KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 3

An Integrated Multi-Criteria Framework For Evaluating Distance Education Performance: Evidence From Faculty and Student Perspectives

Şeyma Aktüylü0000-0002-9247-4574
Yeşim Ok(Atatürk University)0000-0001-8349-7005
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-09-30
🏛️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)

In this situation, looking at how distance, hybrid, and in-person education models compare in service quality and performance can help create better and more effective education systems in colleges, especially as distance education becomes more common.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The COVID-19 pandemic led to the suspension of face-to-face education in higher education institutions and a mandatory transition to distance learning.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:While distance learning offered a significant advantage in preventing student disengagement, it also brought with it various problems due to infrastructure deficiencies and inequalities in access to technology and internet.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In this situation, looking at how distance, hybrid, and in-person education models compare in service quality and performance can help create better and more effective education systems in colleges, especially as distance education becomes more common.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Distance education · Performance evaluation · SWOT Analysis

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the suspension of face-to-face education in higher education institutions and a mandatory transition to distance learning. Universities in Türkiye quickly adapted to this process to ensure the continuity of education. While distance learning offered a significant advantage in preventing student disengagement, it also brought with it various problems due to infrastructure deficiencies and inequalities in access to technology and internet. The objective of this study is to assess the performance and service quality of distance education implemented during the pandemic, taking into account the perspectives of both faculty lecturers and students. In the first phase of the study, conducted in one of the faculties of engineering in Türkiye, faculty lecturers' opinions were evaluated using SWOT analysis; "Sustainability of Education" was identified as the strongest aspect of distance education, while "Adequacy of the Education Provided" was identified as the weakest. In the second phase, data obtained from student opinions were analysed using the Fuzzy SERVQUAL method, and it was concluded that the distance education service provided was generally unsatisfactory. The data obtained were evaluated using ANP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods, and the department with the relatively best performance in distance education quality was determined. The aim of the study is not to compare departments but rather to identify shortcomings in the distance education process by considering both student and faculty opinions and to contribute to improvement efforts. In this situation, looking at how distance, hybrid, and in-person education models compare in service quality and performance can help create better and more effective education systems in colleges, especially as distance education becomes more common.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Aktüylü, Ş., Ok, Y. (2026). An Integrated Multi-Criteria Framework For Evaluating Distance Education Performance: Evidence From Faculty and Student Perspectives. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 15 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.1871805

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (30)

