Research ArticleCombining the Previous Measure of Evidence to EducationalEntrance Examination

(1)

(2)

ISSN 1994-5450 DOI: 10.3923/jai.2017.85.90

Research Article

Combining the Previous Measure of Evidence to Educational Entrance Examination

1Andino Maseleno, ²Miftachul Huda, ³Maragustam Siregar, ⁴Roslee Ahmad, ⁵Aminudin Hehsan, ⁵Zulkiflee Haron, ⁵Mohd Nasir Ripin, ²Siti Suhaila Ihwani and ²Kamarul Azmi Jasmi

1Sekolah Tinggi Manajemen Informatika dan Komputer (STMIK) Pringsewu, Pringsewu, Lampung, Indonesia

2Faculty of Islamic Civilisation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Sekudai, Johor, Malaysia

3Faculty of Education, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

4Faculty of Leadership and Management, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Malaysia

5Centre for Fiqh Research in Science and Technology (CFiRST), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

Abstract

Background and Objective: Educational entrance examination refers to the extent in selecting the student to enroll through admission into educational institution. It has an entire procedure administered to achieve from primary to higher education. However, not many researches were conducted using mathematical theory of evidence. This study aims to investigate the examination process about the admission into educational institutions using mathematical theory of evidence. Materials and Methods: The assessment on studentʼs entrance examination through the effectiveness of Dempster-Shafer theory can be viewed with its significant contribution by combining the previous measure of evidence. Eight studentʼs entrance examination results were proposed. Results: The result reveals that there were some significant findings in assessing the studentʼs entrance examination using mathematical theory of evidence. Those were obtained degrees of belief of Computer Science with 76.4% for student 1, Computer Science with 64.2% for student 2, Computer Science with 75.4% for student 3, Computer Science with 80.3% for student 4, Computer Science with 67.4% for student 5, Computer Science with 57.1% for student 6, Islamic Studies with 26.3% for student 7, Computer Science with 62.5% for student 8. Conclusion: In this research, mathematical theory of evidence has been successfully developed to assess studentʼs entrance examination and displaying the result of identification process.

Key words: Entrance examination, Dempster-Shafer theory, measure of evidence, identification process, mathematical theory of evidence

Citation: Andino Maseleno, Miftachul Huda, Maragustam Siregar, Roslee Ahmad, Aminudin Hehsan, Zulkiflee Haron, Mohd Nasir Ripin, Siti Suhaila Ihwani and Kamarul Azmi Jasmi, 2017. Combining the previous measure of evidence to educational entrance examination. J. Artif. Intel., 10: 85-90.

Corresponding Author: Andino Maseleno, Sekolah Tinggi Manajemen Informatika dan Komputer (STMIK) Pringsewu, Pringsewu, Lampung, Indonesia

Copyright: © 2017 Andino Maseleno et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the creative commons attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Competing Interest: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its supporting information files.

(3)

J. Artif. Intel., 10 (3): 85-90, 2017 INTRODUCTION

Entrance examination adopted by educational institutions in selecting students for admission, university admission or college admission is an important process through which students enter tertiary education at universities and colleges. Admission to colleges and universities has been a straightforward process. College entrance examinations in Indonesia and in several countries are so important that they are commonly once in a lifetime. In Japan, Brown presented some of the ways the university entrance examinations in Japan could be used to foster positive washback effects on English language instruction¹. In China, the component of the Chinese college entrance examination is a combination of subject tests that are grouped for students pursuing either liberal arts (Political Science, History and Geography) or science and technology (Physics, Chemistry and Biology)². In Spain, Spanish university entrance examination (SUEE) is a public examination used across Spanish universities to select students at the end of their secondary education for entering a Spanish university³. In Turkey, Bulut et al.⁴ have examined the applicability of computerized adaptive testing procedure to the entrance examination for graduate studies (EEGS), which is used in selecting students for graduate programs. In Iran, Pasha et al.⁵ examined the predictive validity of Iranʼs national university entrance examination scores, alone and in combination with high school grade point averages (hsGPAs), for the academic performance of public medical school students. In USA, Libertus et al.⁶ investigated the link between approximate number system precision and mathematics performance in adults by testing participants on an approximate number system-precision test and collecting their scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), a standardized college-entrance exam.

