Optimizing an immersion ESL curriculum using analytic hierarchy process
Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to fill a substantial knowledge gap regarding reaching a uniform group decision in English curriculum design and planning. A comprehensive content-based course criterion model extracted from existing literature and expert opinions was developed. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was used to identify the relative importance of course criteria for the purpose of tailoring an optimal one-week immersion English as a second language (ESL) curriculum for elementary school students in a suburban county of Taiwan. The hierarchy model and AHP analysis utilized in the present study will be useful for resolving several important multi-criteria decision-making issues in planning and evaluating ESL programs. This study also offers valuable insights and provides a basis for further research in customizing ESL curriculum models for different student populations with distinct learning needs, goals, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The AHP hierarchy was constructed by drawing all evaluation criteria and alternatives directly from the Delphi consensus, rather than introducing externally derived criteria.
“Following the methodological logic of Tang [24] and Yao et al. [33], the AHP hierarchy was constructed by drawing all evaluation criteria and alternatives directly from the Delphi consensus, rather than introducing externally derived criteria.”
From Toward Sustainable AI Literacy in Higher Education: A Delphi–AHP Approach to Identifying Key Components of AI/Data Extracurricular Programs (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
Panel composition adhered to Green's recommendation that Delphi panels comprise individuals with substantive expertise and to the suggested minimum panel size for educational Delphi studies (8-15 experts).
“Panel composition adhered to Green's [22] recommendation that Delphi panels comprise individuals with substantive expertise on the topic, and to the suggested minimum panel size for educational Delphi studies (8-15 experts) [24,33].”
From Toward Sustainable AI Literacy in Higher Education: A Delphi–AHP Approach to Identifying Key Components of AI/Data Extracurricular Programs (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
The combined Delphi-AHP approach is particularly well-suited to educational program design contexts where existing frameworks are insufficient and components must be inductively elicited from expert consensus and where relative importance must be quantified to inform resource allocation and design priorities.
“The combined Delphi-AHP approach is particularly well-suited to educational program design contexts where (a) existing frameworks are insufficient and components must be inductively elicited from expert consensus and (b) the relative importance of components must be quantified to inform resource allocation and design priorities [24,33].”
From Toward Sustainable AI Literacy in Higher Education: A Delphi–AHP Approach to Identifying Key Components of AI/Data Extracurricular Programs (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
The same expert panel participated in all three phases, introducing a potential circularity in which the panel that generated the framework also evaluated its validity.
“the same expert panel participated in all three phases of the study-Delphi consensus-building, AHP prioritization, and CVR verification.While this design choice preserved judgmental consistency across phases and reflects common practice in Delphi-AHP research [24,33], it introduces a potential circularity in which the panel that generated the framework also evaluated its validity.”
From Toward Sustainable AI Literacy in Higher Education: A Delphi–AHP Approach to Identifying Key Components of AI/Data Extracurricular Programs (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
The expert panel size (N = 10) is consistent with established Delphi methodology in educational program development but remains modest.
“First, the expert panel size (N = 10), while consistent with established Delphi methodology in educational program development [24,33], remains modest”
From Toward Sustainable AI Literacy in Higher Education: A Delphi–AHP Approach to Identifying Key Components of AI/Data Extracurricular Programs (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
Cites
Manipulating and Complementing Content Teaching To Maximize Second Language Learning
Swain, M. (1988) · TESL Canada Journal · doi:10.18806/tesl.v6i1.542 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bae, J.-S., Ko, K.-M., & Park, H.-J. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18168050 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tang, H.-W. V.
- Affiliations
- Ming Chuan University (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Tang, Hui-Wen Vivian
- ORCID
- Tang, Hui-Wen Vivian
- Venue
- Evaluation and Program Planning
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 343-352
- ISSN
- 0149-7189 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2019855708
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 10.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evaluation and Program Planning (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- English as a second language, language immersion, curriculum development, analytic hierarchy process, multi-criteria decision making, elementary school students, curriculum evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Curriculum, Data Collection, Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Delphi Technique, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Taiwan, Models, Educational
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
