problems. In 2013 third world congress on information and communication technologies (WICT 2013) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
  11. Çeken, B., & Taşkın, N. (2025). Examination of multimedia learning principles in augmented reality and virtual reality learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), e13097. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13097
  12. Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66-69.
  13. Diao, P. H., & Shih, N. J. (2019). Trends and research issues of augmented reality studies in architectural and civil engineering education—A review of academic journal publications. Applied Sciences, 9(9), 1840. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app9091840
  14. Di Lanzo, J. A., Valentine, A., Sohel, F., Yapp, A. Y., Muparadzi, K. C., & Abdelmalek, M. (2020). A review of the uses of virtual reality in engineering education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(3), 748-763. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22243
  15. Duong, T. T. T., & Thao, N. X. (2021). A novel dissimilarity measure on picture fuzzy sets and its application in multi-criteria decision making. Soft Computing, 25, 15-25. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05405-6
  16. Endsley, M. R., Bolté, B., & Jones, D. G. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. CRC press.
  17. Fan, J., Jia, X., & Wu, M. (2020). A new multi-criteria group decision model based on Single-valued triangular Neutrosophic sets and EDAS method. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38(2), 2089-2102. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-190811
  18. Fazel, A., & Izadi, A. (2018). An interactive augmented reality tool for constructing free-form modular surfaces. Automation in Construction, 85, 135–145. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.015
  19. Garg, H., & Sharaf, I. M. (2022). A new spherical aggregation function with the concept of spherical fuzzy difference for spherical fuzzy EDAS and its application to industrial robot selection. Computational and Applied Mathematics, 41(5), 212. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-022-01903-5
  20. Ghorabaee, M.K., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2016). A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 50(3).
  21. Ghorabaee, M. K., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Hooshmand, R., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2017). Fuzzy extension of the CODAS method for multi-criteria market segment evaluation. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(1), 1-19.
  22. Gudoniene, D., & Rutkauskiene, D. (2019). Virtual and augmented reality in education. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 7(2), 293-300. Doi: 10.22364/bjmc.2019.7.2.07
  23. Gupta, S., Soni, U., & Kumar, G. (2019). Green supplier selection using multi-criterion decision making under fuzzy environment: A case study in automotive industry. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 136, 663-680. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.07.038
  24. Jang, J., Ko, Y., Shin, W. S., & Han, I. (2021). Augmented reality and virtual reality for learning: An examination using an extended technology acceptance model. IEEE access, 9, 6798-6809. Doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048708
  25. Kahraman, C., Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Cevik Onar, S., Yazdani, M., & Oztaysi, B. (2017). Intuitionistic fuzzy EDAS method: an application to solid waste disposal site selection. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 25(1), 1-12.
  26. Kamber, E., Aydoğmuş, U., Aydoğmuş, H. Y., Gümüş, M., & Kahraman, C. (2024). Prioritization of drip-irrigation pump alternatives in agricultural applications: An integrated picture fuzzy BWM&CODAS methodology. Applied Soft Computing, 154, 111308. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2024.11130
  27. Karaşan, A., & Kahraman, C. (2018). Interval-valued neutrosophic extension of EDAS method. In Advances in Fuzzy Logic and Technology 2017: Proceedings of: EUSFLAT-2017–The 10th Conference of the European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology, September 11-15, 2017, Warsaw, Poland IWIFSGN’2017–The Sixteenth International Workshop on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and Generalized Nets, September 13-15, 2017, Warsaw, Poland, Volume 2 10 (pp. 343-357). Springer International Publishing.
  28. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435-451.
  29. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Amiri, M., & Turskis, Z. (2016). Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: an application to supplier selection. International Journal Of Computers Communications & Control, 11(3), 358-371.
  30. Khan, A. A., Ashraf, S., Abdullah, S., Qiyas, M., Luo, J., & Khan, S. U. (2019). Pythagorean fuzzy Dombi aggregation operators and their application in decision support system. Symmetry, 11(3), 383. Doi: 10.3390/sym11030383
  31. Krishankumar, R., Gowtham, Y., Ahmed, I., Ravichandran, K. S., & Kar, S. (2020). Solving green supplier selection problem using q-rung orthopair fuzzy-based decision framework with unknown weight information. Applied Soft Computing, 94, 106431. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106431
  32. Kovalenko, V., Marienko, M., & Sukhikh, A. (2022). Use of augmented and virtual reality tools in a general secondary education institution in the context of blended learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07003.