Mathematical theory of evidence can be applied repetitively when the sources are more than two. After the combination, a decision can be made among the different hypotheses according to the decision rule chosen. With regards, the competitiveness of the exam means that teachers and parents place considerable pressure on their children to succeed in school and exam preparation begins at an early age⁷. University entrance is largely based on the scores that students achieved in entrance examinations.

Several researchers have been conducted research related with entrance examination. Besoluk⁸ explored whether morningness-eveningness preference influences achievement in a standardised university entrance examination. Sun et al.⁹, combined fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method and the analytic hierarchy process method to propose an improved

multi-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for obtaining a new college English classroom teaching quality evaluation method. Chen et al.¹⁰presented an approach to the problem based on the artificial neural network with the two meta-heuristic algorithms inspired by cuckoo birds and their lifestyle, namely, Cuckoo Search and Cuckoo Optimization Algorithm was proposed.

Although many researches were conducted using mathematical theory of evidence, there has been less scholarly attention on investigating the examination process about the admission into educational institutions using mathematical theory of evidence in particular way. This paper examines educational entrance examination using mathematical theory of evidence. Mathematical theory of evidence provides a method to combine the previous measures of evidence of different sources. With the effectiveness of mathematical theory of evidence, the assessment on studentʼs entrance examination through eight students can be viewed with its significant contribution by combining the previous measure of evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Combining the source of evidence: Dempster-Shafer theory provides a method to combine the previous measures of evidence of different sources. The mathematical theory of evidence or Dempster-Shafer theory was first introduced by Dempster¹¹and then extended by Shafer¹², but the kind of reasoning the theory uses can be found as far back as the 17th century. This theory is actually an extension to classic probabilistic uncertainty modelling. While the Bayesian theory requires probabilities for each question of interest, belief functions allow the researchers to take in considering the degrees of belief into the question on probabilities for the related question. Even though mathematical theory of evidence was not created specifically in relation to artificial intelligence, the name mathematical theory of evidence was coined by Barnett¹³ in an article which marked the entry of the belief functions into the artificial intelligence literature.

The mathematical theory of evidence or the theory of belief functions can be interpreted as the generalization of probability theory in which the elements of the sample space where non zero probability mass was attributed are not single points but sets. The sets that get non zero mass were called focal elements. The sum of these probability masses was one, however, the basic difference between mathematical theory of evidence and traditional probability theory was that the focal elements of a mathematical theory of evidence structure may overlap one another.

86

(4)

Table 1: Student entrance examinationʼs result

Students Logic (Computer Science, Economics) Math (Computer Science) Arabic (Islamic Studies)

1 0.90 0.80 0.70

2 0.80 0.70 0.60

3 0.70 0.60 0.50

4 0.70 0.90 0.80

5 0.60 0.80 0.70

6 0.50 0.70 0.60

7 0.80 0.50 0.90

8 0.90 0.70 0.80

Table 2: First combination of entrance examination test

CS 0.80 2 0.20

CS, E 0.90 CS 0.72 CS,E 0.18

2 0.10 CS 0.08 2 0.02

Table 3: Second combination of entrance examination test

IS 0.70 2 0.20

CS 0.80 Ø 0.56 CS 0.24

CS, E 0.18 Ø 0.126 CS,E 0.054

2 0.02 IS 0.014 2 0.006

Combining the source of evidence to educational entrance examination: Students applying to university need to take the universityʼs examination. With this regard, applicants applying a wide range of fields such as Computer Science, Economics and Islamic Studies need to take three entrance examinations.

Those were Logic, Math and Arabic. The university entrance examination is conducted to assess the suitability of selected applicants for admission to undergraduate courses. In this implementation, eight studentʼs entrance examination result was proposed. It is assumed that the basic probability assignments of eight studentʼs entrance examination were resulted available as shown in Table 1.

The following result shows the process to assess studentʼs entrance examination using mathematical theory of evidence.

Logic used in test 1: Logic is a test for Computer Science (CS) and Economics (E). It can be viewed from the following:

m1{CS,E} = 0.90, m1{θ} = 1 – 0.90 = 0.10

Math used in test 2: Math is a test for Computer Science:

m2{CS} = 0.80, m2 {θ} = 1 - 0.80 = 0.20

Table 2 shows the first combination of entrance examination test.

The first two b pas m1 and m2 were calculated to yield a new bpa m3 by a combination rule as follows:

m3{CS} = 0.72+0.08/1 = 0.8 m3{CS,E} = 0.18/1 = 0.18

m3{ θ} = 0.02/1 = 0.02

Arabic used in test 3: Arabic is a test for Islamic studies:

m4{IS} = 0.70 m4{ θ} = 1-0.70 = 0.30

Table 3 shows the second combination of entrance examination test.

The second two bpas m3 and m4 were calculated to yield a new bpa m₅ by a combination rule as follows:

m5{CS} = 0.24/1-(0.56+0.126) = 0.764 m5{CS, E} = 0.054/1-(0.56+0.126) = 0.172

m5{IS} = 0.014/1-(0.56+0.126) = 0.045 m5{θ} = 0.006/1-(0.56+0.126) = 0.019

Finally, the final ranking of the degree of belief is 0.764>0.172>0.045. The final ranking is Computer Science>Computer Science, Economics>Islamic Studies.

RESULTS

The main aim of this research was to assess the studentʼs entrance examination using Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. The data were gathered from eight different conditions of studentʼs entrance examinations. An implementation in applying mathematical theory of evidence in solving studentʼs entrance examinations showed that it does improve the decision results.

For student 1, the final ranking of the degree of belief is 0.764>0.172>0.045, Computer Science>Computer Science, Economics >Islamic Studies. Figure 1 shows degree of belief of student 1ʼs examination result.

For student 2, the final ranking of the degree of belief is 0.642>0.220>0.083, Computer Science>Computer Science, Economics >Islamic Studies. Figure 2 shows degree of belief of student 2ʼs examination result.

For student 3, the final ranking of the degree of belief is 0.754>0.132>0.057, Computer Science>Computer Science, Economics>Islamic Studies. Figure 3 shows degree of belief of student 3ʼs examination result.

(5)

J. Artif. Intel., 10 (3): 85-90, 2017

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Degree of belief

Computer Science Computer Science, Economics

Islamic Studies Test 1 Test 2

Major 0.9

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Degree of belief

Major

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Degree of belief

Major 0.9

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Degree of belief

Major 0.9

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Degree of belief

Major

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Degree of belief

Major 0.8

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Degree of belief

Major

Fig. 1: Degree of belief of student 1ʼs examination result

Fig. 4: Degree of belief of student 4ʼs examination result For student 4, the final ranking of the degree of belief is 0.803>0.107>0.063, Computer Science>Islamic Studies>

Fig. 7: Degree of belief of student 7ʼs examination result Computer Science, Economics. Figure 4 shows degree of belief of student 4ʼs examination result.

For student 5, the final ranking of the degree of belief is 0.674>0.101>0.157, Computer Science>Computer Science, Economics > Islamic Studies. Figure 5 shows degree of belief of student 5ʼs examination result.

For student 6, the final ranking of the degree of belief is 0.571>0.122>0.184, Computer Science>Computer Science, Economics>Islamic Studies. Figure 6 shows degree of belief of student 6ʼs examination result.

For student 7, the final ranking of the degree of belief is 0.263>0.210>0.474, Islamic Studies>Computer Science>Computer Science, Economics. Figure 7 shows degree of belief of student 7ʼs examination result.

88

(6)

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Degree of belief

Major

Fig. 8: Degree of belief of student 8ʼs examination result For student 8, the final ranking of the degree of belief is 0.625 > 0.241 > 0.107, Computer Science > Computer Science, Economics>Islamic Studies. Figure 8 shows degree of belief of student 8ʼs examination result.

DISCUSSION

The assessment on studentʼs entrance examination through the effectiveness of mathematical theory of evidence can be viewed with its significant contribution by combining the previous measure of evidence. In terms of the arrangement on learning aid like using smartphone adopted¹⁴ with enhancing the competencies on adaptive teaching in big data approach¹⁵, it can assist to enhance the extent of technology skills adapted into the digital information engagement¹⁶. As a result, should be combined with the sustainable learning basis to strengthen the learning achievement¹⁷. With this regard, in order to obtain such kind of innovative approach engaged into the compassionate awareness¹⁸, learning empowerment in enhancing the civic enlargement¹⁹has to do with strengthening the learning culture in higher education context²⁰. As a result, the innovative design on the online based counselling refers to the interactive mobile application²¹. As the preferences of learning should follow the abilities to absorb the understanding level of particular subject²², an exposure into the way of engaging moral enhancement to support the learning enhancement²³ should improve the personalised learning in the way to explore the knowledge understanding²⁴ through engaging the learning environment in higher education setting using big data approach²⁵. In terms of assessing the studentʼs entrance examination using mathematical theory of evidence. The data were gathered from eight different conditions of studentʼs entrance examinations. Reasoning under uncertainty that used some of mathematical expressions, gave them a different interpretation. Each piece of evidence may support a subset

containing several hypotheses. An implementation in applying mathematical theory of evidence in solving studentʼs entrance examinations showed that it does improve the decision results.

CONCLUSION

The process to assess studentʼs entrance examination can be performed using mathematical theory of evidence. In terms of assessing the studentʼs entrance examination using mathematical theory of evidence. The data were gathered from eight different conditions of studentʼs entrance examinations. Reasoning under uncertainty that used some of mathematical expressions, gave them a different interpretation: every piece of degree of belief may support a subset containing several hypotheses. The possible method for utilizing probabilities to evaluate the uncertainty in a database is that of attaching a probability values to each individual of a connection, and to use these qualities to give the probability that a specific value is the right answer to a specific query. In providing knowledge is uncertain in the form of rules with the possibility, the rules are probability value. The knowledge of studentʼs examination result is uncertain in the collection of basic events can be directly used to draw conclusions in simple cases, however, in many educational entrance examination cases the various events associated with each other. Reasoning under uncertainty that used some of mathematical expressions, gave them a different interpretation: each piece of evidence may support a subset containing several hypotheses. Furthermore, this is a generalization of the general probabilistic background in which every result corresponds to a value of a variable. An implementation in applying mathematical theory of evidence in solving studentʼs entrance examinations showed that it does improve the decision results.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTS

This study discovered the mathematical theory of evidence that can be beneficial for educational entrance examination. This study will help the researcher to uncover the critical areas of educational entrance examination that many researchers were not able to explore. Thus, a new theory on these Dempster-Shafer theory and possibly other combinations may be arrived at.

REFERENCES

1. Brown, J.D., 2000. University entrance examinations:

Strategies for creating positive washback on English language teaching in Japan. Shiken: JALT Testing Evaluation SIG Newslett., 3: 2-7.

(7)

J. Artif. Intel., 10 (3): 85-90, 2017

2. Wang, X.B., 2006. An introduction to the system and culture of the college entrance examination of China.

Research Notes RN-28, College Board, November 2006.

3. Amengual-Pizarro, M., 2009. Does the English test in the spanish university entrance examination influence the teaching of English? English Stud., 90: 582-598.

4. Bulut, O. and A. Kan, 2012. Application of computerized adaptive testing to entrance examination for graduate studies in Turkey. Eurasian J. Educ. Res., 49: 61-80.

5. Farrokhi-Khajeh-Pasha, Y., S. Nedjat, A. Mohammadi, E.M. Rad and R. Majdzadeh et al., 2012. The validity of Iran's national university entrance examination (Konkoor) for predicting medical students' academic performance. BMC Med. Educ., Vol. 12. 10.1186/1472-6920-12-60.

6. Libertus, M.E., D. Odic and J. Halberda, 2012. Intuitive sense of number correlates with math scores on college-entrance examination. Acta Psychol., 141: 373-379.

7. Davey, G., C. de Lian and L. Higgins, 2007. The university entrance examination system in China. J. Further Higher Educ., 31: 385-396.

8. Besoluk, S., 2011. Morningness-eveningness preferences and university entrance examination scores of high school students. Personality Indiv. Differences, 50: 248-252.

9. Sun, M.H., Y.G. Li and B. He, 2017. Study on a quality evaluation method for college english classroom teaching.

Future Internet, Vol. 9. 10.3390/fi9030041.

