Expert Systems

with Applications
Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410
www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Evaluating students’ learning achievement using fuzzy

membership functions and fuzzy rules
Shih-Ming Bai, Shyi-Ming Chen *

Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
43, Section 4, Keelung Road, Taipei 106, Taiwan, ROC

Abstract

In recent years, some methods have been presented for applying the fuzzy set theory in educational grading systems. In this paper, we
present a new method for dealing with students’ learning achievement evaluation using fuzzy membership functions and fuzzy rules. The
proposed method considers the difficulty, importance and complexity of questions for students’ answerscripts evaluation. It provides a
useful way to distinguish the ranking order of students with the same score.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fuzzy grading systems; Fuzzy reasoning; Grade membership functions; Students’ evaluation

1. Introduction ing assessment. Echauz and Vachtsevanos (1995) presented

Zadeh (1965) proposed the theory of fuzzy sets. In
recent years, some researchers focused on the application
of the fuzzy set theory in educational grading systems
(Bai & Chen, 2006a, 2006b; Biswas, 1995; Chang & Sun,
1993; Cheng & Yang, 1998; Chen & Lee, 1999; Chiang &
Lin, 1994; Echauz & Vachtsevanos, 1995; Law, 1996; Ma
& Zhou, 2000; Wang & Chen, 2006a, 2006b; Weon &
Kim, 2001; Wilson, Karr, & Freeman, 1998; Wu, 2003).
Bai and Chen (2006a) presented a method for automat-
ically constructing grade membership functions for stu-
dents’ evaluation for fuzzy grading systems. Biswas
(1995) presented a method for students’ evaluation using
fuzzy sets. Chang and Sun (1993) presented a method for
fuzzy assessment of learning performance of junior high
school students. Cheng and Yang (1998) presented a
method for using fuzzy sets in education grading systems.
Chen and Lee (1999) presented two methods for students’
evaluation using fuzzy sets. Chiang and Lin (1994) pre-
sented a method for applying the fuzzy set theory to teach-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 27376417; fax: +886 2 27301081.
E-mail address: smchen@mail.ntust.edu.tw (S.-M. Chen).
a fuzzy grading system. Law (1996) presented a method for
using fuzzy numbers in education grading systems. Ma
and Zhou (2000) presented a fuzzy set approach to the
assessment of student-centered learning. Wang and Chen
(2006a) presented two methods for evaluating the answer-
scripts of students using fuzzy sets. Wang and Chen
(2006b) presented two methods for evaluating students’
answerscripts using fuzzy numbers associated with degrees
of confidence. Wilson et al. (1998) presented a flexible,
adaptive and automatic fuzzy-based grade assigning sys-
tem. Wu (2003) presented a method for applying the fuzzy
set theory and the item response theory to evaluate the
learning performance of students.
Weon and Kim (2001) pointed out that the chief aim of
educational grading systems should consider the ‘‘diffi-
culty’’, ‘‘importance’’ and ‘‘complexity’’ for students’
answerscripts evaluation. However, because the ‘‘diffi-
culty’’ is a very subjective parameter and to adjust the
scores of students during the evaluation process is not
appropriate, if we use the method presented in Weon and
Kim (2001) to evaluate students’ learning performance,
the ranking order of the students may be different from
the original ones. Thus, the method presented in Weon

0957-4174/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2006.09.010
400 S.-M. Bai, S.-M. Chen / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410

8
and Kim (2001) may cause some arguments about fairness > 1; if v 6 a;
>
>  2
in students’ learning performance evaluation. >
>
< 1  2 va
ca
; if a < v 6 b;
In this paper, we present a new method to deal with the lT ij ¼ ð3Þ
 2
learning achievement evaluation using fuzzy membership >
> vc
>
> 2 ca ; if b 6 v < c;
functions and fuzzy rules. The proposed method considers >
:
the difficulty, importance and complexity of questions for 0; if v P c;
students’ answerscript evaluation. It provides a useful where v denotes the question solving time for Pij, a denotes
way to distinguish the ranking order of the students with the permitted lower limit solving time for Pij, c denotes the
the same score. permitted upper limit solving time for Pij, and b ¼ aþc .
2
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section (ii) Response accuracy considering the importance:
2, we briefly review Weon and Kim’s method for learning ‘‘Importance’’ is a criterion for indicating how much a stu-
achievement evaluation from Weon and Kim (2001). In dent can understand the question domain. If a student
Section 3, we present a new method to deal with the learn- works out a question that has a relatively high importance,
ing achievement evaluation using fuzzy membership func- then the response accuracy weighted factor increases; if a
tions and fuzzy rules. In Section 4, we use an example to student works out a question that has a relatively low
illustrate the process of dealing with the learning achieve- importance, then the response accuracy weighted factor
ment evaluation using fuzzy membership functions and decreases; if a student solves a question whose importance
fuzzy rules. The conclusions are discussed in Section 5. is average, then the initial response accuracy weighted fac-
tor is maintained. The fuzzy dilation method is used to
2. A review of Weon-and-Kim’s method for educational increase the weight factor and the fuzzy concentration
grading systems method is used to decrease the weight factor. Assume that
the response accuracy is considered, then we can get the
Weon and Kim (2001) pointed out that the chief aim of formula to compute the response accuracy ICOR(P) for
educational grading systems should consider the ‘‘diffi- the question domain P when ‘‘importance’’ is considered,
culty’’, ‘‘importance’’ and ‘‘complexity’’ for students’ shown as follows:
answerscripts evaluation. They present a method for edu- ICORðP Þ ¼ ðP 1 ; CORðP 1 ÞÞ; ðP 2 ; CORðP 2 ÞÞ; . . . ; ðP n ; CORðP n ÞÞ
cational grading systems using fuzzy sets. In the following, ( )
[n X
m
we briefly review Weon-and-Kim’s method for students’ ¼ P i; k
ðlP ij  lT ij Þ ; ð4Þ
answerscripts evaluation as follows. i¼1 j¼1

