ESPRIT adventure: Assessing hybrid fuzzy-crisp rule-based AI method effectiveness in teaching key performance indicators
Open accessAbstract
Key performance indicators (KPIs) are a fundamental tool for understanding the outcomes of business policies. Teaching these indicators is conventionally accomplished through verbal lecturing using mathematical equations, accompanied by presentation graphics and tabular information representing the company's operational, financial, and strategic achievements. The conventional teaching method enables the student to understand what a KPI means and how it is calculated, however, it does not enable the student to understand easily how to interpret it. Here, a hybrid fuzzy-crisp rule-based AI system is presented and its effectiveness when applied with a group of management and organization students at the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, during the 2022/2023 academic year is evaluated. The potential of this tool is reflected in its ability to simulate adaptive and realistic business economic situations, its high interactivity and user-friendly interface, and intuitive graphical and tabular results that are easy to interpret enhanced with natural-language-inference-explanations. Univariate analysis along with some complementary statistical tests was used to examine students' satisfaction with the system and to distinguish between students who used the system, and students who attended conventional classes, both in terms of acquiring knowledge and retaining knowledge. In general, the results showed high students' satisfaction with the system. The scores obtained by the former group on the objective knowledge assessment test were on average significantly higher compared to those of the latter, proving the positive effect of the hybrid fuzzy-crisp rule-based AI teaching approach.
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?
Fields such as Biology, Business, and Medicine remain underexplored, largely due to challenges in adapting general-purpose GenAI models to specialized or niche contexts.
“In contrast, fields such as Biology (Collins et al., 2024), Business (Milić et al., 2024; Netland et al. 2025), and Medicine (Hudon et al., 2024) remain underexplored, largely due to challenges in adapting general-purpose GenAI models to specialized or niche contexts.”
From Pedagogical Applications of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of the Field (2025) · cites this paper as Milić et al., 2024
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 · Cited by 12,581 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0072 · Cited by 2,755 · see citing works
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790 · Cited by 1,261 · see citing works
AI in CAI: An Artificial-Intelligence Approach to Computer-Assisted Instruction
Carbonell, J. (1970) · IEEE Transactions on Man Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/tmms.1970.299942 · Cited by 955 · see citing works
A systematic literature review of personalized learning terms
Shemshack, A., & Spector, J. M. (2020) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-020-00140-9 · Cited by 539 · see citing works
Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4391243 · Cited by 278 · see citing works
Reviewing affective, behavioural and cognitive learning gains in higher education
Rogaten, J., Rienties, B., Sharpe, R., Cross, S., Whitelock, D., Lygo-Baker, S., & Littlejohn, A. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1504277 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pedagogical Applications of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of the Field
Qian, Y. (2025) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-025-01100-1 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
“In contrast, fields such as Biology (Collins et al., 2024), Business (Milić et al., 2024; Netland et al. 2025), and Medicine (Hudon et al., 2024) remain underexplored, largely due to challenges in adapting general-purpose GenAI models to specialized or niche contexts.”
- Authors
- Milić, T., Tomić, B., Marinković, S., & Jeremić, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Belgrade (RS)
- Corresponding author
- Milić, Tanja
- Venue
- The International Journal of Management Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-11
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 101022
- ISSN
- 1472-8117 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4400520403
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 3.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The International Journal of Management Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Repository of the University of Belgrade Faculty of Organizational Sciences (RFOS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Republic of Serbia Ministry of Education Science and Technological Development
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Edcuational Technology Systems
- Keywords
- key performance indicators, AI in teaching, management education, student satisfaction, knowledge retention, natural language explanations, simulation-based training, business economics education
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