Volume 20 , Issue 4 , PP: 197-209, 2023 | Cite this article as | XML | Html | PDF | Full Length Article
Noura Metawa 1 * , Reneh Abokhoza 2 , Ahmed Aziz 3
Doi: https://doi.org/10.54216/IJNS.200416
FinTech marketing education poses unique challenges that require new research directions. The constantly-evolving nature of the industry, coupled with the need to keep pace with technological advancements, demands an innovative approach to curriculum design and evaluation. Traditional education methods may not be sufficient to prepare students for careers in FinTech marketing, emphasizing the need for a multi-dimensional evaluation framework that considers business requirements, market trends, and customer needs. A Neutrosophic-Operational and Multi-Decision Analysis approach can provide a new direction for research, enabling educators to meet the evolving needs of the industry and better prepare students for successful careers in FinTech marketing. Throughout this article, we demonstrate a hybrid application of the Neutrosophic-AHP and the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis technique for determining and assessing the most important characteristics of e-learning systems in the field of sustainability science education. Sustainability, scientific education, e-learning, and technological criterion are some of the most important to consider in order to reach this stated objective. The participative neutrosophic AHP method examined sixteen sub-criteria in terms of the value and calculation of coefficients within the framework of impact and evaluation. The most crucial factors for the ultimate choice issue are gathered. Therefore, techniques such as neutrosophic-operational and multi-decision analysis, as well as expert surveys, may be used to identify the most important criteria for e-learning in the field of sustainability science, which can then be employed to develop adaptable and relevant decision features.
Neutrosophic Sets , MCDM , AHP , E-Learning , Higher Education , Sustainability , FinTech education marketing
[1] R. Lozano, F. J. Lozano, K. Mulder, D. Huisingh, and T. Waas, “Advancing higher education for sustainable development: international insights and critical reflections,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 48. Elsevier, pp. 3–9, 2013.
[2] A. Pereira, A. Q. Mendes, L. Morgado, L. Amante, and J. Bidarra, “Universidade Aberta’s pedagogical model for distance education: a university for the future.” Universidade Aberta, 2008.
[3] J. S. Jeong and D. González-Gómez, “A web-based tool framing a collective method for optimizing the location of a renewable energy facility and its possible application to sustainable STEM education,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 251, p. 119747, 2020.
[4] R. Lozano and W. Young, “Assessing sustainability in university curricula: exploring the influence of student numbers and course credits,” Journal of cleaner production, vol. 49, pp. 134–141, 2013.
[5] D. Y. Shee and Y.-S. Wang, “Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: A methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications,” Computers & Education, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 894–905, 2008.
[6] C. Eneroth, "E-learning for the environment: Improving e-learning as a tool for cleaner production education," 2000.
[7] S. Wan and J. Dong, Decision-making theories and methods based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Springer Nature, 2020.
[8] D. E. Hansen, “Knowledge transfer in online learning environments,” Journal of Marketing Education, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 93–105, 2008.
[9] R. M. Schramm, R. J. Wagner, and J. M. Werner, Student perceptions of the effectiveness of web-based courses. Magna Publications Madison, WI, USA, 2001.
[10] M. Paechter, B. Maier, and D. Macher, “Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction,” Computers & Education, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 222–229, 2010.
[11] W. Lambrechts, W. T. Paul, A. Jacques, H. Walravens, L. Van Liedekerke, and P. Van Petegem, "Sustainability segmentation of business students: Toward self-regulated development of critical and interpretational competencies in a post-truth era," Journal of cleaner production, vol. 202, pp. 561–570, 2018.
[12] R. Garrison, “Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2000.
[13] J. Nowotny et al., “Towards global sustainability: Education on environmentally clean energy technologies,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 81, pp. 2541–2551, 2018.
[14] M. Pavlova, “Teaching and learning for sustainable development: ESD research in technology education,” International Journal of Technology and design education, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 733–748, 2013.
[15] D. Gonzalez-Gomez, J. S. Jeong, and F. Cañada-Cañada, “Enhancing science self-efficacy and attitudes
of Pre-Service Teachers (PST) through a flipped classroom learning environment,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 896–907, 2022.
[16] J. Mezirow, “Transformative learning: Theory to practice,” New directions for adult and continuing education, vol. 1997, no. 74, pp. 5–12, 1997.
[17] Z. Fadeeva and Y. Mochizuki, “Higher education for today and tomorrow: university appraisal for diversity, innovation and change towards sustainable development,” Sustainability Science, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 249–256, 2010.
[18] W. Leal Filho et al., “The role of transformation in learning and education for sustainability,” Journal of cleaner production, vol. 199, pp. 286–295, 2018.
[19] B. Esmaeilian, M. Rust, P. K. Gopalakrishnan, and S. Behdad, "Use of citizen science to improve the student experience in engineering design, manufacturing, and sustainability education," Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 26, pp. 1361–1368, 2018.
[20] J. S. Jeong, L. García-Moruno, and J. Hernández-Blanco, “A site planning approach for rural buildings into a landscape using a spatial multi-criteria decision analysis methodology,” Land Use Policy, vol. 32, pp. 108–118, 2013.
[21] M. Zare et al., "Multi-criteria decision-making approach in E-learning: A systematic review and classification," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 45, pp. 108–128, 2016.
[22] D. Jain, R. Garg, and A. Bansal, “A parameterized selection and evaluation of e-learning websites using topsis method,” International Journal of Research & Development in, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 12–26, 2015.
[23] E. Islas-Pérez, Y. H. Pérez, M. Pérez-Ramírez, C. F. García-Hernández, and B. Zayas-Pérez, “Multicriteria Decision Making for Evaluation of e-Learning Tools.,” Res. Comput. Sci., vol. 106, pp. 27–37, 2015.
[24] F. Smarandache and S. Pramanik, New trends in neutrosophic theory and applications, vol. 1. Infinite Study, 2016.
[25] H. ElGhawalby and A. A. Salama, “Ultra neutrosophic crisp sets and relations,” Florentin Smarandache, Surapati Pramanik, p. 395, 2015.
[26] S. A. Alblowi, A. A. Salama, and M. Eisa, New concepts of neutrosophic sets. Infinite Study, 2014.
[27] F. Smarandache, "A unifying field in logics. neutrosophy: Neutrosophic probability, set, and logic." American Research Press, Rehoboth, 1999.