where k is the weighted factor; if a question is important,

2.1. Computation of response accuracy
(i) Response accuracy with limited time only: Assume that
there are a series of questions P1, P2, . . . , Pn in a question
domain P,
P ¼ P 1; P 2; . . . ; P n;
where Pi denotes the ith question in P and 1 6 i 6 n. As-
sume that each question Pi has several sub-questions Pi1, -
Pi2, . . . , Pim, where 1 6 i 6 n, then the response accuracy
COR(Pi) of Pi is defined as follows:
CORðP i Þ ¼ CORðP i1 ; P i2 ; . . . ; P im Þ
( )
[n X
m spends answering a given question. We can increase the
¼ P i; ðlP ij  lT ij Þ ;
i¼1 j¼1
where Pi denotes the ith question on the answerscript, l de-
notes the membership function of a fuzzy set, lP ij denotes
the membership grade of the response accuracy of the jth
sub-question of Pi, lP ij ¼ 1 means that the jth sub-question
of the ith question is completely correct, lP ij ¼ 0 means
that the
P jth sub-question of the ith question is completely
false, denotes the algebraic sum, · denotes the algebraic
product, lT ij denotes the membership grade of time that is
needed to solve the problem Pij, and lT ij is calculated by the
inverse sigmoid function, shown as follows:
then we let k = 0.5; if the importance of a question is med-
ium, then we let k = 1; if a question is not important, then
we let k = 2.
(iii) Response accuracy considering the complexity:
‘‘Complexity’’ is a criterion indicating whether a question
ð1Þ is grouped under a COMPLEX category. The more com-
plex the question is, the more time the students spend to
answer it. Because the time permission is a very important
element, complexity-related questions are solved with the
time limit adjusted properly. Weon and Kim (2001) divided
the complexity-related conditions into three categories (i.e.,
COMPLEX, MEDIUM and SIMPLE) to get a standard
deviation r, i.e., the time difference that each student
ð2Þ time limit as much as the standard deviation r if the com-
plexity of a question is COMPLEX; we can decrease the
time limit as much as the standard deviation r if the com-
plexity of a question is SIMPLE; we can maintain the ini-
tial time limit if the complexity of a question is MEDIUM.
In this way, we can get the formula to compute the
response accuracy CCOR(P) of the question domain P
when ‘‘complexity’’ is considered, shown as follows:
CCORðP Þ ¼ ðP 1 ; CORðP 1 ÞÞ; ðP 2 ; CORðP 2 ÞÞ; . . . ; ðP n ; CORðP n ÞÞ
( )
[n X
m
k
¼ P i; ðlP ij  lT ij Þ ; ð5Þ
i¼1 j¼1
 S.-M. Bai, S.-M. Chen / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410 401

where lT ij is defined as follows: Weon and Kim (2001) used the following membership
8 functions to evaluate the learning achievement through
>
> 1; if v 6 a;
>
>  2 the response accuracy and the normalized values:
>
>
< 1  2 cva 0 a ; if a < v 6 b0 ;
lT ij ¼   ð6Þ \Very Good" ¼ x2 ; if x ¼ 1;
>
> 0 2
0
>
> 2 cvc ; if b 6 v < c ; 0
\Good" ¼ x; if 0 < x < 1;
>
>
0 a

: 0
0; if v P c ; 2x; if 0 < x 6 0:5;
\Medium" ¼
where v denotes the question solving time for Pij, a denotes 2x þ 2; if 0:5 < x < 1;
the permitted lower limit time for solving Pij, c 0 = c + r, \Bad" ¼ x; if 0 < x < 1;
0
and b0 ¼ aþc 2
. \Very Bad" ¼ ðx þ 1Þ ;
2
if x ¼ 0;
(iv) Response accuracy considering the difficulty: ‘‘Diffi-
culty’’ is a criterion for indicating how hard the question
is. The response accuracy weighted factor increases if a stu- where these membership function curves are shown in
dent works out a question that has a relatively high diffi- Fig. 1.
culty (i.e., DIFFICULT); the response accuracy weighted Each question is normalized and the normalized
factor decreases if a student works out a question that response accuracy is linguistically evaluated by one of the
has a relatively low difficulty (i.e., EASY); the initial previously defined membership functions after the response
response accuracy weighted factor is maintained if a stu- accuracy is computed. The normalized response accuracy
dent solves a problem whose difficulty is average (i.e., may belong to more than two membership functions. The
MEDIUM). The fuzzy dilation method is used to increase membership function that has the maximum membership
the weighted factor and the fuzzy concentration method is value is regarded as the suitable fuzzy linguistic variable.
used to decrease the weighted factor. Assume that the The process is shown as follows:
response accuracy is considered, then we can get a formula [
n
to compute the response accuracy DCOR(P) for the ques- EVALðP Þ ¼ fP i ; NORMðCORðP i ÞÞg
tion domain P when ‘‘difficulty’’ is considered, shown as i¼1
n 
[  
k

follows: ¼ P i ; FUZSETj MAX NORM ðCORðP i ÞÞ ;
j¼1
i¼1
DCORðP Þ ¼ ðP 1 ; CORðP 1 ÞÞ; ðP 2 ; CORðP 2 ÞÞ; . . . ; ðP n ; CORðP n ÞÞ
( ) ð16Þ
[n X
m
¼ P i; h
ðlP ij  lT ij Þ ; ð7Þ [
n
EVALðP Þ ¼ fP i ; NORMðICORðP i ÞÞg
i¼1 j¼1
i¼1
n 
[   
where h is the weighted factor; if the difficulty of the ques- ¼ P i ; FUZSETj MAX NORM ðICORðP i ÞÞ
k
;
tion is easy, then we let h = 1; if the difficulty of the ques- i¼1
j¼1

tion is medium, then we let h = 0.5; if the difficulty of the ð17Þ

question is high, then we let h = 0.25. [
n
EVALðP Þ ¼ fP i ; NORMðCCORðP i ÞÞg
i¼1
2.2. Evaluation functions and fuzzy evaluation n 
[  
k

¼ P i ; FUZSETj MAX NORM ðCCORðP i ÞÞ ;
j¼1
Because there are m sub-questions for each question, the i¼1

previously-gained response accuracy must fall in the inter- ð18Þ

val [0, 1]. Therefore, Weon and Kim (2001) do the normal-
ization process as follows:
Very Very
NORMðCORðP i ÞÞ ¼ CORðP i Þ=m; where 1 6 i 6 n; ð8Þ Bad Medium Good
1.0
NORMðICORðP i ÞÞ ¼ ICORðP i Þ=m; where 1 6 i 6 n; Bad Good
ð9Þ 0.8
NORMðCCORðP i ÞÞ ¼ CCORðP i Þ=m; where 1 6 i 6 n;
ð10Þ 0.6

NORMðDCORðP i ÞÞ ¼ DCORðP i Þ=m; where 1 6 i 6 n; 0.4

ð11Þ
NORMðCORðP ÞÞ ¼ CORðP Þ=ðm  nÞ; ð12Þ 0.2

NORMðICORðP ÞÞ ¼ ICORðP Þ=ðm  nÞ; ð13Þ

X
NORMðCCORðP ÞÞ ¼ CCORðP Þ=ðm  nÞ; ð14Þ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

NORMðDCORðP ÞÞ ¼ DCORðP Þ=ðm  nÞ: ð15Þ Fig. 1. Fuzzy membership functions.

