Evaluation of Student Knowledge Using an e-Learning Framework

  • Margarita FavorskayaEmail author
  • Yulya Kozlova
  • Jeffrey W. Tweedale
  • Lakhmi C. Jain
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 84)


This chapter introduces the concept of adding a fuzzy logic classifier to e-Learning framework. This conceptual model uses Fuzzy Logic Evaluation Sub-systems (FLESs) to implement “Theory of probability” curriculum. The customized sub-system is used to dynamically evaluate student knowledge. It is essential that the FLES-PRobabilty (FLES-PR) capture’s the students’ interest to maintain their motivation and increase the effectiveness of the learning experience. Given that interactive systems increase the education efficiency and the individual abilities of student, the routine actions of teacher are must be delegated to e-Learning system. In this chapter, artificial intelligence concepts, techniques, and technologies are used to deliver the e-Learning requirements. For instance, a fuzzy logic scheme is created to evaluate student knowledge when using the FLES-PR. The curriculum is delivered using two FLES modules instantiated using the “Matlab” 6.5 fuzzy toolbox environment. Each sub-system provides structured lessons, representing topics, content, and additional contextual parameters. The FLES is designed to gain the students attention, highlights the lesson objective(s), stimulates recall of prior knowledge, and progressively elicits new material to guide increased performance by providing feedback using benign assessment to enhance retention. The proposed evaluation system is designed as a functioning plug-into the universities “Moodle” server to leverage from the existing course management, learning management and virtual learning environment. It also recommends the pace and complexity of learning as the student progresses through the curriculum. This chapter case study discusses the success of the FLES-PR software tool and explains how it has been validated against the manual results of three human experts.


Concept mapping e-Learning Fuzzy logic Knowledge evaluation Interactive system Higher education 


