Combined Framework for Teaching Quality Evaluation of Online English Courses of Vocational Colleges Under Interval Neutrosophic Sets

Combined Framework for Teaching Quality Evaluation of Online English Courses of Vocational Colleges Under Interval Neutrosophic Sets

Xiaolan Wen (School of Humanities, Zhejiang Institute of Communications, Hangzhou, China) and Haibin Zheng (Beijing Institute of Technology, Zhuhai, China)
Copyright: © 2025 |Pages: 22
DOI: 10.4018/IJISMD.373639
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

The evaluation of teaching quality in vocational college English online courses is crucial. It monitors the teaching process, ensures objectives are met, and improves course quality. Flexible online evaluation methods comprehensively reflect outcomes, making a scientific evaluation system essential for quality improvement. The teaching quality evaluation of online English courses for vocational colleges is multiple-attribute group decision-making (MAGDM). Recently, the LogTODIM approach and MACONT approach was constructed to put forward MAGDM. The interval neutrosophic sets (INSs) are constructed as a tool for managing fuzzy data during the teaching quality evaluation of online English courses for vocational colleges. In this work, the interval neutrosophic number LogTODIM-MACONT (INN-LogTODIM-MACONT) approach is constructed to put forward the MAGDM under INSs. Ultimately, a numerical analysis for teaching quality evaluation of online English courses for vocational colleges is constructed to validate the proposed approach.
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

Multi-attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) is a decision-making process that addresses complex problems involving multiple criteria or attributes and incorporates the opinions of a group of decision-makers (Zhou et al., 2024b, 2024c; Zhu et al., 2024; Zorlu et al., 2024). It is widely used in various fields, such as education, health care, business, and engineering, where decisions must consider diverse perspectives and conflicting objectives (Liang et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2023, 2024a; Xu et al., 2024b; Yang et al., 2024b). In MAGDM, each decision-maker evaluates alternatives based on a set of predefined attributes, which may include quantitative or qualitative factors (Liu et al., 2024; Wang & Du, 2024; Wang & Feng, 2024; Wang et al., 2024b; Wei et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2024). These attributes are often assigned weights to reflect their relative importance in the decision-making process. The challenge lies in aggregating individual preferences and resolving inconsistencies among group members to arrive at a consensus or a ranked list of alternatives. Techniques such as entropy (Sun, 2024; Yang et al., 2024a; Yue et al., 2024), analytic hierarchy process (Wang et al., 2024c; Yang et al., 2024c; Zhang & Lee, 2024; Zhang & Tak, 2024; Zhou et al., 2024a), and fuzzy logic are commonly used to handle subjective judgments, imprecise data, and attribute weighting. MAGDM is particularly valuable in scenarios where decisions must balance various factors, such as cost, quality, and efficiency (Meng et al., 2024a, 2024b, 2024c; Mittermeier et al., 2024; Qiu et al., 2024; Rahim et al., 2024; Rawat et al., 2024). It enables collaborative decision-making by integrating diverse viewpoints, ensuring that the final decision is comprehensive and well-informed. Furthermore, advanced MAGDM methods, such as those using intuitionistic fuzzy sets (Burillo & Bustince, 1996; Varshney et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2022) or neutrosophic sets (Wang, 2024; Yang et al., 2024d, 2024e; Zaidan et al., 2024; Zheng et al., 2024), are increasingly applied to handle uncertainty and ambiguity in complex, real-world problems.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 16: 1 Issue (2025)
Volume 15: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 14: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 13: 8 Issues (2022): 7 Released, 1 Forthcoming
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing