Using Decision Making AHP Method for the Choice of the Best Pedagogical Method for Developing Reading Skills for Young and Illiterate Public

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 37)

Abstract

The work presented in this paper is part of a global approach providing answers to solve the problems encountered by the Moroccan education system [2], especially in the primary school, as well as eradicating illiteracy. The article deals with the choice of the most suitable and efficient pedagogical reading skills method for young and illiterate public. The paper presents several pedagogical methods and focuses on their four most important (Phonics Method, Global Method, Mixed Method and Montessori Method). In order to choose the right reading teaching method, the paper proposes a study of a theoretical approach, based on the application of the decision making method AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) one of the MCDM/A methods (Multi-criteria decision-making and analysis methods).

The methodological context is based on an identification and representation of the most appropriate criteria and sub-criteria for the four pedagogical methods studied in order to rank them. Complementary research is in progress by the authors completes the work presented here, which focuses on other learning (calculation, comprehension, written and oral expression), including the integration of ICT (Information and communications technology) and multimedia.

An illustration of the application of this framework is also presented here.

Keywords

Education Pedagogy Primary school Reading methods Phonics Method Global Method Combination of phonics and whole language method Mixed Method Montessori Method AHP ICT MCDM/A 

References

  1. 1.
    N’Namdi, K.A.: Guide to teaching reading at the primary school level. UNESCO, Paris (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abadzi, H.: Instructional time loss and local-level governance. Prospects 37, 3–16 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aissanou, F.: Décisions multicritères dans les réseaux de télécommunication autonomes. Paris: Thèse numéro: 2012TELE0019 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bougroum, M., Ibourk, A., Löwenthal, P.: La politique d’alphabétisation au Maroc: quel rôle pour le secteur associatif? Mondes en développement, No. 134, pp. 63–77, February 2006.  https://doi.org/10.3917/med.134.0063, https://www.cairn.info/revue-mondes-en-developpement-2006-2-page-63.htm
  5. 5.
    Bowman, F.L.: The Influence of Montessori-Based Literacy Instruction and Methods on Reading Achievement of Students in Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Seton Hall University: Doctorat of Education (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brighelli, J.-P.: La Fabrique du crétin: la mort programmée de l’école. Jean-Claude Gawsewitch, Paris (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y.: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. In: SAGE, éd. 4ème, Los Angeles (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diabagaté, A., Azmani, A., El Harzli, M.: The choice of the best proposal in tendering with AHP method: case of procurement of IT master plan’s realization. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Comput. Sci. (IJITCS) 7(12), 1–11 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    El Haji, E., Azmani, A., El Harzli, M.: Using AHP method for educational and vocational guidance. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Comput. Sci. (IJITCS) 9(12), 9–17 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gombert, J.-É., Colé, P., Valdois, S., Goigoux, R., Mousty, P., Fayol, M.: Enseigner la lecture au cycle 2. Nathan Université (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosselin, A.: De l’enseignement de la lecture par la méthode phonomimique. Revue pédagogique 2(2), 517–530 (1881)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamouchi, A., Errougui, I., Boulaassass, B.: L’enseignement au Maroc, de l’approche par objectifs à l’approche par compétences: points de vue des enseignantes et enseignants. RADISMA, N°8 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jamet, E.: Comment lisons-nous? Sci. Hum. (82), 20–25 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Janet, P., Dumas, G.: Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique. Presse universitaires de France-Paris (1926)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lahby, M., Cherkaoui, L., Adib, A.: An intelligent network selection strategy based on MADM methods in heterogeneous networks. Int. J. Wirel. Mob. Netw. 4(1), 83–96 (2012)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lai, W., Han-lun, L., Qi, L., Jing-yi, C., Yi-jiao, C.: Study and implementation of fire sites planning based on GIS and AHP. Procedia Eng. 11, 486–495 (2011). 1(1)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sadjadi, S.J., Habibian, M., Khaledi, V.: A multi-objective decision making approach for solving quadratic multiple response surface problems. Math. Sci. 3(32), 1595–1606 (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saaty, R.W.: The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 9(3), 161–176 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saaty, T.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Serv. Sci. 1(1), 83–98 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    UNESCO: Enseigner et apprendre: Atteindre la qualité pour tous. UNESCO, Paris, April 2013Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    UNESCO: Le rapport mondial de suivi sur l’EPT Education pour tous 2000–2015: Progrès et enjeux. France (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    UNESCO: Rapport mondial de suivi sur l’éducation. L’éducation pour les peuples et la planète: Créer des avenirs durables pour tous, Paris (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Informatics System and TelecommunicationFaculty of Sciences and Techniques of TangierTangierMorocco
  2. 2.Laboratory of Methods Informatics and EnterpriseFaculty of Sciences and Techniques of TangierTangierMorocco

Personalised recommendations