402 S.-M. Bai, S.-M. Chen / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410
[
n
EVALðP Þ ¼ fP i ; NORMðDCORðP i ÞÞg
i¼1
[n   
k

¼ P i ; FUZSETj MAX NORM ðDCORðP i ÞÞ ; 2 3
j¼1
i¼1
ð19Þ
where FUZSETj(MAX(Pi)) denotes the fuzzy set that has
the maximum membership grade when the normalized
value NORM(DCOR(Pi)) of accuracy COR(Pi) of prob-
lem Pi belongs to several fuzzy sets. For more details,
please refer to Weon and Kim (2001).
However, because the ‘‘difficulty’’ is a very subjective
parameter, to adjust the scores of students during the eval-
uation process is not appropriate. If we use the method pre-
sented in Weon and Kim (2001) to evaluate students’
learning performance, the ranking order of the students
may be different from the original ones. Thus, the method
presented in Weon and Kim (2001) may cause some argu-
ments about the fairness in students’ learning performance
evaluation. Because Weon-and-Kim’s method (2001) has
the above drawback, in the next section, we will propose
a new method for evaluating students’ learning perfor-
mance using fuzzy membership functions and fuzzy rules.
The proposed method considers the difficulty, importance
and complexity of questions for students’ answerscripts
evaluation. It provides a useful way to distinguish the rank-
ing order of students with the same score.
3. A new method for evaluating students’ learning
performance using fuzzy membership functions and
fuzzy rules
In this section, we present a new method for students’
learning performance evaluation using fuzzy membership
functions and fuzzy rules. Assume there are m questions
and there are n students to answer these questions. Let Qi
be the ith question on the answerscript and Sj be the jth
student, where 1 6 i 6 m and 1 6 j 6 n. Then, we can get
an accuracy rate matrix A and an answer-time-rate matrix
T, shown as follows:
where aij denotes the accuracy rate of the jth student Sj on
the ith question Qi, aij 2 [0, 1], tij denotes the answer-time-
rate of the jth student Sj on the ith question Qi, tij 2 [0, 1],
1 6 i 6 m and 1 6 j 6 n. Let G be a grade matrix storing
the score of each question of a student, shown as follows:
Q1 g1
Q2 6 7
6 g2 7
G¼ . 6 . 76 ;
.. 4 .. 7
5
Qm gm
where gi denotes the grade of the ith question Qi,
gi 2 [1, 100] and 1 6 i 6 m. Let IM be an importance matrix
and C be a complexity matrix given by the domain expert
for each question, respectively, shown as follows:
where ImS1, ImS2, ImS3, ImS4 and ImS5 denote the impor-
tance levels, respectively, ImS1 = ‘‘low’’, ImS2 = ‘‘more or
less low’’, ImS3 = ‘‘medium’’, ImS4 = ‘‘more or less high’’
and ImS5 = ‘‘high’’; imij denotes the degree of membership
of the degree of importance of the ith question Qi belong-
ing to the importance level ImSj, imij 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m and
1 6 j 6 5; CS1, CS2, CS3, CS4 and CS5 denote the com-
plexity levels, respectively, CS1 = ‘‘low’’, CS2 = ‘‘more or
less low’’, CS3 = ‘‘medium’’, CS4 = ‘‘more or less high’’
and CS5 = ‘‘high’’; cij denotes the degree of membership
of the complexity of the ith question Qi belonging to the
complexity level CSj, cij 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m and 1 6 j 6 5.
Then, based on the accuracy rate matrix A and the grade
matrix G, we can calculate the total score TSj of each stu-
dent Sj, shown as follows:
X
m
TS j ¼ aij  gi ; ð20Þ
i¼1
where 1 6 j 6 n. If there are any students having the same
total grade, the proposed method can rank them properly.
The proposed method is now presented as follows:
Step 1: Based on the accuracy rate matrix A and the
answer-time-rate matrix T, calculate the average accuracy
rate AvgAi and the average answer-time-rate AvgTi for
each question Qi, shown as follows:
Pn
j¼1 aij
AvgAi ¼ ; ð21Þ
n
 S.-M. Bai, S.-M. Chen / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410
Pn
j¼1 t ij
AvgT i ¼ ; ð22Þ
n
where 1 6 i 6 m. Then, fuzzify them based on the following
five fuzzy sets ‘‘low’’, ‘‘more or less low’’, ‘‘medium’’,
‘‘more or less high’’ and ‘‘high’’ as shown in Fig. 2 and cal-
culate their membership grades belonging to each fuzzy set,
respectively.
Then, we can get the fuzzy grade matrix FA for the aver-
age accuracy and the fuzzy grade matrix FT for the average
answer-time, shown as follows:
403
value of the grade of the ith question Qi belonging to the
linguistic term FASj, faij 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m and 1 6 j 6 5;
FTS1, FTS2, FTS3, FTS4 and FTS5 denote the fuzzy terms
‘‘short’’, ‘‘more or less short’’, ‘‘medium’’, ‘‘more or less
long’’ and ‘‘long’’, respectively, ftij denotes the membership
value of the average answer-time of the ith question Qi
belonging to the linguistic term FTSj, ftij 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m
and 1 6 j 6 5.
Step 2: Based on the fuzzy grade matrices FA, FT and
fuzzy rules, perform the fuzzy reasoning to evaluate the dif-
ficulty of each question. The fuzzy rules we used for fuzzy
reasoning are represented by a fuzzy matrix as shown in
Table 1. We can let the accuracy rate and the answer-
time-rate have different weights, respectively. In this paper,
we let the weights of the accuracy rate and the answer-time-
rate be 0.6 and 0.4, respectively. Based on the fuzzy grade
matrices FA and FT, the fuzzy rule matrix shown in Table
1, and the weights of the accuracy rate and the answer-
time-rate, we can perform fuzzy reasoning to infer the dif-
ficulty of the question Qi represented by a vector
" #
low more or less low medium more or less high high
DQi ¼ ;
d i1 d i2 d i3 d i4 d i5

where 1 6 i 6 m, described as follows:

where FAS1, FAS2, FAS3, FAS4 and FAS5 denote the fuzzy (i) Based on Table 1, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
terms ‘‘low’’, ‘‘more or less low’’, ‘‘medium’’, ‘‘more or less that the difficulty of the question Qi is ‘‘low’’, shown as
high’’ and ‘‘high’’, respectively, faij denotes the membership follows:

IF the accuracy is more or less high and the answer-

More or More or time-rate is short THEN the difficulty is low,
medium less high high
low less low IF the accuracy is high and the answer-time-rate is short
1.0
THEN the difficulty is low,
IF the accuracy is high and the answer-time-rate is more
0.8 or less short THEN the difficulty is low.