10. Chen, J.F., H.N. Hsieh and Q.H. Do, 2014. Predicting student academic performance: A comparison of two meta-heuristic algorithms inspired by cuckoo birds for training neural networks. Algorithms, 7: 538-553.

11. Dempster, A.P., 2008. A Generalization of Bayesian Inference.

In: Classic Works Dempster-Shafer Theory Belief Functions, Yager, R.R. and L. Liu (Eds.). Vol. 219, Springer, New York, pp: 73-104.

12. Shafer, G., 1976. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. 1st Edn., Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA., ISBN: 9780691081755, Pages: 297.

13. Barnett, J., 2008. Computational Methods for a Mathematical theory of Evidence. In: Classic Works of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions, Yager, R.R. and L. Liu (Eds.).

Springer, New York, pp: 197-216.

14. Anshari, M., M.N. Almunawar, M. Shahrill, D.K. Wicaksono and M. Huda, 2017. Smartphones usage in the classrooms:

Learning aid or interference? Educ. Inform. Technol., 10.1007/s10639-017-9572-7.

15. Huda, M., A. Maseleno, M. Shahrill, K.A. Jasmi, I. Mustari and B. Basiron, 2017. Exploring adaptive teaching competencies in big data Era. Int. J. Emerging Technol. Learn., 12: 68-83.

16. Huda, M., K.A. Jasmi, A. Hehsan, M.I. Mustari, M. Shahrill, B. Basiron and S.K. Gassama, 2017. Empowering children with adaptive technology skills: Careful engagement in the digital information age. Int. Electron. J. Elementary Educ., 9: 693-708.

17. Huda, M., K.A. Jasmi, I. Mustari, B. Basiron and N. Sabani, 2017.

Traditional wisdom on sustainable learning: An insightful view from Al-Zarnuji's Ta 'lim al-Muta 'allim. SAGE Open, Vol. 7. 10.1177/2158244017697160

18. Huda, M., K.A. Jasmi, W.H. Embong, J. Safar and A.M. Mohamad et al., 2018. Nurturing Compassion-Based Empathy: Innovative Approach in Higher Education. In:

Violence Prevention and Safety Promotion in Higher Education Settings, Badea, M. and M. Suditu (Eds.). IGI Global, Hershey, PA., pp: 154-173.

19. Huda, M., K.A. Jasmi, Y. Alas, S.L. Qodriah, M.I. Dacholfany and E.A. Jamsari, 2018. Empowering Civic Responsibility: Insights from Service Learning. In: Engaged Scholarship and Civic Responsibility in Higher Education, Burton, S. (Ed.). IGI Global, Hershey, PA., pp: 144-165.

20. Huda, M., N. Sabani, M. Shahrill, K.A. Jasmi, B. Basiron and M.I. Mustari, 2017. Empowering Learning Culture as Student Identity Construction in Higher Education. In: Student Culture and Identity in Higher Education, Shahriar, A. and G. Syed (Eds.). IGI Global, Hershey, PA., pp: 160-179.

21. Huda, M., K.A. Jasmi, M.I. Mustari, B. Basiron, A.K. Mohamed, W.H.W. Embong and J. Safar, 2017. Innovative E-therapy service in higher education: Mobile application design. Int. J.

Interactive Mobile Technol., 11: 83-94.

22. Othman, R., M. Shahrill, L. Mundia, A. Tan and M. Huda, 2016.

Investigating the relationship between the studentʼs ability and learning preferences: Evidence from year 7 mathematics students. New Educ. Rev., 44: 125-138.

23. Huda, M., M. Siregar, Ramlan, S.K.A. Rahman and K.S. Mat Teh et al., 2017. From live interaction to virtual interaction: An exposure on the moral engagement in the digital era. J.

Theoretical Applied Inform. Technol. (In press),

24. Maseleno, A., M. Huda, K.A. Jasmi, M.I. Mustari and B. Basiron, 2017. Understanding learning analytics to improve personalised learning. J. Eng. Applied Sci. (In Press).

25. Huda, M., Z. Haron, M.N. Ripin, A. Hehsan, R. Ahmad, A.B.C. Yaacob and B.M. Nasir, 2017. Exploring Innovative Learning Environment (ILE) in higher education: Big data era.

Int. J. Applied Eng. Res. (In Press).

90