  1. K. Tan and S. Kek, “Service quality in higher education using an enhanced SERVQUAL approach,” *Quality in Higher Education*, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 17–24, 2004, doi: 10.1080/1353832242000195032.
  2. E. Mushtaha, S. Abu Dabous, I. Alsyouf, A. Ahmed, and N. R. Abdraboh, “The challenges and opportunities of online learning and teaching at engineering and theoretical colleges during the pandemic,” *Ain Shams Engineering Journal*, vol. 13, no. 6, Art. no. 101770, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2022.101770.
  3. M. Tukiran, W. Sunaryo, D. Wulandari, and Herfina, “Optimizing education processes during the COVID-19 pandemic using the Technology Acceptance Model,” *Frontiers in Education*, vol. 7, Art. no. 903572, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.903572.
  4. A. Aristovnik, D. Keržič, D. Ravšelj, N. Tomaževič, and L. Umek, “Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective,” *Sustainability*, vol. 12, no. 20, Art. no. 8438, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12208438.
  5. S. Behdioğlu, E. Acar, and H. A. Burhan, “Evaluating service quality by fuzzy SERVQUAL: A case study in a physiotherapy and rehabilitation hospital,” *Total Quality Management & Business Excellence*, vol. 30, nos. 3–4, pp. 301–319, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2017.1302796.
  6. Z. Mouhib *et al*., “Measuring total productive maintenance success: A new industrial evaluation using fuzzy SERVQUAL,” *Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering*, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 14–29, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1080/21681015.2024.2373195.
  7. H. Abushamleh and A. Qusef, “Students’ satisfaction and service quality in distance education during COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan,” May 2021, doi: 10.1109/IETSEC51476.2021.9440494.
  8. T. J. Jones, “Relationships between undergraduate student performance, engagement, and attendance in an online environment,” *Frontiers in Education*, vol. 7, Art. no. 906601, May 2022, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.906601.
  9. Ş. Topuz, N. Yilmaz Sezer, M. N. Aker, İ. M. Gönenç, H. Öner Cengiz, and A. Er Korucu, “A SWOT analysis of the opinions of midwifery students about distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study,” *Midwifery*, vol. 103, Art. no. 103161, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2021.103161.
  10. W. Poungjinda and S. Pathak, “Educational reforms amid COVID-19 in Thailand,” *Frontiers in Education*, vol. 7, Art. no. 905445, May 2022, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.905445.
  11. B. Hergüner, “Rethinking public administration education in the period of pandemic: Reflections of public administration students on online education through a SWOT analysis,” *Thinking Skills and Creativity*, vol. 41, Art. no. 100863, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100863.
  12. C. M. Himang *et al*., “Modelling the utilization of digital technology in education during the COVID-19 pandemic through an expert-based analytic tool,” *International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education*, vol. 19, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.4018/IJICTE.332863.
  13. Y. Xiaoming, C. Shieh, and C. Wu, “Measuring distance learning performance with data envelopment analysis,” *Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education*, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 559–564, 2014, doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2014.1217a.
  14. J. S. Jeong and D. González-Gómez, “Assessment of sustainability science education criteria in online-learning through fuzzy-operational and multi-decision analysis and professional survey,” *Heliyon*, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(20)31549-8. [Accessed: Jan. 21, 2026].
  15. L. L. and Y. T., “Measuring higher education service quality during COVID-19 pandemic in China using a SERVQUAL method,” *Studies of Applied Economics*, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ojs.ual.es/ojs/index.php/eea/article/view/5567. [Accessed: Jan. 21, 2026].
  16. V. E. Ramírez-Hurtado, J. M. Hernández-Díaz, A. G. López-Sánchez, and A. D. Pérez-León, “Measuring online teaching service quality in higher education in the COVID-19 environment,” *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/5/2403. [Accessed: Jan. 21, 2026].
  17. F. Tuma, A. Nassar, M. Kamel, *et al*., “Students and faculty perception of distance medical education outcomes in resource-constrained system during COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study,” *Annals of Medicine and Surgery*, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2049080121000741. [Accessed: Jan. 21, 2026].
  18. R. J. Chao and Y. H. Chen, “Evaluation of the criteria and effectiveness of distance e-learning with consistent fuzzy preference relations,” *Expert Systems with Applications*, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 10657–10662, Sep. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.02.047.
  19. R. Baki, B. Birgoren, and A. Aktepe, “A meta-analysis of factors affecting perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in the adoption of e-learning systems,” *Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education*, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 4–42, 2018, doi: 10.17718/tojde.471649.
  20. R. Baki, B. Birgoren, and A. Aktepe, “Identifying factors affecting intention to use in distance learning systems,” *Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education*, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 58–80, 2021.
  21. Q. N. Naveed *et al*., “Evaluating critical success factors in implementing E-learning system using multi-criteria decision-making,” *PLOS ONE*, vol. 15, no. 5, May 2020, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231465.
  22. F. Buttle, “SERVQUAL: Review, critique, research agenda,” *European Journal of Marketing*, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 8–32, Jan. 1996, doi: 10.1108/03090569610105762.
  23. A. Parasuraman, V. Zeithaml, and L. Berry, “A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research,” *Journal of Marketing*, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 41–50, Sep. 1985, doi: 10.1177/002224298504900403.
  24. A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, “SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality,” 1988.
  25. K. Clow and D. Vorhies, “Building a competitive advantage for service firms: Measurement of consumer expectations of service quality,” *Journal of Services Marketing*, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 1993, doi: 10.1108/08876049310026079.
  26. H. T. Lin, “Fuzzy application in service quality analysis: An empirical study,” *Expert Systems with Applications*, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 517–526, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.05.030.
  27. R. A. Krohling and V. C. Campanharo, “Fuzzy TOPSIS for group decision making: A case study for accidents with oil spill in the sea,” *Expert Systems with Applications*, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 4190–4197, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.081.
  28. T. L. Saaty, *Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process*. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: RWS Publications, 1996.
  29. D. Carlucci, “Evaluating and selecting key performance indicators: An ANP-based model,” *Measuring Business Excellence*, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 66–76, Jun. 2010, doi: 10.1108/13683041011047876.
  30. T. L. Saaty, “Analytic hierarchy process,” in *Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science*. Springer, 1980, pp. 52–64.