0.6 Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating di1 is
shown as follows:
0.4
d i1 ¼ Max½ð0:6  fai4 þ 0:4  fti1 Þ; ð0:6  fai5
0.2 þ 0:4  fti1 Þ; ð0:6  fai5 þ 0:4  fti2 Þ; ð23Þ

X where di1 denotes the degree of membership of the degree

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
of difficulty of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy set
Fig. 2. Membership functions of the fuzzy sets ‘‘low’’, ‘‘more or less low’’, ‘‘low’’, di1 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes the number
‘‘medium’’, ‘‘more or less high’’ and ‘‘high’’. of questions in a student’s answerscript.

Table 1
A fuzzy rule matrix to infer the difficulty
Answer-time Accuracy
Low More or less low Medium More or less high High
Short Medium More or less low More or less low Low Low
More or less short More or less high Medium More or less low More or less low Low
Middle More or less high More or less high Medium More or less low More or less low
More or less long High More or less high More or less high Medium More or less low
Long High High More or less high More or less high Medium
404 S.-M. Bai, S.-M. Chen / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410
(ii) Based on Table 1, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the difficulty of the question Qi is ‘‘more or less low’’,
shown as follows:
IF the accuracy is more or less low and the answer-time-
rate is short THEN the difficulty is more or less low,
IF the accuracy is medium and the answer-time-rate is
short THEN the difficulty is more or less low,
IF the accuracy is medium and the answer-time-rate is
more or less short THEN the difficulty is more or less
low,
IF the accuracy is more or less high and the answer-
time-rate is more or less short THEN the difficulty is
more or less low,
IF the accuracy is more or less high and the answer-
time-rate is middle THEN the difficulty is more or less
low,
IF the accuracy is high and the answer-time-rate is mid-
dle THEN the difficulty is more or less low,
IF the accuracy is high and the answer-time-rate is more
or less high THEN the difficulty is more or less low.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating di2 is
shown as follows:
d i2 ¼ Max½ð0:6  fai2 þ 0:4  fti1 Þ; ð0:6  fai3 þ 0:4  fti1 Þ;
ð0:6  fai3 þ 0:4  fti2 Þ; ð0:6  fai4 þ 0:4  fti2 Þ;
ð0:6  fai4 þ 0:4  fti3 Þ; ð0:6  fai5 þ 0:4  fti3 Þ;
ð0:6  fai5 þ 0:4  fti4 Þ; ð24Þ
where di2 denotes the degree of membership of the degree
of difficulty of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy set
‘‘more or less low’’, di2 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes
the number of questions in a student’s answerscript.
(iii) Based on Table 1, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the difficulty of the question Qi is ‘‘medium’’, shown as
follows:
IF the accuracy is low and the answer-time-rate is short
THEN the difficulty is medium,
IF the accuracy is more or less low and the answer-time-
rate is more or less short THEN the difficulty is medium,
IF the accuracy is medium and the answer-time-rate is
middle THEN the difficulty is medium,
IF the accuracy is more or less high and the answer-
time-rate is more or less high THEN the difficulty is
medium,
IF the accuracy is high and the answer-time-rate is high
THEN the difficulty is medium.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating di3 is
shown as follows:
d i3 ¼ Max½ð0:6  fai1 þ 0:4  fti1 Þ; ð0:6  fai2 þ 0:4  fti2 Þ;
ð0:6  fai3 þ 0:4  fti3 Þ; ð0:6  fai4 þ 0:4  fti4 Þ;
ð0:6  fai5 þ 0:4  fti5 Þ; ð25Þ
where di3 denotes the degree of membership of the degree
of difficulty of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy set
‘‘medium’’, di3 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes the num-
ber of questions in a student’s answerscript.
(iv) Based on Table 1, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the difficulty of the question Qi is ‘‘more or less high’’,
shown as follows:
IF the accuracy is low and the answer-time-rate is more
or less short THEN the difficulty is more or less high,
IF the accuracy is low and the answer-time-rate is mid-
dle THEN the difficulty is more or less high,
IF the accuracy is more or less low and the answer-time-
rate is middle THEN the difficulty is more or less high,
IF the accuracy is more or less low and the answer-time-
rate is more or less high THEN the difficulty is more or
less high,
IF the accuracy is medium and the answer-time-rate is
more or less high THEN the difficulty is more or less
high,
IF the accuracy is medium and the answer-time-rate is
high THEN the difficulty is more or less high,
IF the accuracy is more or less high and the answer-
time-rate is high THEN the difficulty is more or less
high.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating di4 is
shown as follows:
d i4 ¼ Max½ð0:6  fai1 þ 0:4  fti2 Þ; ð0:6  fai1 þ 0:4  fti3 Þ;
ð0:6  fai2 þ 0:4  fti3 Þ; ð0:6  fai2 þ 0:4  fti4 Þ;
ð0:6  fai3 þ 0:4  fti4 Þ; ð0:6  fai3 þ 0:4  fti5 Þ;
ð0:6  fai4 þ 0:4  fti5 Þ; ð26Þ
where di4 denotes the degree of membership of the degree
of difficulty of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy set
‘‘more or less high’’, di4 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes
the number of questions in a student’s answerscript.
(v) Based on Table 1, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the difficulty of the question Qi is ‘‘high’’, shown as
follows:
IF the accuracy is low and the answer-time-rate is more
or less high THEN the difficulty is high,
IF the accuracy is low and the answer-time-rate is high
THEN the difficulty is high,
IF the accuracy is more or less low and the answer-time-
rate is high THEN the difficulty is high.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating di5 is
shown as follows:
d i5 ¼ Max½ð0:6  fai1 þ 0:4  fti4 Þ; ð0:6  fai1 þ 0:4  fti5 Þ;
ð0:6  fai2 þ 0:4  fti5 Þ; ð27Þ
where di5 denotes the degree of membership of the degree
of difficulty of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy set
 S.-M. Bai, S.-M. Chen / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410 405

‘‘high’’, di5 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes the number of
questions in a student’s answerscript.
Therefore, we can get the difficulty matrix D, shown as
follows:
where aci1 denotes the degree of membership of the degree
of answer-cost of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy set
‘‘low’’, aci1 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes the number of
questions in a student’s answerscript.
(ii) Based on Table 2, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the answer-cost of the question Qi is ‘‘more or less
low’’, shown as follows:

IF the difficulty is low and the complexity is middle

where DS1 = ‘‘low’’, DS2 = ‘‘more or less low’’,
DS3 = ‘‘medium’’, DS4 = ‘‘more or less high’’ and
DS5 = high.
Step 3: Based on the difficulty matrices and the complex-
ity matrices, perform the fuzzy reasoning to evaluate the
answer-cost of each question. The fuzzy rules we used for
fuzzy reasoning are represented by a fuzzy matrix as shown
in Table 2. We can let the difficulty and the complexity
have different weights, respectively. In this paper, we let
the weights of the accuracy rate and the answer-time-rate
be 0.7 and 0.3, respectively. Based on the fuzzy grade
matrices D and C, the fuzzy rule matrix shown in Table
2, and the weights of the difficulty and the complexity,
we can perform fuzzy reasoning to infer the answer-cost
of the question Qi represented by a vector
 aci2 ¼ Max½ð0:7  d i1 þ 0:3  ci3 Þ; ð0:7  d i1 þ 0:3  ci4 Þ;
low more or less low medium more or less high high
COQi ¼
aci1 aci2 aci3 aci4 aci5
where 1 6 i 6 m, described as follows:
(i) Based on Table 2, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the answer-cost of the question Qi is ‘‘low’’, shown as
follows:
IF the difficulty is low and the complexity is low THEN
the answer-cost is low,
IF the difficulty is low and the complexity is more or less
low THEN the answer-cost is low,
IF the difficulty is more or less low and the complexity is
low THEN the answer-cost is low.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating aci1
is shown as follows:
aci1 ¼ Max½ð0:7  d i1 þ 0:3  ci1 Þ; ð0:7  d i1 þ 0:3  ci2 Þ;
ð0:7  d i2 þ 0:3  ci1 Þ;
THEN the answer-cost is more or less low,
IF the difficulty is low and the complexity is more or less
high THEN the answer-cost is more or less low,
IF the difficulty is more or less low and the complexity is
more or less low THEN the answer-cost is more or less
low,
IF the difficulty is more or less low and the complexity is
middle THEN the answer-cost is more or less low,
IF the difficulty is medium and the complexity is low
THEN the answer-cost is more or less low,
IF the difficulty is medium and the complexity is more or
less low THEN the answer-cost is more or less low,
IF the difficulty is more or less high and the complexity
is low THEN the answer-cost is more or less low.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating aci2
is shown as follows:
;
ð0:7  d i2 þ 0:3  ci2 Þ; ð0:7  d i2 þ 0:3  ci3 Þ;
ð0:7  d i3 þ 0:3  ci1 Þ; ð0:7  d i3 þ 0:3  ci2 Þ;
ð0:7  d i4 þ 0:3  ci1 Þ; ð29Þ
where aci2 denotes the degree of membership of the degree
of answer-cost of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy set
‘‘more or less low’’, aci2 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes
the number of questions in a student’s answerscript.
(iii) Based on Table 2, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the answer-cost of the question Qi is ‘‘medium’’,
shown as follows:
IF the difficulty is low and the complexity is high THEN
the answer-cost is more or less medium,
IF the difficulty is more or less low and the complexity is
more or less high THEN the answer-cost is medium,
IF the difficulty is medium and the complexity is middle
ð28Þ THEN the answer-cost is medium,

Table 2
A fuzzy rule matrix to infer the answer-cost
Complexity Difficulty
Low More or less low Medium More or less high High
Low Low Low More or less low More or less low Medium
More or less low Low More or less low More or less low Medium More or less high
Middle More or less low More or less low Medium More or less high More or less high
More or less high More or less low Medium More or less high More or less high High
High Medium More or less high More or less high High High
406 S.-M. Bai, S.-M. Chen / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410
IF the difficulty is more or less high and the complexity
is more or less low THEN the answer-cost is medium,
IF the difficulty is high and the complexity is low THEN
the answer-cost is medium.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating aci3
is shown as follows:
aci3 ¼ Max½ð0:7  d i1 þ 0:3  ci5 Þ; ð0:7  d i2 þ 0:3  ci4 Þ;
ð0:7  d i3 þ 0:3  ci3 Þ; ð0:7  d i4 þ 0:3  ci2 Þ;
ð0:7  d i5 þ 0:3  ci1 Þ; ð30Þ
where aci3 denotes the degree of membership of the degree
of answer-cost of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy set
‘‘medium’’, aci3 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes the num-
ber of questions in a student’s answerscript.
(iv) Based on Table 2, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the answer-cost of the question Qi is ‘‘more or less
high’’, shown as follows:
IF the difficulty is more or less low and the complexity is
high THEN the answer-cost is more or less high,
IF the difficulty is medium and the complexity is more or
less high THEN the answer-cost is more or less high,
IF the difficulty is medium and the complexity is high
THEN the answer-cost is more or less high,
IF the difficulty is more or less high and the complexity
is middle THEN the answer-cost is more or less high,
IF the difficulty is more or less high and the complexity
is more or less high THEN the answer-cost is more or
less high,
IF the difficulty is high and the complexity is more or
less low THEN the answer-cost is more or less high,
IF the difficulty is high and the complexity is middle
THEN the answer-cost is more or less high.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating aci4
is shown as follows:
aci4 ¼ Max½ð0:7  d i2 þ 0:3  ci5 Þ; ð0:6  fai3 þ 0:4  fti4 Þ;
ð0:6  fai3 þ 0:4  fti5 Þ; ð0:6  fai4 þ 0:4  fti3 Þ;
ð0:6  fai4 þ 0:4  fti4 Þ; ð0:6  fai5 þ 0:4  fti2 Þ;
ð0:6  fai5 þ 0:4  fti3 Þ; ð31Þ
where aci4 denotes the degree of membership of the degree
of answer-cost of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy set
‘‘more or less high’’, aci4 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes
the number of questions in a student’s answerscript.
(v) Based on Table 2, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the answer-cost of the question Qi is ‘‘high’’, shown as
follows:
IF the difficulty is more or less high and the complexity
is high THEN the answer-cost is high,
IF the difficulty is high and the complexity is more or
less high THEN the answer-cost is high,
IF the difficulty is high and the complexity is high
THEN the answer-cost is high.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating aci5
is shown as follows:
aci5 ¼ Max½ð0:7  d i4 þ 0:3  ci5 Þ; ð0:7  d i5 þ 0:3  ci4 Þ;
ð0:7  d i5 þ 0:3  ci5 Þ; ð32Þ
where aci5 denotes the degree of membership of the degree
of answer-cost of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy set
‘‘high’’, aci5 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes the number
of questions in a student’s answerscript.
Therefore, we can get the answer-cost matrix CO shown
as follows:
where CoS1 = ‘‘low’’, CoS2 = ‘‘more or less low’’,
CoS3 = ‘‘medium’’, CoS4 = ‘‘more or less high’’ and
CoS5 = high.
Step 4: Based on the answer-cost matrices and the
importance matrices, perform the fuzzy reasoning to eval-
uate the adjustment value of each question. The fuzzy rules
we used for fuzzy reasoning are represented by a fuzzy
matrix as shown in Table 3. We can let the importance
and the answer-cost have the same weights, respectively.
In this paper, we let the weights of the importance and
the answer-cost be 0.5 and 0.5, respectively. Based on the
fuzzy grade matrices IM and CO, the fuzzy rule matrix
shown in Table 3, and the weights of the importance and
the answer-cost, we can perform fuzzy reasoning to infer
the adjustment value of the question Qi represented by a
vector

low more or less low medium more or less high high
VQi ¼ ;
vi1 vi2 vi3 vi4 vi5
where 1 6 i 6 m, described as follows:
(i) Based on Table 3, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the adjustment value of the question Qi is ‘‘low’’,
shown as follows:
IF the importance is low and the answer-cost is low
THEN the adjustment value is low,
IF the importance is low and the answer-cost is more or
less low THEN the adjustment value is low,
IF the importance is more or less low and the answer-
cost is low THEN the adjustment value is low.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating vi1 is
shown as follows:
vi1 ¼ Max½ð0:5  imi1 þ 0:5  aci1 Þ; ð0:5  imi1 þ 0:5  aci2 Þ;
ð0:5  imi2 þ 0:5  aci1 Þ; ð33Þ
 S.-M. Bai, S.-M. Chen / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410 407

Table 3
A fuzzy rule matrix to infer the adjustment value
Answer-cost Importance
Low More or less low Medium More or less high High
Low Low Low More or less low More or less low Medium
More or less low Low More or less low More or less low Medium More or less high
Middle More or less low More or less low Medium More or less high More or less high
More or less high More or less low Medium More or less high More or less high High
High Medium More or less high More or less high High High

where vi1 denotes the degree of membership of the degree of
adjustment value of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy
set ‘‘low’’, vi1 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes the number
of questions in a student’s answerscript.
(ii) Based on Table 3, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the adjustment value of the question Qi is ‘‘more or
less low’’, shown as follows:
IF the importance is low and the answer-cost is middle
THEN the adjustment value is more or less low,
IF the importance is low and the answer-cost is more or
less high THEN the adjustment value is more or less
low,
IF the importance is more or less low and the answer-
cost is more or less low THEN the adjustment value is
more or less low,
IF the importance is more or less low and the answer-
cost is middle THEN the adjustment value is more or
less low,
IF the importance is medium and the answer-cost is low
THEN the adjustment value is more or less low,
IF the importance is medium and the answer-cost is
more or less low THEN the adjustment value is more
or less low,
IF the importance is more or less high and the answer-
cost is low THEN the adjustment value is more or less
low.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating vi2 is
shown as follows:
vi2 ¼ Max½ð0:5  imi1 þ 0:5  aci3 Þ; ð0:5  imi1 þ 0:5  aci4 Þ;
ð0:5  imi2 þ 0:5  aci2 Þ; ð0:5  imi2 þ 0:5  aci3 Þ;
ð0:5  imi3 þ 0:5  aci1 Þ; ð0:5  imi3 þ 0:5  aci2 Þ;
ð0:5  imi4 þ 0:5  aci1 Þ; ð34Þ
where vi2 denotes the degree of membership of the degree of
adjustment value of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy
set ‘‘more or less low’’, vi2 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes
the number of questions in a student’s answerscript.
(iii) Based on Table 3, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the adjustment value of the question Qi is ‘‘medium’’,
shown as follows:
IF the importance is low and the answer-cost is high
THEN the adjustment value is more or less medium,
IF the importance is more or less low and the answer-
cost is more or less high THEN the adjustment value
is medium,
IF the importance is medium and the answer-cost is mid-
dle THEN the adjustment value is medium,
IF the importance is more or less high and the answer-
cost is more or less low THEN the adjustment value is
medium,
IF the importance is high and the answer-cost is low
THEN the adjustment value is medium.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating vi3 is
shown as follows:
vi3 ¼ Max½ð0:5  imi1 þ 0:5  aci5 Þ; ð0:5  imi2 þ 0:5  aci4 Þ;
ð0:5  imi3 þ 0:5  aci3 Þ; ð0:5  imi4 þ 0:5  aci2 Þ;
ð0:5  imi5 þ 0:5  aci1 Þ; ð35Þ
where vi3 denotes the degree of membership of the degree of
adjustment value of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy
set ‘‘medium’’, vi3 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes the
number of questions in a student’s answerscript.
(iv) Based on Table 3, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the adjustment value of the question Qi is ‘‘more or
less high’’, shown as follows:
IF the importance is more or less low and the answer-
cost is high THEN the adjustment value is more or less
high,
IF the importance is medium and the answer-cost is
more or less high THEN the adjustment value is more
or less high,
IF the importance is medium and the answer-cost is high
THEN the adjustment value is more or less high,
IF the importance is more or less high and the answer-
cost is middle THEN the adjustment value is more or
less high,
IF the importance is more or less high and the answer-
cost is more or less high THEN the adjustment value
is more or less high,
IF the importance is high and the answer-cost is more or
less low THEN the adjustment value is more or less
high,
IF the importance is high and the answer-cost is middle
THEN the adjustment value is more or less high.
408 S.-M. Bai, S.-M. Chen / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating vi4 is
shown as follows:
vi4 ¼ Max½ð0:5  imi2 þ 0:5  aci5 Þ; ð0:5  imi3 þ 0:5  aci4 Þ;
ð0:5  imi3 þ 0:5  aci5 Þ; ð0:5  imi4 þ 0:5  aci3 Þ;
ð0:5  imi4 þ 0:5  aci4 Þ; ð0:5  imi5 þ 0:5  aci2 Þ;
ð0:5  imi5 þ 0:5  aci3 Þ;
where vi4 denotes the degree of membership of the degree of
adjustment value of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy
set ‘‘more or less high’’, vi4 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m de-
notes the number of questions in a student’s answerscript.
(v) Based on Table 3, we can find the fuzzy rules to infer
that the adjustment value of the question Qi is ‘‘high’’,
shown as follows:
IF the importance is more or less high and the answer-
cost is high THEN the adjustment value is high,
IF the importance is high and the answer-cost is more or
less high THEN the adjustment value is high,
IF the importance is high and the answer-cost is high
THEN the adjustment value is high.
Based on these fuzzy rules, the formula for calculating vi5 is
shown as follows:
vi5 ¼ Max½ð0:5  imi4 þ 0:5  aci5 Þ; ð0:5  imi5 þ 0:5  aci4 Þ;
ð0:5  imi5 þ 0:5  aci5 Þ;
where vi5 denotes the degree of membership of the degree of
adjustment value of the question Qi belonging to the fuzzy
set ‘‘high’’, vi5 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m, and m denotes the num-
ber of questions in a student’s answerscript.
Therefore, we can get the adjustment matrix V as
follows:
where VS1 = ‘‘low’’, VS2 = ‘‘more or less low’’,
VS3 = ‘‘medium’’, VS4 = ‘‘more or less high’’ and
VS5 = high. Based on the adjustment matrix V, we perform
the following operation to evaluate the final adjustment
value advi of the question Qi:
0:1  vi1 þ 0:3  vi2 þ 0:5  vi3 þ 0:7  vi4 þ 0:9  vi5
advi ¼
0:1 þ 0:3 þ 0:5 þ 0:7 þ 0:9
ð38Þ
where 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9 are the defuzzification values
of the fuzzy sets ‘‘low’’, ‘‘more or less low’’, ‘‘medium’’,
‘‘more or less high’’ and ‘‘high’’, respectively, advi denotes
the final adjustment value for question Qi, and 1 6 i 6 m.
Step 5: Assume there are k students having the same
total grade, we construct a new grade matrix EA for these
equal-grade students, shown as follows:
ð36Þ
where eaij denotes the accuracy rate of the jth student ESj
with respect to the ith question Qi, eaij 2 [0, 1], 1 6 i 6 m,
and 1 6 j 6 n.
Step 6: Based on the adjustment value advi, where
1 6 i 6 m, calculate the sum of difference for the students
with the same total grade. The formula for calculating
the sum of difference SODj of the jth student is shown as
follows:
k X
X m
SODj ¼ ðeaij  eaip Þ  gi  ð0:5 þ advi Þ; ð39Þ
p¼1 i¼1
where 1 6 j 6 k. Then, sort the values of SODj in a
descending sequence, where 1 6 j 6 k, to get the new rank-
ing order of the students with the same total grade.
ð37Þ
4. An example
In this section, we use an example to illustrate the pro-
cess of the students’ learning performance evaluation using
fuzzy membership functions and fuzzy rules. Assume that
there are five questions Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5 on the answer-
script and assume that there are ten students S1, S2, . . . , S10
to answer these questions. Assume that the accuracy rate
matrix A, the answer-time-rate matrix T, the grade matrix
G, the importance matrix IM and the complexity matrix C
are as follows:
;
 S.-M. Bai, S.-M. Chen / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410 409
2 3
Q1 10 grade matrix FT for the average answer-time, shown as
6 7 follows:
Q2 6 15 7
6 7
G ¼ Q3 6 7
6 20 7;
6 7
Q4 4 25 5
Q5 30

[Step 2] Based on the fuzzy grade matrices FA and FT, the

fuzzy rule matrix shown in Table 1 and formulas (23)–(27),
we can perform fuzzy reasoning to evaluate the difficulty of
each question. Then, we can get the difficulty matrix D,
Then, based on the accuracy rate matrix A, the grade ma- shown as follows:
trix G and formula (20), we can get the total grade of each
student, where the total grades of the students S1, S2, S3,
S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9 and S10 are 67.6, 54.05, 38.4, 49.7,
49.7, 48.8, 46.1, 52.3, 85.95 and 49.7, respectively. Because
the students S4, S5 and S10 have the same total grade, they
get the same ranking order (i.e., Top 5), i.e., the ranking
order of these ten students is follows:
S 9 > S 1 > S 2 > S 8 > S 4 ¼ S 5 ¼ S 10 > S 6 > S 7 > S 3 : [Step 3] Based on the difficulty matrix D and the complexity
matrix C, the fuzzy rule matrix shown in Table 2 and for-
Then, we use the proposed method to deal with the ranking
mulas (28)–(32), we can perform fuzzy reasoning to evalu-
order of the students S4, S5 and S10, shown as follows:
ate the answer-cost for each question. Then, we can get the
[Step 1] Based on the accuracy rate matrix A, the answer-
answer-cost matrix CO, shown as follows:
time-rate matrix T, formulas (21) and (22), we can calculate
the average accuracy rate AvgAi and the average answer-
time-rate AvgTi for each question Qi, 1 6 i 6 5, shown as
follows:
ð0:59 þ 0:35 þ 1 þ 0:66 þ 0:11 þ 0:08 þ 0:84 þ 0:23 þ 0:4 þ 0:24Þ
AvgA1 ¼ ¼ 0:45;
10
ð0:01 þ 0:27 þ 0:14 þ 0:04 þ 0:88 þ 0:16 þ 0:04 þ 0:22 þ 0:81 þ 0:53Þ
AvgA2 ¼ ¼ 0:31;
10
ð0:77 þ 0:69 þ 0:97 þ 0:71 þ 0:17 þ 0:86 þ 0:87 þ 0:42 þ 0:91 þ 0:74Þ
AvgA3 ¼ ¼ 0:711;
10
AvgA4 ¼
ð0:73 þ 0:72 þ 0:18 þ 0:16 þ 0:5 þ 0:02 þ 0:32 þ 0:92 þ 0:9 þ 0:25Þ
¼ 0:47; [Step 4] Based on the answer-cost matrix CO and the impor-
10
ð0:93 þ 0:49 þ 0:08 þ 0:81 þ 0:65 þ 0:93 þ 0:39 þ 0:51 þ 0:97 þ 0:61Þ tance matrix IM, the fuzzy rule matrix shown in Table 3 and
AvgA5 ¼ ¼ 0:637;
10 formulas (33)–(37), we can perform fuzzy reasoning to eval-
ð0:7 þ 0:4 þ 0:1 þ 1 þ 0:7 þ 0:2 þ 0:7 þ 0:6 þ 0:4 þ 0:9Þ
AvgT 1 ¼ ¼ 0:57; uate the adjustment value for each question. Then, we can
10
ð1 þ 0 þ 0:9 þ 0:3 þ 1 þ 0:3 þ 0:2 þ 0:8 þ 0 þ 0:3Þ get the adjustment matrix V, shown as follows:
AvgT 2 ¼ ¼ 0:48;
10
ð0 þ 0:1 þ 0 þ 0:1 þ 0:9 þ 1 þ 0:2 þ 0:3 þ 0:1 þ 0:4Þ
AvgT 3 ¼ ¼ 0:31;
10
ð0:2 þ 0:1 þ 0 þ 1 þ 1 þ 0:3 þ 0:4 þ 0:8 þ 0:7 þ 0:5Þ
AvgT 4 ¼ ¼ 0:5;
10
ð0 þ 0:1 þ 1 þ 1 þ 0:6 þ 1 þ 0:8 þ 0:2 þ 0:8 þ 0:2Þ
AvgT 5 ¼ ¼ 0:57:
10

