An AHP-based evaluation procedure for innovative educational projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study

An AHP-based evaluation procedure for innovative educational projects A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study

In this paper a procedure to evaluate proposals for Educational Innovation Projects is proposed. This methodology should help the Institute of Educational Sciences of the Politechnical University of Valencia to choose the best Educational Project, the final aim being to provide the Administration wi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Omega (Oxford) Vol. 36; no. 5; pp. 754 - 765
Main Authors: Garcia Melon, Monica, Aragones Beltran, Pablo, Gonzales Cruz, M. Carmen
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Exeter Elsevier Ltd 01-10-2008
Elsevier
Elsevier Science Publishers
Pergamon Press Inc
Series:Omega
Subjects:
AHP
AHP Group decisions Decision process Education
Applied sciences
Bewertung
Bildungswesen
Comparative analysis
Computer-assisted instruction
Computerunterstütztes Verfahren
Decision process
Decision theory. Utility theory
Education
Educational technology
Evaluation
Exact sciences and technology
Fallstudie
Group decisions
Innovations
Management
Multiple criteria decision making
Operational research and scientific management
Operational research. Management science
Project evaluation
Projektmanagement
Spanien
Studies
Technology application
United States
Universities and colleges
United States
Spain
AHP
Decision process
Education
Group decisions
Social decision
Computational geometry
Script
Innovation
Geometric mean
Analytic hierarchy process
Consensus
Teaching
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In this paper a procedure to evaluate proposals for Educational Innovation Projects is proposed. This methodology should help the Institute of Educational Sciences of the Politechnical University of Valencia to choose the best Educational Project, the final aim being to provide the Administration with a stringent evaluation methodology, since the current evaluation methodology was found to be neither sufficiently objective nor systematic. Since in the definition and evaluation of these Educational Projects diverse stakeholders are involved, the process has been approached as a MCDA carried out by a group of experts. Although a whole methodology is proposed, the paper has been focused on the weight assignment of the different criteria chosen by the experts. The experts have been asked to act in two different ways: in face-to-face meetings in which a consensus or compromise had to be reached, and meetings at distance where the experts have given their individual judgements, which have been next combined using the geometric mean with the software EC 2000 [Expert Choice 2000 Team. Pittsburgh: Expert Choice, Inc.; 2001]. This procedure has allowed the authors to analyse the possible scenarios that the IES board team might come up against in the future. The main difference between the two ways of work is the dimension of physical space or the distance between the members of the evaluating team. This distance has a significant effect on the way team members relate to each other.
ISSN:0305-0483
1873-5274
DOI:10.1016/j.omega.2006.01.005