An Integrated Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Framework for Evaluating AI-Enhanced Competencies of College English Teachers in Blended Learning Environments

Authors

  • Wei Cui

Keywords:

College English, Blended Learning, AI Competency Assessment, Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS, Teacher Evaluation.

Abstract

In response to the accelerating adoption of generative artificial intelligence, university English education is increasingly being reshaped into an intelligent blended learning environment, consequently raising the competency requirements associated with teachers’ use of AI. Drawing upon the Teacher Artificial Intelligence Capability Framework issued by relevant international authorities in 2024, while also accounting for the intercultural communication orientation of university English and the specific instructional conditions of blended learning, this study establishes an assessment framework for teachers’ AI capabilities comprising five primary dimensions and fifteen secondary indicators. To address the ambiguity and uncertainty inherent in conventional subjective assessment, a multi-criteria decision analysis approach is incorporated, resulting in a quantitative evaluation framework that combines Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS. The resulting measurements identify AI teaching methods and AI ethics and safety as the principal dimensions shaping teachers’ overall AI competence. In addition, five representative digital profiles of foreign language teachers are evaluated through simulated Fuzzy TOPSIS ranking and proximity coefficient analysis. The results demonstrate that collaborative and integrated teachers achieve the strongest overall performance, particularly when advanced instructional approaches are combined with robust ethical and safety controls. The study therefore offers human resource professionals and academic administrators in higher education a systematic, transparent, and quantitative basis for teacher evaluation and decision-making. At the same time, it highlights a central principle for foreign language teacher development in the intelligent era: technological adoption should remain subordinate to, and guided by, sound pedagogical principles.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Krishan, I. A., Ching, H. S., Ramalingam, S., Maruthai, E., Kandasamy, P., Mello, G. D., Munian, S., & Ling, W. W. (2020). Challenges of learning english in 21st century: Online vs. Traditional during covid-19. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 5(9), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v5i9.494

[2] Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

[3] Su, J., Lv, L., & Li, Z. (2024). AI-empowered college english blended teaching in China from the perspective of educational ecology. Trends in Social Sciences and Humanities Research, 2(12), 25-28. https://doi.org/10.61784/tsshr3121

[4] Wang, R., & Mokhtar, M. M. (2025). Empowering oral English teachers with AI to improve digital and blended teaching competencies. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(8), 1716-1724. https://doi.org/10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9694

[5] Zhu, Y., & Li, H. (2025). Enhancing college english education in China with AI: A teacher-ai-student triad model. English Language Teaching, 18(7), 15. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v18n7p15

[6] Zhou, T., Tondeur, J., & Howard, S. (2025). AI competency frameworks for teachers: A systematic review. EdMedia + Innovate Learning, https://www.learntechlib.org/p/226198

[7] UNESCO. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO,. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ai-competency-framework-teachers

[8] Do, Q. H., Tran, V. T., & Tran, T. T. (2024). Evaluating lecturer performance in Vietnam: An application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Heliyon, 10(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30772

[9] Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., . . . Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

[10] Mukhametzyanov, I. Z., & Pamucar, D. (2025). Equivalence of MCDM methods and synthesis of solution based on ratings obtained in different models. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 8(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame8220251473

[11] Aditi, B., Bulan, T. R. N., & Jufrizen. (2025). A multi-criteria decision-support framework for optimizing digital marketing strategies in Indonesian SMEs using Fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 8(2), 955-973. https://doi.org/10.31081/dmame8220251671

[12] Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9

[13] 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

[14] Wu, H. (2026). Chinese university EFL learners’ perceptions of a blended learning model featuring precision teaching. Education Inquiry, 17(2), 350-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2024.2361979

[15] Al-Ahmed, H. M. B. A., Dwaikat, N. Y., Hattab, M. K., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2026). Enhancing the quality of educators’ AI competency: a mixed-methods study of professional and institutional factors. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2026.2673221

[16] Miao, F., Shiohira, K., & Lao, N. (2024). AI competency framework for students. UNESCO Publishing. https://doi.org/10.54675/jkjb9835

[17] Rahman, W. Z. (2026). Artificial intelligence (AI) in english writing skills learning: A systematic review. ETDC: Indonesian Journal of Research and Educational Review, 5(2), 981-994. https://doi.org/10.51574/ijrer.v5i2.4727

[18] Xiao, J. (2026). Smart classroom revolution: Implementing artificial intelligence in college English instruction to foster adaptive learning and cross-cultural communication skills Proceedings of the 2026 5th International Conference on Educational Innovation and Multimedia Technology (EIMT 2026), https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6239-691-3_34

[19] Moradi, H. (2025). The role of language teachers’ perceptions and attitudes in ICT integration in higher education EFL classes in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04524-5

[20] Ahmed, F., & Kilic, K. (2024). Does fuzzification of pairwise comparisons in analytic hierarchy process add any value? Soft Computing, 28(5), 4267-4284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-09593-9

[21] Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I

[22] Gao, P., Feng, J., & Yang, L. (2008). Fuzzy TOPSIS algorithm for multiple criteria decision making with an application in information systems project selection. 2008 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing,

[23] Kore, N. B., Ravi, K., & Patil, S. B. (2017). A simplified description of fuzzy TOPSIS method for multi criteria decision making. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(5), 2047–2050. https://www.irjet.net/archives/V4/i5/IRJET-V4I5548.pdf

Downloads

Published

2026-03-30

How to Cite

Wei Cui. (2026). An Integrated Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Framework for Evaluating AI-Enhanced Competencies of College English Teachers in Blended Learning Environments. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 9(1). Retrieved from http://dmame-journal.org/index.php/dmame/article/view/1788