  33. Le Tan, T., Nguyen, H. T. T., Khanh, N. C. N., Le, T. H. T., & Vo, U. T. H. (2024). Researching Influences of Learner Experience on AR/VR Adoption-The Case of Vietnamese Universities. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res., 23, 7.
  34. Mohamed Hashim, M. A., Tlemsani, I., & Matthews, R. (2022). Higher education strategy in digital transfor-mation. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3171–3195. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10739-1
  35. Muñoz-Saavedra, L., Miró-Amarante, L., & Domínguez-Morales, M. (2020). Augmented and virtual reality evolution and future tendency. Applied Sciences, 10(1), 322. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010322
  36. Özbek, A., & Engür, M. (2018). EDAS yöntemi ile lojistik firma web sitelerinin değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 21(2), 417-429. Doi: https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.454013
  37. Panchal, D., Chatterjee, P., Shukla, R. K., Choudhury, T., & Tamosaitiene, J. (2017). Integrated Fuzzy AHP-CODAS Framework for Maintenance Decision in Urea Fertilizer Industry. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 51(3).
  38. Peng, X., & Luo, Z. (2021). Decision-making model for China’s stock market bubble warning: the CoCoSo with picture fuzzy information. Artificial Intelligence Review, 54(8), 5675-5697.
  39. Reeves, L. E., Bolton, E., Bulpitt, M., Scott, A., Tomey, I., Gates, M., & Baldock, R. A. (2021). Use of augmented reality (AR) to aid bioscience education and enrich student experience. Research in Learning Technology, 29, 2572. Doi: 10.25304/rlt.v29.2572
  40. Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
  41. Soliman, M., Pesyridis, A., Dalaymani-Zad, D., Gronfula, M., & Kourmpetis, M. (2021). The application of virtual reality in engineering education. Applied Sciences, 11(6), 2879. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11062879
  42. Tan, Y., Xu, W., Li, S., & Chen, K. (2022). Augmented and Virtual Reality (AR/VR) for education and training in the AEC Industry: A systematic review of research and applications. Buildings, 12(10), 1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101529
  43. Wang, L., Peng, J. J., & Wang, J. Q. (2018). A multi-criteria decision-making framework for risk ranking of energy performance contracting project under picture fuzzy environment. Journal of cleaner production, 191, 105-118. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.169
  44. Wang, L., & Li, N. (2020). Pythagorean fuzzy interaction power Bonferroni mean aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 35(1), 150-183. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22204
  45. Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H. L., & Wang, X. (2018). A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(6), 1204. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061204
  46. Weng, N. G., Bee, O. Y., Yew, L. H., & Hsia, T. E. (2016). An augmented reality system for biology science education in Malaysia. International Journal of Innovative Computing, 6(2).
  47. Wei, G. (2017). Picture fuzzy aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 33(2), 713-724. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-161798
  48. Wei, G., & Gao, H. (2018). The generalized Dice similarity measures for picture fuzzy sets and their applications. Informatica, 29(1), 107-124.
  49. Wei, G., Alsaadi, F. E., Hayat, T., & Alsaedi, A. (2018). Projection models for multiple attribute decision making with picture fuzzy information. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 9(4), 713-719. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-016-0604-1
  50. Valente, L., Feijó, B., Ribeiro, A., & Clua, E. (2016). The concept of pervasive virtuality and its application in digital entertainment systems. In G. Wallner, S. Kriglstein, H. Hlavacs, R. Malaka, A. Lugmayr, H. S. Yang (Eds.), Entertainment computing (pp. 187–198). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46100-7_16
  51. Yager, R. R., & Abbasov, A. M. (2013). Pythagorean membership grades, complex numbers, and decision making. International journal of intelligent systems, 28(5), 436-452. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21584
  52. Yanmaz, O., Turgut, Y., Can, E. N., & Kahraman, C. (2020). Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy EDAS method: An application to car selection problem. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38(4), 4061-4077. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-182667
  53. Yılmaz, M., & Atan, T. (2021). Hospital site selection using fuzzy EDAS method: case study application for districts of Istanbul. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 41(2), 2591-2602. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-201757
  54. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8(3), 338-353.
  55. Zhang, L., Luczak, T., Smith, E., & Burch, R. F. (2019). Using Microsoft HoloLens to improve memory recall in anatomy and physiology: A pilot study to examine the efficacy of using augmented reality in education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 12(1), 2.
  56. Zhang, S., Wei, G., Gao, H., Wei, C., & Wei, Y. (2019). EDAS method for multiple criteria group decision making with picture fuzzy information and its application to green suppliers selections. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(6), 1123-1138. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2019.10714