  1. 1.
    Barak M (2010) Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. Int J Technol Des Educ 20(4):381–401CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klasnja-Milicev A, Vesin B, Ivanovic M, Budimac Z (2011) E-Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Comput Educ 56(2):885–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dias SB, Diniz JA (2012) Blended learning in higher education: different needs, different profiles. Procedia Comput Sci 14:438–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lin YT, Wen ML, Jou M, Wu DW (2014) A cloud-based learning environment for developing student reflection. Comput Hum Behav 32:244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Serrano-Cámara LM, Paredes-Velasco M, Alcover CM, Velazquez-Iturbide JÁ (2014) An evaluation of students’ motivation in computer-supported collaborative learning of programming concepts. Comput Hum Behav 31:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anaya AR, Luque M, García-Saiz T (2013) Recommender system in collaborative learning environment using an influence diagram. Expert Syst Appl 40:7193–7202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shaw RS (2012) A study of the relationships among learning styles, participation types, and performance in programming language learning supported by online forums. Comput Educ 58(1):111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nicholson P (2007) A History of E-learning. In: Fernández-Manjón B, Sánchez-Pérez J, Gómez-Pulido J, Vega-Rodríguez M, Bravo-Rodríguez J (eds) Computers and education: E-learning. From Theory to Practice, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldberg BS, Holden HK, Brawner KW, Sottilare RA (2011) Enhancing performance through pedagogy and feedback: domain considerations for ITSs. In: Interservice/Industry training, simulation, and education conference (I/ITSEC’2011), paper 11010, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hattie J (2012) Visible Learning for Teachers: maximising impact on learning, Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stockinger P, DePablo E (1999) Pedagogical models, methodologies and tools in web-based distant learning. In: Archimed Knowledge Village, pp 1–41, chapter 4Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Conati C, Manske M (2009) Evaluating adaptive feedback in an educational computer game. In: Ruttkay Z, Kipp M, Nijholt A, Vilhjálmsson HH (eds) Proceedings of 9th international conference on intelligent virtual agents, LNCS 5773. Springer, Berlin, pp 146–158Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghirardini B (2011) E-learning methodologies: a guide for designing and developing e-learning courses. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bersin J (2004) The blended learning book. Pfeiffer, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wiley D (2002) The instructional use of learning objects. Agency for Instructional Technology, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Govindasamy T (2002) Successful implementation of e-Learning pedagogical considerations. Internet Higher Educ, Pergamon 4:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chrysafiadi K, Virvou M (2013) Student modeling approaches: a literature review for the last decade. Expert Syst Appl 40:4715–4729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mahnane L, Laskri MT, Trigano P (2012) An adaptive hypermedia system integrating thinking style (AHS-TS): model and experiment. Int J Hybrid Info Technol 5(1):11–28Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gaudioso E, Montero M, Hernandez-del-Olmo F (2012) Supporting teachers in adaptive educational system through predictive models: a proof of concept. Expert Syst Appl 39(1):621–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jeremic Z, Jovanovic J, Gasevic D (2012) Student modeling and assessment in intelligent tutoring of software patterns. Expert Syst Appl 39(1):210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ting CY, Phon-Amnuaisuk S (2012) Properties of Bayesian student model for INQPRO. Appl Intell 36(2):391–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peña-Ayala A, Sossa-Azuela H, Cervantes-Pérez F (2012) Predictive student model supported by fuzzy-causal knowledge and inference. Expert Syst Appl 39(5):4690–4709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cline BE, Brewster CC, Fell RD (2010) A rule-based system for automatically evaluating student concept maps. Expert Syst Appl 37:2282–2291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yıldız-Feyziog E, Akpınar E, Tatar N (2013) Monitoring students’ goal setting and metacognitive knowledge in technology-enhanced learning with metacognitive prompts. Comput Hum Behav 29:616–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fiorella L, Vogel-Walcutt JJ, Fiore S (2012) Differential impact of two types of metacognitive prompting provided during simulation-based training. Comput Hum Behav 28:696–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peña-Ayala A, Sossa H, Méndez I (2014) Activity theory as a framework for building adaptive e-learning systems: a case to provide empirical evidence. Comput Hum Behav 30:131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Desmarais MC, Baker RS (2012) A review of recent advances in learner and skill modeling in intelligent learning environments. User Model User-Adap Inter 22(1–2):9–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tweedale JW, Jain LC (2014) Advances in modern artificial intelligence. In: Tweedale JW, Jain LC (eds) Recent advances in knowledge-based paradigms and applications, vol 234 of Advances in intelligent systems and computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hand D (2009) Measuring classifier performance: a coherent alternative to the area under the roc curve. In: Machine learning, vol 77. Springer, Berlin, pp 103–123Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zadeh LA (1972) A rationale for fuzzy control. J Dyn Syst Meas Control 94(1):3–4CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zadeh LA (1972) A fuzzy set theoretic interpretation of the linguistic hedges. J Cybern 2:4–34CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sugeno M (ed) (1985) Industrial applications of fuzzy control. Technology and Engineering, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sugeno M, Yasukawa T (1993) A fuzzy-logic-based approach to qualitative modelling. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 1(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sastry K, Goldberg D (2004) Designing competent mutation operators via probabilistic model building of neighbourhoods. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Springer, Berlin, LNCS 3103, pp 114–125Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gacto M, Alcala R, Herrera F (2012) A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for an effective tuning of fuzzy logic controllers in heating. ventilating and air conditioning systems. Appl Intell 36(2):330–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaya M, Alhajj R (2006) Utilizing genetic algorithms to optimize membership functions for fuzzy weighted association rules mining. Appl Intell 24(1):7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Precup R, Hellendoorn H (2011) A survey on industrial applications of fuzzy control. Comput Ind 62(3):213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bai SM, Chen SM (2008) Automatically constructing grade membership functions of fuzzy rules for students’ evaluation. Expert Syst Appl 35(2008):1408–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jia B, Zhong S, Zheng T, Liu Z (2010) The study and design of adaptive learning system based on fuzzy set theory. In: Pan Z, Cheok AD, Müller W, Zhang X, Wong K (eds) Transactions on edutainment IV, LNCS, Springer, Berlin, vol 6250, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Taylan O, Karagözoglu B (2009) An adaptive neuro-fuzzy model for prediction of student’s academic performance. Comput Ind Eng 57(3):732–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dias SB, Diniz JA (2013) FuzzyQoI model: A fuzzy logic-based modelling of users’ quality of interaction with a learning management system under blended learning. Comput Educ 69:38–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lo JJ, Chan YC, Yeh SW (2012) Designing an adaptive web-based learning system based on students’ cognitive styles identified online. Comput Educ 58:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Millán E, Loboda T, Pérez-de-la-Cruz JL (2010) Bayesian networks for student model engineering. Comput Educ 55(4):1663–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tourtoglou K, Virvou M (2012) An intelligent recommender system for trainers and trainees in a collaborative learning environment for UML. J Intell Decis Technol 6(2):79–95Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Celikyilmaz A, Turksen IB (2009) Studies in fuzziness and soft computing, vol 240. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–50Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zang R, Phillis Y, Kouikoglou V (2005) Fuzzy logic fuzzy control of queuing systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–25Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Abreu G, Ribeiro J (2003) On-line control of a flexible beam using adaptive fuzzy controller and piezoelectric actuators. Control Autom Mag 14(4):377–383Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Turevskiy A (2002) Fuzzy logic toolbox user’s guide, 2nd edn. Matworks, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margarita Favorskaya
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yulya Kozlova
    • 1
  • Jeffrey W. Tweedale
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lakhmi C. Jain
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Informatics and TelecommunicationsSiberian State Aerospace UniversityKrasnoyarskRussian Federation
  2. 2.University of South AustraliaMawson LakesAustralia
  3. 3.Defence Science and Technology OrganisationEdinburghAustralia
  4. 4.Faculty of Education, Science, Technology and MathematicsUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations