Fuzzy Logic-Based Operational Research Techniques in Educational Administration: A Content Analysis

  • Zeliha Yaykıran
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)


In this study, fuzzy logic-based mathematical decision-making published papers in educational administration, published books, and other related accessible resources between years 1960 and 2016 and related books or resources were evaluated. In other words, a content analysis of papers was achieved. To do this, published articles were investigated and studied based on their content. An analysis of the techniques that were used in the field and publishing years of the papers were concentrated upon.


Operational research Operations research Fuzzy logic Educational 


  1. Anderson, L. (Ed.). (1984). Time and school learning: Theory, research and practice. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aydın, M. (1994). Eğitim yönetimi. Malatya: Hatiboğlu Yayınları.Google Scholar
  3. Baesens, B., et al. (2011). Gaining insight into student satisfaction using comprehensible data mining techniques. European Journal of Operational Research, 218, 548–562.Google Scholar
  4. Bassey, M. (2001). A solution to the problem of generalization in educational research: Fuzzy prediction. Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake, I. F. (1979). An Introduction to Applied Probability. Michigan University: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Bordogna, G., Fedrizzi, M., & Passi, G. (1997). A linguistic modeling of consensus in group decision-making based on OWA operators. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, A27(1), 126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borisov, A. N., Alekseev, A. V., Merkur’eva, G. V., et al. (1989). Fuzzy information processing in decision-making systems. Moscow: Radio i Svyaz. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  8. Bossel, H., Klaczko, S., & Muller, N. (1976). Systems theory in the social sciences. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  9. Boulos, M. N. K., Hetherington, L., & Wheeler, S. (2007). Second Life: An overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(4), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bracey, G. (1997). Understanding education statistics: It’s easier (and more important) than you think. Arlington: Educational Research Service.Google Scholar
  11. Buckley, J. J. (1995). The multiple judge, multiple criteria ranking problem: A fuzzy set approach. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 13(1), 23–37.Google Scholar
  12. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (1987). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapi ve davraniş. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri FakÜltesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  13. Chan, Y. Y. (2007). Teaching queueing theory with an inquiry-based learning approach: A case for applying WebQuest in a course in simulation and statistical analysis. 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F3C-2. Milwaukee.Google Scholar
  14. Chen, G., & al, e. (2000). Discovering decision knowledge from web log portfolio for managing classroom processes by applying decision tree and data cube technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(3), 305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Claxton, G. (1996). Integrated learning theory and the learner teacher. In G. Claxton, T. Atkinson, M. Osborn, & Wallace (Eds.), Liberating the learner lessons for professional development in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cook, D. L. (1966). Program evaluation and review technique: Applications in education. ERIC ED 015 533.Google Scholar
  18. Cook, D. L. (1967) Better project planning and control through the use of system analysis and management techniques. ERIC ED 019 729.Google Scholar
  19. Creighton, T. B. (2000). Schools and data: The educator’s guide for using data to improve decision making. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dejaeger, K., Goethals, F., Giangreco, A., Mola, L., & Baesens, B. (2011) Gaining insight into student satisfaction using comprehensible data mining techniques. Available online: 17 November 2011,
  21. Dusseldorf, V., Ralph, A., & Richardson, D. E. (1971). Educational decision-making through operations research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  22. Faria, A. J. (2001). The changing nature of business simulation/gaming research: a brief history. Simulation and Gaming, 32(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fourali, C. (1994). Fuzzy logic and the quality of assessment of portfolios. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 68, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fourali, C. (1997). Using fuzzy logic in educational measurement: The case of portfolio assessment. Evaluation & Research in Education, 11(3), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gary, M. S., & Wood, R. E. (2011). Mental models, decision rules, and performance heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 32(6), 569–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Geraldine, B., Alexander, R., Sherin, G. M., Hilda, B., & Tina, S. (2013). Five research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal for Educational Research Online, 5(1), 90–114.Google Scholar
  27. Gordon, G. (1969). System simulation. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs\Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Graden, J. et al. (1984). Changes in academic engaged time as a function of assessment and special education intervention. Special Services in the Schools, 1(2), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gravani, M. N., & John, P. D. (2005). ‘Them and us’: Teachers’ and tutors’ perceptions of a ‘new’ professional development course in Greece. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 35(3), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Habenicht, W., Scheubrein, B., & Scheubrein, R. (2009). Multiple – criteria decision making. Optimization and Operations Research, 4, 257–280.Google Scholar
  31. Hallinger, P., & McCary, M. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of instructional leaders. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2001). Learning to lead global changes across cultures: designing a computer-based simulation for Thai school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(3), 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hallinger, P., et al. (2010). Learning to lead organizational change in Thailand: assessment of a problem-based learning approach. Educational Review, 62(4), 467–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hamalainen, W., et al. (2004). Data mining in personalizing distance education courses. In World confer-ence on open learning and distance education. Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  35. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). The quality and distribution of teachers under the no child left behind act. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 133–150. Scholar
  36. Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Holcomb, E. L. (1999). Getting excited about data: How to combine people, passion and proof. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  38. Houghton, V., & Gear, T. (1975). Towards a management science perspective for recurrent education. Interfaces, 5(2), 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huyvaert, S. H. (1987). Queuing theory: An alternative approach to educational Research. ERIC ED 285 542 IR 012 747.Google Scholar
  40. Karweit, N., & Slavin, R. E. (1981). Measurement and modeling choices in studies of time and learning. American Educational Research Journal, 18(2), 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaya, Y. K. (1991). Eğitim yönetimi kuram ve tÜrkiye’deki uygulama. Ankara: Sef Ofset Matbaacılık.Google Scholar
  42. Keeney, R. L. (1982). Decision Analysis: An Overview. Operations Research, 30(5), 803–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kosko, B. (1994). Fuzzy thinking. London: Harper/Collins.Google Scholar
  44. Lean, J., Moizer, J., Towler, M., & Abbey, C. (2006). Simulations and games. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(3), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. McKenna, C. K. (1980). Quantitative methods for public decision making (pp. 164–195). New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  47. McNamara, J. F. (1996). Teaching statistics in principal preparation programs. College Station: The Research Department.Google Scholar
  48. Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Ontjes, R. L. (1972). A linear programming model for assigning students to attendance centers. Chicago: ERIC ED 062395.Google Scholar
  50. Ozturk, A. (2013). Yoneylem arastirmasinin tarihi gelisimi ve ozellikleri. Alphanumeric Journa, 1(1), 4–11.Google Scholar
  51. Pedrycz, W., & Gomide, F. (1998). An introduction to fuzzy sets: Analysis and design. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  52. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  53. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2002). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning. In B. Moon, A. S. Mayes, & S. Hutchinson (Eds.), Teaching, learning and the curriculum in secondary schools. London: Open University.Google Scholar
  54. Ramalhoto, M. R. (1990). Probabilistic modelling in engineering- queueing theory. European Journal of Engineering Education, 15, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2006). Educational data mining: A Survey from 1995 to 2005. Expert Systems with Applications, 33, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rossmiller, R. (1983). Time-on task: A Look at what erodes time for instruction. NASSP Bulletin, 67(465), 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Salas, E., Wildman, J. L., & Piccolo, R. F. (2009). Using simulation-based training to enhance management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 559–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sanders, S. (1978). The computer in educational decision making; an introduction and guide for school administrators. Portland: Northwest Regional Educational Lab.Google Scholar
  59. Scherpereel, C. M. (2005). Changing mental models: Business simulation exercises. Simulation & Gaming, 36(3), 388–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Semerci, N. (2000). Yonetimde karar vermenin kritik dusunme ile iliskisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi 22.Google Scholar
  61. Showanasai, P., et al. (2013). Developing tools for research on school leadership development: An illustrative case of a computer simulation. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(1), 72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smythe, W., & Johnson, A. (1966). Introduction to linear programming, with applications (p. 187). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  63. Sottinen, T. (2009). Operations research with GNU linear programming kit.Google Scholar
  64. Stefan, B. (2007). The use of program evaluation and review techniques (Pert) in the management of health organizations. Bucharest, Romania: Academy of Economic Studies Faculty of Management.Google Scholar
  65. Steadman, R. H., Coates, W. C., Huang, Y. M., Matevosian, R., Larmon, B. R., McCullough, L., & Ariel, D. (2006). Simulation-based training is superior to problem-based learning for the acquisition of critical assessment and management skills. Critical Care Medicine, 34(1), 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tang, T., & McCalla, G. (2002). Student modeling for a web-based learning environment: A data mining approach. In Eighteenth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 967–968). Menlo Park: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  67. Taymaz, H. (1989). Uygulamalı okul yönetimi. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri FakÜltesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  68. Wiest, J. D., & Levy, F. K. (1969). A management guide to PERT/CPM. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  69. Yılmaz, A. (1999). Etkili karar verme süreci: yeni bir karar verme önerisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi 18.Google Scholar
  70. Young, R. C. (1973). Linear programming for vocational education planning.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations