Multi-Criteria Evaluation of AI-Based Adaptive Learning Platforms in Global Higher Education: A Fuzzy AHP Perspective
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
The effectiveness of adaptive learning platforms in higher education is shaped by multiple interacting factors that involve subjective judgment and uncertainty. This study employs the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) to examine the relative importance of key evaluation criteria and sub-criteria based on the perceptions of higher education users with prior experience in technology-enabled learning systems. Data were collected through a structured survey of 150 respondents using fuzzy pairwise comparisons. The evaluation framework was structured around four main criteria—Technological Factors, Content Quality, User Factors, and Institutional Support—supported by twelve sub-criteria.
The findings show a clear and consistent emphasis on learner-oriented and practical considerations. Within the technological dimension, system usability is ranked as the most influential factor, surpassing platform reliability and internet accessibility. For content quality, content relevance is prioritized over interactivity and multimedia features, highlighting the importance of meaningful and well-structured instructional material. Among user-related factors, learner motivation emerges as the dominant determinant, followed by digital literacy, while engagement level carries comparatively less weight. In the institutional support category, technical support is identified as the most critical element, reflecting the need for timely assistance to ensure uninterrupted platform use.
Overall, the results indicate that effective adaptive learning platforms are driven primarily by ease of use, high-quality instructional content, and motivated learners, supported by responsive technical services. The study provides a structured evaluation framework that can assist educators, institutions, and system designers in making informed decisions regarding the development and adoption of learning platforms in higher education contexts.
Downloads
References
Ayeni, A. O., Ovbiye, R. E., Onayemi, A. S., & Ojedele, K. E. (2025). AI-driven adaptive learning platforms: Enhancing educational outcomes. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. ResearchGate
Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–24.
Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655.
Chen, C.T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Dede, C. (2014). Digital tools for deeper learning. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 30–38.
Gligorea, I. (2023). Adaptive Learning Using Artificial Intelligence in e-Learning. Education Sciences. MDPI
Hariyanto, (2025). Artificial intelligence in adaptive education: a systematic review. Springer. SpringerLink
Hatlevik, O. E., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2018). Digital diversity among upper secondary students. Computers & Education, 120, 137–149.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Promise and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Karnavas, S. I., Peteinatos, I., Kyriazis, A., & Barbounaki, S. G. (2025). Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making as a Human-Centered AI Approach. Information.
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ruan, D. (2004). Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey. International Journal of Production Economics, 87(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00099-9
AI Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2019). Universal design for learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer-reviewed journal papers from 2012 to 2018. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(3), 1–25.
Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M. D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2017). Informing progress: Insights on personalized learning implementation and effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 165–189.
Pinela-Cárdenas, R. A., Echeverría-Vásquez, H. E., Peralta-Gamboa, D. A., et al. (2025). Exploring AI-powered adaptive learning systems and their implementation in educational settings. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies. IJIRSS
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Classic definitions and new directions. Academic Press.
Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.
Tan, L. Y., Hu, S., Yeo, D. J., & Cheong, K. H. (2025). Artificial intelligence-enabled adaptive learning platforms: A review. Computers & Education: AI. ScienceDirect
VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.
Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 223–235.
Xu, S. (2023). Multi-criteria decision making for determining best teaching methods using Fuzzy AHP. Soft Computing. ACM Digital Library
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in our journal are licensed under CC-BY 4.0, which permits authors to retain copyright of their work. This license allows for unrestricted use, sharing, and reproduction of the articles, provided that proper credit is given to the original authors and the source.