Then, after fuzzifying these values, we can get the fuzzy

grade matrix FA for the average accuracy and the fuzzy
410 S.-M. Bai, S.-M. Chen / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 399–410
Then, based on the adjustment matrix V and formula (38),
we can calculate the final adjustment value advi for each
question Qi, where 1 6 i 6 5, shown as follows:
ð0:1  0:38 þ 0:3  0:38 þ 0:5  0:66 þ 0:7  0:88 þ 0:9  0:75Þ
adv1 ¼
0:1 þ 0:3 þ 0:5 þ 0:7 þ 0:9
ð0:1  0:36 þ 0:3  0:66 þ 0:5  0:66 þ 0:7  0:76 þ 0:9  0:43Þ
adv2 ¼ ¼ 0:59;
0:1 þ 0:3 þ 0:5 þ 0:7 þ 0:9
ð0:1  0:33 þ 0:3  0:43 þ 0:5  0:76 þ 0:7  0:86 þ 0:9  0:80Þ
adv3 ¼
0:1 þ 0:3 þ 0:5 þ 0:7 þ 0:9
ð0:1  0:90 þ 0:3  0:88 þ 0:5  0:68 þ 0:7  0:40 þ 0:9  0:32Þ
adv4 ¼ ¼ 0:51;
0:1 þ 0:3 þ 0:5 þ 0:7 þ 0:9
ð0:1  0:34 þ 0:3  0:80 þ 0:5  0:76 þ 0:7  0:71 þ 0:9  0:25Þ
adv5 ¼ ¼ 0:55:
0:1 þ 0:3 þ 0:5 þ 0:7 þ 0:9
[Step 5] Because there are 3 students with the same total
grade, we construct a new grade matrix EA for the equal-
grade students S4, S5 and S10, shown as follows:
where ES1 denotes the student S4, ES2 denotes the student
S5, and ES3 denotes the student S10.
[Step 6] Based on the final adjustment values adv1, adv2,
adv3, adv4 and adv5, we can calculate the sum of difference
SOD1 for the student ES1, shown as follows:
SOD1 ¼ ð0:66  0:11 þ 0:66  0:24Þ  10  ð0:5 þ 0:71Þ
þ ð0:04  0:88 þ 0:04  0:53Þ  15  ð0:5 þ 0:59Þ
þ ð0:71  0:17 þ 0:71  0:74Þ  20  ð0:5 þ 0:75Þ
þ ð0:16  0:5 þ 0:16  0:25Þ  25  ð0:5 þ 0:51Þ
þ ð0:81  0:65 þ 0:81  0:61Þ  30  ð0:5 þ 0:55Þ
¼ 3:15:
In the same way, we can get the sum of difference
SOD2 = 5.3 for the student S5 and the sum of difference
SOD3 = 2.15 for the student S10. Because SOD1 >
SOD3 > SOD2, we can see that the ranking order of the
students S4, S5 and S10 is: S4 > S10 > S5. That is, the stu-
dents S4, S10 and S5 are the Top 5, the Top 6 and the
Top 7, respectively. Therefore, the ranking order of these
ten students becomes:
S 9 > S 1 > S 2 > S 8 > S 4 > S 10 > S 5 > S 6 > S 7 > S 3 :
5. Conclusions
In this paper, we have presented a new method to deal
with the learning achievement evaluation using fuzzy mem-
bership functions and fuzzy rules. The proposed method
considers the difficulty, importance and complexity of
questions for students’ answerscript evaluation. It provides
a useful way to distinguish the ranking order of students
with the same score.
¼ 0:71;
Acknowledgements
¼ 0:75; This work was supported in part by the National Sci-
ence Council, Republic of China, under Grant NSC 94-
2213-E-011-003.
References
Bai, S. M., & Chen, S. M. (2006a). Automatically constructing grade
membership functions for students’ evaluation for fuzzy grading
systems. In Proceedings of the 2006 world automation congress,
Budapest, Hungary.
Bai, S. M., & Chen, S. M. (2006b). A new method for students’ learning
achievement using fuzzy membership functions. In Proceedings of the
11th conference on artificial intelligence, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of
China.
Biswas, R. (1995). An application of fuzzy sets in students’ evaluation.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 74(2), 187–194.
Chang, D. F., & Sun, C. M. (1993). Fuzzy assessment of learning
performance of junior high school students. In Proceedings of the 1993
first national symposium on fuzzy theory and applications, Hsinchu,
Taiwan, Republic of China (pp. 1–10).
Cheng, C. H., & Yang, K. L. (1998). Using fuzzy sets in education grading
system. Journal of Chinese Fuzzy Systems Association, 4(2), 81–89.
Chen, S. M., & Lee, C. H. (1999). New methods for students’ evaluating
using fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 104(2), 209–218.
Chiang, T. T., & Lin, C. M. (1994). Application of fuzzy theory to
teaching assessment. In Proceedings of the 1994 second national
conference on fuzzy theory and applications, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic
of China (pp. 92–97).
Echauz, J. R., & Vachtsevanos, G. J. (1995). Fuzzy grading system. IEEE
Transactions on Education, 38(2), 158–165.
Law, C. K. (1996). Using fuzzy numbers in education grading system.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 83(3), 311–323.
Ma, J., & Zhou, D. (2000). Fuzzy set approach to the assessment of
student-centered learning. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2),
237–241.
Wang, H. Y., & Chen, S. M. (2006a). New methods for evaluating the
answerscripts of students using fuzzy sets. In Proceedings of the 19th
international conference on industrial, engineering & other applications
of applied intelligent systems, Annecy, France (pp. 442–451).
Wang, H. Y., & Chen, S. M. (2006b). New methods for evaluating
students’ answerscripts using fuzzy numbers associated with degrees of
confidence. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE international conference on
fuzzy systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada (pp. 5492–5497).
Weon, S., & Kim, J. (2001). Learning achievement evaluation strategy
using fuzzy membership function. In Proceedings of the 31st ASEE/
IEEE frontiers in education conference, Reno, NV (Vol. 1, pp. 19–24).
Wilson, E., Karr, C. L., & Freeman, L. M. (1998). Flexible, adaptive,
automatic fuzzy-based grade assigning system. In Proceedings of the
1998 north American fuzzy information processing society (NAFIPS)
conference (pp. 334–338).
Wu, M. H. (2003). Research on applying fuzzy set theory and item
response theory to evaluate learning performance. Master Thesis,
Department of Information Management, Chaoyang University of
Technology, Wufeng, Taichung County, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.